זבחים 63 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Rami b. Hama said: All the ascents had a gradient of one cubit in three, except the ascent of the altar, which [rose one cubit] in three and a half cubits and a finger and a third, counting the little fingers. MISHNAH. THE FISTFULS OF MEAL-OFFERINGS WERE TAKEN IN ANY PART OF THE TEMPLE COURT, AND THEY [THE MEAL-OFFERINGS] WERE EATEN WITHIN THE HANGINGS, BY MALE PRIESTS, PREPARED IN ANY MANNER, ON THE SAME DAY AND NIGHT, UNTIL MIDNIGHT. GEMARA. R. Eleazar said: If the fistful of a meal-offering was taken in the hekal, it [the ceremony] is valid, for thus we find it in the removal of the censers. R. Jeremiah raised an objection: And he shall take thence [his fistful]: [that means] from the place where the feet of the zar stand. Ben Bathyra said: How do we know that if [the priest] took the fistful with his left [hand], he must return [the fistful] and take it with his right [hand]? Because it says, ‘thence’, [which means,] from the place whence he had already taken a fistful? Some state that he [R. Jeremiah] raised the objection, and answered it himself; others state. R. Jacob answered R. Jeremiah: Bar Tahlifa has explained it: Its purpose is only to declare the whole of the Temple court fit. I might argue: Since a burnt-offering is a most holy sacrifice, and a meal-offering is most holy: as a burnt-offering requires the north, so does a meal-offering require the north. [Therefore the text informs us otherwise.] As for a burnt-offering, the reason is because it is altogether burnt? — [Then learn it] from a sin-offering. As for a sin-offering, the reason is because it atones for those who are liable to kareth? — [Then learn it] from a guilt-offering. As for a guilt-offering, the reason is because it is a blood sacrifice. And as for all these too, the reason is because they are blood sacrifices? — Rather, [the text] is necessary. I might think, since it is written, And he shall bring it unto the altar . . . and he shall take up therefrom his fistful: as it must be brought near to the south-west horn, so must the fistful be taken by the south-west horn. Hence [the text] informs us [that it is not so]. R. Johanan said: If a peace-offering is slaughtered in the hekal, it is fit, because it is said, And he shall kill it at the door of the tent of meeting. and the adjunct cannot be stricter than the principal. An objection is raised: R. Johanan b. Bathyra said: How do we know that if heathens surrounded the whole of the Temple court, the priests enter the hekal and eat there the most holy sacrifices and the remainder of the meal-offering? Because it says, In a most holy place shalt thou eat thereof. Yet why [is this text necessary]? Let us quote, In the court of the tent of meeting shall they eat it, and the adjunct cannot be stricter than the principal? — How compare: there [that we are dealing with] service, we say, Let the adjunct not be stricter than the principal, since a man can perform a service in the presence of his master. [But as for] eating, since a man cannot eat in the presence of his master. we do not say, Let the adjunct not be stricter than the principal. MISHNAH. THE SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD WAS SACRIFICED BY THE SOUTH-WEST HORN. NOW, IT WAS FIT [IF DONE] IN ANY PLACE, BUT THIS WAS ITS [PARTICULAR] PLACE. THAT HORN SERVED FOR THREE THINGS BELOW, AND THREE THINGS ABOVE. BELOW: FOR THE SIN-OFFERING OF THE BIRD, FOR THE PRESENTING [OF MEAL-OFFERINGS]. AND FOR THE RESIDUE OF THE BLOOD. ABOVE: FOR THE POURING OUT OF WINE AND WATER, AND FOR THE BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD WHEN THE EAST WAS TOO MUCH OCCUPIED. ALL WHO ASCENDED THE ALTAR ASCENDED BY THE RIGHT,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ

^ᵃnote:They rose one cubit in every three.
^ᵇnote:Of which six go to a tefah (handbreadth). — As heavy limbs of animals had to be carried up on it, it had an easier gradient, nine cubits in thirty-two, which works out as in the text. (The translation adopts the marginal reading.)
^ᶜnote:Twelve loaves, called Shewbread, were placed on the Table in the hekal, accompanied by censers of frankincense (v. Lev. XXIV, 5 seq.). When the censers were removed (a week after they were placed there), the Shewbread might be eaten by the priests. Thus the removing of the censers corresponded to the taking of the fistful, which likewise rendered the rest permitted; hence, as the former was done in the hekal, so was the latter valid if done in the hekal.
^ᵈnote:E.V. thereout, but the Talmud understands the word to bear a local meaning.
^ᵉnote:Lev. II, 2.
^ᶠnote:The verse commences: And he (sc. the zar) shall bring it to Aaron's sons the priests; and continues, And he (sc. the priest) shall take thence etc. Hence ‘thence’ is interpreted, from the place where the zar is standing. This is now assumed to exclude the ulam and the hekal, where a zar might not enter.
^ᵍnote:Thus it intimates that it is sometimes necessary to take the fistful twice, which is only possible in this case.
^ʰnote:Marginal emendation.
^ⁱnote:‘From the place where the feet of the zar stand’ teaches that the whole of the Temple court is fit for the ceremony, and all the more the hekal and the court of the priests, seeing that this was a priestly ceremony.
^ʲnote:But a meal-offering is not, and so there is no reason for supposing that it requires the north. What then is the need for a text to teach that it does not?
^ᵏnote:Which is not altogether burnt, and yet requires the north.
^ˡnote:I.e., this reason would suffice apart from the others already stated.
^ᵐnote:Lev. II, 8.
^ⁿnote:Ibid. VI, 8.
^ᵒnote:As is deduced infra.
^ᵖnote:lbid. III, 2.
^ᵠnote:Since it must be killed at the door of the tent of meeting, the tent of meeting (corresponding to the hekal) is obviously the principal place for it, while the Temple court is but an adjunct thereto.
^ʳnote:Shooting arrows and hurling missiles into it.
^ˢnote:Emended text (Sh. M.).
^ᵗnote:Implying the hekal.
^ᵘnote:Num. XVIII, 10.
^ᵛnote:Lev. VI, 9.
^ʷnote:By the same argument as above: the ‘court’ is an adjunct to the ‘tent of meeting’ (the hekal); if it can be eaten in the former place, it can surely be eaten in the latter.
^ˣnote:Eating is for one's own benefit, and it may therefore be disrespectful to do it in the master's (here, God's) presence. — The hekal, being more sacred than the Temple court, is referred to as ‘in the Master's presence’.
^ʸnote:Lit., ‘made’, The Mishnah does not say ‘slaughtered’, as it was not slaughtered but had its neck wrung.
^ᶻnote:The Gemara discusses what this means,
^ᵃᵃnote:‘Below’ and ‘above’ refer to the scarlet line which encompassed the altar.
^ᵃᵇnote:Before their fistfuls were taken they were presented (‘brought near’) at this horn.
^ᵃᶜnote:Of the outer sin-offerings. These were sprinkled there.
^ᵃᵈnote:Its proper place was at the south-east horn, but if many animal burnt-offerings were being sacrificed there, this was offered at the south-west horn, above the line.

