The Gemara replies that Rahab used this phrase euphemistically, to say that their fear was so great that their male organs were not even able to become erect, as “kama” also means rise. The Gemara asks: And how did Rahab know this? The Gemara replies: As the Master said: You do not have any prince or ruler at that time who did not engage in intercourse with Rahab the prostitute.

The Gemara adds that the Sages said with regard to Rahab: She was ten years old when the Jewish people left Egypt, and she engaged in prostitution all forty years that the Jewish people were in the wilderness. After that, when she was fifty years old, she converted when the two spies visited her. She said: May all of my sins of prostitution be forgiven me as a reward for having endangered myself with the rope, window, and flax, by means of which I saved Joshua’s two spies. Rahab first concealed the spies in stalks of flax, and later assisted them in exiting her home by lowering them from the window with a rope (see Joshua 2:6 and 2:15).

§ The Master said in the baraita that discussed the sacrifice of offerings before the construction of the Tabernacle: And today gentiles are permitted to do so, i.e., to sacrifice offerings outside the Temple courtyard, despite the fact that this is forbidden for the Jews. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught with regard to the verses that prohibit the slaughter of offerings outside the Temple: “Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel” (Leviticus 17:2). This indicates that only Jews are commanded with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple, but gentiles are not commanded with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple.

Therefore, each and every gentile may, if he desires, construct a private altar for himself, and sacrifice upon it whatever he desires. Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa says that Rav Asi says: Although it is permitted for gentiles to sacrifice offerings outside the Temple courtyard, it is prohibited for a Jew to assist them or to fulfill their agency in this matter, as sacrificing in this manner is forbidden for a Jew. Rabba said: But to instruct them how to sacrifice outside the Temple is permitted.

This is similar to that incident in which Ifera Hurmiz, the mother of King Shapur of Persia, sent an offering to Rava, with which she sent this message to him: Sacrifice this for me, for the sake of Heaven. Rava said to Rav Safra and to Rav Aḥa bar Huna: Go, take two gentile youths of the same age, i.e., similar to one another, so that the sacrifice will be performed with maximal beauty, and see where the sea currently raises silt [sirton], which is a place that no one has used before. And take new wood and bring out fire from new vessels, and the two youths will sacrifice the offering for her, for the sake of Heaven.

Abaye said to Rava: In accordance with whose opinion was the instruction to sacrifice exclusively with new wood? Was it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua? As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says: Just as the altar is a place that is not used by an ordinary person, so too, the wood that will be used must not be used by an ordinary person. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua concede that in the case of a private altar the wood need not be new?

As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to David’s purchase of the site of the Temple, when he wished to build an altar there at God’s instruction, one verse states: “So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight. And David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings” (I Chronicles 21:25–26). And it is written elsewhere: “So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver. And David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings” (II Samuel 24:24–25). How can these texts be reconciled?

David would collect from each tribe of the twelve tribes fifty shekels, which are a sum of six hundred shekels. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says in the name of Abba Yosei ben Dostai that there is another explanation: David purchased the cattle and the wood and the site of the altar for fifty shekels, and he purchased the site of the entire Temple for six hundred shekels.

Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says likewise: David purchased the cattle and the wood and the site of the altar for fifty shekels, and the site of the entire Temple for six hundred shekels, as it is written: “And Araunah said to David: Let my lord the king take and offer that which is good in his eyes; see the cattle for the burnt offering, and the threshing tools, and the implements of the cattle for the wood” (II Samuel 24:22), to which David replied: “No, but I will buy it from you at a price” (II Samuel 24:24). Consequently, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, David purchased the threshing instruments and the furniture of the oxen for use as wood. And Rava could have said to you in response: There too, in the case of David, the verse is dealing with new vessels that had not yet been used.

The Gemara asks: What are “the threshing instruments [morigim]” mentioned in the verse? Ulla said: It is a turbal bed. The Gemara asks: What is a turbal bed? Abaye said: It is a heavy, serrated board [dekurkesa], used for threshing. Abaye said: What is the verse from which the meaning of morigim is derived? “Behold, I have made you a new threshing board [morag] having sharp teeth; you shall thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shall make the hills as chaff” (Isaiah 41:15). This verse indicates that a morag has grooves and teeth, and is used for threshing.

With regard to the contradiction between the verses that relate the sum of shekels paid by David, the Gemara says that Rava was teaching these verses to his son, and raised a contradiction between verses: It is written: “So David gave to Ornan…six hundred shekels of gold by weight” (I Chronicles 21:25), and it is written: “So David bought…fifty shekels of silver” (II Samuel 24:24). How can these texts be reconciled? David would collect from each tribe of the twelve tribes fifty shekels, which are a sum of six hundred shekels.

The Gemara asks: But these verses are still difficult, as they contradict one another, since there in the book of Samuel it is stated that David paid silver shekels, while here in Chronicles it is stated that he paid gold shekels. The Gemara replies: Rather, this is what the verses are saying: David would collect from each tribe silver shekels that had the value of fifty gold shekels in weight, so that the value of the final sum was equal to six hundred gold shekels.

§ The mishna teaches that once the Tabernacle was established in the wilderness, offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten throughout the camp of Israel. Rav Huna says: This means that offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten in any of the places that an Israelite would be found. But there was no actual camp, outside of which it was prohibited to eat the offerings.

Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Rav Huna: And were there not camps when the Jews were in the wilderness? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (see Tosefta, Kelim Bava Kamma 1:12): Just as there was a camp in the wilderness that was divided into different sections, with each section having particular halakhot pertaining to the consumption of offerings and to the ritually impure individuals who were prohibited from entering there, so too, there is a corresponding camp in Jerusalem: The area from the walls of Jerusalem to the Temple Mount has the status of the Israelite camp. The area from the Temple Mount to Nicanor’s Gate at the entrance to the Temple courtyard has the status of the Levite camp.

From that point onward, i.e., from the entrance to the Temple courtyard, the area has the status of the camp of the Divine Presence; and the Temple courtyard has the same status as the area within the curtains surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle in the wilderness.

The Gemara replies: Rather, say that Rav Huna meant that when the Tabernacle was in the wilderness, offerings of lesser sanctity could be consumed wherever the Israelite camp was located. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? Wherever the Jews were located in the wilderness was where the Israelite camp was. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that during the periods of travel between encampments the offerings were taken outside the Israelite camp, and were thereby disqualified due to the meat’s leaving the area within the partitions, Rav Huna teaches us that the meat is not disqualified.

The Gemara asks: But why not say that this is indeed so, i.e., that the meat is disqualified because it left the camp? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “Then the Tent of Meeting, with the camp of the Levites, shall travel in the midst of the camps; as they encamp, so shall they travel” (Numbers 2:17), which indicates that although it traveled from its place it is still the Tent of Meeting. Similarly, the Israelite camp retains its status even while traveling.

§ With regard to the division of Jerusalem into three camps, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: There was an additional camp in Jerusalem, within the area of the Temple Mount, and it was the rampart of the women’s courtyard. The Sages rendered it prohibited for certain ritually impure individuals to enter that area, but they would not punish them for entering it, as by Torah law it does not constitute a distinct section of the Temple Mount but has the status of the Levite camp. The baraita adds: And when the Tabernacle was in Shiloh there were only two camps.

The Gemara asks: Which of the three camps that were present in the wilderness was not present in Shiloh? Rabba said: It stands to reason that the Levite camp was present, but the Israelite camp was not. As, if it enters your mind to say that the Levite camp was not present in Shiloh,