Zevachim 63b (סג:) — the Talmud in English

All who ascend the altar

for the purpose of performing a service

ascend

and turn

by way of the right

and encircle

the altar until they reach the southwest corner

and descend by way of the left

and they would not return along the side by which they ascended, since if they did so they would be walking toward the left; and this is derived from the verse that all turns that you make must be only toward the right,

except for

the priests

who ascend for these three matters

for the pouring of the wine, the water, and the bird burnt offering

who would ascend

the altar and turn toward the left, to the southwest corner, in order to hasten and expedite their service. For with regard to the libations, they were concerned that the libations might acquire the odor of smoke while the priest performing them encircled the altar; and similarly, with regard to the bird burnt offering, they were concerned that it might die from the smoke while they encircled the altar with it from the right side.

And

they

would descend backward

from the same side by which they had ascended, and would not encircle the altar on their return from left to right, since whenever it is possible to minimize walking toward the left, it is minimized. [And with regard to those three matters that were performed below the scarlet line at the southwest corner, the priests would not ascend the altar for this service; rather, they would stand on the floor]] .

Gemara:

From where are these matters derived

that we said that the bird sin offering is performed at the southwest corner?

Rabbi Yehoshua said:

This is derived from this,

as the verse states

with regard to the sinner’s meal offering, which a poor person brings in place of the bird sin offering, and it is stated concerning it:

“He shall not place oil upon it, nor put frankincense upon it, for it is a sin offering.”

And from there it is derived that

a sin offering is called a meal offering, and a meal offering

of a sinner

is called a sin offering.

And the meal offering is derived from the sin offering:

Just as a sin offering

is rendered

invalid

when its sacrificial rites were performed

not for its sake, so too a meal offering

of a sinner is rendered

invalid

when its sacrificial rites were performed

not for its sake. [See Rashi, who had this version in the Gemara] .

See Rashi, for this is how he גרס in the Gemara] .

And a sin offering is likewise derived from a meal offering:

Just as a meal offering

its presentation to the altar

is at the southwest corner, so too a sin offering

the bird’s blood, the principal service of which, must be performed

at the southwest corner.

We raise an objection:

And from where do we ourselves derive this with regard to a meal offering

that its presentation is performed specifically at the southwest corner of the altar?

And we answer:

as it is taught in a beraita:

It is written with regard to a meal offering: “Bring it [the meal offering]”

“before the Lord”

“to the front of the altar”; and the western side is called “before the Lord,” as it is closest to the Tent of Meeting. If so,

it could be

that the presentation

be on the west

of the altar?

The verse states that this is not possible, since this verse says: "

to

the front of

the altar",

which is the southern side, as the ramp is situated in the south and the front of the altar faces the ramp!

If

you derive only from the verse

“to the front of the altar”

alone, then

it could be

that the presentation

be in the south? The verse states that this is not so, since this verse also says

“before the Lord,”

which is the western side!

How, then,

can the two verses be fulfilled?

He presents

the meal offering

at the southwest corner, opposite the tip of the corner

and thereby we fulfill both verses, both the southern and the western one.

And it is sufficient

that he present the vessel so that it touches the tip of the corner; the meal offering itself need not touch the altar.

Rabbi Elazar says:

the meal offering is presented at the southern corner of the altar, not specifically at the tip of the corner, but opposite the southern side of the corner.

And Rabbi Elazar maintains that this is how it is derived:

Could it be

that we interpret the intent of the verse

“he shall present it”

the meal offering as meaning either

to the western side of the corner, or

he shall present it only

to the southern side,

whichever of them he wishes?

You have said that the verse is not interpreted in this manner, for we have the following principle:

the verse is not interpreted in this manner, since we have an established rule

that wherever you find two verses

one verse

one of which fulfills itself and fulfills the other, while the other fulfills itself and negates its fellow, we set aside the verse

the verse

that fulfills itself and negates its fellow, and adopt the one that fulfills itself and fulfills its fellow.

And so too in our case: if we interpret the verse as saying that the presentation is performed in the west, then

when you say

that one fulfills

“before the Lord” -

“in the west,” you have negated

the verse

“to the front of the altar” -

“in the south.”

Rather, the intent of the verse is that the presentation is performed in the south, and both verses are fulfilled; indeed,

when you say “to the front of the altar,” “in the south,” you fulfill

also

“before the Lord,” “in the west.”

And

where do you fulfill it? -

Rav Ashi said: This tanna maintains

Rabbi Elazar

that the entire altar

on the side of

the north

of the Temple courtyard

stands,

so that the southern wall of the altar is aligned with the center of the entrance to the Sanctuary, which is called “before the Lord.” Therefore, he presents the meal offering to the front of the altar, on the southern side of the altar; and since it is aligned with the entrance, both verses are fulfilled.

We learned in our Mishna:

“It was valid anywhere, but this was its place.”

What is it saying?

Is this not a contradiction , since at first it says that every place is valid, and then it returns and says that this is specifically its place?

Rav Ashi said: This is what it is saying: Anywhere

on the altar, whether above the scarlet line or below it,

the sin offering

was

valid

for its pinching; but this

below the scarlet line

was its place for its sprinkling. We have already learned this, as the Sages taught in a beraita: The pinching

in the bird sin offering

anywhere

where it is performed

on the altar

is valid; if he sprinkled its blood anywhere

on the altar, whether above the scarlet line or below it,

it is valid, [

if he sprinkled but did not press out

the blood

it is valid,

since the sin offering requires pressing out after the sprinkling: he brings the bird close to the altar and presses the place of the bird’s pinching against the wall of the altar, and the blood is pressed out and descends to the yesod; and this pressing out is not indispensable,]

provided that he gives the blood of the soul below the scarlet line.

And we raise an objection:

What is it saying?

Are the beginning and the end not contradictory? At the beginning it is written that if he sprinkled its blood anywhere it is valid, implying that the sprinkling is valid even if he sprinkled all the blood above the scarlet line; whereas at the end it is written that it is valid only if he placed some of the blood of the soul below the scarlet line. But above it, it is invalid.