Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 7, 2018 | ื›ืดื“ ื‘ืกื™ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

Zevachim 55

The details of other types of sacrifices are discussed and the laws are derives from verses in the Torah.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ื’ืžืณ ืžื ื ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ืŸ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื•ืขืฉื™ืชื ืฉืขื™ืจ ืขื–ื™ื ืื—ื“ ืœื—ื˜ืืช ืžื” ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ืืฃ ืฉืœืžื™ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ


GEMARA: From where do we derive that the communal peace offerings, i.e., the two sheep brought on Shavuot, require slaughter in the north of the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers: As Rabba bar Rav แธคanan taught before Rava: The passage in the Torah discussing the offerings of Shavuot states: โ€œAnd you shall offer one he-goat for a sin offering, and two male sheep in their first year for a sacrifice of peace offeringsโ€ (Leviticus 23:19). The peace offerings are juxtaposed with the sin offering. Just as the sin offering must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, so too, communal peace offerings must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื•ื›ื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ืžื”ื™ื›ืŸ ืœืžื“ื” ืžืขื•ืœื” ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืœืžื“ ื‘ื”ื™ืงืฉ ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืžืœืžื“ ื‘ื”ื™ืงืฉ


Rava said to him: But from where is the requirement to slaughter a sin offering in the north of the Temple courtyard derived? It is derived from its juxtaposition with a burnt offering, as the verse states: โ€œSpeak to Aaron and to his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered shall the sin offering be slaughtered before the Lord; it is most holyโ€ (Leviticus 6:18). In the realm of consecrated matters, can a matter derived via a juxtaposition then teach its halakha via a juxtaposition? The Gemara (49b) demonstrates that it cannot.


ืืœื ืžื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ืžืจื™ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืขืœ ืขืœืชื™ื›ื ื•ืขืœ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืฉืœืžื™ื›ื ืžื” ืขื•ืœื” ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืืฃ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืฉืœืžื™ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžื” ืขื•ืœื” ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ืืฃ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืฉืœืžื™ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ


Rava explains: Rather, the source that communal peace offerings must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard is derived from that which Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, teaches: The verse states: โ€œAlso in the day of your gladness, and in your appointed seasons, and in your New Moons, you shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over your peace offerings; and they shall be to you for a memorial before your God: I am the Lord your Godโ€ (Numbers 10:10). This verse directly juxtaposes burnt offerings with communal peace offerings. Just as burnt offerings are offerings of the most sacred order, so too, communal peace offerings are offerings of the most sacred order. Furthermore, just as a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, so too, communal peace offerings must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard.


ืืœื ื”ื™ืงืฉื ืงืžื ืœืžืื™ ืืชื ื›ื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ืžื” ื—ื˜ืืช ืื™ื ื” ื ืื›ืœืช ืืœื ืœื–ื›ืจื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืืฃ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืฉืœืžื™ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืœื–ื›ืจื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื”


The Gemara asks: Rather, what halakha does the first juxtaposition between communal peace offerings and the he-goat sin offering come to teach? The Gemara answers: It teaches that the halakhot of communal peace offerings are like the halakhot of a sin offering. Just as a sin offering is eaten only by male priests, so too, communal peace offerings are eaten only by male priests.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ืื™ืœ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ ืืช ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืœื”ืณ ื›ื‘ืฉ ื‘ืŸ ืฉื ืชื• ืชืžื™ื ืื—ื“ ืœืขืœื” ื•ื›ื‘ืฉื” ืื—ืช ื‘ืช ืฉื ืชื” [ืชืžื™ืžื”] ืœื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืื™ืœ ืื—ื“ [ืชืžื™ื] ืœืฉืœืžื™ื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื ื™ืžื ื“ื”ืงื™ืฉ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœื—ื˜ืืช ืžื” ื—ื˜ืืช ืื™ื ื” ื ืื›ืœืช ืืœื ืœื–ื›ืจื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืืฃ ืื™ืœ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื ืžื™ ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ ืืœื ืœื–ื›ืจื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื”


Abaye said to Rava: If so, then with regard to a naziriteโ€™s ram, concerning which it is written in the verse: โ€œAnd he shall present his offering to the Lord, one he-lamb in its first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe-lamb in its first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for a peace offeringโ€ (Numbers 6:14), so too shall we say that the Torah juxtaposed the naziriteโ€™s ram with a sin offering of a nazirite to teach that just as a sin offering is eaten only by male priests, so too, a naziriteโ€™s ram is eaten only by male priests? As the next mishna states, a naziriteโ€™s ram may be eaten by every ritually pure Jew.


ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื”ืชื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืœืงื— ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืืช ื”ื–ืจืข ื‘ืฉืœื” ืžืŸ ื”ืื™ืœ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืื›ืœื™ ืœื™ื”


Rava answers: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to the naziriteโ€™s ram, since it is written: โ€œAnd the priest shall take the foreleg of the ram when it is cookedโ€ (Numbers 6:19), by inference one can deduce that the owner may eat all of the remaining portions of the animal.


ื–ืจื•ืข ื‘ืฉืœื” ืžื™ื”ื ืœื ืœื™ืชืื›ื™ืœ ืืœื ืœื–ื›ืจื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืงืฉื™ื


The Gemara asks: If so, in any event, the cooked foreleg of the naziriteโ€™s ram should be eaten only by male priests. The mishna states that the cooked foreleg may be eaten by priests, their wives, and their slaves. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult. Based on its juxtaposition with the sin offering of a nazirite, the halakha should be that only the male priests may eat it, yet that is not the case.


ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืืงืจื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืœื ืื™ืงืจื• ื•ืืœื ืœืžืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืื™ืชืงืฉ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉืื ื’ืœื— ืขืœ ืื—ื“ ืžืฉืœืฉืชืŸ ื™ืฆื


The Gemara offers another explanation: And if you wish, say that the foreleg of the naziriteโ€™s ram is called sacred, but it is not called an offering of the most sacred order. Therefore, it cannot be juxtaposed with the sin offering of a nazirite in this regard. The Gemara asks: But rather, with regard to what halakha is the naziriteโ€™s ram juxtaposed with the sin offering of a nazirite? Rava says: It is juxtaposed to teach that if the nazirite shaved after the sacrifice of any one of the three offerings, he has fulfilled his obligation after the fact.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืชื•ื“ื” ื•ืื™ืœ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ื•ื“ืžืŸ ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืžืชื ื•ืช ืฉื”ืŸ ืืจื‘ืข ื•ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ ืœื›ืœ ืื“ื ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืื›ืœ ืœื™ื•ื ื•ืœื™ืœื” ืขื“ ื—ืฆื•ืช ื”ืžื•ืจื ืžื”ื ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”ืŸ ืืœื ืฉื”ืžื•ืจื ื ืื›ืœ ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœื ืฉื™ื”ื ื•ืœื‘ื ื™ื”ื ื•ืœืขื‘ื“ื™ื”ื


MISHNA: The thanks offering and naziriteโ€™s ram are offerings of lesser sanctity. Their slaughter is anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and their blood requires two placements that are four, and they are eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem, by every person, i.e., any ritually pure Jew, prepared in any manner of food preparation, on the day the offering was sacrificed and during the night that follows, until midnight. The status of the portion that is separated from them and given to the priests is similar to theirs; but the portion that is separated is eaten by the priests, by their wives, and by their children, and by their slaves.


ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืช ื—ื–ื” ื”ืชื ื•ืคื” ื•ืืช ืฉื•ืง ื”ืชืจื•ืžื” ืชืื›ืœื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืื›ืœื•ื


GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the priests: โ€œAnd the breast of waving and the thigh of heaving you shall eat in a pure place; you, and your sons, and your daughters with you; for they are given as your due, and your sonsโ€™ due, out of the peace offerings of the children of Israelโ€ (Leviticus 10:14). Rabbi Neแธฅemya said: But did they eat the first offerings, mentioned in the previous two verses, in a place of impurity? The previous verses make reference to the remainder of the meal offering, which also had to be eaten in a pure place.


ืืœื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžื›ืœืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ื˜ืžื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื•ื˜ืžื ืžื˜ื•ืžืืช ื–ื‘ ื•ืื™ื–ื” ื–ื” ื–ื” ืžื—ื ื” ื™ืฉืจืืœ


Rather, by inference, the word โ€œpureโ€ in this context is referring to a place that is to some degree ritually impure, but pure in some respects. The priest must eat in a place that is pure due to the impurity of a leper, but it may be a place that is impure due to the impurity of a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav]. And which place is this? This is the Israelitesโ€™ camp in the wilderness, and, once the Temple was built in Jerusalem, the entire city of Jerusalem. A zav could remain in these places, but not a leper. This is the source for the halakha in the mishna that these offerings may be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem.


ื•ืื™ืžื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžื˜ื•ืžืืช ื–ื‘ ื•ื˜ืžื ืžื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืช ื•ืื™ื–ื” ื–ื” ื–ื” ืžื—ื ื” ืœื•ื™ื”


The Gemara asks: But why not say that the word โ€œpureโ€ is referring to a place which is pure from the impurity of a zav and impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse? And which place is this? This is the Levitesโ€™ camp in the wilderness, and, once the Temple was built in Jerusalem, the Temple Mount.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืื›ืœืชื ืืชื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืงื“ื•ืฉ ืื•ืชื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื•ืœื ืื—ืจืช ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืงื“ื•ืฉ ืืคืงื” ืœืžื—ื ื” ืœื•ื™ื” ื”ื“ืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืืคืงื” ืœืžื—ื ื” ื™ืฉืจืืœ


Abaye says that the verse states with regard to the meal offering: โ€œAnd you shall eat it in a sacred placeโ€ (Leviticus 10:13). The word โ€œitโ€ is a restriction, teaching that one must eat โ€œit,โ€ i.e., the meal offering, in a sacred place, i.e., in the camp of the Divine Presence, but one is not required to eat another offering, i.e., the breast of waving and the thigh of heaving, in a sacred place. This removes the portions from the camp of the Divine Presence, to be eaten in the Levitesโ€™ camp. Then it is written: โ€œYou shall eat in a pure place,โ€ which removes the portions from the Levitesโ€™ camp, to be eaten in the Israelitesโ€™ camp.


ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืื•ืชื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื•ืœื ืื—ืจืช ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืงื“ื•ืฉ ืืคืงื” ืœื’ืžืจื™ ื”ื“ืจ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืชืื›ืœื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืขื™ื™ืœื ืœืžื—ื ื” ื™ืฉืจืืœ


Rava says a different explanation: โ€œIt,โ€ i.e., the meal offering, must be eaten in a sacred place, but one is not required to eat another offering, i.e., the breast of waving and the thigh of heaving, in a sacred place. This verse removes the portions completely from any pure place, and according to this stage of Ravaโ€™s interpretation, these portions may be eaten anywhere. Then the Merciful One wrote: โ€œYou shall eat in a pure place,โ€ which brings it into the Israelitesโ€™ camp, which is a pure place, relative to everywhere outside it.


