Zevachim 56: נָדוּן דָּבָר מִתּוֹךְ דָּבָר

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 56

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemora notes: Our Tanna (who maintains that the blood of the pesach and ma’aser offerings were thrown on the altar – like the bechor, and not poured) in accordance with Rabbi Yosi HaGelili, for Rabbi Yosi HaGelili said: It does not say, “its blood,” but rather, “their blood” is said; and “its fat” is not said, but rather, “their fat” is said.

This teaches us that bechor, ma’aser and the pesach offering require blood application and its sacrificial parts are burned on the Altar.

In rabbinic memory, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili symbolizes the union of wisdom and humility. The sages rose before him and called him "master of Torah," yet he remained personally modest. His interpretations were brilliant yet accessible, sophisticated yet practical.

Zevachim 55: וְאֵיזֶה זֶה? זֶה מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 55

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemora cites a braisa (which teaches us that kodashim kalim may be eaten throughout Yerushalayim): And the breast of the waving and the thigh of separation you shall eat in a place that is tahor. Rabbi Nechemiah said: Did they (Aaron and his sons) then eat the earlier sacrifices (the goats and the minchah offering offered on that day – the eighth day of the inaugural ceremonies of the Mishkan) in tumah? Rather, tahor implies that it is partially tamei; this means that it is tahor from the tumah of a metzora, but tamei with the tumah of a zav, and which place is that? It is the camp of the Israelites. [If they can eat the shelamim in the Israelite camp in the desert, then it can be eaten in Yerushalayim in the Temple era.]

But, the Gemora asks, perhaps it means that it is tahor from the tumah of a zav, yet tamei with the tumah of the dead, and which place is that? It is the camp of the Levites.

Abaye answers: It is written: And you shall eat it (the minchah offering) in a holy place; it must be eaten in a holy place, but another (like it – the todah breads) does not need to be eaten in a holy place. The todah breads (and all other kodashim kalim) are removed from the camp of the Shechinah into the camp of the Levites. Then it is written: in a tahor place; this removes it into the camp of the Israelites.

Rava answers: It must be eaten in a holy place, but another (like it – the todah breads) does not need to be eaten in a holy place; this removes it altogether (from all three camps); then the Torah wrote: You shall eat it in a tahor place; this brought it back into the camp of the Israelites. The Gemora asks: Perhaps it should be brought back into the camp of the Levites!?

We explore the dispute between the two great masters at a deeper level of hermeneutics.

Zevachim 54: סַנְהֶדְרִין בְּחֶלְקוֹ דִּיהוּדָה וּשְׁכִינָה בְּחֶלְקוֹ דְּבִנְיָמִין

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 54

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the straightforward reading of Sefer Shmuel (II: Chapter 24), King David was directed to that place by Gad, the prophet, who instructed him to build an altar to God that would end the plague from which the people were suffering. The Gemara on our daf offers a much more detailed description of the long-term planning that went into arriving at this decision.

Rava quotes a passage from Shmuel Aleph (19:18-19) where we find Shmuel the prophet sitting with David in Nayot in Ramah. This pasuk is difficult since Nayot and Ramah are two different places, so Rava interprets this homiletically as meaning that they sat together in Ramah and discussed noyo shel olam – the beauty of the world – i.e., the Temple. It is clear that the Temple was supposed to be among the highest places in Israel, since the commandment to visit the Temple on the pilgrimage holidays states ve-kamta ve-alita – that people must “go up” to the place chosen by God (Devarim 17:8).

We explore the role of Doeg and the way our daf makes use of pesukim to describe the facts of history.

Zevachim 53: רְצוּעָה הָיְתָה יוֹצְאָה מֵחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל יְהוּדָה וְנִכְנֶסֶת בְּחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל בִּנְיָמִי

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 53

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Somewhat surprisingly, the yesod ha-mizbe’aḥ – the foundation of the altar – is found only on the Northern and Western sides. The Eastern and Southern sides had no yesod.

