Menachot 97b — the Talmud in English

And with these cubits I say that they were five handbreadths each:

“And the bosom of the cubit, and a cubit of breadth, and its border toward its edge, around, one span”:

and with this cubit there shall be

the back of the altar,”

and the verse is explained nearby.

The height of the outer altar from the floor, including the horns that projected above it at its four corners, was ten cubits; and the horns themselves were one cubit in height and one cubit in breadth.

The bottom of the altar was one cubit high, and the altar “entered” one cubit in breadth, and this projection and indentation is called the “yesod”; from the edge of the yesod the altar rose in a straight line for five cubits, and there it “entered” again one cubit, and this indentation is called the “sovev”; from the sovev the altar rose in a straight line for three cubits, until the place of the burning, parallel to the bottom of the horns, and the horns in their place rose in a straight line an additional cubit—thus, ten cubits.

And the Gemara explains:

“the bosom of the cubit”:

this is the yesod

of the altar,

and it will be explained in the sugya which cubit of the yesod the verse is speaking about, whether the one that rises or the one that enters. “

A cubit of breadth”:

this is the sovev,

and it will be explained below whether the reference is to the ascent of the altar from the yesod until the sovev, which was five cubits, or to the indentation of the sovev, which was one cubit. “

And its border toward its edge, around, one span”:

these are the horns,

for from the center of the horn to its edge was one span, which is half a cubit, and its total breadth was one cubit and its height was one cubit, and the cubit of the horn was a cubit of five handbreadths; and it will be explained below whether the reference is to the cubit of height or to the cubit of breadth. “

And this is the back of the altar”:

this is the golden altar,

which was one cubit long and one cubit broad, and these cubits were of five handbreadths.

Rabbi Meir held

that the statement of the verse “And this is the back of the altar” is to be explained as saying:

“This”—

the back of the altar—

“is”

to be

with a cubit of

five

handbreadths;

but all

the other

cubits of the vessels

shall be

with a cubit of six

handbreadths.

And Rabbi Yehuda held

it should be explained:

“Like this”—

like the back of the altar, which is with a cubit of five—

shall be all the cubits of the vessels.

It entered the mind

of the scholars of the academy to explain the verse as speaking of the cubits of height of the yesod and the sovev. How so:

From

the bottom of the

yesod until

the indentation of the

sovev

the altar was

with a cubit of five in height,

that is, the verse refers to the height of the altar from the bottom of the yesod until the sovev, which shall be with a cubit of five handbreadths—

And what is “

the bosom of the cubit and a cubit of breadth,”

which implies: the verse refers only to the yesod and the sovev, and not to the distance between them,

this is what

the verse says:

From the bosom of the cubit,

namely, the yesod [including the yesod itself], and

until a cubit of breadth—

namely, the sovev—

with a cubit of five

handbreadths.

But the cubit of the horn, which was with a cubit of five handbreadths, referred to the breadth of the horn and not its height.

And we raise an objection to this: But

how much was the height of the altar

?

It was

ten cubits,

whereas according to your words its cubits were divided as follows:

Six

cubits, namely, from the floor until the indentation of the sovev—which are six cubits—were cubits

of five each

handbreadths—

And forty

cubits—from the indentation of the sovev until the edge of the horns, three cubits for the altar and one cubit for the horns—shall be

of six each.

It follows that the height of the

altar

in handbreadths

how much was it [

according to this calculation]:

It was

fifty-four

handbreadths: for six cubits of five handbreadths are thirty, and four cubits of six handbreadths are an additional twenty-four handbreadths.

And

half of the altar

according to this

how much was it—

it was

twenty-seven

handbreadths.

And if we calculate the distance from the sovev until half the altar, the calculation is as follows:

From

the edge of the

horns until

the indentation of the

sovev, how much is it? Twenty-four

handbreadths [four cubits of six handbreadths]—

How much less than half the altar [

how much is lacking from the indentation of the sovev and below until half the altar, which according to your calculation is twenty-four handbreadths from the edge of the horns]—it is only

three [

three] handbreadths that are lacking.

But this is impossible, for:

and we learned

in tractate Middot 3:1:

A scarlet thread [

a red strip]

girded

the altar

in the middle, in order to distinguish between the upper bloods [

bloods placed at the height of the altar wall]

and the lower bloods [

bloods placed at the bottom of the altar wall]—that is, it is explicit in this Mishna that the line distinguishing between the upper bloods and the lower bloods was the middle of the altar—

And if so—after it has been established that the distance from the sovev until half the altar, which is the line distinguishing between the upper bloods and the lower bloods, is only three handbreadths—this is difficult:

But that which was taught concerning the bird burnt-offering—

which is among the upper bloods—to explain its procedure:

The priest would ascend

the

ramp, and turn toward the sovev,

when he reached the sovev he would turn and walk upon it,

and he would come to

opposite the

southeastern horn

of the altar,

and he would sever its head

of the burnt-offering

opposite its nape and separate [

that is, he cuts its two signs, unlike the bird sin-offering, whose head is severed at only one sign],

and he would press out its blood upon the wall of the altar—

And if he performed it [

pressed out its blood]

below his feet,

which were standing on the sovev,

even

as far as

one cubit,

it is

valid,

because until this measure the placing of the blood is still above half the altar.

