(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 Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Zevachim 55



(a) The Beraisa cited by Rabah bar Rav Chanan learns from the fact that the Pasuk in Emor juxtaposes the two lambs of the Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur to the Sa'ir Chatas that was brought together with them - that the former require Tzafon (like it does).

(b) Rava objects to this Limud - due to the fact that we only know Chatas itself from a Hekesh to Olah, and as we already know, we cannot learn one Hekesh from another by Kodshim.

(c) So he cites another Beraisa in the name of Rav Mari b'rei de'Rav Kahana. The Tana there learns Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur from a Hekesh to Olah (from the Pasuk "al Oloseichem ve'al Zivchei Shalmeichem").

(d) And from the first Hekesh (comparing the Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur to Chatas) - we learn that Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, like Chatas, they can only be eaten by male Kohanim.

(a) By the same token, Abaye asked Rava, why we do not learn from the Pasuk (comparing the ram of the Shalmei Nazir to the she-lamb of his Chatas) that the former may only be eaten by male Kohanim. In answer, Rava quoted him the Pasuk "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen es ha'Zero'a Besheilah" - implying that the rest of the animal remains the owner's and may be eaten by him.

(b) Abaye nevertheless had a problem with the Hekesh in this Pasuk (which, according to the first Lashon, Rava was unable to answer) - that at least the Zero'a Besheilah should be eaten by male Kohanim only (whereas we will learn in the next Mishnah that it can also be eaten by their wives ... ).

(a) In the second Lashon, Rava (or Ravina) answered him 'Kodesh Ikri, Kodesh Kodshim Lo Ikri' - meaning that, by calling the Zero'a Besheilah Kodesh, and not Kodesh Kodshim, the Torah indicates that it is not in fact, comparing it to a Chatas.

(b) And from the Hekesh he learns 'she'Im Gilach al Achas mi'Sheloshtan, Yatza', by which he means - that if the Nazir shaved on any one of the three Korbanos (the Shelamim, the Olah or the Chatas) that he has to bring, he may proceed to drink wine (though he does remain obligated to bring the remaining two Korbanos).

(c) In that case, we are learning (not the Shelamim from the Chatas, but) - the Chatas (and the Olah) from the Shelamim ...

(d) ... which is more obvious than the Olah and the Chatas - because the Nazir's shaven hair had to be placed under the pot in which the Eil Nazir was cooking.

(a) Our Mishnah now discusses the Todah and the Eil Nazir, which are Kodshim Kalim - and can be Shechted anywhere in the Azarah.

(b) They can be eaten anywhere in Yerushalayim, by anyone (even a Zar) prepared in any manner, until the following midnight.

(c) The Torah explicitly writes in Tzav that the Todah can only be eaten for a day and a night. The Pasuk there "al Zivchei *Todas Shelamav*" comes to incorporate - Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur in this Din

(d) The 'Moram' that is unique to the Eil Nazir is the Zero'a Besheilah (which we just mentioned). The 'Moram' ...

1. ... that is unique to the Todah - is the four loaves from the four kinds of bread that accompanies it.
2. ... that is shared by both of them is - the Chazeh and Shok (the right breast and calf, that are given to the Kohen from every Shelamim).
(e) The sole difference between the Todah and the Eil Nazir on the one hand, and their 'Moram' on the other is - that whereas the former can be eaten by anyone, the latter can only be eaten by the Kohanim, and their wives, children and Avadim.
(a) The problem Rebbi Nechemyah in a Beraisa has with the Pasuk "es Chazeh ha'Tenufah ve'es Shok ha'Terumah Tochlu be'Makom Tahor" is - that it seems to imply that the Korbanos mentioned earlier (the Se'irei Chatas and the Minchah), could be eaten in a Tamei location (see Metzapeh Eisan).

(b) He replies - that the Torah is actually coming to teach us where the Moram min ha'Shelamim may be eaten, since "Tahor" in this context implies that it is partially Tahor, Tahor from Tum'as Metzora but Tamei Tum'as Zav (i.e. anywhere in Machaneh Yisrael).

(c) We suggest that the Torah is referring to the Machaneh Leviyah, because perhaps 'Tahor' means from Tum'as Zav and 'Tamei', Tamei Meis (since a Tamei Meis is permitted min ha'Torah, to enter the Machaneh Leviyah).

(d) To counter this suggestion, Abaye learns from the Pasuk there "Va'achaltem Osah be'Makom Kadosh" - that the Korban Minchah may be eaten in the Machaneh Leviyah, but no other loaves (such as the Lachmei Todah, or any other Moram), may.

(a) Abaye therefore explains that the previous Pasuk takes the Lachmei Todah out of Machaneh Shechinah (into Machaneh Leviyah), and "be'Makom Tahor", out of Machaneh Leviyah into Machaneh Yisrael. According to Rava - the first Pasuk takes the Lachmei Todah even out of Machaneh Yisrael, and "be'Makom Tahor", takes them back into Machaneh Yisrael.

(b) Rava explains that we cannot include Machaneh Leviyah from the second Pasuk, because it would mean moving it back two Machanos. The problem with that argument is - that if "Va'achaltem Osah ... " can move it two Machanos, why can "be'Makom Tahor" not move it back two Machanos.

(c) We also ask on Rava from the Pasuk "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha" - implying that all Kodshim Kalim cannot be eaten outside Yerushalayim (and certainly not Moram, which is more stringent than the Kodshim themselves.

(d) We therefore conclude - that Abaye's interpretation is the correct one.

(a) The sole distinction that the Tana draws between a Shelamim and a Todah is - that whereas the latter can be eaten for only a day and a night, the former can be eaten for two days and the night in between.

