Zevachim 63a (סג.) — the Talmud in English

Rami bar Hama said: The ramps of all the ramps [

which are the side ramps leading to the altar ramp] had a slope in the ratio of

three cubits

in length to

one cubit

in height.

Except for the altar ramp,

whose slope they made lower, since the priests carried heavy limbs upon it, and therefore they made its slope lower so that it would be easier to ascend,

which had

a slope in the ratio of one cubit in height to

three and a half cubits, one fingerbreadth, and one-third of a fingerbreadth by the measure of a thumb

in length. [

A cubit contains six handbreadths, and each handbreadth has a width of six ordinary fingerbreadths, or four thumbs. When the measure of the thumb was used to measure the width of a handbreadth, this was called measuring by the measure of a fingerbreadth of “zakhurta.” ]

And this is the calculation: First, we multiply the three and a half cubits of length by the nine cubits of height, and we obtain thirty-one and a half cubits. When we multiply the additional fingerbreadth by nine, we obtain nine fingerbreadths, and when we multiply the additional one-third of a fingerbreadth by nine, we obtain three fingerbreadths, for a total of twelve fingerbreadths. Since these are thumbs, of which there are four to a handbreadth, we find that we have three handbreadths, which are half a cubit.

When we add this half-cubit to the thirty-one and a half cubits, we obtain thirty-two cubits of length as compared with nine cubits of height!

Mishna:

The meal-offerings

although their law is that of most sacred offerings, and most sacred offerings are slaughtered specifically in the north, and the taking of the handful from a meal-offering is equivalent to slaughtering with regard to animal offerings, nevertheless

were subject to the taking of the handful anywhere in the Temple courtyard

and not specifically on the northern side.

And they are eaten within the curtains

within the curtains of the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting in the Tabernacle, and similarly in the Temple, within the courtyard,

by male members of the priesthood, in any manner of eating

and not specifically roasted, as is the Paschal offering. The Torah-mandated time for eating the meal-offerings is

one day and one night,

but the Sages made a safeguard that their nighttime period for eating should be

until midnight

and no later, in order to distance a person from transgression.

Gemara:

Rabbi Elazar said: A meal-offering that

the priest did not take its handful in the courtyard, as prescribed, but

took its handful in the Sanctuary

inside is

valid, as we find

that the taking of the handful is valid in the Sanctuary

when removing the bowls

of frankincense from the Table of the Showbread that stood in the Sanctuary, since the removal of the bowls is considered equivalent to the taking of the handful with regard to meal-offerings, because it renders the Showbread permitted for eating, just as the taking of the handful renders the remainder of the meal-offering permitted for eating.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection:

Why is the taking of the handful in the Sanctuary valid? Isn’t it taught in a beraita: It is written concerning the bringing of a meal-offering: “And he shall bring it [the non-priest who brings the offering] to the sons of Aaron, the priests,

and he shall take his handful from there,

a full handful,” and we derive that the place of taking the handful is

from the place where the non-priest’s feet stand,

i.e., in the courtyard? These are the words of the first tanna.

Ben Betheira says

and we derive from this verse: “And he shall take his handful from there.”

From where is it derived that if he took the handful with his left hand

although the taking of the handful is invalid, the meal-offering is not disqualified, and his law is

that he must return and take the handful with his right hand? The verse states: “From there”—

from the place where he already took the handful,

and it entered the mind that the first tanna specifically meant the courtyard, for that is the place where Israelites tread, thereby excluding the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall, where Israelites were prohibited from entering; and this would be a refutation of Rabbi Elazar.

And we answer:

Some say: It was he,

Rabbi Yirmeya,

who raised the objection, and he was the one who resolved it.

And

some say: Rabbi Yaakov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa: I shall explain the beraita to you,

so that it will not be difficult for Rabbi Elazar.

It was necessary

for the derivation from “there”

only to validate the entire courtyard

for the service of taking the handful, but it does not follow from it that taking the handful inside the Sanctuary is invalid. For without this verse,

it would enter your mind to say: Since a burnt-offering is a most sacred offering and a meal-offering is a most sacred offering, just as a burnt-offering requires

its slaughter

in the north, so too a meal-offering requires

its taking of the handful, which is analogous to slaughtering, in the

north.

And we challenge this: How could it enter your mind to derive the taking of the handful from slaughtering a burnt-offering, which must be performed in the north? There is a basis for challenging this:

What is distinctive about a burnt-offering is that

it is burned

entirely

for God, and it has no portion that is eaten, unlike a meal-offering, whose remainder is eaten!?

And we answer: Rather, it would enter your mind to derive the meal-offering from a

sin-offering

that is slaughtered in the north.

And we challenge this: It could not enter your mind to derive it even from a sin-offering, since there is a basis for challenging this:

What is distinctive about a sin-offering is that it atones for those liable to excision

who sinned unwittingly!?

And we answer: Rather, it would enter your mind to derive it

from a guilt-offering

whose slaughter is in the north.

