Explanation #2: It seems that even while traveling they are permitted, like we said above (61a) "even though it traveled, it is Ohel Mo'ed."

Limitation: Only for Kodshim Kalim, "even though it traveled, it is Ohel Mo'ed", but Kodshei Kodoshim require a Mechitzah. Once [the Degalim] departed to travel, Machaneh Shechinah is not intact, and Lechem ha'Panim and other Kodshei Kodoshim are disqualified due to Yotzei.

Source: This is proven in Menachos (95a) and above (60b). It says that Kodshim are eaten in two places, and we establish it to discuss Kodshei Kodoshim, after the Leviyim dismantled the Mishkan, i.e. as long as it did not travel. The Mizbe'ach and curtains around Chatzer [ha'Mishkan] are in their places.

Question: In Menachos (95a, R. Yochanan and R. Yehoshua ben Levi) argue about whether or not Lechem ha'Panim is disqualified at the time of traveling. [Rav Dimi] explains that if the bread is arranged [on the Shulchan], all agree that it is not disqualified. They argue about when it was removed;

The one who says that it is not disqualified learns like we expounded, that even though it traveled, it is Ohel Mo'ed;

The other opinion holds that [v'Nosa Ohel Mo'ed] this is for the Degalim, i.e. to inform which Degel travels first." (They carry the Mishkan after Degel Reuven, and before Degel Efrayim.)

Summation of question: Why didn't we answer that it comes for Kodshim Kalim, and for Kodshei Kodoshim before removing the curtains? (Tosfos 61b DH Af said that surely, traveling of the Machanos does not disqualify Kodshim Kalim due to Yotzei.)

Explanation: Other Temei'im may not dwell with him.

Implied question: Our Sugya is like R. Shimon, and this Drashah is according to R. Yehudah, for R. Shimon expounds from another verse in Pesachim (66a)!

Answer: The Gemara likes to bring the simple, concise Drashah [even if really, we learn from elsewhere].

Remark: There is a dot in the Kaf in the verse in Nechemyah (3:17 - "l'Filko"), just like the word Nesech (when it has a suffix gets a Dagesh in the Kaf, i.e.) Nisko.

Remark: The verse primarily teaches about a murderer who killed in his Ir Miklat (after he was exiled to there for a previous Shogeg murder).

Implied question: Both of these (the above Halachah, and the law of a Levi who killed) are taught in a Mishnah in Makos (12b). If [a Shogeg murderer] killed in that city, he is exiled from neighborhood to neighborhood. A Levi is exiled from [his] city to another city. (Here we say that a Levi is exiled to a different neighborhood in his city!)

Answer #1: Perhaps this is l'Chatchilah, that a Levi is exiled from city to city, but b'Di'eved, we say that if he was exiled within his city, his city absorbs him. "From Plach to Plach" means from city to city;

"If he was exiled within his Plach" means (within his city,) from neighborhood to neighborhood. Also Rashi connotes like this.

Answer #2: Also l'Chatchilah, he need not leave the city. [The Mishnah] teaches that he is exiled to another city in order to be able to traverse all of it, and within its Techum;

If he were exiled to a different neighborhood in his city, if he returned to his [initial] neighborhood, it is as if he left the Techum (and the Go'el ha'Dam may kill him).

Explanation: Even Menachos and [Korbanos] Nezirus can be offered on a Bamah Ketanah, and what is not brought for a Nedarim and Nedavos cannot be offered on a Bamah Ketanah, whereas [Korbanos] Tzibur cannot be offered on a [Bamah] Ketanah;

Obligations of an individual are not offered even on a [Bamah] Gedolah at a time when there is a Heter for Bamos according to R. Meir, like is proven from R. Yehudah's words, like Rashi explained;

Since R. Yehudah said "anything that a Tzibur and individual offer...", this implies that he heard according to R. Meir and Rabanan that there is a distinction;

This is the distinction. An individual could not offer obligations in Gilgal, even on a Bamah Gedolah, for R. Meir and Rabanan expound "Lo Sa'asu" in Gilgal "k'Chol Asher Anachnu Osim Poh ha'Yom", i.e. obligations, even on a Bamah Gedolah;

However, "Ish ha'Yashar b'Einav" - he may offer Yashrus (what he wants to volunteer), i.e. Nedavos.