But according to your words,

here he is giving

blood

above below two handbreadths

halfway down the altar, for it follows that if he lowered the placing of the blood even by a small cubit of five handbreadths, he has already gone below half the altar by two handbreadths, since half the altar—according to what has been explained—is only three handbreadths distant from his feet standing on the sovev.

And on the basis of this objection, the Gemara explains that the verse does not refer to the cubits of the altar’s height,

but: “

The bosom of the cubit”—

namely, the yesod, concerning which the verse said that it was with a cubit of five handbreadths—refers to the breadth of the

indentation

of the yesod into the thickness of the altar; but the height of the yesod, which was also one cubit, was with a cubit of six handbreadths. “

A cubit of breadth”—

namely, the sovev, concerning which the verse said that it was with a cubit of five handbreadths—refers to the breadth of the

indentation

of the sovev; but the height of the altar from the edge of the yesod until the sovev was five cubits in cubits of six handbreadths. “

Its border toward its edge, around, one span”—

namely, the horns, concerning which the verse said that they were in cubits of five handbreadths—refers to the breadth of the

indentation

of the horn, that is, the top of the horn was with a cubit of five handbreadths, whereas the height of the horn was with a cubit of six handbreadths—and if so, what we learned concerning the burnt-offering is readily understood, for:

how much was the structure of the altar

[

what was the height of the altar’s structure]: sixty [

sixty handbreadths—ten cubits in cubits of six], since all the cubits of height were with a cubit of six handbreadths—

And

half of the altar—

which is the line distinguishing between the upper bloods and the lower bloods—

how much was it? Thirty [

thirty] handbreadths.

And from the edge of the

horns until the sovev, how much was it? Twenty-four [

four cubits in cubits of six handbreadths] handbreadths—

And if so,

how much less than half the altar [

how much is lacking from the sovev and below until half the altar, which is thirty handbreadths]—it is

six

handbreadths,

and

this is what we

learned

concerning the burnt-offering:

If he performed it below his feet,

if he lowered his hands and pressed out its blood below the place of his feet, which were standing on the sovev,

even

as far as

one cubit

of five handbreadths, it is

valid,

because until this measure he places it one handbreadth above the thread.

And we raise an objection to this explanation from the words of the verse:

In what did you establish it,

how did you explain the cubits of the yesod and the sovev, that they were with a cubit of five handbreadths?

In their indentation

into the thickness of the place of the altar?

And

but

can you really establish it in the indentation—how is it possible to explain that the indentation of these was only with a cubit of five handbreadths!?

и как возможно объяснить, что вход этих частей составлял лишь локоть в пять тефахов!?

But we learned

in tractate Middot 13a: The bottom of

the altar

outer

was thirty-two

cubits

by thirty-two

cubits;

the altar rose

the altar

one cubit,

one,

and entered

into its thickness

one cubit,

one;

this is the “

yesod”;

it follows

that the breadth of the altar above the yesod

[was] thirty

cubits

by thirty

cubits, since on each of its four sides its breadth was reduced by one cubit—

And according to your words, that the indentation of the yesod is with a small cubit of five handbreadths, it follows that the breadth of the altar was reduced on all four sides only by five handbreadths, and if so

thirty

large cubits

by thirty and

an additional

two handbreadths it would be

the altar above the yesod, since according to your calculation one handbreadth was “added” to the breadth of the altar on each of its four sides!?

And furthermore,

the continuation of the Mishna there is difficult according to your words:

It rose five

cubits from the edge of the yesod,

and entered one cubit,

one,

this is the sovev; it follows

that the breadth of the altar was

twenty-eight

cubits

by twenty-eight

cubits, since the breadth of the altar—which was initially thirty-two by thirty-two—was reduced by the cubit of the yesod and the cubit of the sovev, and likewise on each of its four sides—

And according to your words, that the indentations of the yesod and the sovev were in cubits of five handbreadths, you reduced the breadth of the altar by the indentations of the yesod and the sovev by only ten handbreadths, and two handbreadths were “added” to the breadth of the altar on each side; and if so

twenty-eight

cubits

by twenty-eight and

an additional

four

four

handbreadths it would be

the remaining breadth of the altar, whereas in the Mishna we learned that its breadth was only twenty-eight by twenty-eight cubits!?

And should you say

to resolve this:

The breadth of the altar above the sovev was indeed four handbreadths wider than what we learned in the Mishna, but

since it was not

an addition to the breadth

of a cubit

complete,

he did not count it,

the Mishna does not calculate this breadth in the breadth of the altar; nevertheless, the continuation of the Mishna there remains difficult, where we learned:

The place of the horns

occupies and reduces from the area of the altar

one cubit on this side and one cubit on that side; it follows

that the area inside the horns was

twenty-six

cubits

by twenty-six

cubits, since from the thirty-two cubits that were initially present, the breadth was reduced by a cubit of the yesod, a cubit of the sovev, and a cubit of the horns, on all four sides of the altar—

And according to your words, the reduction at each indentation was only five handbreadths, since the cubit of the horns too is explicitly stated in the verse to be a cubit of five handbreadths; it follows that three handbreadths were “added” to the breadth of the altar on each side, which is six handbreadths in total, namely, an “addition” of one cubit to the breadth of the altar, and if so:

twenty-seven

cubits by twenty-seven cubits alone

there would be, and how did the tanna omit an entire cubit!? And we answer:

и как же таннай убавил целый локоть!? И отвечаем:

the tanna was not precise

in his calculation, and indeed it was only twenty-seven by twenty-seven.

