Zevachim 55a (נה.) — 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:

With regard to the sheep of Shavuot, it is written: “

And you shall offer one goat as a sin-offering,”

and the conclusion of the verse is: “And two sheep as a peace-offering.” And we derive this through a 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: And from where did the sin-offering itself learn

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

to the burnt-offering.

But this too can be challenged: Is it the case that

a matter learned through a juxtaposition can return and teach through a juxtaposition?

And we resolve the difficulty:

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 offering does not require musical instruments; and they are juxtaposed to the burnt-offering:

Just as a burnt-offering is sacrificial food of the highest degree of sanctity, so too communal peace-offerings are sacrificial food of the highest degree of sanctity

and are thereby rendered unfit by being taken outside their designated area.

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

And now this is satisfactory, since the requirement of the north is explicitly written with regard to the burnt-offering.

And we raised the question:

But the first juxtaposition,

by which they were juxtaposed to the sin-offering,

what does it come to teach?

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

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

may be eaten only

by male members of the priesthood.

Abaye said to Rava

:

If so, with regard to the ram of a nazirite, concerning which it is written: “And he shall offer his offering to the Lord: one unblemished year-old lamb as a burnt-offering, one unblemished year-old ewe 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 priesthood, so too the nazirite’s ram may be eaten only by male members of the priesthood!?

But it is stated explicitly in the Mishna below that the nazirite’s ram may be eaten by anyone.

And we answer:

Can this be compared!?

What is the comparison!?

There,

with regard to the nazirite’s ram,

since it is written: “And the priest shall take the boiled foreleg from the ram,

it is sacred for the priest,”

from this you may infer

that

the entire

ram, apart from the foreleg,

is eaten by the owners.

And we challenge: Even so,

the boiled foreleg,

which the priest takes,

at least should be eaten only by male members of the priesthood

through the juxtaposition to the sin-offering. Why, then, does the Mishna below state that the portions taken from them may be eaten by the priests’ wives and slaves?

And we conclude:

The difficulty remains unresolved!

And if you wish, say:

Only

“sacred” is it called,

the boiled foreleg, as it is said of it: “It is sacred for the priest”; however,

it is not called “sacrificial food of the highest degree of sanctity”!

And the verse thereby excluded it from being juxtaposed to the sin-offering, so as to impose upon it the stringencies of sacrificial food of the highest degree of sanctity.

And we raised the question:

But for what halakhic purpose was

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

And we answer:

Rava said:

If the nazirite shaved

on account of any one of the three offerings, he has fulfilled his obligation.

Once he brings one of the three offerings—a burnt-offering, sin-offering, or peace-offering—and shaves, he is permitted to drink wine. It is the sin-offering that learned this law from the nazirite’s ram: Just as in the case of the nazirite’s ram, if he brought it alone, without the sin-offering and burnt-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation, since the nazirite’s principal shaving depends upon his peace-offering, with which he sends his hair beneath the pot of the peace-offering, so too if he brought only the sin-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation. The same applies to the burnt-offering, which was likewise juxtaposed to the nazirite’s ram.

Mishna:

The thanksgiving-offering and the nazirite’s ram,

which he brings when his period of naziriteship is complete,

are sacrificial food of lesser sanctity,

and misuse of them is not subject to liability.

Their slaughter may take place anywhere in the Temple courtyard,

and they do not require the north.

Their blood requires two placements, which are four, 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 one night, until midnight.

The portions taken from them,

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

like theirs:

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

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

by their wives,

and by their sons and 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 thanksgiving-offering is derived from peace-offerings, and the nazirite’s ram is included in the category of peace-offerings.

In the portion concerning the inauguration offerings, it is stated with regard to the communal peace-offerings:

“And you shall eat the breast of the waving and the foreleg of the teruma in a pure place.”

Rabbi Neḥemya said: But 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”—from this you may infer that it is impure.

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

Pure from the impurity of a leper,

who may not enter there,

but impure from the impurity of one with a discharge,

as one with a discharge may enter there.

And what

place

is this?

This is the Israelite camp

in the wilderness, and corresponding to it in the Temple, the area within Jerusalem, where a leper may not enter but one with a discharge 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 one with a discharge, and “impure” means impure from the impurity of the dead. And what is this? This is the Levite camp

in the wilderness, and corresponding to it in the Temple, the Temple Mount, where one with a discharge may not enter, but one impure from contact with the dead may enter. Is this the place where peace-offerings may be eaten?

And we answer:

Abaye said: The verse states

with regard to the meal-offering of the inauguration offerings:

“And you shall eat it in a sacred place,”

and we interpret this to mean specifically

“it”

you shall eat

in a sacred place, and not

another

meal-offering,

such as the loaves of a thanksgiving-offering,

“in a sacred place.”

And through this

it excluded

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

to the Levite camp.

And

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

to be even more lenient and say that any pure place is sufficient;

it excluded it to the Israelite camp! Rava said:

This is how it is expounded:

“It” in a sacred place, but not another in a sacred place. It excluded it entirely,

even outside Jerusalem.

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

and it is necessarily to impose a stringency and say:

It enters the Israelite camp!

And we raised the question:

Perhaps it enters the Levite camp!?

And we answer:

We bring it into one

camp,

but into two

namely, the Israelite camp and the Levite camp,

we do not bring it!

And we challenge Rava:

If so, the exclusion should likewise be

How can you say, “It excluded it entirely”? You said that only

from one 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 enter our minds to exclude it entirely, outside Jerusalem?

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

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

Mishna:

Peace-offerings are sacrificial food of lesser sanctity

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,

,

their slaughter may take place anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and their blood requires two placements, which are four. And 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 foreleg,

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

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

Three verses are stated concerning the slaughter of peace-offerings. With regard to cattle it is written:

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

With regard to a sheep it is written:

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

and with regard to a goat it is likewise written:

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

We learn from here

to render all directions valid for sacrificial food of lesser sanctity.

The word “before” indicates all the area in front of the Sanctuary and the areas to its sides.

And it follows by a kal va-chomer that the north

of the altar is also valid for slaughtering sacrificial food of lesser sanctity:

If sacrificial food of the highest degree of sanctity, which was not rendered valid

for slaughter

in all directions, was rendered valid in the north,

is it not certainly the case that sacrificial food of lesser sanctity, which was rendered valid in all directions, was rendered valid in the north!?

Rabbi Eliezer says: No.

One of these verses

was stated only to render the north valid. One might have thought

that the north is not valid for sacrificial food of lesser sanctity, because

this is a logical inference: If sacrificial food of lesser sanctity, which was rendered valid in all directions, did not have its place valid

for the slaughter of

sacrificial food of the highest degree of sanctity,

but sacrificial food of the highest degree of sanctity must be slaughtered only in the north,

then is it not logical that sacrificial food of the highest degree of sanctity, which was rendered valid only in the north, should not have its place valid

for the slaughter of sacrificial food of lesser sanctity

alongside it!? The verse therefore states

all those verses concerning

“the Tent of Meeting.”

The Rabbis do not expound this kal va-chomer, because one may say that the place for one was established specifically in the north, while the place for the other was established specifically in the other directions; the reason for the north is not that it is more sacred, for what distinction is there between them?