GEMARA: From where do we derive that the communal peace offerings, i.e., the two sheep brought on Shavuot, require slaughter in the north of the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers: As Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan taught before Rava: The passage in the Torah discussing the offerings of Shavuot states: “And you shall offer one he-goat for a sin offering, and two male sheep in their first year for a sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 23:19). The peace offerings are juxtaposed with the sin offering. Just as the sin offering must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, so too, communal peace offerings must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard.

Rava said to him: But from where is the requirement to slaughter a sin offering in the north of the Temple courtyard derived? It is derived from its juxtaposition with a burnt offering, as the verse states: “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered shall the sin offering be slaughtered before the Lord; it is most holy” (Leviticus 6:18). In the realm of consecrated matters, can a matter derived via a juxtaposition then teach its halakha via a juxtaposition? The Gemara (49b) demonstrates that it cannot.

Rava explains: Rather, the source that communal peace offerings must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard is derived from that which Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, teaches: The verse states: “Also in the day of your gladness, and in your appointed seasons, and in your New Moons, you shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over your peace offerings; and they shall be to you for a memorial before your God: I am the Lord your God” (Numbers 10:10). This verse directly juxtaposes burnt offerings with communal peace offerings. Just as burnt offerings are offerings of the most sacred order, so too, communal peace offerings are offerings of the most sacred order. Furthermore, just as a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, so too, communal peace offerings must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard.

The Gemara asks: Rather, what halakha does the first juxtaposition between communal peace offerings and the he-goat sin offering come to teach? The Gemara answers: It teaches that the halakhot of communal peace offerings are like the halakhot of a sin offering. Just as a sin offering is eaten only by male priests, so too, communal peace offerings are eaten only by male priests.

Abaye said to Rava: If so, then with regard to a nazirite’s ram, concerning which it is written in the verse: “And he shall present his offering to the Lord, one he-lamb in its first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe-lamb in its first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for a peace offering” (Numbers 6:14), so too shall we say that the Torah juxtaposed the nazirite’s ram with a sin offering of a nazirite to teach that just as a sin offering is eaten only by male priests, so too, a nazirite’s ram is eaten only by male priests? As the next mishna states, a nazirite’s ram may be eaten by every ritually pure Jew.

Rava answers: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to the nazirite’s ram, since it is written: “And the priest shall take the foreleg of the ram when it is cooked” (Numbers 6:19), by inference one can deduce that the owner may eat all of the remaining portions of the animal.

The Gemara asks: If so, in any event, the cooked foreleg of the nazirite’s ram should be eaten only by male priests. The mishna states that the cooked foreleg may be eaten by priests, their wives, and their slaves. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult. Based on its juxtaposition with the sin offering of a nazirite, the halakha should be that only the male priests may eat it, yet that is not the case.

The Gemara offers another explanation: And if you wish, say that the foreleg of the nazirite’s ram is called sacred, but it is not called an offering of the most sacred order. Therefore, it cannot be juxtaposed with the sin offering of a nazirite in this regard. The Gemara asks: But rather, with regard to what halakha is the nazirite’s ram juxtaposed with the sin offering of a nazirite? Rava says: It is juxtaposed to teach that if the nazirite shaved after the sacrifice of any one of the three offerings, he has fulfilled his obligation after the fact.

MISHNA: The thanks offering and nazirite’s ram are offerings of lesser sanctity. Their slaughter is anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and their blood requires two placements that are four, and they are eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem, by every person, i.e., any ritually pure Jew, prepared in any manner of food preparation, on the day the offering was sacrificed and during the night that follows, until midnight. The status of the portion that is separated from them and given to the priests is similar to theirs; but the portion that is separated is eaten by the priests, by their wives, and by their children, and by their slaves.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the priests: “And the breast of waving and the thigh of heaving you shall eat in a pure place; you, and your sons, and your daughters with you; for they are given as your due, and your sons’ due, out of the peace offerings of the children of Israel” (Leviticus 10:14). Rabbi Neḥemya said: But did they eat the first offerings, mentioned in the previous two verses, in a place of impurity? The previous verses make reference to the remainder of the meal offering, which also had to be eaten in a pure place.

