Zevachim 56a — the Talmud in English

Rather, concerning ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

a length of one hundred and eighty-seven

cubits

by a width of one hundred and thirty-five

cubits, for this is the area of the Courtyard [and below it explains what this comes to exclude].

A tanna taught before Rav Naḥman: The entire Courtyard was one hundred and eighty-seven cubits by a width of one hundred and thirty-five cubits.

He said to him

Rav Naḥman:

My father told me thus:

like this, throughout this entire area,

priests enter there, and eat there the most sacred offerings, and slaughter there offerings of lesser sanctity, and one is liable on account of impurity.

For all these have their law in the Courtyard.

And we examined it:

To exclude what

is one not liable concerning it on account of impurity?

If you say, to exclude

the thickness of the hollow space of

the windows

and the

doors

in the wall of the Courtyard,

and the thickness

of the wall at its upper edge, it is impossible to say so, for

we already learned: The windows and the thickness of the wall

have the status

of the inside!

Rather, to exclude chambers

that are in the Courtyard, where one who enters them in a state of impurity is not liable, because they were not sanctified with the sanctity of the Courtyard [as explained in Tractate Shevuot 14a].

And we wondered:

And if

in those chambers they are

built in unconsecrated ground and open into the sacred area,

how is it possible to exclude them,

for we learned: Their interior is sacred,

and one is liable concerning them on account of impurity?

And we answer:

By rabbinic law

it is forbidden to enter there in a state of impurity, but with regard to karet and a sacrifice they were excluded!

And we challenge:

And according to Torah law, are

the chambers not sanctified with the sanctity of the Courtyard?

But it was taught in a beraita: Chambers built in unconsecrated ground and open into the sacred area—

from where is it derived that the priests enter there and eat there the most sacred offerings and the leftovers of the meal-offering? The verse says: “In the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting shall they eat it,”

and previously it is written “in a holy place,” and we expound from the repetition of the wording:

The Torah included many courtyards for one eating!

And infer from it that the sanctity of the chambers is from Torah law, for if they are only rabbinic, how did the Sages permit a place of unconsecrated ground for eating offerings?! And we answer:

Rava said:

For eating it is different,

for the chambers were included as “many courtyards,”

but with regard to impurity, they are not

sanctified by Torah law!

And we examined it:

But it was taught in a beraita: Chambers built for unconsecrated use and open into the sacred area—

priests enter there and eat there the most sacred offerings, but they do not slaughter there offerings of lesser sanctity, and one is liable on account of impurity.

And challenge this, for the wording “one is liable” implies that it is from Torah law?

And we answer:

Did you not say

in the beraita

“they do not slaughter,”

which shows that they are not sanctified,

so teach also, “one is not liable”!

And we challenge:

Granted, “they do not slaughter,”

not because of sanctity, but because

I require

slaughter

opposite the entrance, and there is none

in these chambers slaughter opposite the entrance.

But “one is not liable”—why?

What compulsion is there to corrupt the beraita, for from “they do not slaughter” there is no proof!? And we answer:

According to your reasoning,

that the reason is “opposite the entrance,” challenge why it teaches “they do not slaughter”:

are we not dealing with a case where he slaughters opposite the entrance?

When the entrance of the chambers was aligned opposite the entrances of the House of the Knives; and necessarily this is so,

for if there is no

way in which it is opposite the entrance, it is obvious that they do not slaughter, and

why was it necessary

to inform us of this?

Rather, even though he slaughters opposite the entrance, teach

in the beraita that

“they do not slaughter”

because it is not sanctified;

if so,

teach also, “one is not liable

on account of impurity,” because they were not sanctified with the sanctity of the Courtyard, except with regard to eating.

Now what we said above is resolved: that we came to exclude chambers.

And we examined it:

But for eating, do we not require [the place to be] opposite the entrance?

For above it entered our mind that the reason they do not slaughter is that it is not “opposite the entrance,” implying that for eating we do not require “opposite the entrance” [another explanation: for the beraita teaches without qualification “they eat,” even in a place that is not opposite the entrance].

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda says:

two small doors [small entrances]

were in the House of the Knives, their height being eight, in order to render the Courtyard fit for eating the most sacred offerings and for slaughtering offerings of lesser sanctity,

which shows that for eating as well we require “opposite the entrance,” and that is why they made the small doors!?

And we answer:

Ravina said: Erase

remove

“eating” from here!

For we do not read it.

And we challenge:

But it is written

during the seven days of inauguration,

“Cook the meat at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and there you shall eat it,”

which shows that for eating as well we require “the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”!?

And we answer:

Offerings of the period are different!

For there was a scriptural decree concerning the inauguration. But for later generations we do not require “the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” for eating, because the Torah included many courtyards. [In Tosafot they explained that the inauguration is different, for even the priests were warned: “And from the entrance of the Tent of Meeting you shall not leave for seven days.”]

Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said:

From where is it derived concerning the blood of the offering

that it is disqualified

for sprinkling

at sunset? [One must ask: What practical difference is there with regard to this disqualification? At night he cannot sprinkle in any event, since all the services are performed during the day, and on the following day it becomes disqualified through remaining overnight at daybreak, like the sacrificial portions? The answer is: in a case where, after sunset, the blood was brought up to the top of the altar and remained there throughout the night; if it were not disqualified immediately at sunset, it would not become disqualified at daybreak, according to the one who says that remaining overnight does not take effect on the top of the altar, and he could sprinkle it on the following day.]

As it is stated: “On the day that he offers his sacrifice it shall be eaten,”

and we expound:

On the day that you slaughter, you offer

[you sprinkle the blood],

on the day that you do not slaughter

that is, when the day of slaughtering has ended,

you do not offer!