ื•ืื™ืžื ืขื™ื™ืœื ืœืžื—ื ื” ืœื•ื™ื” ืœื—ื“ื ืžืขื™ื™ืœื™ื ืŸ ืœืชืจืชื™ ืœื ืžืขื™ื™ืœื™ื ืŸ


The Gemara asks: But why not say that the verse brings it into the Levitesโ€™ camp, which is also referred to as pure? The Gemara answers: We bring it into one camp, adjacent to the area outside the encampment of the Jewish people, but we do not bring it into two camps.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื•ืงื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื—ื“ื ืžืคืงื™ื ืŸ ืžืชืจืชื™ ืœื ืžืคืงื™ื ืŸ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืœื ืชื•ื›ืœ ืœืื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืฉืขืจื™ืš ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืœื ืžื—ื•ื•ืจืชื ื›ื“ืื‘ื™ื™


The Gemara asks: If so, also with regard to removing it, why not say that we remove it to one place, but we do not remove it from two places? Accordingly, the initial derivation should be to eat it in the Israelitesโ€™ camp. And furthermore, it is written: โ€œYou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd or of your flock, nor any of your vows which you vow, nor your gift offerings, nor the offering of your handโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:17). This verse negates the possibility that an offering may be eaten โ€œin your gates,โ€ i.e., outside of Jerusalem. Rather, it is clear that the source for the ruling of the baraita is in accordance with the explanation of Abaye.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉืœืžื™ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ื•ื“ืžืŸ ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืžืชื ื•ืช ืฉื”ืŸ ืืจื‘ืข ื•ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ ืœื›ืœ ืื“ื ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืื›ืœ ืœืฉื ื™ ื™ืžื™ื ื•ืœื™ืœื” ืื—ื“ ื”ืžื•ืจื ืžื”ื ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”ื ืืœื ืฉื”ืžื•ืจื ื ืื›ืœ ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœื ืฉื™ื”ื ื•ืœื‘ื ื™ื”ื ื•ืœืขื‘ื“ื™ื”ื


MISHNA: Peace offerings are offerings of lesser sanctity. Their slaughter is anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and their blood requires two placements that are four, and they are eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem, by every person, i.e., any ritually pure Jew, prepared in any manner of food preparation, for two days and one night, i.e., the day on which they are slaughtered, the following day, and the intervening night. The status of the portion that is separated from them and given to the priests is similar to theirs; but the portion that is separated is eaten by the priests, by their wives, and by their children, and by their slaves.


ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ื• ืคืชื— ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืืชื• ืœืคื ื™ ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืื•ืชื• ืœืคื ื™ ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“


GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to cattle peace offerings, the verse states: โ€œAnd he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meetingโ€ (Leviticus 3:2). With regard to sheep peace offerings the verse states: โ€œAnd he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and slaughter it before the Tent of Meetingโ€ (Leviticus 3:8). With regard to goat peace offerings the verse states: โ€œAnd he shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and slaughter it before the Tent of Meetingโ€ (Leviticus 3:13).


ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ืจื•ื—ื•ืช ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืœืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ืžื” ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืœื ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื• ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ืจื•ื—ื•ืช ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื• ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืฉื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื• ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ืจื•ื—ื•ืช ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื• ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ


This repetition serves to render fit all directions of the Temple courtyard for the slaughter of offerings of lesser sanctity. From here one can derive an a fortiori inference to permit slaughter in the north of the Temple courtyard: Just as the rites of slaughtering offerings of the most sacred order, which are not rendered fit in all directions, are rendered fit in the north, with regard to the rites of slaughtering offerings of lesser sanctity, which are rendered fit in all directions, is it not logical that they are rendered fit in the north?


ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื ืืžืจ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืืœื ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ืฆืคื•ืŸ ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ื•ื”ืœื ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื” ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืฉื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื• ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ืจื•ื—ื•ืช ืœื ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจ ืžืงื•ืžืŸ ืืฆืœ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืœื ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื• ืืœื ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจ ืžืงื•ืžืŸ ืืฆืœ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“


Rabbi Eliezer says: The repetition of the verse is stated only to render fit slaughter in the north. As one might have thought: And could this not be derived through logical inference? Just as with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, whose slaughter is rendered fit in any direction, nevertheless their place is not rendered fit for the slaughter of offerings of the most sacred order, with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, whose slaughter is rendered fit only in the north, is it not logical that their place should not be rendered fit for the slaughter of offerings of lesser sanctity? Therefore, the verse states: โ€œTent of Meeting,โ€ to teach that offerings of lesser sanctity may be slaughtered in the north.


ื‘ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื ืกื‘ืจ ืชืœืชื ืงืจืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื—ื“ ืœื’ื•ืคื™ื” ื“ื ื™ื‘ืขื™ ืคืชื— ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ื—ื“ ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื“ ืœืคืกื•ืœ ืฆื™ื“ื™ ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืฆืคื•ืŸ ืœื ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืงืจื


The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do they disagree? The first tanna holds that three verses are written. One verse serves to teach the halakha itself, that we require that the slaughter take place at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. And one verse serves to render fit slaughter at the sides, i.e., the entire length of the Temple courtyard eastward from the entrance, and not only that part which is directly in front of the entrance. And one verse serves to disqualify the sides of the sides, i.e., those parts of the courtyard that are not in front of the entrance at all. And it was not necessary to have a verse teach the fitness of slaughtering in the north, as it can be derived via an a fortiori inference.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื—ื“ ืœื’ื•ืคื™ื” ื“ื ื™ื‘ืขื™ ืคืชื— ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ื—ื“ ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ื—ื“ ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืฆื™ื“ื™ ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืงืจื


And Rabbi Eliezer holds that one verse is necessary to teach the halakha itself, that we require slaughter at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. And one verse serves to render fit slaughter in the north of the courtyard. And one verse serves to render fit slaughter at the sides of the courtyard. But according to him, it was not necessary to have a verse teach that the sides of the sides are not fit for the slaughter of the offering.


ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ื›ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืคืชื— ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ืชื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœืคื ื™ ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื›ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฉืœืžื™ื ืฉืฉื—ื˜ืŸ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื™ืคืชื—ื• ื“ืœืชื•ืช ื”ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ื• ืคืชื— ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื ืคืชื•ื— ื•ืœื ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื ื ืขื•ืœ


ยง The Gemara asks: What is different here that it is written: โ€œAt the entrance to the Tent of Meetingโ€ (Leviticus 3:2), and what is different there that it is written: โ€œBefore the Tent of Meetingโ€ (Leviticus 3:8, 13)? The Gemara answers: This teaches us a matter in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says. As Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Peace offerings that one slaughtered in the Temple before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened are disqualified, as it is stated with regard to peace offerings: โ€œAnd he shall slaughter it at the entrance to the Tent of Meetingโ€ (Leviticus 3:2), which teaches that it must be slaughtered when the entrance is open and serves as an actual entrance, and not when it is locked. As long as the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, or in the Temple the doors to the Sanctuary, remain closed, one may not sacrifice the peace offerings, and if they are sacrificed, they are disqualified.


