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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 7, 2018 | 讻状讚 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Zevachim 55

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

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚讘注讬 爪驻讜谉 讚转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜注砖讬转诐 砖注讬专 注讝讬诐 讗讞讚 诇讞讟讗转 诪讛 讞讟讗转 讘爪驻讜谉 讗祝 砖诇诪讬 爪讘讜专 讘爪驻讜谉

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 岣nan taught before Rava: The passage in the Torah discussing the offerings of Shavuot states: 鈥淎nd you shall offer one he-goat for a sin offering, and two male sheep in their first year for a sacrifice of peace offerings鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讻讬 讞讟讗转 诪讛讬讻谉 诇诪讚讛 诪注讜诇讛 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 讞讜讝专 讜诪诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖

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: 鈥淪peak 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鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 诪讚转谞讬 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 注诇 注诇转讬讻诐 讜注诇 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬讻诐 诪讛 注讜诇讛 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讗祝 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讘讜专 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诪讛 注讜诇讛 讘爪驻讜谉 讗祝 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讘讜专 讘爪驻讜谉

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: 鈥淎lso 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鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 讛讬拽砖讗 拽诪讗 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 讻讬 讞讟讗转 诪讛 讞讟讗转 讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 讗诇讗 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讗祝 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讘讜专 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讘讬 讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛拽专讬讘 讗转 拽专讘谞讜 诇讛壮 讻讘砖 讘谉 砖谞转讜 转诪讬诐 讗讞讚 诇注诇讛 讜讻讘砖讛 讗讞转 讘转 砖谞转讛 [转诪讬诪讛] 诇讞讟讗转 讜讗讬诇 讗讞讚 [转诪讬诐] 诇砖诇诪讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讚讛拽讬砖 讛讻转讜讘 诇讞讟讗转 诪讛 讞讟讗转 讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 讗诇讗 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讗祝 讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 讗诇讗 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛

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

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讝专注 讘砖诇讛 诪谉 讛讗讬诇 诪讻诇诇 讚讻讜诇讬讛 讘注诇讬诐 讗讻诇讬 诇讬讛

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

讝专讜注 讘砖诇讛 诪讬讛讗 诇讗 诇讬转讗讻讬诇 讗诇讗 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛 拽砖讬讗

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

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽讚砖讬 讗拽专讬 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 讗讬拽专讜 讜讗诇讗 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬转拽砖 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讗诐 讙诇讞 注诇 讗讞讚 诪砖诇砖转谉 讬爪讗

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

诪转谞讬壮 讛转讜讚讛 讜讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讞讬讟转谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讘注讝专讛 讜讚诪谉 讟注讜谉 砖转讬 诪转谞讜转 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 讜谞讗讻诇讬谉 讘讻诇 讛注讬专 诇讻诇 讗讚诐 讘讻诇 诪讗讻诇 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛 注讚 讞爪讜转 讛诪讜专诐 诪讛诐 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讗诇讗 砖讛诪讜专诐 谞讗讻诇 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诇谞砖讬讛诐 讜诇讘谞讬讛诐 讜诇注讘讚讬讛诐

MISHNA: The thanks offering and nazirite鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗转 讞讝讛 讛转谞讜驻讛 讜讗转 砖讜拽 讛转专讜诪讛 转讗讻诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讜讻讬 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讗讻诇讜诐

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the priests: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 due, out of the peace offerings of the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 10:14). Rabbi Ne岣mya 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.

讗诇讗 讟讛讜专 诪讻诇诇 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讟讛讜专 诪讟讜诪讗转 诪爪讜专注 讜讟诪讗 诪讟讜诪讗转 讝讘 讜讗讬讝讛 讝讛 讝讛 诪讞谞讛 讬砖专讗诇

Rather, by inference, the word 鈥減ure鈥 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鈥 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 讟讛讜专 诪讟讜诪讗转 讝讘 讜讟诪讗 诪讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讜讗讬讝讛 讝讛 讝讛 诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讛

The Gemara asks: But why not say that the word 鈥減ure鈥 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鈥 camp in the wilderness, and, once the Temple was built in Jerusalem, the Temple Mount.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讻诇转诐 讗转讛 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讗讜转讛 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讜诇讗 讗讞专转 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讗驻拽讛 诇诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讛 讛讚专 讻转讬讘 讘诪拽讜诐 讟讛讜专 讗驻拽讛 诇诪讞谞讛 讬砖专讗诇

