The popular saying goes, “A place for everything and everything in its place.” This key principle of home organization, as we learn on today’s daf, applied to the wilderness camp of the Israelites, as well.
The Torah states (Leviticus 13:46, Numbers 5:3) that those who are impure due to the skin condition tzaraat, contact with a corpse, or irregular genital discharge must quarantine outside the camp during their period of impurity. On yesterday’s daf, the rabbis identify not one but three different Israelite camps in the desert: the camp of the (ordinary) Israelites, the camp of the Levites, and the camp of the Shekhinah, the divine presence. Were these folks quarantined from all three camps? Not necessarily. Each of these camps had its own rules about who could enter them.
To make matters more complicated, yesterday’s daf also quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai, who said that:
In Shiloh there were only two camps.
That is, while there may have been three camps in the wilderness, when the Israelites first entered the land of Israel and established the tabernacle at Shiloh, they built only two. On today’s daf, the rabbis try to figure out which camp was missing.
Given that they are discussing the environment around the tabernacle, with its altars and holy ark, it is obvious to the rabbis that the camp of the Shekhinah was present in Shiloh. But which of the other two — the camps of the Israelites and Levites — was the second?
Rabbah said: It stands to reason that the Levite camp was there, as, if it enters your mind to say that the Levite camp was not there, we would find zavim (people impure due to genital discharge) and those who are ritually impure from a corpse are sent out of one camp. But the Torah said: “Outside the camp you shall put them; that they will not defile their camps.” (Numbers 5:3)
Rabbah reads the plural word camps in Numbers 5:3 as a signal that zavim and those with corpse impurity were sent out from different camps. Now he poses a counterfactual. If we say there was no Levite camp at Shiloh, both groups would have been sent out from the camp of the Shekhinah and permitted in the Israelite camp. This means they would both have been removed from the same camp (singular). But the text says camps (plural). Therefore, there must have been a Levite camp so that at least one group would be excluded from more than one camp. (Steinsaltz clarifies that zavim were excluded from the Levite camp, and those who are corpse impure were not.)
But not everyone agrees with this logic.
Rava said to him: Rather, was the Israelite camp not present in Shiloh? If so, it would be found that zavim and those with tzaraat are both sent to one place. But the Torah said: “He shall dwell alone” (Leviticus 13:46) — indicating that another ritually impure person should not dwell with him.
Whereas Rabbah insists that Shiloh had multiple camps for the impure to exit, Rava notes that the Torah also requires multiple camps for these people to enter. In Leviticus’ discussion of tzaraat, the person experiencing this condition is required to quarantine alone. You can’t be alone if you are in a large camp with everyone who has experienced a genital discharge or come into contact with a corpse. Since we know that no impure people can enter into the camp of the Shekhinah, the requirement that the person with tzaraat be alone implies the existence of at least two other camps.
Taking into account both positions, then, the Gemara concludes:
Rather, actually, all three camps were present in Shiloh.
And what is “There were only two camps?” It is with regard to refuge.
The anonymous voice of the Talmud insists that, contra Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai, all three camps must have existed in Shiloh. However, it explains his statement that there were only two camps by asserting that the Levite camp did not function as fully as it would later, when the Temple was established in Jerusalem, during which time it also served as a refuge for those who committed accidental manslaughter (Numbers 35:6).
It turns out that the Israelites always needed a minimum of three camps. In the case of today’s talmudic argument, it was to ensure proper handling of impurity. But this is true on other levels, as well. None of us truly fits everywhere, and this is even more true over time, as our statuses change. To put the complexity of human experience in conversation with the Torah requires nuance, details, and multiple “camps.”
Read all of Zevachim 117 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on January 9, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