Rabbi Elazar explains that this is because that area of the altar did not fall in the area belonging to the tribe of Binyamin, rather it was in the area belonging to the tribe of Yehuda. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak explains that this is because one amah of the altar cut into the area that belonged to the tribe of Yehuda.

The Gemara in -Massekhet Yoma- (12a) teaches that there is a disagreement between the Tanna Kamma who believes that Jerusalem was a separate entity – that it was not divided between the shevatim and Rabbi Yehuda who argues that Jerusalem was divided. According to this opinion the border between Yehuda and Binyamin ran through -the Temple- itself, with the -Temple Mount- offices on Yehuda’s side and the sanctuary and Holy of Holies on Binyamin’s.

We explore the literary historical and tensions between Judah and Benjamin.

Zevachim 52: חוּט שֶׁל סִיקְרָא חוֹגְרוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 52

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna that begins on our daf discusses the placement of both communal and individual sin-offerings. They are slaughtered on the northern side of the Temple courtyard, where the blood of the sacrifice is collected. That blood is taken by the kohen to the altar where it is placed on each of the four corners of the mizbe’aḥ. The Mishna specifies that the kohen is to walk up the ramp and walk along the sovev – the edge surrounding the altar – beginning with the southeastern corner, and continuing to the northeastern corner, the northwestern corner and finally the southwestern corner, placing the blood on each one of the corners in succession.

We explore the meaning and myth of the chut hasikra.

Zevachim 51: אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 51

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna (47a), the remnants of the blood of a korban ḥatat – a sin-offering – that was brought in the inner sanctum of the Temple, was poured out on the foundation of the altar that stood outside of the Temple, in the Temple courtyard.

Of the various sin-offerings, those that were brought by the High Priest (see Vayikra 4:3-12) and those that were brought by the Sanhedrin on behalf of the entire community (see Vayikra 4:13-21), as well as those brought on Yom Kippur (see Vayikra 16:3, 15) were brought on the inner altar; the others were brought on the altar that was outside in the Temple courtyard (see, for example, the sin-offering of the king, Vayikra 4:22-26 or an individual sinner, Vayikra 4:27-35). In the case of the korbanot that were brought on the inner altar, sprinkling the blood – which, as we have learned, was an essential part of the sacrificial service – took place within the confines of the Temple. Nevertheless, what was left over after the blood was sprinkled was poured out on the altar that stood outside of the Temple, in the courtyard.

We examine a fundamental tension between biblical and rabbinic approaches to sacrificial efficacy. The biblical text of Leviticus 4 presents sacrifice as an integrated ritual whole that 'makes atonement,' without atomizing the process into efficacious and non-efficacious components. The Talmudic tradition, by contrast, engages in precise analytical atomization, identifying specific moments and actions that 'effect atonement' (mekaper) while designating others as ritually necessary but soteriologically inert.

Zevachim 50: דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בִּגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 50

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara on our daf examines whether rules are true in all cases where the source of the original law is not a clear biblical passage but is learned by means of some exegetical derivation. For example, can something learned from a hekesh be used to teach based on:

• a gezeira shava?

• a kal vaḥomer?

• a binyan av?

All of these methods of analysis are among the midot she-haTorah nidreshet bahem – the hermeneutical principles established by the Sages and used to derive laws from the Torah. 

Gezeira shava – is a verbal analogy. If the same word or phrase appears in two places in the Torah, we may infer on the basis of “verbal analogy” that the same law must apply in the other case, as well.

We explore the hermeneutic rules of gezeira shava.

Zevachim 49: דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 49

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we have learned on yesterday’s daf, sacrifices that were kodashei kodashim – the holiest of holies – were brought in the northern part of the Temple courtyard. The source for this law appears in the Torah with reference to the korban olah – the burnt-offering – and the other sacrifices were derived from the olah.

The Gemara on our daf asks why the korban asham – the guilt-offering – needs to be compared to both the korban olah and the korban ḥatat – the sin-offering (see Vayikra 14:13 where the Torah requires that the asham be slaughtered in the same place as the ḥatat and the olah).