Abaye says that the verse states with regard to the meal offering: 鈥淎nd you shall eat it in a sacred place鈥 (Leviticus 10:13). The word 鈥渋t鈥 is a restriction, teaching that one must eat 鈥渋t,鈥 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鈥 camp. Then it is written: 鈥淵ou shall eat in a pure place,鈥 which removes the portions from the Levites鈥 camp, to be eaten in the Israelites鈥 camp.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讜转讛 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讜诇讗 讗讞专转 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讗驻拽讛 诇讙诪专讬 讛讚专 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 转讗讻诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讟讛讜专 注讬讬诇讗 诇诪讞谞讛 讬砖专讗诇

Rava says a different explanation: 鈥淚t,鈥 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鈥檚 interpretation, these portions may be eaten anywhere. Then the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淵ou shall eat in a pure place,鈥 which brings it into the Israelites鈥 camp, which is a pure place, relative to everywhere outside it.

讜讗讬诪讗 注讬讬诇讗 诇诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讛 诇讞讚讗 诪注讬讬诇讬谞谉 诇转专转讬 诇讗 诪注讬讬诇讬谞谉

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

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讜拽讬 谞诪讬 诇讞讚讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪转专转讬 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 讜注讜讚 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖注专讬讱 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚讗讘讬讬

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鈥 camp. And furthermore, it is written: 鈥淵ou 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17). This verse negates the possibility that an offering may be eaten 鈥渋n your gates,鈥 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.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇诪讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讞讬讟转谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讘注讝专讛 讜讚诪谉 讟注讜谉 砖转讬 诪转谞讜转 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 讜谞讗讻诇讬谉 讘讻诇 讛注讬专 诇讻诇 讗讚诐 讘讻诇 诪讗讻诇 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚 讛诪讜专诐 诪讛诐 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛诐 讗诇讗 砖讛诪讜专诐 谞讗讻诇 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诇谞砖讬讛诐 讜诇讘谞讬讛诐 讜诇注讘讚讬讛诐

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜砖讞讟讜 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜砖讞讟 讗转讜 诇驻谞讬 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜砖讞讟 讗讜转讜 诇驻谞讬 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚

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

诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讻诇 讛专讜讞讜转 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇爪驻讜谉 讜诪讛 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘讻诇 讛专讜讞讜转 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘爪驻讜谉 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讛讜讻砖专讜 讘讻诇 讛专讜讞讜转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讛讜讻砖专讜 讘爪驻讜谉

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?

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讛讻砖讬专 爪驻讜谉 砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讛讜讻砖专讜 讘讻诇 讛专讜讞讜转 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专 诪拽讜诪谉 讗爪诇 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 讗诇讗 讘爪驻讜谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专 诪拽讜诪谉 讗爪诇 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚

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: 鈥淭ent of Meeting,鈥 to teach that offerings of lesser sanctity may be slaughtered in the north.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讞讚 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讚谞讬讘注讬 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜讞讚 诇讛讻砖讬专 爪讚讚讬谉 讜讞讚 诇驻住讜诇 爪讬讚讬 爪讚讚讬谉 讜爪驻讜谉 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗

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.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讞讚 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讚谞讬讘注讬 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜讞讚 诇讛讻砖讬专 爪驻讜谉 讜讞讚 诇讛讻砖讬专 爪讚讚讬谉 讜爪讬讚讬 爪讚讚讬谉 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗

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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 诇驻谞讬 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇诪讬诐 砖砖讞讟谉 拽讜讚诐 砖讬驻转讞讜 讚诇转讜转 讛讛讬讻诇 驻住讜诇讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讞讟讜 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 驻转讜讞 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 谞注讜诇

搂 The Gemara asks: What is different here that it is written: 鈥淎t the entrance to the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 3:2), and what is different there that it is written: 鈥淏efore the Tent of Meeting鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting鈥 (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.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 砖诇诪讬诐 砖砖讞讟谉 拽讜讚诐 砖讬驻转讞讜 讚诇转讜转 讛讛讬讻诇 驻住讜诇讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讞讟讜 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讘讝诪谉 砖驻转讞 讛讛讬讻诇 驻转讜讞 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 谞注讜诇

