Zevachim 55b (נה:) — the Talmud in English

And we raised a difficulty:

With regard to what do they disagree,

which law did the first tanna derive from one of the verses that Rabbi Eliezer cannot derive from it, since he needs it to render the north fit? And we answer:

The first tanna holds: Three verses are written: One

verse in which the word “entrance” is written is necessary

for its own purpose, to require the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

This excludes a case in which one slaughtered the offering before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened, when it is still not called an “entrance.”

And one

verse is necessary

to render the sides fit.

Since it again writes “before the Tent of Meeting,” rather than “at the entrance,” this indicates the entire width of the Temple courtyard, and not specifically the area opposite the entrance.

And one

verse is necessary

to disqualify the sides of the sides,

the area of the chambers in the courtyard, which do not open opposite the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Even if their interiors have the sanctity of the courtyard, slaughtering there is disqualified, since they are not included in the term “before.” For one might have said: Just as “entrance” is not meant specifically, so too “before” is not meant specifically. Therefore, the verse repeats “before,” to say that it is specifically required.

And a verse is not necessary for the north

to render it fit, as it can be derived by means of a kal va-chomer.

And Rabbi Eliezer holds: One verse is for its own purpose, to require the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. And one is to render the north fit,

as one might have thought to exclude it by means of a kal va-chomer.

And one is to render the sides fit. And a verse is not necessary to disqualify the sides of the sides,

since the first mention of “before” indicates the sides, but not the sides of the sides.

And we raised a difficulty:

What is different here

with regard to cattle

that it is written, “at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” and what is different there

with regard to a sheep and a goat

that it is written, “before the Tent of Meeting”?

And we answer:

It teaches us the principle stated by Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel. As Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A peace-offering

that one slaughtered

before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened

is disqualified,

as it is stated: “And they shall slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,”

and we expound:

When it is open, but not when it is locked!

For “entrance” indicates an open aperture [and it cannot be explained in its plain sense as specifically opposite the entrance, since it is written “before.” These are precisely the points of the first tanna and Rabbi Eliezer above].

It was also stated: Mar Ukva bar Hama said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina: Peace-offerings that one slaughtered before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened are disqualified. As it is stated: “And they shall slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”—when the entrance of the Sanctuary is open, but not when it is locked.

In the West,

in Eretz Yisrael,

they taught it as follows: Rav Yaakov bar Aha said in the name of Rav Ashi: Peace-offerings that one slaughtered before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened are disqualified.

And with regard to the Tabernacle,

if one slaughtered them

before the Levites erected the Tabernacle, or after the Levites dismantled the Tabernacle, they are disqualified,

since there is no “entrance of the Tent of Meeting” here.

The Gemara now explains various situations, asking whether they are included in the category of “the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.”

And the Gemara says: This

is obvious;

it is self-evident that if the entrance was

closed,

sealed because the door was shut, even though it was not locked,

it is considered like a locked entrance.

Therefore, if the door of the Sanctuary was closed, peace-offerings slaughtered there are disqualified.

However, the question arises when the door was open, but a

curtain

was spread across the entrance:

What is the law?

Is this considered like a locked entrance or not?

Rabbi Zeira said: The curtain itself

the curtain

is made only like an open entrance.

For the curtain was made only for the sake of modesty [its primary purpose being to prevent people from looking into the Sanctuary

at the time of slaughtering.

Tosafot].

We further raise the following question:

A mound:

if a mound or a piece of wood was situated opposite the open entrance and interrupted between the entrance and the place of slaughtering,

what is the law?

Is this considered as though the entrance were closed or open?

Come and hear

from this

as it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: There were two small doors

small entrances

in the House of the Knives [Before the Sanctuary stood the Hall. The Hall was fifteen cubits wider on each side than the Sanctuary, and the extra area on each side was called the “House of the Knives,” where the priests placed the halafim, the slaughtering knives. In each of these Houses of the Knives there was an entrance in its western wall, facing the western wall of the courtyard.

Before the Sanctuary stood the Hall. The Hall was fifteen cubits wider on each side than the Sanctuary, and the extra area on each side was called the “Chamber of Knives,” where the priests kept the halafim, the slaughtering knives. Each of these chambers had an entrance in its western wall, facing the western wall of the courtyard.

And their height was eight

cubits,

in order to render the entire courtyard fit

including the area behind it, to the west, and the areas on both sides of the Sanctuary and the Hall. These places were not included within the category of “before the Tent of Meeting” by means of the large eastern entrance [and what we said above, “to render the sides fit,” refers specifically to the sides in front of the Sanctuary, even though they are not opposite the entrance, but not to the sides of the Sanctuary itself or to its rear]. Through these entrances on the western side of the Hall, the entire courtyard became “before the Tent of Meeting,” since the Hall too is called the “Tent of Meeting”],

for eating offerings of the most sacred order

[below we conclude that this phrase should not be included, since eating does not require “before”]

and for slaughtering lesser sanctified offerings.

And we conclude the proof:

Is it not

the “height” mentioned in the beraita, namely,

that there was before them

a high mound standing opposite the House of the Knives,

eight

and we learn from this that a “mound” does not disqualify!

And we reject this:

No,

rather, this is the meaning: The small entrances

were themselves eight

cubits high, and the question concerning the “mound” remains unresolved.

The following objection was raised: All the gates that were there

in the Temple

were twenty cubits high and ten cubits wide,

so how can it be explained that the small entrances were eight cubits high?

And we answer:

Small entrances are different!

They are small openings, used not for entry and exit, but to render the slaughtering of peace-offerings fit.

We now return to discuss rendering the entire courtyard fit for slaughtering by means of the small entrances.

And we raise a difficulty:

But there are the sides

of the Hall, to the north and south, between it and the wall of the courtyard, which are opposite neither the eastern entrance nor the western one and are therefore not included within “before.” How, then, are they rendered fit for slaughtering?

And we answer:

They opened for them

the small entrances

at the corner

of the Hall: part of the entrance faced north and part faced west, thereby rendering both sides fit, and likewise on the southern side.

We further raise a difficulty:

What of the rear of the Holy of Holies,

the area between it and the western wall of the courtyard,

what is the law?

How can it be rendered fit for slaughtering?

And we answer:

Come and hear: For Rami bar Yehuda said in the name of Rav: There was a small opening

a small window

behind the Holy of Holies, eight cubits high, in order to render the courtyard fit for eating offerings of the most sacred order

[this phrase should not be included, as above]

and for slaughtering lesser sanctified offerings.

And this is what is written

in the book of Chronicles, in the enumeration of the guards appointed in the Temple for all the entrances:

“Two for Parbar,”

two guards for “Parbar,” meaning for that opening.

And we raise a difficulty:

What is meant by “for Parbar”?

And we answer:

Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: It is like one who says

as though he had said

toward the outside,

that is, toward the outside of all the walls of the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: One is not liable on account of impurity,

one who enters the courtyard while impure is not liable to receive karet,