נמצאו זבין וטמאי מתים משתלחין חוץ למחנה אחת והתורה אמרה (במדבר ה, ג) ולא יטמאו את מחניהם
it would consequently be found that both zavim and those who are ritually impure from impurity imparted by a corpse are sent out of one camp, i.e., the camp of the Divine Presence, and both are permitted in the Israelite camp. But the Torah said with regard to sending the ritually impure out of the camp: “Outside the camp you shall put them; that they will not defile their camps” (Numbers 5:3).
תן מחנה לזה ומחנה לזה
The use of the plural “camps” indicates: Give a specific camp to this group, i.e., those who are ritually impure from impurity imparted by a corpse, who may enter the Levite camp but are forbidden to enter the camp of the Divine Presence, and give a specific camp to this group, i.e., those who are zavim, who may enter the Israelite camp but are forbidden to enter the camp of the Divine presence or the Levite camp. If there were no Levite camp in Shiloh, it would follow that both a zav and one who is ritually impure from the impurity imparted by a corpse are sent out of only one camp, and there is no distinction between them.
א"ל רבא אלא מאי מחנה ישראל לא הואי נמצאו זבין ומצורעין משתלחין למקום אחד והתורה אמרה (ויקרא יג, מו) בדד ישב שלא ישב טמא אחר עמו
Rava said to him: Rather, what would you say instead? Would you say that the Israelite camp was not present in Shiloh? If so, it would be found that zavim and lepers are both sent to one place, i.e., outside the Levite camp. But the Torah said with regard to the leper: “He shall dwell alone; outside the camp shall his dwelling be” (Leviticus 13:46). The word “alone” teaches that another ritually impure person should not dwell with him.
אלא לעולם כולהו תלתא הוו ומאי לא היו אלא שתי מחנות לקליטה מכלל דבמדבר הואי קלטה מחנה לויה
Rather, it must be that actually, all three camps were present in Shiloh, and what is the meaning of that which was taught with regard to Shiloh: There were only two camps? It is with regard to the fact that the Levite camp did not provide refuge to one who unintentionally killed another. The Gemara asks: By inference, does this mean that in the wilderness the Levite camp did provide refuge to those who unintentionally killed others?
אין והא תניא (שמות כא, יג) ושמתי לך מקום בחייך מקום מקומך (שמות כא, יג) אשר ינוס שמה מלמד שמגלין במדבר להיכן גולין למחנה לויה
The Gemara replies: Yes, and so it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse concerning the cities of refuge. The verse states: “And one who did not lie in wait…and I will appoint for you a place where he may flee” (Exodus 21:13). The phrase “I will appoint for you” teaches that God said to Moses: There will be a place that provides refuge for unintentional murderers even during your lifetime. The term “a place” means that it will be from your place, meaning the Levite camp served as the place that provided refuge in the wilderness. “Where he may flee” teaches that the Jews would exile unintentional murderers in the wilderness as well, before they entered the land. To where did they exile unintentional murderers when they were in the wilderness? They exiled them to the Levite camp, which provided refuge.
מכאן אמרו בן לוי שהרג גולה מפלך לפלך ואם גלה לפלכו פלכו קולטו
From here the Sages said: A Levite who killed unintentionally is exiled from one Levite city to another Levite city. And if he was exiled to another area within his city, he is admitted to his city, i.e., it provides him with refuge.
מאי קרא אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא (במדבר לה, כח) כי בעיר מקלטו ישב עיר שקלטתו כבר:
The Gemara asks: What is the verse from which the principle is derived that one who was already exiled to a city of refuge and who then killed another person is exiled to another area in that same city? Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, says that the verse: “For in his city of refuge he shall dwell” (Numbers 35:28), indicates that he can be exiled to a city in which he was already admitted, as the verse is referring to it as his city, and he shall continue to reside there.
באו לגלגל: ת"ר כל נידר ונידב היה קרב בבמה שאין נידר ונידב אין קרב בבמה מנחה ונזירות קריבין בבמה דברי ר"מ וחכ"א לא קרבו יחיד אלא עולות ושלמים בלבד
§ The mishna teaches that when the Jewish people arrived at Gilgal private altars were permitted. The Gemara elaborates: The Sages taught in a baraita: Any offering that was brought due to a vow, or contributed voluntarily, was sacrificed on a private altar; and any offering that is neither brought due to a vow nor contributed voluntarily, but rather is compulsory, was not sacrificed on a private altar. Therefore, a meal offering, which is generally brought voluntarily, and offerings of a nazirite, which have the status of vow offerings as no one is compelled to become a nazirite, were sacrificed upon a private altar. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Only burnt offerings and peace offerings were sacrificed upon a private altar, not meal offerings or offerings of a nazirite.
ר' יהודה אומר כל שהצבור והיחיד מקריבין באהל מועד שבמדבר מקריבין באהל מועד שבגלגל מה בין אהל מועד שבמדבר לבין אהל מועד שבגלגל אהל מועד שבמדבר לא היו במות מותרות אהל מועד שבגלגל היו הבמות מותרות ובמתו שבראש גגו לא היה מקריב עליה אלא עולה ושלמים
Rabbi Yehuda says: Any offering that the public or an individual could sacrifice in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness could also be sacrificed in the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal. What, then, is the difference between the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness and the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal? During the period of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness private altars were not permitted and offerings could be sacrificed only in the Tabernacle, while during the period of the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal private altars were permitted. But even if one desired to sacrifice an offering upon his private altar on his roof, he could still sacrifice upon it only burnt offerings and peace offerings.
וחכ"א כל שהצבור מקריבין באהל מועד שבמדבר מקריבין באהל מועד שבגלגל וכאן וכאן לא קרבו יחיד אלא עולה ושלמים בלבד ר' שמעון אומר אף צבור לא הקריבו אלא פסחים
And the Rabbis say: Any offering that the public could sacrifice in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness could also be sacrificed in the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal, and here, in the Tabernacle in Gilgal, and there, upon private altars, only burnt offerings and peace offerings were sacrificed for an individual. Rabbi Shimon says: Even the public did not sacrifice every type of offering in the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal; they sacrificed only Paschal offerings