And we challenge this as well: It could not enter your mind to derive it from that, since

what is distinctive about a guilt-offering is that it is one of the blood-offerings;

its service is performed with blood, and its primary atonement is through blood, and therefore one cannot derive from it with regard to a meal-offering, whose rites are not performed with blood.

And we answer: Rather, it would enter your mind to derive the meal-offering

from all of them,

the most sacred offerings—from the burnt-offering, the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering—and say that the matter has returned to its common basis: Just as the common element of all of them is that they are most sacred offerings and require the north, so too a meal-offering, which is a most sacred offering, requires the north.

And we challenge this: It is impossible to derive it from all of them, for

what is distinctive about all of them is that they are blood-offerings,

unlike a meal-offering.

Rather,

the verse “and he shall take his handful from there” must necessarily have been required to validate the entire courtyard for taking the handful, not because it would enter your mind to derive from most sacred offerings that the north specifically is required; rather,

the verse was necessary

because

it would enter your mind to say: Since it is written, “And he shall bring it near to the altar,”

and afterward it is written

“and he shall remove from it with his handful,”

it would enter your mind to say:

Just as the bringing near

that is stated with regard to a meal-offering, in which the priest would bring it near before taking the handful and bring it to the altar, is performed

at the southwestern corner

of the altar,

so too the taking of the handful

must be performed specifically

at the southwestern corner

and not elsewhere in the courtyard.

It teaches us

the verse that the entire courtyard is valid for taking the handful.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A peace-offering,

which is required to be slaughtered in the courtyard,

if one slaughtered it in the Sanctuary—

it is valid!

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

and from the fact that Scripture calls the courtyard “the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” it follows that the Tent of Meeting is primary and the courtyard subordinate; and therefore we validate the Sanctuary for slaughtering a peace-offering,

and

it is logical that

the

courtyard, which is

subordinate, should not be more stringent than

the Sanctuary, which is

primary.

The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Yehuda ben Betheira says: From where is it derived that if gentiles surrounded the entire courtyard

to wage war against it, and it is impossible to eat most sacred offerings there,

the priests enter the Sanctuary and eat the most sacred offerings there

and the remnants of meal-offerings [

and their eating there is valid, and the meat is not disqualified as an item taken outside its permitted area, because the Sanctuary too is a place where they may be eaten—Rashi, Menahot 8b],

the verse states: “In the most sacred place you shall eat it,”

to include the Sanctuary.

And this is difficult:

But why

is a scriptural inclusion required to validate the Sanctuary for eating offerings?

Let us say

that from the fact that it is written

“In the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting shall she be eaten,”

we learn that the courtyard is subordinate and the Tent of Meeting is primary, and even without a derivation we should validate the Sanctuary for eating a meal-offering, based on the logical principle:

“The subordinate should not be more stringent than the primary”!?

And we answer:

That is not comparable.

The law of slaughtering inside is not at all comparable to the law of eating inside.

There,

with regard to slaughtering,

it is a Temple service,

and since

a person performs service in the place of his master,

there is no logic for excluding the Sanctuary;

we say

that the Sanctuary is included based on the rationale

that the subordinate should not be more stringent than the primary.

But

eating

without a verse to include it, it would enter your mind that one may not eat inside because

a person does not eat in the place of his master,

as this is not a respectful manner; and therefore it would enter your mind that with regard to eating we do not say

that the subordinate should not be more stringent than the primary. The verse “in the most sacred place”

teaches us that they do eat there.

Mishna:

The bird sin-offering was performed

its blood was sprinkled and expressed

at the southwestern corner

of the altar.

And anywhere

on the altar where they performed its pinching,

it was valid.

The place of its pinching on the altar may be either above the red line or below it,

but

with regard to sprinkling the blood of the bird sin-offering, it is stated that

this was its place,

below the red line, and this is indispensable!

And that corner served three purposes

the southwestern corner

below

the red line;

and three

purposes were served by this corner

above

the red line;

and three

things were performed there

above

the red line.

And these are the three performed below the red line:

1.

The bird sin-offering,

whose blood was sprinkled on the southwestern corner below the red line.

2.

And the bringing-near

of the meal-offerings: before taking the handful, they brought the meal-offering to that corner, below the red line.

3.

And the remaining blood

of an animal sin-offering performed outside, after some of the blood has been placed on all four corners, is poured onto the base of this corner below.

And these are the

three

purposes for which this corner served from the red line

and above:

1. For

the libation of wine

because the shittin were located there above, at the top of the altar, into which the wine of the libations entered.

2.

The libation of water

during Sukkot.

3.

The bird burnt-offering,

whose primary place of performing its pinching and expressing its blood is at the southeastern corner. However, when many priests were occupied with burnt-offerings at the eastern corner, and there was no room for this priest who came to pinch a burnt-offering to stand there on the surrounding ledge, he would pinch it at the southwestern corner above.