(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Zevachim 55


(a) (Gemara) Question: What is the source that they must be slaughtered in Tzafon?
(b) Answer #1 (Rabah bar bar Chanan - Beraisa): (On Shavu'os) "V'Asisem Se'ir...l'Chatas (u'Shnei Kevasim...Shelamim)" - just as Chatas must be in Tzafon, also Shalmei Tzibur.
(c) Objection (Rava): Chatas itself is learned from a Hekesh to Olah, it cannot teach about other Kodshim through a Hekesh!
(d) Answer #2 (Rava): We learn as Rav Mari learns.
1. (Rav Mari brei d'Rav Kahana): "Al Oloseichem v'Al Zivchei Shalmeichem" (this must refer to Shalmei Tzibur, we play trumpets only for Korbanos Tzibur) - just as Olah is Kodshei Kodoshim and must be in Tzafon, also Shalmei Tzibur.
2. Question: What do we learn from the Hekesh to Chatas (of the Beraisa)?
3. Answer: Just as Chatas is only eaten by male Kohanim, also Shalmei Tzibur.
(e) Question (Abaye): Regarding Ayil Nazir it says "V'Hikriv...l'Olah v'Kavsah...l'Chatas v'Ayil...l'Shelamim" - we should say that Ayil Nazir is Hukash to Chatas, to teach that only male Kohanim may eat it!
(f) Answer #1 (Rava): It says "V'Lakach ha'Kohen Es ha'Zro'a Beshelah Min ha'Ayil", implying that the rest of the ram (except for the foreleg (and Chazah v'Shok, which Kohanim receive from every Shelamim)) is eaten by the owner.
(g) Objection: In any case, we should say that only male Kohanim may eat the Zero'a (but the next Mishnah permits Kohanim's wives and slaves)!
1. This is left difficult.
(h) Answer #2: Ayil Nazir is called Kodesh, it is not called Kodshei Kodoshim (therefore, anyone may eat it).
(i) Question: Why did the Torah equate it to Chatas?
(j) Answer (Rava): (It explicitly says that the Ayil suffices to permit the Nazir to drink wine) - it is Hukash to Chatas (and Olah) to teach that any of the three suffices.
(a) (Mishnah): Todah and Ayil Nazir are Kodshim Kalim, they are slaughtered anywhere in the Azarah,
1. There are two Zerikos of blood which are four;
2. Anyone may eat the meat within Yerushalayim, cooked in any way, that day and until half the following night;
3. However, the parts given to Kohanim may be eaten only by Kohanim, their wives, children and slaves.
(b) Gemara (Beraisa - R. Nechemyah) Question: "V'Es Chaze ha'Tenufah v'Es Shok ha'Terumah Tochlu b'Makom Tahor" - were the previous Korbanos eaten in a Tamei place?!
(c) Answer: The place is Tahor from certain Teme'im (they are forbidden there), and Tamei regarding others (who are permitted);
1. A Metzora is forbidden, a Zav is permitted, i.e. the verse discusses Machaneh Yisrael.
(d) Question: Perhaps a Zav is forbidden and a Tamei Mes is permitted, i.e. the verse discusses Machaneh Levi!
(e) Answer #1 (Abaye): (Regarding the Minchah it says) "V'Achaltem *Osah* b'Makom Kadosh" - other Korbanos (i.e. Lachmei Todah, and Todah also) are not restricted to Makom Kadosh (Machaneh Shechinah), Machaneh Levi suffices;
1. It then says "B'Makom Tahor" (to permit (a place with) some Tum'ah) - this permits Machaneh Yisrael.
(f) Answer #2 (Rava):"V'Achaltem *Osah* b'Makom Kadosh" - this permits other Korbanos to be eaten anywhere;
1. It then says "B'Makom Tahor" to require (a place with some restrictions on Tum'ah, i.e.) Machaneh Yisrael.
(g) Question: Why not say that it requires Machaneh Levi?
(h) Answer: We learn the smallest Chidush, one Machaneh (higher level of Kedushah).