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

讘诪注专讘讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖诇诪讬诐 砖砖讞讟谉 拽讜讚诐 砖讬驻转讞讜 讚诇转讜转 讛讛讬讻诇 驻住讜诇讬诐 讜讘诪砖讻谉 拽讜讚诐 砖讬注诪讬讚讜 诇讜讬诐 讗转 讛诪砖讻谉 讜诇讗讞专 砖讬驻专拽讜 诇讜讬诐 讗转 讛诪砖讻谉 驻住讜诇讬诐

In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they teach this halakha like this: Rav Ya鈥檃kov bar A岣 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.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讜讙祝 讻谞注讜诇 讚诪讬 讜讬诇讜谉 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讗讬谉 谞注砖讛 讗诇讗 讻驻转讞 驻转讜讞

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.

讙讜讘讛讛 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 驻砖驻砖讬谉 讛讬讜 讘讘讬转 讛讞诇讬驻讜转 讜讙讜讘讛谉 砖诪谞讛 讻讚讬 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛注讝专讛 讻讜诇讛 诇讗讻讬诇转 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜诇砖讞讬讟转 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐

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 鈥渂efore the Tent of Meeting.鈥

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讬讻讗 拽诪讬讬讛讜 砖诪讜谞讛 诇讗 讚讙讘讛讜 谞讬谞讛讜 砖诪讜谞讛

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 讛砖注专讬诐 砖讛讬讜 砖诐 讙讜讘讛谉 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜专讜讞讘谉 注砖专 讗诪讛 驻砖驻砖讬谉 砖讗谞讬

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.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 爪讚讚讬谉 讚诪注讬讬诇 诇讛讜 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转

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.

讗讞讜专讬 讘讬转 讛讻驻讜专转 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讜诇 拽讟谉 讛讬讛 讗讞讜专讬 讘讬转 讛讻驻讜专转 讙讘讜讛 砖诪讜谞讛 讗诪讜转 讻讚讬 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛注讝专讛 诇讗讻讬诇转 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜诇砖讞讬讟转 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 砖谞讬诐 诇驻专讘专 诪讗讬 诇驻专讘专 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇驻讬 讘专

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

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讗 注诇

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's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

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

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚讘注讬 爪驻讜谉 讚转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜注砖讬转诐 砖注讬专 注讝讬诐 讗讞讚 诇讞讟讗转 诪讛 讞讟讗转 讘爪驻讜谉 讗祝 砖诇诪讬 爪讘讜专 讘爪驻讜谉

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 岣nan taught before Rava: The passage in the Torah discussing the offerings of Shavuot states: 鈥淎nd you shall offer one he-goat for a sin offering, and two male sheep in their first year for a sacrifice of peace offerings鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讻讬 讞讟讗转 诪讛讬讻谉 诇诪讚讛 诪注讜诇讛 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 讞讜讝专 讜诪诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖

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: 鈥淪peak 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鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 诪讚转谞讬 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 注诇 注诇转讬讻诐 讜注诇 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬讻诐 诪讛 注讜诇讛 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讗祝 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讘讜专 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诪讛 注讜诇讛 讘爪驻讜谉 讗祝 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讘讜专 讘爪驻讜谉

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: 鈥淎lso 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鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 讛讬拽砖讗 拽诪讗 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 讻讬 讞讟讗转 诪讛 讞讟讗转 讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 讗诇讗 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讗祝 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讘讜专 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讘讬 讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛拽专讬讘 讗转 拽专讘谞讜 诇讛壮 讻讘砖 讘谉 砖谞转讜 转诪讬诐 讗讞讚 诇注诇讛 讜讻讘砖讛 讗讞转 讘转 砖谞转讛 [转诪讬诪讛] 诇讞讟讗转 讜讗讬诇 讗讞讚 [转诪讬诐] 诇砖诇诪讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讚讛拽讬砖 讛讻转讜讘 诇讞讟讗转 诪讛 讞讟讗转 讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 讗诇讗 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讗祝 讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 讗诇讗 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛

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

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讝专注 讘砖诇讛 诪谉 讛讗讬诇 诪讻诇诇 讚讻讜诇讬讛 讘注诇讬诐 讗讻诇讬 诇讬讛

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

讝专讜注 讘砖诇讛 诪讬讛讗 诇讗 诇讬转讗讻讬诇 讗诇讗 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛 拽砖讬讗

