1)

(a)Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa states that ...

1. ... the Ezras Nashim - was a fourth Machaneh, which was considered neither part of the Har ha'Bayis (mi'de'Rabbanan), nor the Azarah (and a Tamei who entered there was not subject to punishment [see Bartenura, Keilim 1:8]).

2. ... Mishkan Shiloh - only comprised two Machanos, and not three.

(b)Based on the fact that Zavin and Teme'ei Meisim are permitted in Machaneh Yisrael, Abaye presumes that it must be Machaneh Yisrael that did not exist in Mishkan Shiloh, and not Machaneh Leviyah - because if the latter did not exist, then both Zavin and Te'me'ei Meisim would only leave one Machaneh (Machaneh Shechinah), whereas in fact, a Zav must leave one Machaneh more that a Tamei Meis ...

(c)... as the Torah specifically writes in Naso "ve'Lo Yetam'u es *Machaneihem*" (in the plural), implying that each one has its own Machaneh.

(d)Rava objects to this suggestion however - on the grounds that, if the non-existent Machaneh was the Machaneh Yisrael, then Zavin would be sent outside the Camp together with Metzo'ra'im, and this would contravene the Pasuk "Badad Yeishev mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" (indicating that nobody may stay together with a Metzora).

2)

(a)The Sugya therefore conclude that - as far as Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav is concerned, all three Machanos applied in Shilo ...

(b)... and when Rebbi Shimon said that only two Machanos applies there, he meant to preclude - Machaneh Leviyah from the Din that it gathers in murderers (be'Shogeg) like the Arei Miklat.

(c)And we learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Vesamti l'cha Makom asher Yanus Shamah" that - in the desert, the Machaneh Leviyah did function as an Ir Miklat.

(d)Hash-m referred to Moshe personally regarding this issue - a hint that he would fulfill the Mitzvah of designating Arei Miklat in his lifetime.

3)

(a)A ben Levi who kills in one of the Arei Miklat - must run to another Ir Miklat.

(b)We also learn from the above Pasuk however, that if he ran to a different area in the same town, he may remain there - since the Pasuk "Vesamti l'cha Makom" also implies that should Moshe Rabeinu kill be'Shogeg, he too would be subject to escape to another area in Machaneh Leviyah (seeing as there was no other city to run to).

(c)We also learn this from the Pasuk in Mas'ei "Ki be'Ir Miklato Yeishev" - since the Pasuk implies that a ben Levi may remain in the town which gathered him in, should he kill again.

4)

(a)We have already learned that only Nedarim and Nedavos may be brought on a Bamah. This cannot possibly refer to a Bamah Gedolah - because the Pasuk in Yehoshua states that they brought the Pesach in Gilgal (which was a Bamah Gedolah).

(b)A Bamah Gedolah differed from a Bamah Ketanah - in that they were permitted to bring Korb'nos Tzibur on it.

(c)The Korban Pesach is considered a Korban Tzibur - due to the fact that the entire community brought it at the same time.

5)

(a)According to Rebbi Meir, one may even bring Menachos and Neziros on a Bamah Ketanah. He includes Neziros in the category of Nedarim and Nedavos - because a Nazir adopts his status voluntarily.

(b)The Rabbanan however - consider it a Chovah, because once he becomes a Nazir, he is automatically obligated to bring his Korbanos.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah agrees with the Rabbanan regarding a Bamas Yachid, but on a Bamah Gedolah, he permits whatever the Tzibur or a Yachid brought in the Mishkan - including all Korbanos (even Chovos).

(b)He disagrees with Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan - who both forbid a Yachid to bring Chovos, even on a Bamah Gedolah.

(c)The problem with the Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi Yehudah in that point, and who then go on to permit a Yachid to bring only Olos and Shelamim, both on a Bamah Gedolah and a Bamah Ketanah, is that - they then appear to be duplicating the opinion of the Tana Kama, who said the same thing.