(b) The Torah repeats the phrase "Ve'shachat Oso Pesach (or Lifnei) Ohel Mo'ed" three times - once in the Parshah of ben Bakar, once by the Kesev and once by the Eiz.

(c) The Beraisa learns from this repetition - that one may Shecht Shelamim anywhere in the south, east or west side of the Azarah (though we will explain this a little differently shortly).

(d) The Tana Kama learns that one may Shecht Kodshim Kalim on the north side of the Azarah - from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from Kodshei Kodshim, which one cannot Shecht on the other sides, yet one can Shecht them on the north.




(a) Rebbi Eliezer requires a Pasuk to teach us that Kodshim Kalim can be Shechted in the north. Otherwise, we would have said - that if the three initial directions which are Kasher to Shecht Kodshim Kalim, are Pasul to Shecht Kodshei Kodshim; Tzafon, which is Kasher to Shecht Kodshei Kodshim, should certainly be Pasul to Shecht Kodshim Kalim.

(b) According to the Tana Kama, we need the three Pesukim mentioned earlier; one to teach us ...

1. ... that Shelamim require Pesach Ohel Mo'ed - and cannot be Shechted as long as the Kohanim have not yet opened the doors of the Azarah.
2. ... that 'Tzedadin' is Kasher - meaning that they do not need to be Shechted in line with the entrance to the Heichal.
(c) From the third Pasuk, he learns - that Tzidedei Tzedadin is Pasul (to preclude the rooms adjoining the Azarah) because he interprets "Lifnei" literally (even though "Pesach" is not literal, as we shall see).

(d) Rebbi Eliezer learns 'Tzafon' from the third Pasuk. He disagrees with the Rabbanan's 'Kal va'Chomer' - because, he says, seeing as Tzafon is no more Kadosh than the other directions, perhaps the Torah prescribes Tzafon for Kodshei Kodshim and the other directions for Kodshim Kalim (exclusively).

(e) Tzidedei Tzedadin, he maintains - does not require a Pasuk.

(a) The Torah writes "Lifnei Ohel Mo'ed" by the Shalmei Par (to preclude Tzidedei Tzedadin). The Torah then changes to "Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" to teach us the Halachah of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, who learns from this Pasuk - that a Shelamim that is Shechted before the Kohanim have opened the doors of the Heichal, is Pasul.

(b) He (as well as Rebbi Ukva bar Chama Amar Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina) extrapolates that from there - because "Pesach " implies an open doorway (as opposed to 'Deles', which refers to a door that is closed).

(c) The B'nei Eretz Yisrael, quoting Rav Acha bar Ya'akov Amar Rav Ashi, applied this to the Mishkan - to a case where the Shelamim was Shechted before it had been set up, or after it had been dismantled.

(d) If the door of the Heichal is closed but not locked - it is as if it is locked (regarding this Halachah).

(a) Rebbi Zeira considers a curtain across the entrance as if it was open - because the purpose of the curtain is for Tz'niyus (modesty) and not to close the opening.

(b) When we ask "Govhah Mai", we mean to ask - whether a pile of something or a piece of wood, blocking the entrance is considered closed or not.

(c) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, refers to two Pishpeshin (small doorways) in the Beis ha'Chalifos that were eight Amos tall. The 'Beis ha'Chalifos' refers to the northern and southern wing of the Ulam, which protruded from the center fifteen Amos in either direction. It contained windows where, from the outside, the Kohanim would place the knives that were used for the Avodah.

(d) We currently ascribe to the Pishpeshin the dual purpose of - permitting the eating of Kodshei Kodshim and the Shechitah of Kodshim Kalim, in the northern and southern sections of the Azarah (since any area that faces an open doorway of the Heichal, is considered "Lifnei Hashem".

(e) The length of the Ulam - which had the status of the Ohel Mo'ed, was eleven Amos.

(a) To resolve our She'eilah, we initially interpret 'that were eight Amos tall' to mean - that there was something eight Amos tall blocking the entrance.

(b) We refute this interpretation however - by interpreting the Beraisa literally, to mean that the doorway was actually eight Amos tall (in spite of the forthcoming Beraisa, as we shall now see).

(c) We reconcile this answer with the Beraisa which gives the measurements of all the doorways in the second Beis-Hamikdash as twenty Amos tall by ten Amos wide - by confining that statement to regular doorways that were used as entries and exits, whereas the one under discussion was a secondary doorway, used solely for the purpose that we described.

(a) The Pishpeshin were situated on the west side of the Beis-ha'Chalifos.

(b) Nevertheless, between the Beis-ha'Chalifos and the northern and southern walls, which did not face the Pishpeshin, is described as 'Lifnei Ohel Mo'ed' (justifying the Beraisa's permitting the entire Azarah) - because in fact, the Pishpeshin were situated on the north and south-western corners of the Beis-ha'Chalifos, inclined slightly towards the north and the south, respectively.

(a) We ask what the Din will be with regard to Shechitas Kodshim Kalim and Achilas Kodshei Kodshim in the area of Achorei Beis ha'Kapores - which is merely another name for the Kodesh Kodshim.

(b) We resolve this She'eilah by citing a statement of Rami bar Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who declares - that there was a 'Lul Katan' (a 'small' window-like entrance) at the back of the room behind the Kodesh Kodshim, thereby permitting Kodshei Kodshim to be eaten and Kodshim Kalim to be Shechted in that part of the Azarah.

(c) This is what the Mishnah in Tamid is referring to when it states 'Shenayim le'Par Bar' - which means that two guards were placed at that spot, because there was a (sort of) doorway there.

(d) Rabah bar Rav Shilo interprets 'le'Par Bar' to mean - that they guarded on the outside (and not on the inside).

Next daf


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