R. Yehudah holds that "ha'Yashar" refers to "b'Einav" (an individual offers as he wants, i.e.) on his own Bamah (but on a Bamas Tzibur, he may offer even Chovos).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): R. Shimon argues with all of them, for all of them hold that there is no difference for the Tzibur between the Midbar and Gilgal on a Bamah Gedolah...

And R. Shimon says that even the Tzibur did not offer on a Gedolah more than an individual offered on a Ketanah, except for Pesachim... and Chovos with a fixed time;

However, Par Helam Davar and Se'irei Avodah Zarah were not offered in Gilgal. This is from Rashi.

Criticism: There was no need for him to mention Par Helam Davar and Se'irei Avodah Zarah, for they are Chata'os without a fixed time. Even Chatas with a fixed time, e.g. Se'irei ha'Regalim, were not offered according to R. Shimon, like we conclude below (118a) "explain the Mishnah to discuss an Olah."

Comment - Consequence: If so, on Yom Kipur the Tzibur did not offer in the Ohel Mo'ed, Nov and Giv'on, not Parim and not Se'irim, rather, only what is like Temidim.

Implied question - Citation (Tosefta - R. Yehudah): Avshalom was a Nazir, for it says "va'Yomer Avshalom Elcha Na va'Ashalem Nidri Asher Nadarti [la'Shem] b'Chevron; Ki Neder Nadar Avdecha b'Shivti vi'Geshor." These verses are when [the Mishkan] was in Giv'on;

[The Gemara] in Temurah (14b) explains that he offered them in Chevron on a Bamas Yachid, for [if the verse meant that] he went to Chevron to bring good lambs and offer them on a Bamah Gedolah, it should have said "mi'Chevron".

According to R. Yehudah, if [Korbanos] Nezirus are [considered to come] through a Neder or Nedavah, it is fine that he offered them on a Bamas Yachid in Chevron;

If Nezirus is a Chovah, if so he offered them in Giv'on in the Ohel Mo'ed, which was there, and according to R. Yehudah also an individual may offer Chovos on a Bamah Gedolah, even at a time of Heter Bamos. He does not distinguish between "mi'Chevron" and "b'Chevron";

However, Rabanan, who say that Nezirus is a Chovah, and an individual may not offer Chovos even on the Bamas Tzibur in Nov and Giv'on, if so Avshalom was not a Nazir;

"Elcha Na va'Ashalem Nidri" discusses Nedarim and Nedavos.

Inference: Seemingly, R. Shimon addresses the Rabanan [who spoke] just before him, and they hold like the first Rabanan [in this Beraisa], that Menachos and Nezirus are not offered on a Bamah, for they argue [with the latter Rabanan] only about Nesachim, like it explains below (118a);

This shows that also R. Shimon holds that they were not offered, for even b'Tzibur he excludes more than the other Tana'im.

Question: In Megilah (9b), in our Mishnah that taught 'the only difference between a Bamah Gedolah and a Bamah Ketanah is Pesachim. This is the Klal - anything brought for Neder or Nedavah..."

The Gemara explains that [big and small Bamos differ about] what is like Pesachim, i.e. Chovos with a fixed time, but [Chovos] without a fixed time, are not offered on either, and we establish it like R. Shimon.

Inference: R. Shimon taught this Klal. If so, Menachos and Nezirus are offered according to R. Shimon, and like we say here according to R. Meir, who taught this Klal! (It turns out that R. Shimon holds just like R. Meir!)

Answer #1: If the text in Megilah said "this is the Klal - what is brought for Neder or Nedavah...", without "Kol" (anything), this would be fine. [Here] R. Meir said "Kol" to include Menachos and Nezirus.

Answer #2: It is obvious that R. Meir holds that Menachos and Nezirus are Yashrus, because a Beraisa in Toras Kohanim in Parshas Acharei Mos says "just like Shelamim are special, that they are brought for Neder or Nedavah and they are offered on a Bamah, also everything brought for Neder or Nedavah is offered on a Bamah, even Menachos and Nezirus. These are R. Meir's words."

Question #1: If [the Gemara] relies on that [Beraisa, to explain how R. Meir and R. Shimon argue], it is astounding that it did not bring it!

Question #2: According to R. Shimon in Megilah, does Minchah not come through Neder or Nedavah?!

