Zevachim 55a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And we raised the question:

From where do we know

that communal peace-offerings

require the north? [(

In the case of a guilt-offering, it is explicitly written: “In the place where they slaughter the burnt-offering, they shall slaughter the guilt-offering.”)]

And we answer:

Rabba bar Rav Hanan taught before Rava:

It is written concerning the lambs of Shavuot: “And you shall offer one goat as a sin-offering”

;

and the end of the verse states: “and two lambs as a peace-offering.” And we derive this through juxtaposition:

Just as a sin-offering is [slaughtered] in the north, so too communal peace-offerings are [slaughtered] in the north.

Rava said to him: From where did the sin-offering itself learn

that it is [slaughtered] in the north? Through juxtaposition

with the burnt-offering.

And one can object: Is it possible that

something learned through juxtaposition can then teach through juxtaposition?

And we answer:

Rather,

we derive the requirement of the north

from what Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, taught:

It is written: “And you shall sound the trumpets

over your burnt-offerings and over your peace-offerings,”

and this refers to communal peace-offerings, since an individual’s offering does not require musical instruments. And they are juxtaposed to the burnt-offering:

Just as a burnt-offering is a most sacred offering, so too communal peace-offerings are most sacred offerings

and become disqualified if they leave the permitted area.

Just as a burnt-offering is [slaughtered] in the north, so too communal peace-offerings are [slaughtered] in the north.

This now works, since the requirement of the north is explicitly written concerning the burnt-offering.

And we raised the question:

But the first juxtaposition,

which juxtaposed them to the sin-offering,

what does it come to teach?

And we answer: To teach you that just as a sin-offering

may be eaten only by male members of the priestly family, so too communal peace-offerings

may be eaten only

by male members of the priestly family.

Abaye said

to Rava:

If so, concerning the nazirite’s ram, about which it is written: “He shall offer his offering to the Lord: one unblemished male lamb in its first year as a burnt-offering, one unblemished female lamb in its first year as a sin-offering, and one unblemished ram as a peace-offering,”

should

we likewise say that the verse juxtaposed

the peace-offering ram

to the sin-offering: Just as a sin-offering may be eaten only by male members of the priestly family, so too the nazirite’s ram may be eaten only by male members of the priestly family!?

But it is taught later in the Mishna that the nazirite’s ram may be eaten by everyone.

And we answer:

How can these cases be compared!?

What is the comparison?

There,

in the case of the nazirite’s ram,

since it is written: “The priest shall take the cooked foreleg from the ram,

which is sacred to the priest,”

it follows

that

the entire

ram, apart from the foreleg,

is eaten by the owners.

And we object: Even so,

the cooked foreleg,

which the priest takes,

should at least be eaten only by male members of the priestly family

because of the juxtaposition to the sin-offering. Why, then, do we learn in the Mishna below that the portions taken from them may be eaten by the priests’ wives and slaves?

And we conclude:

This is difficult!

Alternatively,

only the term

“sacred” is used

of the cooked foreleg, as it is said: “It is sacred to the priest”; but

it is not called “a most sacred offering”!

And the verse thereby excludes it from being compared to the sin-offering, so that the stringencies of most sacred offerings would not apply to it.

And we raised the question:

Then for what law was

the nazirite’s ram juxtaposed to the sin-offering?

And we answer:

Rava said:

If the nazirite shaved

after bringing any one of the three offerings, he has fulfilled his obligation.

Once he brought any one of the three offerings—a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, or a peace-offering—and shaved, he was permitted to drink wine. The sin-offering learns this law from the nazirite’s ram: Just as in the case of the nazirite’s ram, if he brought it by itself, without the sin-offering and burnt-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation, since the nazirite’s principal shaving is dependent on his peace-offering, over which he shaves his hair, so too, if he brought only the sin-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation. The same applies to the burnt-offering, which is also juxtaposed to the nazirite’s ram.

Mishna:

The thanksgiving-offering and the nazirite’s ram,

which he brings when his nazirite term is complete,

are lesser sanctity offerings,

and one may not misuse them.

Their slaughter may take place anywhere in the Temple courtyard,

and they do not require the north.

Their blood requires four placements resulting from two acts of placement, and they may be eaten throughout the city

within the walls of Jerusalem,

by anyone,

even by an Israelite,

with any food, for one day and the following night, until midnight.

The portions taken from them,

the breast and the thigh from both offerings, as with ordinary peace-offerings; from the thanksgiving-offering, four loaves from its four types of loaves; and from the nazirite’s ram, the cooked foreleg, one loaf, and one wafer—their law

is the same as theirs:

they may be eaten throughout the city for one day and the following night,

except that the portions taken from them may be eaten by priests,

their wives,

their sons and their slaves.

