GEMARA. How do we know that it requires the north? — As Raba son of R. Hanan (1) recited before Raba: And ye shall offer one he-goat for a sin-offering, [and two he-lambs of the first year for a sacrifice of peaceofferings]: (2) as a sin-offering requires the north, so [must] the peace-offerings of the congregation [be slaughtered] in the north. Said Raba to him: Now, whence do we learn this about a sin-offering? From a burntoffering. Can then that which is learnt through a Hekkesh teach in turn through a hekkesh? (3) — Rather, [said Raba], It follows from what R. Mari the son of R. Kahana recited: [Ye shall blow with the trumpets] over your burntofferings, and over the sacrifices of your peace-offerings: (4) as a burnt-offering was a sacrifice of higher sanctity, so were the public peace-offerings sacrifices of higher sanctity; as a burnt-offering [was slaughtered] in the north, so were the public peace-offerings [slaughtered] in the north. Now, what is the purpose of the first hekkesh? (5) — [To teach that it is] like a sin-offering: as a sin-offering is eaten by male priests only, so are public peace-offerings [eaten] by male priests [only]. Said Abaye to him [Raba]: If so, when it is written in connection with a Nazirite's ram: And he shall present his offering unto the Lord, one he-lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt-offering, and one ewelamb of the first year without blemish for a sin-offering, and one ram without blemish for a peace-offering: (6) will you say that here too the Divine Law assimilated it to a sinoffering: as a sin-offering may be eaten by male priests only, so the Nazirite's ram may be eaten by male priests only? — How compare: There, since it is written, And the priest shall take the shoulder of the ram when it is sodden, [.... this is holy, for the priest] (7) it follows that the whole of it is eaten by its owner. But at least the shoulder that is sodden should be eaten by male priests only? — That is a difficulty. Alternatively [you can answer]: It (8) is called ‘holy’, but not ‘most holy’. (9) Then in respect of which law is it assimilated? (10) — Said Raba: [To teach] that if he shaves himself after one [sacrifice] of the three, he fulfils his duty. (11) MISHNAH. THE THANKS-OFFERING AND THE NAZIRITE'S RAM ARE SACRIFICES OF LESSER SANCTITY. THEY ARE SLAUGHTERED ANYWHERE IN THE TEMPLE COURT, AND THEIR BLOOD REQUIRES TWO SPRINKLINGS, WHICH CONSTITUTE FOUR; AND THEY ARE EATEN IN ANY PART OF THE CITY, BY ANY PERSON, (12) PREPARED IN ANY MANNER, THE SAME DAY AND THE NIGHT FOLLOWING, UNTIL MIDNIGHT. THE PARTS THEREOF WHICH ARE SEPARATED (13) ARE GOVERNED BY THE SAME LAW, SAVE THAT THESE ARE EATEN [ONLY] BY THE PRIESTS, THEIR WIVES, THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR SLAVES. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: And the breast of waving and the thigh of heaving shall ye eat in a clean place: (14) Said R. Nehemiah: Did they then eat the earlier [sacrifices] (15) in uncleanness? Rather, ‘clean’ implies that it is [partially] unclean: (16) [thus it means,] clean from the defilement of a leper, but unclean with the uncleanness of a Zab, and which place is that? The camp of the Israelites. (17) Yet say [that it means] clean from the defilement of a Zab, yet unclean with the defilement of the dead, and which [place] is that? The Levitical camp? (18) — Said Abaye, Scripture saith, And ye shall eat it [the meal-offering] in a holy place: (19) ‘it’ [must be eaten] in a holy place, but another [need] not [be eaten] in a holy place, thus withdrawing it from the Camp of the Divine Presence into the Levitical Camp. (20) Then ‘in a clean place’ is written, which withdraws it into the camp of the Israelites. Raba said: ‘It’ [must be eaten] in a holy place but another [need] not [be eaten] in a holy place, withdraws it altogether; (21) then the Divine Law wrote ‘in a clean place’, [thereby] bringing it into the Israelites’ camp. (22) Yet say that it brought it into the Levitical camp? (23) — We bring it back into one [camp], not into two. If so, [you can] also [argue in respect of] withdrawing: we withdraw it from one, but not from two? (24) Moreover, it is written, Thou mayest not eat within they gates etc? (25) Rather, it clearly must be explained as Abaye. MISHNAH. THE PEACE-OFFERING IS A SACRIFICE OF LESSER SANCTITY. IT MAY BE SLAIN IN ANY PART OF THE TEMPLE COURT, AND ITS BLOOD REQUIRES TWO SPRINKLINGS, WHICH CONSTITUTE FOUR; AND IT MAY BE EATEN IN ANY PART OF THE CITY, BY ANY PERSON, PREPARED IN ANY WAY, DURING TWO DAYS AND ONE NIGHT. THE PARTS THEREOF WHICH ARE SEPARATED ARE SIMILAR, SAVE THAT THESE ARE EATEN BY PRIESTS, THEIR WIVES, THEIR SONS, AND THEIR SLAVES. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall kill it at the door of the tent of meeting... and he shall kill it before the tent of meeting... and he shall kill it before the tent of meeting: (26) this teaches that all sides [of the Temple court] are fit in the case of sacrifices of lesser sanctity, (27) and the north [side] a fortiori: if sacrifices of higher sanctity, which were not made fit [for slaughtering] on all sides, are fit on the north; is it not logical that sacrifices of lesser sanctity, which are fit on all sides, are fit in the north? (28) R. Eliezer said: The Writ comes specifically to declare the north fit. (29) For you might say, is not [the reverse] logical: If sacrifices of lesser sanctity, which are fit on all sides, yet their place is not fit for sacrifices of higher sanctity; (30) then sacrifices of higher sanctity, which are permitted in the north only, is it not logical that their [particular] place is not permitted for sacrifices of lesser sanctity? Therefore ‘the tent of meeting’ is stated. (31)

---

(1). ↑ Emended text (Sh. M.)