"Ravina answered: If that had been so, I would still say that a matter derived via a juxtaposition then teaches its halakha via a juxtaposition. And if you would say that if that were to be so, let the verse juxtapose the guilt offering of a leper only to a sin offering,one could answer that it is preferable for the Torah that it juxtaposes the guilt offering to the primary offering about which it states that it must be slaughtered in the north, i.e., the burnt offering, and not juxtapose it to the secondary offering, the sin offering.

For this reason, i.e., to prevent the incorrect assumption that a matter derived via a juxtaposition then teaches its halakha via a juxtaposition, the verse juxtaposed it to a sin offering and also juxtaposed it to a burnt offering, to say that a matter derived via a juxtaposition does not then teach its halakha via a juxtaposition.”

We explore the talmudic rules of exegesis including the hekesh, described above.

Zevachim 48: בֵּין לְמִצְוָה בֵּין לְעַכֵּב

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 48

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The animal which is brought as a chattas must be standing in the north of the courtyard when it is slaughtered.

Nevertheless, the person himself who is performing the slaughter does not have to be standing in the north. He can be standing nearby and reach over into the north where the animal is standing. The Gemara searches to find the source from where we learn this halacha. At one point, the Gemara attributes this halacha to the verse (Vayikra 4:24) which is written regarding the goat of the King.

We explore the galactic and mythical implications of the sacred directions from where to stand facing by a Korean to where to direction one’s bed.

Zevachim 47: איזהו מקומן של זבחים

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 47

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Perek Eizehu Mekoman, the fifth perek of Massekhet Zevaḥim, begins on our daf.This perek offers an overview of all of the different sacrifices that were brought in the Temple, with the exception of korbanot ha-of – sacrifices brought from fowl – which are discussed in the following chapters, and menaḥot – meal offerings – that have their own tractates dedicated to those laws.

The entire chapter of Perek Eizehu Mekoman has been inserted into the siddur as an introduction to the daily morning prayer service. The Beit Yosef quotes the Re’ah in offering a number of reasons for this. First of all, it contains a review of virtually all of the sacrifices, and our prayers serve as replacements for the korbanot that can no longer be brought. Furthermore he points to the fact that we do not find any differences of opinion in the entire chapter, which can be understood as indicating that this is a chapter of oral tradition that has come down to us in the same language that it was received by Moshe on Mount Sinai.

We explore the more mystical dimensions of this liturgical insertion.

Zevachim 46: לְשֵׁם רֵיחַ, לְשֵׁם נִיחוֹחַ

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 46

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna on our daf, a standard sacrifice needs to be brought with six things in mind:

1) Zevaḥ – The intent must be for the specific sacrifice that is being brought

2) Zovei’aḥ – The intent must be for the owner of the sacrifice

3) Ha-Shem – The sacrifice must be brought with God in mind

4) Ishim – The intent must be to sacrifice the animal on the altar

5) Rei’aḥ – It must be brought in a manner that will raise the scent of the sacrifice

6) Niḥo’aḥ – The intention must be to fulfill God’s will.

In addition, a sin-offering or a guilt-offering must be brought with the specific transgression in mind.

We explore The Psychology of Intention and Truth: Consciousness, Meaning-Making, and the Architecture of Authentic Action.

Zevachim 45: הִלְכְתָא לִמְשִׁיחָא?!

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 45

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna (43a) brings a disagreement between the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Shimon with regard to a question about the application of piggul – inappropriate thoughts relating to time regarding a given sacrifice – to an animal that was to be brought on the inner altar but was being prepared in the outer courtyard.

The Gemara on yesterday’s daf brings another opinion, that of Rabbi Elazar in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. The concluding sentence on yesterday’s daf was Rav Naḥman quoting Rabba bar Avuh in the name of Rav who said that the halakha follows this last opinion.

Reacting to this ruling, Rava asks hilkheta le-meshiḥa?! – are we establishing halakhic rulings for Messianic times, i.e. when the Temple will be rebuilt?

Abaye responds to him by asking whether it would be appropriate to avoid learning any topics about the Temple service, since all of it should be considered hilkheta le-meshiḥa.