²THEN THEY WENT ROUND [THE ALTAR] AND DESCENDED BY THE LEFT, EXCEPT FOR THESE THREE, WHO ASCENDED AND DESCENDED BY RETRACING THEIR STEPS. GEMARA. Whence do we know it? — Said R. Joshua, Scripture saith: He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon, for it is a sin-offering: a sin-offering is designated a meal-offering. and a meal-offering is designated a sin-offering: as a sin-offering requires the north, so does a meal-offering require the north; and as a meal-offering [is presented] at the south-west horn, so is a [bird] sin-offering [offered] at the south-west horn. And how do we know this of the meal-offering itself? — Because it was taught: [The sons of Aaron shall offer it] before the Lord: You might think, at the west [of the altar]; therefore it states, in front of the altar. If [it is to be] ‘in front of the altar’, you might think, in the south; but Scripture says, ‘before the Lord’. How then was it done? He presented it at the south-west horn, opposite the edge of the horn, and that is sufficient. R. Eleazar said: You might think that he presents it on the west of the horn or the south of the horn; but you can rebut [this], [for] wherever you find two texts, one confirming itself and the other, whereas the second confirms itself but annuls the other, you abandon the one which confirms itself and annuls the other, and accept that which confirms itself and the other too. Thus, if you say ‘before the Lord’ [means] in the west, how can you confirm ‘in front of the altar’? But when you say, ‘in front of the altar’, means in the south, you confirm before the Lord as meaning the south But how can you confirm this? — Said R. Ashi: This Tanna holds that the whole altar stood in the north. NOW. IT WAS FIT [IF DONE] IN ANY PLACE etc. What does this mean? — Said R. Ashi, This is what it means: Any place is fit for its melikah, but this was the place for its sprinkling. We have thus learnt here what our Rabbis taught: If he nipped it by any part of the altar, it is valid; if he sprinkled its blood on any part [of the altar], it is valid. (If he sprinkled [the blood] but did not drain it out, it is valid) provided that he applies some of the life blood below the scarlet line. What does this mean? — This is what he means: If he nipped it by any part of the altar, it is valid; if he drained the blood at any part of the altar, it is valid,^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ

^ᵃᵉnote:For whatever they had to do, e.g., sprinkle the blood or arrange the wood pile.
^ᵃᶠnote:By the left. V. Suk. 48b.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., they returned the same way as they came. (10) Lev. V, 11. This refers to a sinner's meal-offering brought in extreme poverty instead of a bird sin-offering.
^ᵃʰnote:Since the latter can be a substitute for it.
^ᵃⁱnote:Rashi maintains that the text is faulty, because a bird sin-offering did not require the north, nor did a sinner's meal-offering. He conjectures as an emendation: as a (bird) sin-offering is invalid if offered under a different designation, so is a (sinner's) meal-offering invalid in similar circumstances. R. Hayyim in Tosaf. emends: as the blood of a bird sin-offering must be poured out at the base, so must a sinner's meal-offering be presented at the base.
^ᵃʲnote:I.e., its blood is sprinkled there.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lev. VI, 7. This refers to a meal-offering, and ‘before the Lord’ means at the altar.
^ᵃˡnote:Which faced the hekal, and so might appropriately be described as ‘before the Lord’.
^ᵃᵐnote:Ibid. ‘Front’ is the south, where the ascent ran.
^ᵃⁿnote:For variant reading v. Men. 19b.
^ᵃᵒnote:Hence the south of the altar ended opposite the door leading to the hekal, and so that too would be called ‘before the Lord’.
^ᵃᵖnote:It cannot be meant as it stands, for if it was fit in any place, why insist on a particular spot?
^ᵃᵠnote:Sh. M. deletes the bracketed passage.
^ᵃʳnote:The first blood which gushes forth.
^ᵃˢnote:This is apparently self-contradictory, as the first states that it is valid if sprinkled anywhere, and then states that it must be sprinkled below the scarlet line.