Zevachim 63a — the Talmud in English

Rami bar Hama said: All the side ramps

[which are the side ramps that led to the ramp of the altar] had their incline in the proportion of

three cubits

of length to

one cubit

of height.

Except for the ramp of the altar,

whose incline they made lower, since the kohanim carried heavy limbs upon it, and therefore they made its incline lower, so that it would be convenient to ascend upon it,

which had

an incline in the proportion of one cubit of height to

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

in length.

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

And this is the calculation: At 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. And 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, and together they are twelve fingerbreadths. And since the matter concerns thumbs, of which there are four in a handbreadth, it follows that we have three handbreadths, which are half a cubit.

And when we add this half-cubit to the thirty-one and a half cubits, we obtain thirty-two cubits of length as against nine cubits of height!

Mishna:

The meal-offerings,

although their law is that of most holy sacrifices, and most holy sacrifices are slaughtered specifically in the north, and the taking of the handful in meal-offerings is like slaughtering with regard to animal sacrifices, nevertheless

were taken by handful in every place 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, with every kind of food,

and not specifically roasted, like the Paschal sacrifice. The time for eating the meal-offerings by Torah law is

for one day and one night,

but the Sages made a safeguard that the time for eating them at night should be

until midnight

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

Gemara:

Rabbi Elazar said: A meal-offering that

the priest did not take by handful in the courtyard in accordance with its law, but

took by handful in the Sanctuary,

inside, it is

valid, for we find

that taking by handful is valid in the Sanctuary

with the removal of the bowls,

of frankincense from the Table of the Bread of the Presence that stood in the Sanctuary, for the removal of the bowls is considered like taking a handful with regard to meal-offerings, because it permits the Bread of the Presence to be eaten, just as the taking of the handful permits the remainder of the meal-offering to be eaten.

Rabbi Jeremiah raised an objection:

Why is taking by handful in the Sanctuary valid? Is it not 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 sacrifice] 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 feet of the non-priest stand,

that is, in the courtyard? These are the words of the first tanna.

Ben Betira 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 the left hand,

although taking the handful is not valid, the meal-offering is not invalidated, and his law is

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

from the place where he already took the handful,

and it entered our mind that the first tanna means specifically in the courtyard, for that is the place where the feet of Israelites tread, and to exclude the Sanctuary and the Hall, where Israelites were forbidden to enter; and this is a refutation of Rabbi Elazar.

And we answer:

Some say: He,

Rabbi Jeremiah,

raised the objection, and he resolved it.

And

some say: Rabbi Jacob said to Rabbi Jeremiah bar Taḥlifa: I shall explain the beraita to you,

so that it will not be difficult for Rabbi Elazar.

It is needed

the derivation from “there”

only to validate the entire courtyard

for the service of taking the handful, and it does not follow from it that taking the handful inside the Sanctuary is invalid. For were it not for the verse,

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

its slaughter in

the north, so too a meal-offering requires

its taking by handful, which is similar to slaughtering, in

the north.

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

What is distinctive about a burnt-offering? It is

offered entirely

as a whole offering

to the Lord, and it has no portion that is eaten, unlike a meal-offering, whose remainder is eaten!?

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

from a sin-offering,

which is slaughtered in the north.

And we challenge this: With regard to a sin-offering as well, it could not enter your mind, for there is a basis for refuting this:

What is distinctive about a sin-offering? It atones for those liable to excision,

who sinned unwittingly!?

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

from a guilt-offering,

whose slaughter is in the north.

And we challenge this: This too could not enter your mind, for

what is distinctive about a guilt-offering? It is a type of blood-offering,

whose service is performed with blood, and the principal atonement is through blood, and it is impossible to derive from it with regard to a meal-offering, whose procedures are not with blood.

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

from all of them,

the most holy sacrifices—from a burnt-offering, from a sin-offering, and from a guilt-offering—and say that the argument returns: Just as the common aspect of them is that they are most holy sacrifices and require the north, so too a meal-offering, which is a most holy sacrifice, 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? They are types of blood-offerings,

unlike a meal-offering.

Rather,

it must be that the reason the verse “and he shall take his handful from there” is needed to validate the entire courtyard for taking the handful is not because it might enter our mind to derive from most holy sacrifices that the north specifically is required. Rather,

the verse is necessary

because

it might 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 lift from it with his handful,”

and it might enter your mind to say:

Just as the bringing near,

which is stated with regard to the meal-offering, which the priest brought near before taking the handful and brought it to the altar, is performed

at the southwestern corner

of the altar,

so too the taking of the handful

shall be performed specifically

at the southwestern corner

and not in the rest of the courtyard,

the verse teaches us

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,” derive from it that the Tent of Meeting is the principal part, and the courtyard is secondary; therefore we validate the Sanctuary for the slaughtering of peace-offerings,

and

it is a logical consideration that

the

courtyard, which is

secondary, should not be more stringent than

the Sanctuary, which is

the principal part.

He raised an objection: Rabbi Judah ben Betira 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 holy sacrifices there,

the priests enter the Sanctuary and eat most holy sacrifices there

and the remainders of meal-offerings

[and their eating there is valid, and the meat does not become invalid through going outside, because the Sanctuary too is a place for eating them—Rashi, Menahot 8b],

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

to include the Sanctuary.

And it is difficult:

But why

does it require an inclusion from Scripture to validate the Sanctuary for eating sacrifices?

Let us say

that from what is written

“In the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting he shall eat it,”

we learn that the courtyard is secondary and the Tent of Meeting is principal, and even without a derivation we should validate the Sanctuary for eating the meal-offering, based upon the reasoning

“the secondary should not be more stringent than the principal”!?

And we answer:

This is how it is now?

For the law of slaughtering inside is not at all similar to the law of eating inside.

There,

with regard to slaughtering,

it is a service,

and since

a person performs service in the place of his master,

there is no logical basis for excluding the Sanctuary,

we say

to include the Sanctuary on the basis of

“the secondary should not be more stringent than the principal,”

but

eating,

were it not for a verse to include it, it might enter our mind that one does not eat inside because

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

for this is not the way of honor, and therefore it might enter our mind that with regard to eating we do not say

“the secondary should not be more stringent than the principal.”

The verse “in the most holy place” teaches us that they eat there.

Mishna:

The bird sin-offering was performed

with the sprinkling and pressing out of its blood

upon the southwestern corner

of the altar.

And in every place

on the altar where they performed pinching upon it,

it was valid.

The place of its pinching on the altar is both above the red line and below it,

but

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

this was its place,

below the red line, and this is indispensable!

And that corner served for three matters

the southwestern one

below

the red line,

and three

matters this corner served

above

the red line, and

three

matters were performed upon it

above

the red line.

And these are the three that were performed below the red line:

a.

The bird sin-offering,

for the blood of the bird sin-offering was sprinkled upon the southwestern corner below the red line.

b.

And the bringings near

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

c.

And the remainder of the blood

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

And these are

three

matters for which this corner served from the red line

and above:

a. For

the pouring of the wine

because the channels were above, at the top of the altar, into which the wine of the libations entered.

b.

The pouring of the water,

on the Festival of Sukkot.

c.

The bird burnt-offering,

whose principal place of the service of its pinching and the pressing out of its blood is at the southeastern corner. But when many kohanim 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 walkway, he would pinch it at the southwestern corner above.