ืื™ืชืžืจ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืขื•ืงื‘ื ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืฉืœืžื™ื ืฉืฉื—ื˜ืŸ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื™ืคืชื—ื• ื“ืœืชื•ืช ื”ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ื• ืคืชื— ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืคืชื— ื”ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืคืชื•ื— ื•ืœื ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื ื ืขื•ืœ


It was also stated: Mar Ukva bar แธคama says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, says: Peace offerings that one slaughtered before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened are disqualified, as it is stated in the verse: โ€œHe shall slaughter it at the entrance to the Tent of Meetingโ€ (Leviticus 3:2). This means when the entrance of the Sanctuary is open, and not when it is locked.


ื‘ืžืขืจื‘ื ืžืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ืจ ืื—ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืฉืœืžื™ื ืฉืฉื—ื˜ืŸ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื™ืคืชื—ื• ื“ืœืชื•ืช ื”ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืคืกื•ืœื™ื ื•ื‘ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื™ืขืžื™ื“ื• ืœื•ื™ื ืืช ื”ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื•ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื™ืคืจืงื• ืœื•ื™ื ืืช ื”ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื™ื


In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they teach this halakha like this: Rav Yaโ€™akov bar Aแธฅa says that Rav Ashi says: Peace offerings that one slaughtered before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened are disqualified. And in the Tabernacle, which had no doors, peace offerings that were slaughtered before the Levites erected the Tabernacle or after the Levites dismantled the Tabernacle are disqualified.


ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžื•ื’ืฃ ื›ื ืขื•ืœ ื“ืžื™ ื•ื™ืœื•ืŸ ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื”ื•ื ืขืฆืžื• ืื™ืŸ ื ืขืฉื” ืืœื ื›ืคืชื— ืคืชื•ื—


The Gemara comments: It is obvious that if the door is closed but not locked it has the same status as if it were locked. The Gemara asks: If there is a curtain covering the entrance, what is the halakha? Rabbi Zeira says: A curtain itself is made only to be used like an open entrance, and therefore it is not considered as if the entrance is closed.


ื’ื•ื‘ื”ื” ืžืื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื ื™ ืคืฉืคืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื—ืœื™ืคื•ืช ื•ื’ื•ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืžื ื” ื›ื“ื™ ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ืืช ื”ืขื–ืจื” ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื


The Gemara asks: What is the halakha if a tall item is blocking the entrance? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof that a tall item does not render an entrance as closed, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: There were two wickets, i.e., openings, in the Chamber of Knives, and their height was eight cubits. The function of these openings was in order to render fit the entire Temple courtyard for the eating of offerings of the most sacred order, and to render fit all of the Temple courtyard for the slaughter of offerings of lesser sanctity. Due to the openings, the western area of the courtyard was considered to be โ€œbefore the Tent of Meeting.โ€


ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืื™ื›ื ืงืžื™ื™ื”ื• ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืœื ื“ื’ื‘ื”ื• ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืฉืžื•ื ื”


The Gemara explains the inference: What, is the reference to eight cubits not referring to the fact that in front of the wickets there was an obstruction eight cubits high? Nevertheless, the area outside of it is considered open to the Chamber of Knives. The Gemara answers: No, their height was eight cubits, i.e., the wickets themselves were eight cubits high.


ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืœ ื”ืฉืขืจื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ืฉื ื’ื•ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื ืืžื” ื•ืจื•ื—ื‘ืŸ ืขืฉืจ ืืžื” ืคืฉืคืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืื ื™


The Gemara raises an objection to this explanation from a mishna (Middot 35a), which teaches: All the gates that were there, in the Temple, were twenty cubits high and ten cubits wide. If so, how could these wickets be only eight cubits high? The Gemara answers: The wickets are different, and they are not considered gates.


ื•ื”ืื™ื›ื ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ืžืขื™ื™ืœ ืœื”ื• ื‘ืงืจืŸ ื–ื•ื™ืช


The Gemara questions the ruling of the baraita. How did the wickets render fit the entire Temple courtyard? But there are the sides, i.e., to the north and south of the Chamber of Knives, and the wickets faced only to the west. The Gemara answers that they inserted the wickets in the corner of the Chamber, so that one opened to the northwest, and one to the northeast.


ืื—ื•ืจื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ืคื•ืจืช ืžืื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื•ืœ ืงื˜ืŸ ื”ื™ื” ืื—ื•ืจื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ืคื•ืจืช ื’ื‘ื•ื” ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืืžื•ืช ื›ื“ื™ ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ืืช ื”ืขื–ืจื” ืœืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื•ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืฉื ื™ื ืœืคืจื‘ืจ ืžืื™ ืœืคืจื‘ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืœื ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืœืคื™ ื‘ืจ


The Gemara asks: What is the halakha with regard to the area behind the Hall of the Ark Cover, i.e., behind the Sanctuary, from where one could not see the entrance of the Temple courtyard or the two wickets? The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as Rami bar Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was a small niche behind the Hall of the Ark Cover, which was eight cubits high. The function of this niche was in order to render fit the entire Temple courtyard for the eating of offerings of the most sacred order, and to render fit all of the Temple courtyard for the slaughter of offerings of lesser sanctity. And this is as it is written: โ€œFor the precinct westward, four at the causeway, and two at the precinctโ€ (Iย Chronicles 26:18). What is the meaning of the term: โ€œFor the precinct [laparbar]โ€? Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: It is like one who says: Facing outward [kelappei bar].