(2). ↑ Lev. XXIII, 19.
(3). ↑ Surely not. V. supra 48a, 49b.
(4). ↑ Num. X, 10. It must mean the peace-offerings of the congregation, since private peace-offerings did not require the blowing of trumpets.
(5). ↑ Where it is assimilated to a sin-offering.
(6). ↑ Num. VI, 14.
(7). ↑ Ibid. 19, 20.
(8). ↑ The shoulder that is sodden.
(9). ↑ Therefore it cannot be like the sin-offering, which is ‘most holy’.
(10). ↑ Sc. the Nazirite's ram to a sin-offering.
(11). ↑ At the termination of his vow a Nazirite must bring three sacrifices, viz., a burnt-offering, a sinoffering, and a peace-offering. Yet if he brings only one and shaves, the prohibitions of a Nazirite, such as drinking wine, are lifted, because it is written, And after that the Nazirite may drink wine (v. 20), ‘after that’ meaning, according to the Rabbis, after he brings his peace-offering. Then the sin-offering is assimilated to the peace-offering to show that the same applies to the former too.
(12). ↑ I.e., even by a Zar.
(13). ↑ In the case of the thanks-offering, the thigh and breast, and four loaves out of the forty by which it is accompanied. In the case of the Nazirite's ram, likewise the thigh and the breast, the boiled shoulder, one unleavened loaf and one unleavened wafer.
(14). ↑ Lev. X, 14.
(15). ↑ Those enumerated earlier in this passage, which treats of Aaron's consecration.
(16). ↑ Since Scripture writes ‘in a clean place instead of in a holy place,’ as in the preceding verse.
(17). ↑ Three ‘camps’ of lessening degrees of sanctity were recognized in the wilderness: (i) The camp of the Divine Presence, — the Tabernacle; (ii) the camp of the Levites — literally the Levitical camp which immediately surrounded the Tabernacle; and (iii) the camp of the Israelites, likewise literally, each tribe within the camp of his standard, v. Num. II. To these three corresponded the Temple, the Temple Mount, and the city of Jerusalem respectively. A leper was expelled from all three, a Zab was not permitted in the first two, and permitted in the third. Hence this text teaches that it might be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem.
(18). ↑ Where a corpse might be taken. So that the flesh of this sacrifice may be eaten in the Temple Mount only, but not anywhere in Jerusalem.
(19). ↑ Lev. X, 13.
(20). ↑ Emended text (Sh. M.).
(21). ↑ This would imply that it need not even be eaten in the third camp, hence even outside Jerusalem.
(22). ↑ Hence it must be eaten within the walls of Jerusalem.
(23). ↑ Teaching that it must be eaten in the Temple Mount.
(24). ↑ When Scripture implies that it is not bound to be eaten in a particular place, say that one camp (that of the Divine Presence) is excluded, but not two.
(25). ↑ Deut. XII, 17. ‘Within thy gates’ means in the cities outside Jerusalem.
(26). ↑ Lev. III, 2, 8, 13. The three texts refer to the different animals brought as peace-offerings.
(27). ↑ As ‘before’ implies on any side.
(28). ↑ Thus in the view of this Tanna no text is necessary to show that it can be slain in the north.
(29). ↑ Otherwise we would not know it.
(30). ↑ The latter cannot be slaughtered in any part of the Temple.
(31). ↑ Implying any part of same.