Zevachim 63b — the Talmud in English

All those ascending to the altar

for the purpose of service

ascend

and turn

by the right-hand route ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact position of page")

and go around

the altar until they come to the southwestern corner

and descend by the left-hand route

and they would not return by the side by which they ascended, for if so, they would be found walking toward the left side; and they learn from the verse that all turning that you turn shall be only to the right,

except for

the priests

ascending for these three matters [

the wine libation, the water libation, and the bird burnt offering]

who would ascend

to the altar and turn by the left-hand route toward the southwestern corner, in order to hasten and expedite their service, for they were concerned regarding the libations lest the libations absorb the smell of smoke while the priest occupied with them went around the altar; and likewise they were concerned regarding the bird burnt offering lest it die in the smoke while they went around the altar with it from the right side.

And

they would

descend backward

from the same side by which they ascended, and would not go around the altar on their return from left to right, for everything by which one can reduce walking toward the left, one reduces. [And those three matters that were performed below the scarlet line at the southwestern corner, the priests did not ascend to the altar for this service; rather, they would stand on the floor] .

Gemara:

From where are these matters

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

Rabbi Joshua said:

We learn this from that

for the verse says

regarding the sinner’s meal offering, which the poor person brings in place of the bird sin offering, and regarding it is said:

“He shall not place oil upon it and shall not put frankincense upon it, for it is a sin offering.”

And from there they learn that

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

of a sinner

is called a sin offering.

And they learn a meal offering from a sin offering:

Just as a sin offering

is rendered

invalid

when its services were performed

not for its sake, so too a meal offering

of a sinner is rendered

invalid

when its services were performed

not for its sake. [

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

And likewise they learn a sin offering from a meal offering:

And just as a meal offering

whose presentation before the altar is

at the southwestern corner, so too a sin offering

of a bird—this sprinkling of its blood, which is the principal service of it—its law is that it should be performed

at the southwestern corner.

And we raise an objection concerning this:

And as for the meal offering itself, from where do we know

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

And we answer:

For it was taught:

It is written regarding 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,” because it is closest to the Tent of Meeting. If so—

one might have thought

that the presentation should be

on the west

of the altar?

The verse says

that it is impossible to say that it should be on the west, for it is written in this verse: “

to

the front of the altar,”

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

!

If

you learn from the verse

“to the front of the altar”

alone, then

one might have thought

that the presentation should be

in the south? The verse says

that this is not so, for in this verse it is also stated

“before the Lord,”

which is the western side!

How then

shall the two verses be fulfilled?

He presents

the meal offering

at the southwestern corner, opposite the point of the corner,

and thus we fulfill both verses, both in the south and in the west.

And it is sufficient

that he present the vessel so that it touches the point of the corner; it is not necessary that the meal offering itself touch the altar.

Rabbi Elazar says:

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

And Rabbi Elazar holds that this is how they learn:

One might have thought

that perhaps we should interpret the intention of the verse:

“He shall present it,”

the meal offering, either only

to the western side of the corner, or

he shall present it only

to the south,

whichever of them he wishes.

You have said

that the verse is not interpreted so, for we have a principle

that wherever you find two verses,

one

verse fulfills itself and fulfills the other, while one fulfills itself and nullifies the other, we set aside the one

verse

that fulfills itself and nullifies the other, and seize upon the one that fulfills itself and fulfills the other.

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

when you say

that it fulfills

“before the Lord”—

in the west you have nullified

the verse

“to the front of the altar”—

in the south.

Rather, the intention 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 have fulfilled

also

“before the Lord,” in the west.

And

where have you fulfilled it?—

Rav Ashi said: This tanna holds,

Rabbi Elazar,

that the entire altar is on the

side of

the north

of the Temple courtyard

and stands.

It follows that the southern wall of the altar is aligned opposite the middle of the entrance to the Sanctuary—which is called “before the Lord.” Therefore, he presents the meal offering at the front of the altar, on the south of the altar; and since it is opposite the entrance, both verses are fulfilled.

We learned in our Mishna:

“In any place it was valid, but this was its place.”

What is it saying?

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

Rav Ashi said: This is what it is saying: In any place

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

was

the sin offering

valid

for its pinching, but this

below the scarlet line

was its place for its sprinkling. We learned this, as the Sages taught: Pinching

in the bird sin offering

in any place

where it is performed

on the altar

is valid; if he sprinkled its blood in any place

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

it is valid; [

if he sprinkled but did not drain

the blood

it is valid,

for the sin offering requires draining after the sprinkling, whereby 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 drained and descends to the base of the altar, but this draining is not indispensable,]

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

And we raise an objection:

What is it saying?

Is it not the case that the beginning and the end contradict one another? For in the beginning it says, “If he sprinkled its blood in any place, it is valid,” implying that the sprinkling is valid even if he sprinkled all the blood above; whereas at the end it says that only if he gave some of the blood of the soul below the scarlet line is it valid. But above, it is invalid.