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

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽讚砖讬 讗拽专讬 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 讗讬拽专讜 讜讗诇讗 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬转拽砖 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讗诐 讙诇讞 注诇 讗讞讚 诪砖诇砖转谉 讬爪讗

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

诪转谞讬壮 讛转讜讚讛 讜讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讞讬讟转谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讘注讝专讛 讜讚诪谉 讟注讜谉 砖转讬 诪转谞讜转 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 讜谞讗讻诇讬谉 讘讻诇 讛注讬专 诇讻诇 讗讚诐 讘讻诇 诪讗讻诇 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛 注讚 讞爪讜转 讛诪讜专诐 诪讛诐 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讗诇讗 砖讛诪讜专诐 谞讗讻诇 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诇谞砖讬讛诐 讜诇讘谞讬讛诐 讜诇注讘讚讬讛诐

MISHNA: The thanks offering and nazirite鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗转 讞讝讛 讛转谞讜驻讛 讜讗转 砖讜拽 讛转专讜诪讛 转讗讻诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讜讻讬 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讗讻诇讜诐

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the priests: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 due, out of the peace offerings of the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 10:14). Rabbi Ne岣mya 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.

讗诇讗 讟讛讜专 诪讻诇诇 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讟讛讜专 诪讟讜诪讗转 诪爪讜专注 讜讟诪讗 诪讟讜诪讗转 讝讘 讜讗讬讝讛 讝讛 讝讛 诪讞谞讛 讬砖专讗诇

Rather, by inference, the word 鈥減ure鈥 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鈥 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 讟讛讜专 诪讟讜诪讗转 讝讘 讜讟诪讗 诪讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讜讗讬讝讛 讝讛 讝讛 诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讛

The Gemara asks: But why not say that the word 鈥減ure鈥 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鈥 camp in the wilderness, and, once the Temple was built in Jerusalem, the Temple Mount.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讻诇转诐 讗转讛 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讗讜转讛 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讜诇讗 讗讞专转 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讗驻拽讛 诇诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讛 讛讚专 讻转讬讘 讘诪拽讜诐 讟讛讜专 讗驻拽讛 诇诪讞谞讛 讬砖专讗诇

Abaye says that the verse states with regard to the meal offering: 鈥淎nd you shall eat it in a sacred place鈥 (Leviticus 10:13). The word 鈥渋t鈥 is a restriction, teaching that one must eat 鈥渋t,鈥 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鈥 camp. Then it is written: 鈥淵ou shall eat in a pure place,鈥 which removes the portions from the Levites鈥 camp, to be eaten in the Israelites鈥 camp.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讜转讛 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讜诇讗 讗讞专转 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讗驻拽讛 诇讙诪专讬 讛讚专 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 转讗讻诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讟讛讜专 注讬讬诇讗 诇诪讞谞讛 讬砖专讗诇

Rava says a different explanation: 鈥淚t,鈥 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鈥檚 interpretation, these portions may be eaten anywhere. Then the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淵ou shall eat in a pure place,鈥 which brings it into the Israelites鈥 camp, which is a pure place, relative to everywhere outside it.

讜讗讬诪讗 注讬讬诇讗 诇诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讛 诇讞讚讗 诪注讬讬诇讬谞谉 诇转专转讬 诇讗 诪注讬讬诇讬谞谉

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

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讜拽讬 谞诪讬 诇讞讚讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪转专转讬 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 讜注讜讚 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖注专讬讱 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚讗讘讬讬

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鈥 camp. And furthermore, it is written: 鈥淵ou 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17). This verse negates the possibility that an offering may be eaten 鈥渋n your gates,鈥 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.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇诪讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讞讬讟转谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讘注讝专讛 讜讚诪谉 讟注讜谉 砖转讬 诪转谞讜转 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 讜谞讗讻诇讬谉 讘讻诇 讛注讬专 诇讻诇 讗讚诐 讘讻诇 诪讗讻诇 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚 讛诪讜专诐 诪讛诐 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛诐 讗诇讗 砖讛诪讜专诐 谞讗讻诇 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诇谞砖讬讛诐 讜诇讘谞讬讛诐 讜诇注讘讚讬讛诐

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜砖讞讟讜 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜砖讞讟 讗转讜 诇驻谞讬 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜砖讞讟 讗讜转讜 诇驻谞讬 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚

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

诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讻诇 讛专讜讞讜转 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇爪驻讜谉 讜诪讛 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘讻诇 讛专讜讞讜转 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘爪驻讜谉 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讛讜讻砖专讜 讘讻诇 讛专讜讞讜转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讛讜讻砖专讜 讘爪驻讜谉

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?