But not by a non-priest.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

This beraita teaches from where we know that peace-offerings may be eaten throughout the city. The law of the thanksgiving-offering is learned from peace-offerings, and the nazirite’s ram is included among peace-offerings.

In the section describing the offerings of the inauguration, it is stated concerning the communal peace-offerings:

“You shall eat the breast of the waving and the thigh of the offering in a pure place.”

Rabbi Neḥemya said: Did the earlier offerings,

the offerings mentioned there first, such as the sin-offering goats and the meal-offering,

eat them in a state of impurity!? Rather,

this is what the verse means:

“Pure”—which implies that it is impure in some respect.

Since it does not say “in a sacred place,” we learn that it is a place that is partially pure but not entirely pure. What place is this?

Pure from the impurity of a person with leprosy,

who may not enter there,

but impure from the impurity of a zav,

who may enter there.

And what

place

is this?

This is the Israelite camp

in the wilderness. Corresponding to it in the Temple is the area within Jerusalem, where a person with leprosy may not enter but a zav may enter. This is the place where peace-offerings may be eaten.

And we raised the question:

Perhaps “pure” means pure from the impurity of a zav, and “impure” means impure from the impurity of the dead. And what place is this? This is the Levite camp

in the wilderness. Corresponding to it in the Temple is the Temple Mount, where a zav may not enter but a person impure through contact with the dead may enter. Is this the place where peace-offerings may be eaten?

And we answer:

Abaye said: The verse states

concerning the meal-offering of the inauguration:

“You shall eat it in a sacred place,”

and we expound: specifically

“it”

shall be eaten

in a sacred place, and not

another meal-offering,

such as

the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering,

“in a sacred place.”

And by this

it excludes

the obligation to eat in the camp of the Divine Presence, namely the courtyard, where the thanksgiving-offering and its loaves are offered,

to the Levite camp.

And

then the Merciful One wrote: “in a pure place,”

to relax the requirement further and say that any partially pure place is sufficient;

it excludes it to the Israelite camp! Rava said:

This is how it is expounded:

“It” [shall be eaten] in a sacred place, but nothing else in a sacred place. It excludes it entirely,

even outside Jerusalem.

Then the Merciful One wrote: “You shall eat in a pure place,”

and it necessarily teaches stringently that

it enters the Israelite camp!

And we raised the question:

Perhaps it enters the Levite camp!?

And we answer:

For one

camp

we bring it in; for two

that is, for both the Israelite and Levite camps,

we do not bring it in!

And we object to Rava:

If so, the exclusion should also be

complete. How could you say, “It excludes it entirely”? After all, you said that only

from one

camp do we exclude it—from the camp of the Divine Presence to the Levite camp—

but from two we do not exclude it,

and certainly we should not exclude it entirely.

Furthermore,

how could it have occurred to us to exclude it completely, outside Jerusalem? After all,

it is written: “You may not eat within your gates”!

Rather, it is clear that it is as Abaye said!

Mishna:

Peace-offerings are lesser sanctity offerings.

They

may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and their blood requires four placements resulting from two acts of placement. They may be eaten throughout the city, by anyone, with any food,

,

for two

days and one night

between them.

The portions taken from them

the breast and the thigh

have the same status as theirs, except that the portions taken from them may be eaten by priests, their wives, their sons, and their slaves.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

Three verses are stated concerning the slaughter of peace-offerings. Concerning cattle, it is written:

“And they shall slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.”

Concerning a sheep, it is written:

“And he shall slaughter it before the Tent of Meeting,”

and concerning a goat it is likewise written:

“And he shall slaughter it before the Tent of Meeting.”

We learn from here

to permit all directions for lesser sanctity offerings.

The word “before” includes every area in front of the Sanctuary and the areas at its sides.

And all the more so the north

of the altar is fit for slaughtering lesser sanctity offerings there, because

if most sacred offerings, which were not permitted

to be slaughtered

in all directions, were permitted in the north,

is it not certainly the case that lesser sanctity offerings, which were permitted in all directions, are permitted in the north!?

Rabbi Eliezer says: One

of these verses

was stated only to permit the north. One might have thought

that the north is not valid for lesser sanctity offerings, because

there is an a-fortiori inference: If lesser sanctity offerings, which were permitted in all directions, did not have their place permitted

for

the slaughter of most sacred offerings,

but most sacred offerings must be slaughtered only in the north,

then most sacred offerings, which were permitted only in the north, surely do not have their place permitted

for the slaughter of lesser sanctity offerings.

The verse therefore states

all these verses concerning the

“Tent of Meeting,” [(

and the Sages do not expound the a-fortiori inference, since one may say that the place for one was established specifically in the north and the place for the other specifically in the other directions; the reason for the north is not that it is more sacred, for what difference is there between them.)]