Zevachim 55b — the Talmud in English

And we examine it:

With regard to what do they disagree,

what law did the first Tanna learn from one of the verses that Rabbi Eliezer cannot learn from it, since it is needed to qualify the north? And we answer:

The first Tanna holds: Three verses are written: One

verse, in which “the entrance” is written, is needed

for itself, that the entrance of the Tent of Meeting is required.

And this excludes a case where he slaughtered before the opening of the doors of the Sanctuary, for it is still not called “the entrance

”.

And one

verse is to qualify the sides.

From the fact that it again wrote “before the Tent of Meeting,” and did not write “the entrance,” it indicates the entire width of the courtyard, and not specifically opposite the entrance.

And one

verse is

to disqualify the sides of the sides,

the place of the chambers in the courtyard, which are not open opposite the entrance of the Tent of Meeting; and even if their interior is sacred, they are disqualified for slaughter, since they are not included in “before.” For one might have said: Just as “the entrance” is not specifically [the entrance], so too “before” is not specifically [before]; therefore it again wrote “before,” to say that it is specific.

And a verse was not needed for the north

to qualify it, for it is learned by a

. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: One is for itself, that the entrance of the Tent of Meeting is required. And one is to qualify the north,

for one might have thought to exclude it by a

. And one is to qualify the sides. And a verse was not needed to disqualify the sides of the sides,

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

And we examine it:

What is different here,

with regard to cattle,

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

with regard to a sheep and a goat,

that “before the Tent of Meeting” is written?

And we answer:

It teaches us in accordance with what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel. For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A peace-offering

that they slaughtered

before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened

is disqualified,

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

and we expound:

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

For “the entrance” means the open space [and it cannot be explained according to its plain sense, specifically opposite the entrance, since “before” is written. These are the very matters of the first Tanna and Rabbi Eliezer above].

It was also stated: Mar Ukva bar Hama said in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina: Peace-offerings that they slaughtered before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened are disqualified. As it is stated: “And they shall slaughter 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 the Land of Israel,

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

And with regard to the Tabernacle,

if they slaughtered them

before the Levites set up the Tabernacle, or after the Levites dismantled the Tabernacle, they are disqualified,

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

And now the Gemara explains various cases, whether they are included in the category of “the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” or not.

And the Gemara says: This is

obvious,

it is a simple matter, that if the entrance was

closed,

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

it is considered as locked.

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

However, there is a question when the door was open, but a

curtain

was spread opposite the entrance:

What

is the law? Is this considered locked or not?

Rabbi Zeira said: The curtain itself

the curtain

is made only as an open entrance.

For the curtain was made only for modesty, so that they would not look into the Sanctuary

at the time of slaughter.

Tosafot].

We further raise a question:

Its height,

if there was a mound or a tree placed opposite the open entrance, separating between the entrance and the slaughter,

what

is the law? Is this considered that the entrance is closed or open?

Come and hear

from this

as it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: There were two small doors

small entrances

in the House of Knives [

Before the Sanctuary was the Hall. The width of the Hall was fifteen cubits greater on each side than the width of the Sanctuary, and that extra area on each side was called “the House of Knives,” where the priests would place the “knives,” the slaughtering knives. In each of the Houses of Knives there was an entrance in its western wall, toward the western wall of the courtyard.

And their height was eight

cubits,

in order to qualify the entire courtyard,

including the area behind it, to the west, and the areas on both sides of the Sanctuary and the Hall, since these places were not included in the category of “before the Tent of Meeting” through the large entrance in the east [and what we said above, “to qualify the sides,” refers specifically to the sides before the Sanctuary, even though they are not opposite the entrance, but not to the sides of the Sanctuary itself and its rear]. Through these entrances on the western side of the Hall, the entire courtyard was made “before the Tent of Meeting,” since the Hall too is called “the Tent of Meeting]]”;

for eating most holy offerings

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

and for slaughtering lesser sanctified offerings.

And we conclude concerning the proof:

Is it not

“their height,” which is taught in the beraita, meaning

that there was before them

a high mound standing opposite the House of Knives,

eight

[cubits high]? And learn from it that “its height” does not disqualify!

And we reject this:

No,

rather, this is its meaning: The small doors

were themselves eight in height,

cubits, and the question of “its height” remains unresolved.

He raises an objection: All the gates that were there

in the Temple

were twenty cubits high and ten cubits wide,

and how is it possible to explain that the height of the small doors was eight?

And we answer:

Small doors are different!

For they are small entrances and are not used for entry and exit, but to qualify the slaughter of peace-offerings.

We now return to discuss qualifying the entire courtyard for slaughter through the small doors.

And we examine it:

But there are the sides

of the Hall, to the north and to the south, between it and the wall of the courtyard, which are neither opposite the eastern entrance nor the western one, and are not included in “before.” How can they be qualified for slaughter?

And we answer:

That they opened them

the small doors

at the corner

of the Hall; part of the entrance faced north and part faced west, and it qualified both sides, and likewise in the south.

We further examine it:

The rear of the House of the Curtain,

between it and the wall of the courtyard in the west,

what

is the law? How can it be qualified for slaughter?

And we answer:

Come and hear: For Rami bar Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A small hatch

window

was behind the House of the Curtain, eight cubits high, in order to qualify the courtyard for eating most holy offerings

[this should not be read, 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 whom they appointed in the Temple for all the entrances:

“two for the outside.”

Two guards for the “outside,” meaning for that hatch.

And we examine it:

What is “for the outside”?

And we answer:

Rabba bar Rav Shila said: In accordance with the one who says

as though he said

toward the outside,

toward the outside, that is, behind 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 for excision,