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讛讻砖讬专 爪驻讜谉 砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讛讜讻砖专讜 讘讻诇 讛专讜讞讜转 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专 诪拽讜诪谉 讗爪诇 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 讗诇讗 讘爪驻讜谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专 诪拽讜诪谉 讗爪诇 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚

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: 鈥淭ent of Meeting,鈥 to teach that offerings of lesser sanctity may be slaughtered in the north.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讞讚 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讚谞讬讘注讬 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜讞讚 诇讛讻砖讬专 爪讚讚讬谉 讜讞讚 诇驻住讜诇 爪讬讚讬 爪讚讚讬谉 讜爪驻讜谉 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗

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.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讞讚 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讚谞讬讘注讬 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜讞讚 诇讛讻砖讬专 爪驻讜谉 讜讞讚 诇讛讻砖讬专 爪讚讚讬谉 讜爪讬讚讬 爪讚讚讬谉 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗

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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 诇驻谞讬 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇诪讬诐 砖砖讞讟谉 拽讜讚诐 砖讬驻转讞讜 讚诇转讜转 讛讛讬讻诇 驻住讜诇讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讞讟讜 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 驻转讜讞 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 谞注讜诇

搂 The Gemara asks: What is different here that it is written: 鈥淎t the entrance to the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 3:2), and what is different there that it is written: 鈥淏efore the Tent of Meeting鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting鈥 (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.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 砖诇诪讬诐 砖砖讞讟谉 拽讜讚诐 砖讬驻转讞讜 讚诇转讜转 讛讛讬讻诇 驻住讜诇讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讞讟讜 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讘讝诪谉 砖驻转讞 讛讛讬讻诇 驻转讜讞 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 谞注讜诇

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

讘诪注专讘讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖诇诪讬诐 砖砖讞讟谉 拽讜讚诐 砖讬驻转讞讜 讚诇转讜转 讛讛讬讻诇 驻住讜诇讬诐 讜讘诪砖讻谉 拽讜讚诐 砖讬注诪讬讚讜 诇讜讬诐 讗转 讛诪砖讻谉 讜诇讗讞专 砖讬驻专拽讜 诇讜讬诐 讗转 讛诪砖讻谉 驻住讜诇讬诐

In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they teach this halakha like this: Rav Ya鈥檃kov bar A岣 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.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讜讙祝 讻谞注讜诇 讚诪讬 讜讬诇讜谉 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讗讬谉 谞注砖讛 讗诇讗 讻驻转讞 驻转讜讞

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.

讙讜讘讛讛 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 驻砖驻砖讬谉 讛讬讜 讘讘讬转 讛讞诇讬驻讜转 讜讙讜讘讛谉 砖诪谞讛 讻讚讬 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛注讝专讛 讻讜诇讛 诇讗讻讬诇转 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜诇砖讞讬讟转 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐

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 鈥渂efore the Tent of Meeting.鈥

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讬讻讗 拽诪讬讬讛讜 砖诪讜谞讛 诇讗 讚讙讘讛讜 谞讬谞讛讜 砖诪讜谞讛

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 讛砖注专讬诐 砖讛讬讜 砖诐 讙讜讘讛谉 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜专讜讞讘谉 注砖专 讗诪讛 驻砖驻砖讬谉 砖讗谞讬

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.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 爪讚讚讬谉 讚诪注讬讬诇 诇讛讜 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转

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.

讗讞讜专讬 讘讬转 讛讻驻讜专转 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讜诇 拽讟谉 讛讬讛 讗讞讜专讬 讘讬转 讛讻驻讜专转 讙讘讜讛 砖诪讜谞讛 讗诪讜转 讻讚讬 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛注讝专讛 诇讗讻讬诇转 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜诇砖讞讬讟转 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 砖谞讬诐 诇驻专讘专 诪讗讬 诇驻专讘专 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇驻讬 讘专

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

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讗 注诇

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