- The מחנה לויה in שילה did not protect inadvertent murderers, but did in the מדבר
A Baraisa stated: בשילה לא היו אלא שני מחנות בלבד – in Shiloh, there were only two camps. However, Rava proves from the laws of טמאים who must be sent out of various camps that all three מחנות must have been present. Instead, he explains that שילה “had only two camps” לקליטה – for refuge for inadvertent murderers; although there was a מחנה לויה, it did not function as a place of refuge for killers. This implies that the מנחה לויה in the מדבר did protect killers, which is supported by a Baraisa: "ושמתי לך מקום" – and I will set “for you” a place [where a killer will flee to], implying בחייך – in your (Moshe’s) lifetime. "מקום" – a place implies מקומך – your (Moshe’s) place (i.e., the מחנה לויה). "אשר ינוס שמה" – that he shall flee to, מלמד שמגלין במדבר – this teaches that they exiled [killers] even in the Wilderness, and they were exiled to the מחנה לויה.
- Which korbanos could be brought on a במה: five opinions
A Baraisa presents five opinions about which korbanos could be brought at a במה. (1) Rebbe Meir says: כל נידר ונידב היה קרב בבמה – any [korban] which is vowed or donated could be sacrificed at a private bamah, but any korban which is not vowed or donated, i.e., obligatory korbanos, could not. Also, מנחות and korbanos for נזירות were brought on במות. (2) The Chochomim say: לא קרבו יחיד אלא עולות ושלמים בלבד – individuals only brought olos and shelamim, but not מנחות or korbanos of נזירות. (3) Rebbe Yehudah says that any korbanos which the ציבור or יחיד could bring in the אהל מועד in the מדבר could also be brought in the אהל מועד in גלגל. His statement implies that Rebbe Meir and the Chochomim held an individual could not bring personal חובות (e.g., חטאות) even in the במה גדולה in גלגל, and Rebbe Yehudah disagrees, and says the only difference between the מדבר and גלגל is whether private במות were permitted. (4) Chochomim disagreeing with Rebbe Yehudah appear to be identical to the first Chochomim, and the Gemara will explain that they hold נסכים were also brought on private במות. (5) Rebbe Shimon says even the ציבור would only bring פסחים and חובות whose time is fixed, such as the תמיד, but not other קרבנות ציבור.
- The machlokes about a nazir’s korbanos on a private במה
Rebbe Meir and the Chochomim argued in the above Baraisa whether a nazir’s korbanos could be brought on a private במה. We darshen that Moshe told Yisroel that when they would enter Eretz Yisroel, ישרות תקריבו – you may bring “proper” (voluntary) korbanos, but חובות לא תקריבו – you may not bring obligatory [korbanos]. Rebbe Meir holds that a nazir’s korbanos are also "ישרות", since acceptance of נזירות is voluntary. The Rabbonon hold korbanos of נזירות are considered חובות, since he only volunteered to accept the restrictions of a nazir, and that automatically obligated him in its korbanos. Shmuel suggested that they only argue about the חטאת and אשם of a nazir, but all agree he may bring a nazir’s עולה and שלמים (since these are generally voluntary korbanos). However, Rabbah quotes a Baraisa that even the שלמים of a nazir could not be brought, proving that the Chochomim argue about the שלמים. Therefore, Rabba concluded that they only argue about the nazir’s עולה and שלמים, but even Rebbe Meir agrees that the חטאת and אשם of a nazir could not be brought on a במה.