Rather, by inference, the word “pure” in this context is referring to a place that is to some degree ritually impure, but pure in some respects. The priest must eat in a place that is pure due to the impurity of a leper, but it may be a place that is impure due to the impurity of a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav]. And which place is this? This is the Israelites’ camp in the wilderness, and, once the Temple was built in Jerusalem, the entire city of Jerusalem. A zav could remain in these places, but not a leper. This is the source for the halakha in the mishna that these offerings may be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem.

The Gemara asks: But why not say that the word “pure” is referring to a place which is pure from the impurity of a zav and impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse? And which place is this? This is the Levites’ camp in the wilderness, and, once the Temple was built in Jerusalem, the Temple Mount.

Abaye says that the verse states with regard to the meal offering: “And you shall eat it in a sacred place” (Leviticus 10:13). The word “it” is a restriction, teaching that one must eat “it,” i.e., the meal offering, in a sacred place, i.e., in the camp of the Divine Presence, but one is not required to eat another offering, i.e., the breast of waving and the thigh of heaving, in a sacred place. This removes the portions from the camp of the Divine Presence, to be eaten in the Levites’ camp. Then it is written: “You shall eat in a pure place,” which removes the portions from the Levites’ camp, to be eaten in the Israelites’ camp.

Rava says a different explanation: “It,” i.e., the meal offering, must be eaten in a sacred place, but one is not required to eat another offering, i.e., the breast of waving and the thigh of heaving, in a sacred place. This verse removes the portions completely from any pure place, and according to this stage of Rava’s interpretation, these portions may be eaten anywhere. Then the Merciful One wrote: “You shall eat in a pure place,” which brings it into the Israelites’ camp, which is a pure place, relative to everywhere outside it.

The Gemara asks: But why not say that the verse brings it into the Levites’ camp, which is also referred to as pure? The Gemara answers: We bring it into one camp, adjacent to the area outside the encampment of the Jewish people, but we do not bring it into two camps.

The Gemara asks: If so, also with regard to removing it, why not say that we remove it to one place, but we do not remove it from two places? Accordingly, the initial derivation should be to eat it in the Israelites’ camp. And furthermore, it is written: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd or of your flock, nor any of your vows which you vow, nor your gift offerings, nor the offering of your hand” (Deuteronomy 12:17). This verse negates the possibility that an offering may be eaten “in your gates,” i.e., outside of Jerusalem. Rather, it is clear that the source for the ruling of the baraita is in accordance with the explanation of Abaye.

MISHNA: Peace offerings are offerings of lesser sanctity. Their slaughter is anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and their blood requires two placements that are four, and they are eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem, by every person, i.e., any ritually pure Jew, prepared in any manner of food preparation, for two days and one night, i.e., the day on which they are slaughtered, the following day, and the intervening night. The status of the portion that is separated from them and given to the priests is similar to theirs; but the portion that is separated is eaten by the priests, by their wives, and by their children, and by their slaves.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to cattle peace offerings, the verse states: “And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 3:2). With regard to sheep peace offerings the verse states: “And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and slaughter it before the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 3:8). With regard to goat peace offerings the verse states: “And he shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and slaughter it before the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 3:13).

This repetition serves to render fit all directions of the Temple courtyard for the slaughter of offerings of lesser sanctity. From here one can derive an a fortiori inference to permit slaughter in the north of the Temple courtyard: Just as the rites of slaughtering offerings of the most sacred order, which are not rendered fit in all directions, are rendered fit in the north, with regard to the rites of slaughtering offerings of lesser sanctity, which are rendered fit in all directions, is it not logical that they are rendered fit in the north?

Rabbi Eliezer says: The repetition of the verse is stated only to render fit slaughter in the north. As one might have thought: And could this not be derived through logical inference? Just as with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, whose slaughter is rendered fit in any direction, nevertheless their place is not rendered fit for the slaughter of offerings of the most sacred order, with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, whose slaughter is rendered fit only in the north, is it not logical that their place should not be rendered fit for the slaughter of offerings of lesser sanctity? Therefore, the verse states: “Tent of Meeting,” to teach that offerings of lesser sanctity may be slaughtered in the north.