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืืœื ืขืœ


ยง Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One is liable for entering the Temple courtyard in a state of ritual impurity only with regard to


  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 55

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 55

ื’ืžืณ ืžื ื ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ืŸ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื•ืขืฉื™ืชื ืฉืขื™ืจ ืขื–ื™ื ืื—ื“ ืœื—ื˜ืืช ืžื” ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ืืฃ ืฉืœืžื™ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ


GEMARA: From where do we derive that the communal peace offerings, i.e., the two sheep brought on Shavuot, require slaughter in the north of the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers: As Rabba bar Rav แธคanan taught before Rava: The passage in the Torah discussing the offerings of Shavuot states: โ€œAnd you shall offer one he-goat for a sin offering, and two male sheep in their first year for a sacrifice of peace offeringsโ€ (Leviticus 23:19). The peace offerings are juxtaposed with the sin offering. Just as the sin offering must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, so too, communal peace offerings must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื•ื›ื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ืžื”ื™ื›ืŸ ืœืžื“ื” ืžืขื•ืœื” ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืœืžื“ ื‘ื”ื™ืงืฉ ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืžืœืžื“ ื‘ื”ื™ืงืฉ


Rava said to him: But from where is the requirement to slaughter a sin offering in the north of the Temple courtyard derived? It is derived from its juxtaposition with a burnt offering, as the verse states: โ€œSpeak to Aaron and to his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered shall the sin offering be slaughtered before the Lord; it is most holyโ€ (Leviticus 6:18). In the realm of consecrated matters, can a matter derived via a juxtaposition then teach its halakha via a juxtaposition? The Gemara (49b) demonstrates that it cannot.


ืืœื ืžื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ืžืจื™ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืขืœ ืขืœืชื™ื›ื ื•ืขืœ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืฉืœืžื™ื›ื ืžื” ืขื•ืœื” ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืืฃ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืฉืœืžื™ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžื” ืขื•ืœื” ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ืืฃ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืฉืœืžื™ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ


Rava explains: Rather, the source that communal peace offerings must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard is derived from that which Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, teaches: The verse states: โ€œAlso in the day of your gladness, and in your appointed seasons, and in your New Moons, you shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over your peace offerings; and they shall be to you for a memorial before your God: I am the Lord your Godโ€ (Numbers 10:10). This verse directly juxtaposes burnt offerings with communal peace offerings. Just as burnt offerings are offerings of the most sacred order, so too, communal peace offerings are offerings of the most sacred order. Furthermore, just as a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, so too, communal peace offerings must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard.


ืืœื ื”ื™ืงืฉื ืงืžื ืœืžืื™ ืืชื ื›ื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ืžื” ื—ื˜ืืช ืื™ื ื” ื ืื›ืœืช ืืœื ืœื–ื›ืจื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืืฃ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืฉืœืžื™ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืœื–ื›ืจื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื”


The Gemara asks: Rather, what halakha does the first juxtaposition between communal peace offerings and the he-goat sin offering come to teach? The Gemara answers: It teaches that the halakhot of communal peace offerings are like the halakhot of a sin offering. Just as a sin offering is eaten only by male priests, so too, communal peace offerings are eaten only by male priests.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ืื™ืœ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ ืืช ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืœื”ืณ ื›ื‘ืฉ ื‘ืŸ ืฉื ืชื• ืชืžื™ื ืื—ื“ ืœืขืœื” ื•ื›ื‘ืฉื” ืื—ืช ื‘ืช ืฉื ืชื” [ืชืžื™ืžื”] ืœื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืื™ืœ ืื—ื“ [ืชืžื™ื] ืœืฉืœืžื™ื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื ื™ืžื ื“ื”ืงื™ืฉ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœื—ื˜ืืช ืžื” ื—ื˜ืืช ืื™ื ื” ื ืื›ืœืช ืืœื ืœื–ื›ืจื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืืฃ ืื™ืœ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื ืžื™ ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ ืืœื ืœื–ื›ืจื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื”


Abaye said to Rava: If so, then with regard to a naziriteโ€™s ram, concerning which it is written in the verse: โ€œAnd he shall present his offering to the Lord, one he-lamb in its first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe-lamb in its first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for a peace offeringโ€ (Numbers 6:14), so too shall we say that the Torah juxtaposed the naziriteโ€™s ram with a sin offering of a nazirite to teach that just as a sin offering is eaten only by male priests, so too, a naziriteโ€™s ram is eaten only by male priests? As the next mishna states, a naziriteโ€™s ram may be eaten by every ritually pure Jew.


ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื”ืชื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืœืงื— ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืืช ื”ื–ืจืข ื‘ืฉืœื” ืžืŸ ื”ืื™ืœ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืื›ืœื™ ืœื™ื”


Rava answers: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to the naziriteโ€™s ram, since it is written: โ€œAnd the priest shall take the foreleg of the ram when it is cookedโ€ (Numbers 6:19), by inference one can deduce that the owner may eat all of the remaining portions of the animal.


ื–ืจื•ืข ื‘ืฉืœื” ืžื™ื”ื ืœื ืœื™ืชืื›ื™ืœ ืืœื ืœื–ื›ืจื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืงืฉื™ื


The Gemara asks: If so, in any event, the cooked foreleg of the naziriteโ€™s ram should be eaten only by male priests. The mishna states that the cooked foreleg may be eaten by priests, their wives, and their slaves. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult. Based on its juxtaposition with the sin offering of a nazirite, the halakha should be that only the male priests may eat it, yet that is not the case.


ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืืงืจื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืœื ืื™ืงืจื• ื•ืืœื ืœืžืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืื™ืชืงืฉ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉืื ื’ืœื— ืขืœ ืื—ื“ ืžืฉืœืฉืชืŸ ื™ืฆื


The Gemara offers another explanation: And if you wish, say that the foreleg of the naziriteโ€™s ram is called sacred, but it is not called an offering of the most sacred order. Therefore, it cannot be juxtaposed with the sin offering of a nazirite in this regard. The Gemara asks: But rather, with regard to what halakha is the naziriteโ€™s ram juxtaposed with the sin offering of a nazirite? Rava says: It is juxtaposed to teach that if the nazirite shaved after the sacrifice of any one of the three offerings, he has fulfilled his obligation after the fact.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืชื•ื“ื” ื•ืื™ืœ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ื•ื“ืžืŸ ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืžืชื ื•ืช ืฉื”ืŸ ืืจื‘ืข ื•ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ ืœื›ืœ ืื“ื ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืื›ืœ ืœื™ื•ื ื•ืœื™ืœื” ืขื“ ื—ืฆื•ืช ื”ืžื•ืจื ืžื”ื ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”ืŸ ืืœื ืฉื”ืžื•ืจื ื ืื›ืœ ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœื ืฉื™ื”ื ื•ืœื‘ื ื™ื”ื ื•ืœืขื‘ื“ื™ื”ื


MISHNA: The thanks offering and naziriteโ€™s ram are offerings of lesser sanctity. Their slaughter is anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and their blood requires two placements that are four, and they are eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem, by every person, i.e., any ritually pure Jew, prepared in any manner of food preparation, on the day the offering was sacrificed and during the night that follows, until midnight. The status of the portion that is separated from them and given to the priests is similar to theirs; but the portion that is separated is eaten by the priests, by their wives, and by their children, and by their slaves.


ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืช ื—ื–ื” ื”ืชื ื•ืคื” ื•ืืช ืฉื•ืง ื”ืชืจื•ืžื” ืชืื›ืœื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืื›ืœื•ื


GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the priests: โ€œAnd the breast of waving and the thigh of heaving you shall eat in a pure place; you, and your sons, and your daughters with you; for they are given as your due, and your sonsโ€™ due, out of the peace offerings of the children of Israelโ€ (Leviticus 10:14). Rabbi Neแธฅemya said: But did they eat the first offerings, mentioned in the previous two verses, in a place of impurity? The previous verses make reference to the remainder of the meal offering, which also had to be eaten in a pure place.


ืืœื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžื›ืœืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ื˜ืžื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื•ื˜ืžื ืžื˜ื•ืžืืช ื–ื‘ ื•ืื™ื–ื” ื–ื” ื–ื” ืžื—ื ื” ื™ืฉืจืืœ


Rather, by inference, the word โ€œpureโ€ in this context is referring to a place that is to some degree ritually impure, but pure in some respects. The priest must eat in a place that is pure due to the impurity of a leper, but it may be a place that is impure due to the impurity of a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav]. And which place is this? This is the Israelitesโ€™ camp in the wilderness, and, once the Temple was built in Jerusalem, the entire city of Jerusalem. A zav could remain in these places, but not a leper. This is the source for the halakha in the mishna that these offerings may be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem.


ื•ืื™ืžื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืžื˜ื•ืžืืช ื–ื‘ ื•ื˜ืžื ืžื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืช ื•ืื™ื–ื” ื–ื” ื–ื” ืžื—ื ื” ืœื•ื™ื”


The Gemara asks: But why not say that the word โ€œpureโ€ is referring to a place which is pure from the impurity of a zav and impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse? And which place is this? This is the Levitesโ€™ camp in the wilderness, and, once the Temple was built in Jerusalem, the Temple Mount.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืื›ืœืชื ืืชื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืงื“ื•ืฉ ืื•ืชื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื•ืœื ืื—ืจืช ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืงื“ื•ืฉ ืืคืงื” ืœืžื—ื ื” ืœื•ื™ื” ื”ื“ืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืืคืงื” ืœืžื—ื ื” ื™ืฉืจืืœ


Abaye says that the verse states with regard to the meal offering: โ€œAnd you shall eat it in a sacred placeโ€ (Leviticus 10:13). The word โ€œitโ€ is a restriction, teaching that one must eat โ€œit,โ€ i.e., the meal offering, in a sacred place, i.e., in the camp of the Divine Presence, but one is not required to eat another offering, i.e., the breast of waving and the thigh of heaving, in a sacred place. This removes the portions from the camp of the Divine Presence, to be eaten in the Levitesโ€™ camp. Then it is written: โ€œYou shall eat in a pure place,โ€ which removes the portions from the Levitesโ€™ camp, to be eaten in the Israelitesโ€™ camp.


ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืื•ืชื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื•ืœื ืื—ืจืช ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืงื“ื•ืฉ ืืคืงื” ืœื’ืžืจื™ ื”ื“ืจ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืชืื›ืœื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืขื™ื™ืœื ืœืžื—ื ื” ื™ืฉืจืืœ


Rava says a different explanation: โ€œIt,โ€ i.e., the meal offering, must be eaten in a sacred place, but one is not required to eat another offering, i.e., the breast of waving and the thigh of heaving, in a sacred place. This verse removes the portions completely from any pure place, and according to this stage of Ravaโ€™s interpretation, these portions may be eaten anywhere. Then the Merciful One wrote: โ€œYou shall eat in a pure place,โ€ which brings it into the Israelitesโ€™ camp, which is a pure place, relative to everywhere outside it.