(i) Question: If so, also "Osah b'Makom Kadosh" should permit only one more Machaneh for other Korbanos, i.e. Machaneh Levi!
(j) Conclusion: We must rely on Abaye's answer.
(a) (Mishnah): Shelamim is Kodshim Kalim, it is slaughtered anywhere in the Azarah,
1. There are two Zerikos of blood which are effectively four;
2. Anyone may eat the meat within Yerushalayim, cooked in any way, for two days and the night in between;
3. The parts given to Kohanim may be eaten only by Kohanim, their wives, children and slaves.
(b) (Gemara - Beraisa): Regarding Shelamim it says "U'Shchato Pesach Ohel Mo'ed", and two more verses say "V'Shochat Oso Lifnei Ohel Mo'ed" - these permit the other three directions for slaughtering Kodshim Kalim; a Kal va'Chomer teaches that Tzafon is permitted:
1. Kodshei Kodoshim are permitted in Tzafon, not in other directions;
2. Kodshim Kalim are permitted in other directions , all the more so in Tzafon;
3. R. Eliezer says, the verse permits slaughtering in Tzafon; a Kal va'Chomer would have forbidden this:
4. All the other directions are permitted for Kodshim Kalim; yet they are not permitted for Kodshei Kodoshim; only one direction (Tzafon) is permitted for Kodshei Kodoshim, all the more so it is not permitted for other Kodshim (i.e. Kalim)!
5. Therefore, "Ohel Mo'ed" permits Tzafon.

(c) Question: What do they argue about?
(d) Answer: The first Tana holds that one verse is for simple Pshat, that the gate of the Heichal must be open, one permits the sides of the Heichal, one forbids the sides of the sides (i.e. chambers around the Azarah), the Tzafon doesn't need a verse.
1. R. Eliezer says that one requires the gate to be open, one permits Tzafon, and one permits the sides;
i. He holds that it is obvious that the sides of the sides are forbidden, no verse is needed for them.
(a) Question: Why does one verse say "Pesach Ohel Mo'ed", the others say "Lifnei Ohel Mo'ed"?
(b) Answer: This teaches Rav Yehudah's law.
1. Version #1 - (Rav Yehudah (and also Mar Ukva bar Chama)): If Shelamim was slaughtered before the gate of the Heichal was opened, it is Pasul - "U'Shchato *Pesach* Ohel Mo'ed", when it is open, not when it is locked.
2. Version #2 - Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael - (Rav Yakov bar Acha): If Shelamim was slaughtered (in the Beis ha'Mikdash) before the gate of the Heichal was opened, or (in the Midbar) before the Leviyim erected the Mishkan or after they dissembled it, it is Pasul.
(c) Clearly, if the door is shut, this is like being locked.
(d) Question: If a curtain covers the opening, is this considered open?
(e) Answer (R. Zeira): Since it is only to stop people from looking in (Tosfos - it is only for when the door is open), this is considered open.
(f) Question: If an obstruction is in front of the opening, what is the law?
(g) Answer (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): There were two openings in Beis ha'Chalifos (extensions of the Ulam to the sides - R. Yosi considers the Ulam to be like the Heichal) eight Amos tall, to permit eating Kodshei Kodoshim and slaughter of Kodshim Kalim in the entire Azarah.
1. Suggestion: In front of the openings were obstructions eight Amos tall, and still, they were considered open (to permit slaughter)!
(h) Rejection: No, there were no obstructions, the openings were eight Amos tall.
(i) Question (Mishnah): All gates in the Azarah were 20 Amos tall and 10 Amos wide.
(j) Answer: That does not apply to minor openings.
(k) Question: This only permits the part of the Azarah facing the Ulam, not the sides!
(l) Answer: The openings were in the corners of Beis ha'Chalifos (even from the sides faced them).
(m) Question: What opening permits in back of the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim?
(n) Answer (Rami bar Rav Yehudah): There was a Lul (window) enabling one to see into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim from the back;
1. Question: What does it mean "Shnayim (Leviyim guard) l'Parbar"?
2. (Rabah bar Rav Shila): It is as if says 'towards Bar (outside of the Lul)'.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,