And we still raise an objection from the continuation of the Mishna:

The place for the walking of the priests’ feet—

around the altar, inside the horns—

one cubit on this side and one cubit on that side; it follows: twenty-four

cubits

by twenty

four cubits,

the place of the arrangement

upon the altar—

And according to your words, it would be

twenty-five

cubits by twenty-five cubits

it would be, since without the place for the priests’ walking the breadth of the altar was twenty-seven by twenty-seven, and once the place for the walking of the priests’ feet was reduced by one cubit on each side, twenty-five by twenty-five remained!?

And should you say that here too the tanna was not precise

in his calculation, and indeed the place of the arrangement was twenty-five by twenty-five, this cannot be said, because the calculation of the place of the arrangement, which is twenty-four by twenty-four, is explicit in the verse, for:

And it is written [

Ezekiel 43]: “

And the altar-hearth

[

twelve

cubits]

in length by twelve

[

cubits]

in breadth—square.” —

And it was taught:

One might

say that it is indeed according to its plain meaning,

that it is only twelve by twelve?—

When it says

in the continuation of the verse, “

to its four quarters,”

it follows that this area is one quarter of the area of the altar, and

it teaches that, in the middle [

at the center] of the altar,

he measures twelve cubits in every direction.

And it is clear from the verse that the place of the arrangement was indeed only twenty-four by twenty-four, and not according to your calculation, which is twenty-five by twenty-five; and concerning the wording of the verse one cannot say, “the tanna was not precise”!?

And should you say

to resolve all the objections:

The cubits taught in the Mishna as the basis of the altar’s breadth—namely, thirty-two cubits—were not identical, and although those cubits that were not opposite the yesod, the sovev, and the horns were measured in cubits of six, nevertheless

six

cubits

of them [

six cubits of them, three on each side]

he initially brought them in a cubit of five [

the tanna initially calculated them according to a cubit of five], that is, the bottom of the altar was not thirty-two identical cubits by thirty-two identical cubits; rather, twenty-six by twenty-six cubits were in large cubits, while the remainder were in small cubits, and if so the calculation comes out exactly. This cannot be said, for:

If so—

that the altar did not “occupy” in the breadth of the courtyard thirty-two large cubits, but thirty-one cubits once three handbreadths are subtracted from each side—

the courtyard would have space,

that is, free area would remain in the courtyard, besides the altar, greater than the measure taught in the Mishna cited nearby.

For we learned

in tractate Middot 5:1:

The entire courtyard—

including the sacred building constructed within it—

was one hundred eighty-seven in length

cubits

by one hundred thirty-five in breadth

cubits,

from east to west

was the length, which was

one hundred eighty-seven

cubits; and the division along the length of the courtyard was as follows:

The place for the tread of the Israelites’ feet: eleven cubits.

And the place for the tread of the priests’ feet: eleven cubits.

The altar

in the courtyard:

thirty-two

cubits.

Between the hall

inside the altar

and the altar: twenty-two cubits.

The length of

the Sanctuary

with the Holy of Holies:

one hundred cubits.

Eleven cubits

remaining for

the rear of the House of the Curtain.

It follows that if the altar were only thirty-one cubits, it would occupy from the area of the entire courtyard only this length, and one additional cubit would be added, which was between the hall and the altar, or in the place of the Israelites’ and priests’ tread.

Rather, on the basis of this difficulty, the Gemara interprets the verse that says: The foundation, the surrounding ledge, and the horns were each a cubit of five, in a different manner: "

The recess of the cubit"—

which the verse said concerning it that it was a cubit of five handbreadths—that is, the cubit that

in its height

[in the height of the foundation], but not in the inset of the foundation.

And through this interpretation the difficulty from the measurements of the altar’s width was resolved for us, for the additional handbreadth of the inset of the foundation reduces by two handbreadths the remaining width of the altar; and if so—even if the cubits of the width of the surrounding ledge and the horns were cubits of five handbreadths—you will not find a complete cubit beyond the measurements taught in the Mishna, and with less than a cubit we are not concerned, for the verse and the tan­nnay do not refer to handbreadths, but to complete cubits. "

A cubit of width"—

which the verse said concerning it that it was five handbreadths—that is, in the

inset

of the surrounding ledge, but not in the height from the foundation until the surrounding ledge—

And together with what the Gemara will explain, that even the height of the horns was a cubit of five handbreadths, the beraita concerning the bird-offering will also be explained, as the Gemara will explain below. "

Its border toward its edge all around":