We explore instances of this concept in has and the Netziv’s dazzling insight.

Zevachim 44: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 44

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara quotes the second part of a Beraisa which says, "Or perhaps one may bring only a Korban [and make it Pigul] which is like a Shelamim? Just as Shelamim is unique in that it may be eaten for two days and one night, so, too, Pigul should apply only to Korbanos which are eaten for two days and one night. What is the source that Korbanos eaten for one day and one night also can become Pigul? The verse "mi'Besar," "from the flesh" (Vayikra 7:18), teaches that even such Korbanos can become Pigul.”

We explore the unique role of shlomim over other korbaot in learning the law of piggul.

Zevachim 43: פָתַח הַכָּתוּב בִּלְשׁוֹן נְקֵבָה וְסִיֵּים בִּלְשׁוֹן נְקֵבָה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 43

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah teaches that a part of the Korban that has no Matir cannot become prohibited as Pigul. For this reason, the Nesachim that are brought after the Korban has been offered, or that are brought alone without a Korban, cannot become prohibited as Pigul. The Mishnah records a Machlokes Tana'im with regard to Nesachim that are brought together with a Korban. Rebbi Meir says that the Nesachim can become Pigul because the Zerikah of the blood of the animal permits the Nesachim to be offered. The Chachamim argue and say that the Nesachim cannot become Pigul. They reason that since the Nesachim can be offered after the Korban was offered, they do not need the Zerikah in order to become permitted. Therefore, even when they are brought with the animal they also do not need the Zerikah in order to become permitted.

We trace the conceptual development of ritual purity from its biblical origins through its extensive elaboration in rabbinic literature. Beginning with the stark dichotomies of the Torah's purity system, the analysis proceeds through the prophetic reinterpretation of purity as moral category, culminating in the Talmudic transformation of purity into a complex theological and anthropological framework. Special attention is given to the rabbinic reconceptualization of purification mechanisms, the relationship between physical and spiritual contamination, and the emergence of purity as a paradigm for understanding human transformation and divine encounter.

Zevachim 42: שֶׁמָּשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 42

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have learned that inappropriate thoughts – specifically thoughts relating to eating the korban in the wrong place or at the wrong time – can potentially ruin the sacrifice and make it invalid. Furthermore, thoughts related to the wrong time will cause the korban to become piggul – abhorrent – and someone who eats of that sacrifice will be liable to receive the punishment of karet – a Heavenly death sentence (see above, daf 27).

The new Mishna on our daf lists a number of things connected with sacrifices that cannot become piggul even if the person bringing the korban planned to eat them after the appropriate time.

Zevachim 41: ״פָּרֹכֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ״

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 41

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara on our daf discusses differences between the pesukim that teach about two sin-offerings that are brought on the inner altar, that of the High Priest and the great Sanhedrin.

In the study hall of Rabbi Yishmael, the following parables were presented:

Regarding the sin-offering of the High Priest the Torah includes details about sacrificing the kidneys and the diaphragm, which does not appear in the commandment about the offering of the Sanhedrin (compare Vayikra 4:8-9 vs. 4:19). This is compared to a king who becomes angry at one of his beloved subjects, but because of his love for him chooses to minimize the embarrassment.

Rashi explains that in this parable, the beloved servant is the Jewish people who are represented by the great Sanhedrin. The Torah shortens the description of the Sanhedrin’s sin-offering in order to minimize embarrassment. The Maharsha offers an alternative explanation and suggests that the beloved subject is the High Priest, and that the Torah clearly delineates the details of his sin-offering since by means of the sacrifice his sin is forgiven.

We explore parabolic discourse nd how it functions theologically.

Zevachim 40: ״לַפָּר״ – זֶה פַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 40

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Continuing their discussion about the inner versus the outer courtyard, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda argue about the instructions regarding sprinkling blood. If one should sprinkle indoors but sprinkles outdoors, is this acceptable? If it is discovered after the fact? The rabbis disagree about the words that describe the courtyard. Does the Temple courtyard have a roof that might be breached? If so, would such a breach invalidate the sprinkling?

