Zevachim 55

גמ׳ מנא לן דבעי צפון דתני רבה בר רב חנן קמיה דרבא ועשיתם שעיר עזים אחד לחטאת מה חטאת בצפון אף שלמי צבור בצפון

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 Ḥanan taught before Rava: The passage in the Torah discussing the offerings of Shavuot states: “And you shall offer one he-goat for a sin offering, and two male sheep in their first year for a sacrifice of peace offerings” (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.

אמר ליה רבא וכי חטאת מהיכן למדה מעולה דבר הלמד בהיקש חוזר ומלמד בהיקש

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: “Speak 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 holy” (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.

אלא מדתני רב מרי בריה דרב כהנא על עלתיכם ועל זבחי שלמיכם מה עולה קדשי קדשים אף זבחי שלמי צבור קדשי קדשים מה עולה בצפון אף זבחי שלמי צבור בצפון

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: “Also 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 God” (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.

אלא היקשא קמא למאי אתא כי חטאת מה חטאת אינה נאכלת אלא לזכרי כהונה אף זבחי שלמי צבור לזכרי כהונה

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.

אמר ליה אביי אי הכי גבי איל נזיר דכתיב והקריב את קרבנו לה׳ כבש בן שנתו תמים אחד לעלה וכבשה אחת בת שנתה [תמימה] לחטאת ואיל אחד [תמים] לשלמים הכי נמי נימא דהקיש הכתוב לחטאת מה חטאת אינה נאכלת אלא לזכרי כהונה אף איל נזיר נמי אינו נאכל אלא לזכרי כהונה

Abaye said to Rava: If so, then with regard to a nazirite’s ram, concerning which it is written in the verse: “And 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 offering” (Numbers 6:14), so too shall we say that the Torah juxtaposed the nazirite’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 nazirite’s ram is eaten only by male priests? As the next mishna states, a nazirite’s ram may be eaten by every ritually pure Jew.

הכי השתא התם כיון דכתיב ולקח הכהן את הזרע בשלה מן האיל מכלל דכוליה בעלים אכלי ליה

Rava answers: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to the nazirite’s ram, since it is written: “And the priest shall take the foreleg of the ram when it is cooked” (Numbers 6:19), by inference one can deduce that the owner may eat all of the remaining portions of the animal.

זרוע בשלה מיהא לא ליתאכיל אלא לזכרי כהונה קשיא

The Gemara asks: If so, in any event, the cooked foreleg of the nazirite’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.

ואיבעית אימא קדשי אקרי קדשי קדשים לא איקרו ואלא למאי הלכתא איתקש אמר רבא שאם גלח על אחד משלשתן יצא

The Gemara offers another explanation: And if you wish, say that the foreleg of the nazirite’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 nazirite’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.

מתני׳ התודה ואיל נזיר קדשים קלים שחיטתן בכל מקום בעזרה ודמן טעון שתי מתנות שהן ארבע ונאכלין בכל העיר לכל אדם בכל מאכל ליום ולילה עד חצות המורם מהם כיוצא בהן אלא שהמורם נאכל לכהנים לנשיהם ולבניהם ולעבדיהם

MISHNA: The thanks offering and nazirite’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.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן את חזה התנופה ואת שוק התרומה תאכלו במקום טהור אמר רבי נחמיה וכי ראשונים בטומאה אכלום

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the priests: “And 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 sons’ due, out of the peace offerings of the children of Israel” (Leviticus 10:14). Rabbi Neḥemya 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.

אלא טהור מכלל שהוא טמא טהור מטומאת מצורע וטמא מטומאת זב ואיזה זה זה מחנה ישראל

Rather, by inference, the word “pure” 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 Israelites’ 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.

ואימא טהור מטומאת זב וטמא מטומאת מת ואיזה זה זה מחנה לויה

The Gemara asks: But why not say that the word “pure” 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 Levites’ camp in the wilderness, and, once the Temple was built in Jerusalem, the Temple Mount.

אמר אביי אמר קרא ואכלתם אתה במקום קדוש אותה במקום קדוש ולא אחרת במקום קדוש אפקה למחנה לויה הדר כתיב במקום טהור אפקה למחנה ישראל

Abaye says that the verse states with regard to the meal offering: “And you shall eat it in a sacred place” (Leviticus 10:13). The word “it” is a restriction, teaching that one must eat “it,” 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 Levites’ camp. Then it is written: “You shall eat in a pure place,” which removes the portions from the Levites’ camp, to be eaten in the Israelites’ camp.

רבא אמר אותה במקום קדוש ולא אחרת במקום קדוש אפקה לגמרי הדר כתב רחמנא תאכלו במקום טהור עיילא למחנה ישראל

Rava says a different explanation: “It,” 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 Rava’s interpretation, these portions may be eaten anywhere. Then the Merciful One wrote: “You shall eat in a pure place,” which brings it into the Israelites’ camp, which is a pure place, relative to everywhere outside it.