ื•ืื™ืžื ืขื™ื™ืœื ืœืžื—ื ื” ืœื•ื™ื” ืœื—ื“ื ืžืขื™ื™ืœื™ื ืŸ ืœืชืจืชื™ ืœื ืžืขื™ื™ืœื™ื ืŸ


The Gemara asks: But why not say that the verse brings it into the Levitesโ€™ camp, which is also referred to as pure? The Gemara answers: We bring it into one camp, adjacent to the area outside the encampment of the Jewish people, but we do not bring it into two camps.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื•ืงื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื—ื“ื ืžืคืงื™ื ืŸ ืžืชืจืชื™ ืœื ืžืคืงื™ื ืŸ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืœื ืชื•ื›ืœ ืœืื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืฉืขืจื™ืš ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืœื ืžื—ื•ื•ืจืชื ื›ื“ืื‘ื™ื™


The Gemara asks: If so, also with regard to removing it, why not say that we remove it to one place, but we do not remove it from two places? Accordingly, the initial derivation should be to eat it in the Israelitesโ€™ camp. And furthermore, it is written: โ€œYou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd or of your flock, nor any of your vows which you vow, nor your gift offerings, nor the offering of your handโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:17). This verse negates the possibility that an offering may be eaten โ€œin your gates,โ€ i.e., outside of Jerusalem. Rather, it is clear that the source for the ruling of the baraita is in accordance with the explanation of Abaye.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉืœืžื™ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ื•ื“ืžืŸ ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืžืชื ื•ืช ืฉื”ืŸ ืืจื‘ืข ื•ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ ืœื›ืœ ืื“ื ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืื›ืœ ืœืฉื ื™ ื™ืžื™ื ื•ืœื™ืœื” ืื—ื“ ื”ืžื•ืจื ืžื”ื ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”ื ืืœื ืฉื”ืžื•ืจื ื ืื›ืœ ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœื ืฉื™ื”ื ื•ืœื‘ื ื™ื”ื ื•ืœืขื‘ื“ื™ื”ื


MISHNA: Peace offerings are offerings of lesser sanctity. Their slaughter is anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and their blood requires two placements that are four, and they are eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem, by every person, i.e., any ritually pure Jew, prepared in any manner of food preparation, for two days and one night, i.e., the day on which they are slaughtered, the following day, and the intervening night. The status of the portion that is separated from them and given to the priests is similar to theirs; but the portion that is separated is eaten by the priests, by their wives, and by their children, and by their slaves.


ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ื• ืคืชื— ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืืชื• ืœืคื ื™ ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืื•ืชื• ืœืคื ื™ ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“


GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to cattle peace offerings, the verse states: โ€œAnd he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meetingโ€ (Leviticus 3:2). With regard to sheep peace offerings the verse states: โ€œAnd he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and slaughter it before the Tent of Meetingโ€ (Leviticus 3:8). With regard to goat peace offerings the verse states: โ€œAnd he shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and slaughter it before the Tent of Meetingโ€ (Leviticus 3:13).


ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ืจื•ื—ื•ืช ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืœืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ืžื” ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืœื ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื• ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ืจื•ื—ื•ืช ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื• ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืฉื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื• ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ืจื•ื—ื•ืช ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื• ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ


This repetition serves to render fit all directions of the Temple courtyard for the slaughter of offerings of lesser sanctity. From here one can derive an a fortiori inference to permit slaughter in the north of the Temple courtyard: Just as the rites of slaughtering offerings of the most sacred order, which are not rendered fit in all directions, are rendered fit in the north, with regard to the rites of slaughtering offerings of lesser sanctity, which are rendered fit in all directions, is it not logical that they are rendered fit in the north?


ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื ืืžืจ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืืœื ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ืฆืคื•ืŸ ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ื•ื”ืœื ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื” ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืฉื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื• ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ืจื•ื—ื•ืช ืœื ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจ ืžืงื•ืžืŸ ืืฆืœ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืœื ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื• ืืœื ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจ ืžืงื•ืžืŸ ืืฆืœ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“


Rabbi Eliezer says: The repetition of the verse is stated only to render fit slaughter in the north. As one might have thought: And could this not be derived through logical inference? Just as with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, whose slaughter is rendered fit in any direction, nevertheless their place is not rendered fit for the slaughter of offerings of the most sacred order, with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, whose slaughter is rendered fit only in the north, is it not logical that their place should not be rendered fit for the slaughter of offerings of lesser sanctity? Therefore, the verse states: โ€œTent of Meeting,โ€ to teach that offerings of lesser sanctity may be slaughtered in the north.


ื‘ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื ืกื‘ืจ ืชืœืชื ืงืจืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื—ื“ ืœื’ื•ืคื™ื” ื“ื ื™ื‘ืขื™ ืคืชื— ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ื—ื“ ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื“ ืœืคืกื•ืœ ืฆื™ื“ื™ ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืฆืคื•ืŸ ืœื ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืงืจื


The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do they disagree? The first tanna holds that three verses are written. One verse serves to teach the halakha itself, that we require that the slaughter take place at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. And one verse serves to render fit slaughter at the sides, i.e., the entire length of the Temple courtyard eastward from the entrance, and not only that part which is directly in front of the entrance. And one verse serves to disqualify the sides of the sides, i.e., those parts of the courtyard that are not in front of the entrance at all. And it was not necessary to have a verse teach the fitness of slaughtering in the north, as it can be derived via an a fortiori inference.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื—ื“ ืœื’ื•ืคื™ื” ื“ื ื™ื‘ืขื™ ืคืชื— ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ื—ื“ ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ื—ื“ ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืฆื™ื“ื™ ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืงืจื


And Rabbi Eliezer holds that one verse is necessary to teach the halakha itself, that we require slaughter at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. And one verse serves to render fit slaughter in the north of the courtyard. And one verse serves to render fit slaughter at the sides of the courtyard. But according to him, it was not necessary to have a verse teach that the sides of the sides are not fit for the slaughter of the offering.


ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ื›ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืคืชื— ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ืชื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœืคื ื™ ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื›ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฉืœืžื™ื ืฉืฉื—ื˜ืŸ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื™ืคืชื—ื• ื“ืœืชื•ืช ื”ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ื• ืคืชื— ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื ืคืชื•ื— ื•ืœื ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื ื ืขื•ืœ


ยง The Gemara asks: What is different here that it is written: โ€œAt the entrance to the Tent of Meetingโ€ (Leviticus 3:2), and what is different there that it is written: โ€œBefore the Tent of Meetingโ€ (Leviticus 3:8, 13)? The Gemara answers: This teaches us a matter in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says. As Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Peace offerings that one slaughtered in the Temple before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened are disqualified, as it is stated with regard to peace offerings: โ€œAnd he shall slaughter it at the entrance to the Tent of Meetingโ€ (Leviticus 3:2), which teaches that it must be slaughtered when the entrance is open and serves as an actual entrance, and not when it is locked. As long as the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, or in the Temple the doors to the Sanctuary, remain closed, one may not sacrifice the peace offerings, and if they are sacrificed, they are disqualified.