Our daf offers a window into how the rabbis of the Talmud transformed biblical ritual into a complex system of law, particularly regarding the bull offering for the unwitting communal sin (par he'elem davar shel tzibbur) and its relationship to the Yom Kippur service.

We explore how the rabbinic sources in Zevachim differ from both the biblical text and contemporary Second Temple sources like Josephus, revealing the distinctive hermeneutical and legal methods of the Tannaim and Amoraim.

Zevachim 39: וְעָשָׂה כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 39

To download, click/tap here: PDF

On daf 36b, the first Mishna in this perek taught a basic difference between the sin-offerings that were brought on the outer altar and those brought on the inner, golden altar. Regarding those that were brought on the outer altar, like the sin-offerings of a nasi – a king – or an ordinary person (see Vayikra 4:22-35), even if the actual requirement was to sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice two times or four times, if one sprinkling was done, it would suffice.

On the other hand, those sin-offerings that were brought on the inner altar, like the sin-offering of the High Priest or the sin-offering brought by the great Sanhedrin on behalf of the entire congregation (see Vayikra 4:3-21), all of the sprinklings needed to be done properly, or else the sacrifice was invalid.

We explore the inner altar and its mystical dimensions.

Zevachim 38: שָׁלֹשׁ מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּחַטָּאוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 38

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argue about how many blood applications are necessary for a sin offering. All agree that four applications are required, but Beit Shammai say that the offering is already valid after two such applications, while Beit Hillel maintain that even one is sufficient.

Beit Shammai rely on the phrase "on the horns" repeated three times. Since the minimum of the plural "horns" is two, altogether this counts as six. Four of these six teach the prescribed procedure, and the remaining two tell how many are absolutely necessary. Beit Shammai rely on the pronounced form of the word "horns".

The scriptural basis for the dispute lies in Leviticus chapter 4, which prescribes the ritual procedures for various categories of sin offerings. In verses 25, 30, and 34, the text commands that the priest shall take the blood of the sin offering and place it "on the horns of the altar" (Hebrew: קַרְנֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, karnot ha-mizbeach).

Beit Hillel point out that the written form for two of the three "horns" can be read as "one horn". Beit Hillel attach more importance to the written form of the word. This gives them four "horns", three for the prescribed after the first application, and one that is necessary for atonement. But Beit Hillel's count is inconsistent, they should use all four for the prescribed application, with none necessary to achieve atonement! They answer that we don't nowhere do we find atonement for nothing.

The interpretive challenge arises from both the repetition of this phrase across three verses and the grammatical form of the word "horns." Baruch Levine notes in his commentary on Leviticus that ancient Near Eastern altars typically featured four elevated corners or "horns," which held particular religious significance as points of sacred contact.

Archaeological evidence from various sites confirms this four-horned structure as standard for Israelite altars.

Zevachim 37: אַהֲנִי מִקְרָא, וְאַהְנִי מָסוֹרֶת

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 37

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Throwing the blood on the Altar is the fourth and final step of the sacrificial service. For the majority of offerings, the blood has to be thrown from a vessel twice, each time on the lower part of each of the two opposing corners.

As the blood is dashed on the corner, it spreads out on the adjacent sides, so that with two applications the blood falls on all four walls. This is called "two applications that are four.”

The phrase “Ahani Mikra, v’Ahani Masoret” from Zevachim 37 expresses the balance between two interpretive approaches in rabbinic study.

· Mikra (מִקְרָא) refers to the written biblical text—the fixed consonantal form (ketiv) that represents divine revelation in its permanent, textual form.

· Masoret (מָסוֹרֶת) refers to the oral reading tradition (qeri)—how the text was transmitted, pronounced, and interpreted through communal practice.

The Talmudic phrase teaches that both the written form and the oral reading are indispensable. The mikra anchors meaning in divine fixity, while the masoret sustains the living voice of interpretation. Together, they form a dynamic partnership—text and tradition, permanence and renewal—reflecting how Torah is both written revelation and ongoing dialogue.