ואימא עיילא למחנה לויה לחדא מעיילינן לתרתי לא מעיילינן

The Gemara asks: But why not say that the verse brings it into the Levites’ 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.

אי הכי אפוקי נמי לחדא מפקינן מתרתי לא מפקינן ועוד לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך כתיב אלא מחוורתא כדאביי

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 Israelites’ camp. And furthermore, it is written: “You 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 hand” (Deuteronomy 12:17). This verse negates the possibility that an offering may be eaten “in your gates,” 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.

מתני׳ שלמים קדשים קלים שחיטתן בכל מקום בעזרה ודמן טעון שתי מתנות שהן ארבע ונאכלין בכל העיר לכל אדם בכל מאכל לשני ימים ולילה אחד המורם מהם כיוצא בהם אלא שהמורם נאכל לכהנים לנשיהם ולבניהם ולעבדיהם

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.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן ושחטו פתח אהל מועד ושחט אתו לפני אהל מועד ושחט אותו לפני אהל מועד

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

להכשיר את כל הרוחות בקדשים קלים קל וחומר לצפון ומה קדשי קדשים שלא הוכשרו בכל הרוחות הוכשרו בצפון קדשים קלים שהוכשרו בכל הרוחות אינו דין שהוכשרו בצפון

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?

רבי אליעזר אומר לא נאמר הכתוב אלא להכשיר צפון שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה קדשים קלים שהוכשרו בכל הרוחות לא הוכשר מקומן אצל קדשי קדשים קדשי קדשים שלא הוכשרו אלא בצפון אינו דין שלא הוכשר מקומן אצל קדשים קלים תלמוד לומר אהל מועד

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: “Tent of Meeting,” to teach that offerings of lesser sanctity may be slaughtered in the north.

במאי קא מיפלגי תנא קמא סבר תלתא קראי כתיבי חד לגופיה דניבעי פתח אהל מועד וחד להכשיר צדדין וחד לפסול צידי צדדין וצפון לא איצטריך קרא

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.

ורבי אליעזר סבר חד לגופיה דניבעי פתח אהל מועד וחד להכשיר צפון וחד להכשיר צדדין וצידי צדדין לא איצטריך קרא

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.

מאי שנא הכא דכתיב פתח אהל מועד ומאי שנא התם דכתיב לפני אהל מועד קא משמע לן כדרב יהודה אמר שמואל דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שלמים ששחטן קודם שיפתחו דלתות ההיכל פסולין שנאמר ושחטו פתח אהל מועד בזמן שהוא פתוח ולא בזמן שהוא נעול

§ The Gemara asks: What is different here that it is written: “At the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 3:2), and what is different there that it is written: “Before the Tent of Meeting” (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: “And he shall slaughter it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” (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.

איתמר נמי אמר מר עוקבא בר חמא אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא שלמים ששחטן קודם שיפתחו דלתות ההיכל פסולין שנאמר ושחטו פתח אהל מועד בזמן שפתח ההיכל פתוח ולא בזמן שהוא נעול

It was also stated: Mar Ukva bar Ḥama says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Peace offerings that one slaughtered before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened are disqualified, as it is stated in the verse: “He shall slaughter it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 3:2). This means when the entrance of the Sanctuary is open, and not when it is locked.

במערבא מתני הכי אמר רב יעקב בר אחא אמר רב אשי שלמים ששחטן קודם שיפתחו דלתות ההיכל פסולים ובמשכן קודם שיעמידו לוים את המשכן ולאחר שיפרקו לוים את המשכן פסולים

In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they teach this halakha like this: Rav Ya’akov bar Aḥa 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.

פשיטא מוגף כנעול דמי וילון מאי אמר רבי זירא הוא עצמו אין נעשה אלא כפתח פתוח

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.

גובהה מאי תא שמע דתניא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר שני פשפשין היו בבית החליפות וגובהן שמנה כדי להכשיר את העזרה כולה לאכילת קדשי קדשים ולשחיטת קדשים קלים

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 “before the Tent of Meeting.”

מאי לאו דאיכא קמייהו שמונה לא דגבהו נינהו שמונה

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.

מיתיבי כל השערים שהיו שם גובהן עשרים אמה ורוחבן עשר אמה פשפשין שאני

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.

והאיכא צדדין דמעייל להו בקרן זוית

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.

אחורי בית הכפורת מאי תא שמע דאמר רמי בר רב יהודה אמר רב לול קטן היה אחורי בית הכפורת גבוה שמונה אמות כדי להכשיר את העזרה לאכילת קדשי קדשים ולשחיטת קדשים קלים והיינו דכתיב שנים לפרבר מאי לפרבר אמר רבה בר רב שילא כמאן דאמר כלפי בר

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: “For the precinct westward, four at the causeway, and two at the precinct” (I Chronicles 26:18). What is the meaning of the term: “For the precinct [laparbar]”? Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: It is like one who says: Facing outward [kelappei bar].

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אין חייבין משום טומאה אלא על

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