Answer #3: Our Mishnah [in Megilah] means as follows. The only difference between a Bamah Gedolah and a Bamah Ketanah is Pesachim. Anything brought for Neder or Nedavah that is offered on a Bamah Gedolah, is offered on a [Bamah] Ketanah. Anything not brought for Neder or Nedavah, which is not offered on a Gedolah, is not offered on a Ketanah.

It comes to explain only what is the same about big and small, but there is something brought for Neder or Nedavah that is not offered on either, e.g. Menachos and Nezirus.

Distinction: However, "what is brought for Neder or Nedavah" of R. Meir, we cannot explain that it does not discuss Menachos and Nezirus, for this is properly connoted from the expression "brought for Nedavah."

Support: It is explicit in Toras Kohanim, and it surely seems to explain that [our Sugya] relies on the Toras Kohanim [to explain what R. Meir and R. Shimon argue about], even though [our Sugya] does not bring it, it is brought in Temurah (14b);

We say there that Abaye said to [Rav Dimi] "you should say Shalmei Pesach, but not Shalmei Nazir, for it is brought for Neder or Nedavah;

A Beraisa says 'this is the Klal - anything brought for Neder or Nedavah may be offered on a Bamas Yachid, and anything not brought for Neder or Nedavah may not be offered on a Bamas Yachid, and a Beraisa teaches that Menachos and Nezirus are offered on a Bamas Yachid according to R. Meir!"

Inference: He deduces from that [Beraisa], and not from the words [of R. Meir "what is brought for Neder or Nedavah"].

Support: The one there who does not consider Nezirus to be offered through Neder or Nedavah, he answers "erase Nezirus from here."

Explanation: This is whether on a Bamah Gedolah or Bamah Ketanah, like the other Rabanan taught in a Beraisa (117a) that on both of these, an individual offered only Olah and Shelamim, and we say (118a) that [Chachamim and the first Tana] argue only about Nesachim (whether or not they were offered in the Midbar.

The same applies to birds. They were not offered according to Rabanan, like we say below (119a) that according to the opinion that Minchah may not be offered on a Bamah, birds may not be offered on a Bamah. What is the reason? We expound "Zevachim" and not birds. "Zevachim" and not Menachos.

We establish that verse above (106b) to discuss Kodshim that were Hukdash when Bamos were permitted.

Question: In our Mishnah (113a), R. Yehudah teaches that a Minchah may not be offered on a Bamah, and here R. Yehudah says that whatever the Tzibur and an individual could offer in Ohel Mo'ed in the Midbar, they could offer in the Ohel Mo'ed in Gilgal;

In Gilgal, Menachos and birds were not offered on either [a Bamah Gedolah or Bamah Ketanah]!

Implied suggestion: According to Rabanan they were not offered on either, but according to R. Yehudah they were offered on a Bamas Tzibur.

Rejection #1: What is the source for such a Drashah according to each of them?

Rejection #2: Below (118a), we ask that Chachamim and the first Tana do not argue, and answer that they argue about whether or not Nesachim were offered in the Midbar;

We should say that they argue about whether or not a Minchah may be offered on a Bamas Tzibur. According to the first Rabanan it is offered, and the latter say that it is not!

Explanation: It discusses Chatas and Asham of Nezirus.

Explanation (Rashi): This is because it says [about Chazah v'Shok and Terumas Lachmei Todah] "Lehanif Tenufah la'Shem."

Question: The first Tana [who argues with] R. Yehudah in the Beraisa (117a) hold that one may offer a Minchah on a Bamah Ketanah, and Tenufah and Hagashah do not apply to it;

If so, also these (Chazah v'Shok and Terumas Lachmei Todah) can apply to a Bamah, and will not require Tenufah!

Answer: Chazah v'Shok and Terumas Lachmei Todah, their primary Mitzvah is Tenufah. Therefore, if Tenufah cannot be done, they do not apply;

However, the primary Mitzvah of a Minchah is Kemitzah and Haktarah.

Explanation: This refers to [Olah and Shelamim] of Nezirus.

Question: The one who says that they were not offered even on a Bamah Gedolah, how does he answer the verse of Avshalom "va'Ashalem Nidri"?

We cannot say that it discusses other Nedarim, for in Temurah (14b) it connotes that it discusses Korban Nezirus!