Zevachim

Rami b. Hama said: All the ascents had a gradient of one cubit in three,1 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.2 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.3 R. Jeremiah raised an objection: And he shall take thence4 [his fistful]:5 [that means] from the place where the feet of the zar stand.6 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?7 Some state that he [R. Jeremiah] raised the objection, and answered it himself; others state. R. Jacob8 answered R. Jeremiah: Bar Tahlifa has explained it: Its purpose is only to declare the whole of the Temple court fit.9 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?10 — [Then learn it] from a sin-offering.11 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?12 — Rather, [the text] is necessary. I might think, since it is written, And he shall bring it unto the altar . . .13 and he shall take up therefrom his fistful:14 as it must be brought near to the south-west horn,15 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.16 and the adjunct cannot be stricter than the principal.17 An objection is raised: R. Johanan b. Bathyra said: How do we know that if heathens surrounded the whole of the Temple court,18 the priests enter the hekal and eat there the most holy sacrifices and the remainder of the meal-offering?19 Because it says, In a most holy place20 shalt thou eat thereof.21 Yet why [is this text necessary]? Let us quote, In the court of the tent of meeting shall they eat it,22 and the adjunct cannot be stricter than the principal?23 — 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.24 we do not say, Let the adjunct not be stricter than the principal. MISHNAH. THE SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD WAS SACRIFICED25 BY THE SOUTH-WEST HORN. NOW, IT WAS FIT [IF DONE] IN ANY PLACE, BUT THIS WAS ITS [PARTICULAR] PLACE.26 THAT HORN SERVED FOR THREE THINGS BELOW, AND THREE THINGS ABOVE.27 BELOW: FOR THE SIN-OFFERING OF THE BIRD, FOR THE PRESENTING [OF MEAL-OFFERINGS].28 AND FOR THE RESIDUE OF THE BLOOD.29 ABOVE: FOR THE POURING OUT OF WINE AND WATER, AND FOR THE BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD WHEN THE EAST WAS TOO MUCH OCCUPIED.30 ALL WHO ASCENDED THE ALTAR ASCENDED BY THE RIGHT, gradient, nine cubits in thirty-two, which works out as in the text. (The translation adopts the marginal reading.) 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. 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. and all the more the hekal and the court of the priests, seeing that this was a priestly ceremony. for a text to teach that it does not? obviously the principal place for it, while the Temple court is but an adjunct thereto. former place, it can surely be eaten in the latter. — The hekal, being more sacred than the Temple court, is referred to as ‘in the Master's presence’. offered at the south-west horn, above the line.