ืื™ืชืžืจ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืขื•ืงื‘ื ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืฉืœืžื™ื ืฉืฉื—ื˜ืŸ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื™ืคืชื—ื• ื“ืœืชื•ืช ื”ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ื• ืคืชื— ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืคืชื— ื”ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืคืชื•ื— ื•ืœื ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื ื ืขื•ืœ


It was also stated: Mar Ukva bar แธคama says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, says: Peace offerings that one slaughtered before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened are disqualified, as it is stated in the verse: โ€œHe shall slaughter it at the entrance to the Tent of Meetingโ€ (Leviticus 3:2). This means when the entrance of the Sanctuary is open, and not when it is locked.


ื‘ืžืขืจื‘ื ืžืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ืจ ืื—ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืฉืœืžื™ื ืฉืฉื—ื˜ืŸ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื™ืคืชื—ื• ื“ืœืชื•ืช ื”ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืคืกื•ืœื™ื ื•ื‘ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื™ืขืžื™ื“ื• ืœื•ื™ื ืืช ื”ืžืฉื›ืŸ ื•ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื™ืคืจืงื• ืœื•ื™ื ืืช ื”ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื™ื


In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they teach this halakha like this: Rav Yaโ€™akov bar Aแธฅa says that Rav Ashi says: Peace offerings that one slaughtered before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened are disqualified. And in the Tabernacle, which had no doors, peace offerings that were slaughtered before the Levites erected the Tabernacle or after the Levites dismantled the Tabernacle are disqualified.


ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžื•ื’ืฃ ื›ื ืขื•ืœ ื“ืžื™ ื•ื™ืœื•ืŸ ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื”ื•ื ืขืฆืžื• ืื™ืŸ ื ืขืฉื” ืืœื ื›ืคืชื— ืคืชื•ื—


The Gemara comments: It is obvious that if the door is closed but not locked it has the same status as if it were locked. The Gemara asks: If there is a curtain covering the entrance, what is the halakha? Rabbi Zeira says: A curtain itself is made only to be used like an open entrance, and therefore it is not considered as if the entrance is closed.


ื’ื•ื‘ื”ื” ืžืื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื ื™ ืคืฉืคืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื—ืœื™ืคื•ืช ื•ื’ื•ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืžื ื” ื›ื“ื™ ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ืืช ื”ืขื–ืจื” ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื


The Gemara asks: What is the halakha if a tall item is blocking the entrance? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof that a tall item does not render an entrance as closed, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: There were two wickets, i.e., openings, in the Chamber of Knives, and their height was eight cubits. The function of these openings was in order to render fit the entire Temple courtyard for the eating of offerings of the most sacred order, and to render fit all of the Temple courtyard for the slaughter of offerings of lesser sanctity. Due to the openings, the western area of the courtyard was considered to be โ€œbefore the Tent of Meeting.โ€


ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืื™ื›ื ืงืžื™ื™ื”ื• ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืœื ื“ื’ื‘ื”ื• ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืฉืžื•ื ื”


The Gemara explains the inference: What, is the reference to eight cubits not referring to the fact that in front of the wickets there was an obstruction eight cubits high? Nevertheless, the area outside of it is considered open to the Chamber of Knives. The Gemara answers: No, their height was eight cubits, i.e., the wickets themselves were eight cubits high.


ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืœ ื”ืฉืขืจื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ืฉื ื’ื•ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื ืืžื” ื•ืจื•ื—ื‘ืŸ ืขืฉืจ ืืžื” ืคืฉืคืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืื ื™


The Gemara raises an objection to this explanation from a mishna (Middot 35a), which teaches: All the gates that were there, in the Temple, were twenty cubits high and ten cubits wide. If so, how could these wickets be only eight cubits high? The Gemara answers: The wickets are different, and they are not considered gates.


ื•ื”ืื™ื›ื ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ืžืขื™ื™ืœ ืœื”ื• ื‘ืงืจืŸ ื–ื•ื™ืช


The Gemara questions the ruling of the baraita. How did the wickets render fit the entire Temple courtyard? But there are the sides, i.e., to the north and south of the Chamber of Knives, and the wickets faced only to the west. The Gemara answers that they inserted the wickets in the corner of the Chamber, so that one opened to the northwest, and one to the northeast.


ืื—ื•ืจื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ืคื•ืจืช ืžืื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื•ืœ ืงื˜ืŸ ื”ื™ื” ืื—ื•ืจื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ืคื•ืจืช ื’ื‘ื•ื” ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืืžื•ืช ื›ื“ื™ ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ืืช ื”ืขื–ืจื” ืœืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื•ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืฉื ื™ื ืœืคืจื‘ืจ ืžืื™ ืœืคืจื‘ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืœื ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืœืคื™ ื‘ืจ


The Gemara asks: What is the halakha with regard to the area behind the Hall of the Ark Cover, i.e., behind the Sanctuary, from where one could not see the entrance of the Temple courtyard or the two wickets? The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as Rami bar Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was a small niche behind the Hall of the Ark Cover, which was eight cubits high. The function of this niche was in order to render fit the entire Temple courtyard for the eating of offerings of the most sacred order, and to render fit all of the Temple courtyard for the slaughter of offerings of lesser sanctity. And this is as it is written: โ€œFor the precinct westward, four at the causeway, and two at the precinctโ€ (Iย Chronicles 26:18). What is the meaning of the term: โ€œFor the precinct [laparbar]โ€? Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: It is like one who says: Facing outward [kelappei bar].


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืืœื ืขืœ


ยง Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One is liable for entering the Temple courtyard in a state of ritual impurity only with regard to


Scroll To Top