7)

(a)Rebbi Shimon restricts even a Tzibur on a Bamah Gedolah, to Pesachim and Chovos which have a fixed time - precluding a Par He'elam Davar and Se'irei Ovdei-Kochavim.

(b)Rebbi Meir learns his Din from the Pasuk in Re'ei (in connection with the Bamah) "Lo Sa'asun ke'Chol asher Anachnu Osim Poh ha'Yom ... " - incorporating all Korbanos, even Chata'os, Ashamos, B'chor and Ma'aser, and certainly Chovos which have a fixed time ...

(c)... and he learns from "Ish Kol ha'Yashar be'Einav" that - once they arrive in Gilgal, they will be restricted to private Nedarim and Nedavos (Yesharos) ...

(d)... but not Korb'nos Tzibur - since the Torah uses the word "Ish", until they build the Mishkan in Shiloh ...

(e)... with reference to both a Bamas Yachid and a Bamas Tzibur (since the Pasuk draws no distinction between them).

8)

(a)Rebbi Meir places Menachos and Neziros under which category - of Yesharos.

(b)The Rabbanan say ...

1. ... based on the word "Zivcheihem" (in the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos [in connection with Bamos] 'Lema'an asher Yavi'u B'nei Yisrael es Zivcheihem ... ") that - only Zevachim can be brought on a Bamah, but not Menachos.

2. ... that Neziros cannot be brought on a Bamah either.

(c)When Shmuel explains that the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan is confined to Chatas and Asham, but does not extend to Olah and Shelamim, he is referring to the Korbanos - of a Nazir.

(d)In his opinion, even the Rabbanan will concede that - a Nazir may bring his Olah and Shelamim on a Bamah.

9)

(a)Rabah queries Shmuel from a Beraisa, which refers to the Chazeh ve'Shok and the T'rumas Lachmei Todah. The ...

1. ... Chazeh ve'Shok (the chest and the right calf) - of every Shelamim is given to the Kohen.

2. ... T'rumas Lachmei Todah (one of each of the four kinds of loaves of a Todah) - is given to the Kohen.

(b)The Tana rules that - they apply to a Bamah Gedolah, but not to a Bamah Ketanah.

(c)Rabah extrapolates from the fact that he fails to mention the Zero'a Besheilah that - Shalmei Nazir are not brought on a Bamah, a Kashya on Shmuel, who just said that even the Rabbanan agree that they are.

10)

(a)So we restructure Shmuel's statement to read that - the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan is confined to the Olah and the Shelamim of a Nazir, but even Rebbi Meir agrees that the Chatas and the Asham cannot be brought on a Bamah ...

(b)... and the author of the Beraisa is - the Rabbanan.

11)

(a)The Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah learn from the Pasuk "Ish Kol ha'Yashar be'Einav Ya'aseh" that - it is a Yachid who may only bring Nedarim and Nedavos on a Bamah (even a Bamah Gedolah), but a Tzibur may bring even Chovos.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah however, counters that, based on the word "be'Einav" which teaches us that - the previous D'rashah is confined to a Bamah Ketanah, but on a Bamah Gedolah, even a Yachid is permitted to bring Chovos.

(c)We ask why, according to Rebbi Yehudah, the Torah writes "Ish". We cannot answer that the Torah writes "Ish" to preclude a Yachid from Chovos on a Bamah Ketanah - because then it would have sufficed to write "Kol ha'Yashar be'Einav Ya'aseh".

(d)In fact, according to Rebbi Yehudah, the Torah writes "Ish" - to permit a Zar to serve on a Bamah.

12)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Vezarak ha'Kohen es ha'Dam ... Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" - "Kohen Pesach Ohel Mo'ed", 've'Ein Kohen be'Bamah' (that a Kohen is not needed to serve on a Bamah).

(b)Nevertheless, Rebbi Yehudah needs "Ish" to teach us that - because we would otherwise have thought that although the Torah precludes Kohanim, it requires firstborn to replace them.