Zevachim 63a

אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: כׇּל כִּבְשֵׁי כְּבָשִׁים – שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת לְאַמָּה, חוּץ מִכִּבְשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – שֶׁהָיָה שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה וְאֶצְבַּע וּשְׁלִישׁ אֶצְבַּע בְּזַכְרוּתָא.

Rami bar Ḥama says: The slope of each of the minor ramps, was one cubit of rise per three cubits of run; this was true aside from the main ramp of the altar, which rose one cubit in three and a half cubits and one fingerbreadth and one-third of a fingerbreadth, measured by the tip of the thumb. The slope of the main ramp of the altar was slightly less than that of the minor ramps in order to make it easier for the priests to ascend the ramp while holding the sacrificial portions.

מַתְנִי׳ מְנָחוֹת הָיוּ נִקְמָצוֹת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם בָּעֲזָרָה, וְנֶאֱכָלוֹת לִפְנִים מִן הַקְּלָעִים – לְזִכְרֵי כְהוּנָּה, בְּכׇל מַאֲכָל, לְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה עַד חֲצוֹת.

MISHNA: Handfuls were removed from the meal offerings in any place in the Temple courtyard and were consumed within the area enclosed by the curtains by males of the priesthood, prepared in any form of food preparation that he chooses, e.g., roasted or boiled, for one day and night, until midnight.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנְחָה שֶׁנִּקְמְצָה בַּהֵיכָל – כְּשֵׁירָה, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּסִילּוּק בָּזִיכִין.

GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar says: A meal offering that had its handful removed in the Sanctuary is valid, as we found with regard to the removal of the two bowls of frankincense that were placed beside the shewbread on the Table, which was located in the Sanctuary. On Shabbat, these bowls of frankincense were removed and burned on the altar, which allowed the shewbread to be eaten. Removal of the bowls of frankincense paralleled the process of removing a handful from a meal offering; just as the removal of the bowls took place in the Sanctuary, so could the removal of a handful of the meal offering be done in the Sanctuary.

מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: ״וְקָמַץ מִשָּׁם״ – מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁרַגְלֵי הַזָּר עוֹמְדוֹת.

Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection from a baraita : The verse states with regard to the meal offerings: “And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests; and he shall take from there his handful” (Leviticus 2:2). The term “from there” indicates that the handful must be taken from a place where the feet of the non-priest who brought the meal offering may stand, i.e., the Temple courtyard, but not the Sanctuary, in direct contradiction to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם קָמַץ בִּשְׂמֹאל – שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר וְיִקְמוֹץ בְּיָמִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִשָּׁם״ – מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁקָּמַץ כְּבָר.

The baraita continues: Ben Beteira says there is a different explanation of the verse. From where is it derived that if the priest removed a handful with his left hand, that he should return the handful to the vessel and then remove another handful with his right hand? The verse states: “And he shall take from there his handful,” indicating that he may take it from the place where he already removed a handful.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ; אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא, אַסְבְּרַהּ לָךְ: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְהַכְשִׁיר כׇּל הָעֲזָרָה כּוּלָּהּ.

The Gemara answers: There are those who say that Rabbi Yirmeya raises the objection and he resolves it, and there are those who say that Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa: I will explain to you the solution. The verse that indicates that the handful is taken from a place where non-priests may stand is necessary only to render the entire Temple courtyard valid for removing the handful, but not to indicate that one may not take the handful in the Sanctuary.

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְעוֹלָה קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וּמִנְחָה קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים; מָה עוֹלָה טְעוּנָה צָפוֹן, אַף מִנְחָה טְעוּנָה צָפוֹן.

This was necessary because it might enter your mind to say that since a burnt offering is one of the offerings of the most sacred order, and a meal offering is also one of the offerings of the most sacred order, just as a burnt offering requires slaughter specifically in the north side of the Temple courtyard, so too, a meal offering requires the taking of the handful specifically in the north side of the Temple courtyard.

מָה לְעוֹלָה, שֶׁכֵּן כָּלִיל!

The Gemara responds: What is notable about a burnt offering? It is notable in that it is completely burned upon the altar. Therefore, one would not have derived that just as a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north side of the Temple courtyard, the handful must be taken from a meal offering in the north side of the Temple courtyard.

מֵחַטָּאת. מָה לְחַטָּאת, שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת!

And if one would attempt to derive that the handful of a meal offering must be taken in the north side of the Temple courtyard from the halakha pertaining to a sin offering, which is an offering of the most sacred order whose slaughtering must take place in the north side, yet is not completely consumed upon the altar, this too can be refuted: What is notable about a sin offering? It is notable in that it atones for those liable to receive karet .

מֵאָשָׁם. מָה לְאָשָׁם, שֶׁכֵּן מִינֵי דָמִים!

And if one would attempt to derive that the handful of a meal-offering must be taken in the north side of the Temple courtyard from the halakha pertaining to a guilt offering, which is an offering of the most sacred order that must be slaughtered in the north, and that does not share the unique characteristics of the burnt offering or sin offering, this too can be refuted: What is notable about a guilt offering? It is notable in that it is one of the types of offerings whose sacrificial rites are performed with their blood, which is not so with regard to a meal offering.

מִכּוּלְּהוּ. מָה לְכוּלְּהוּ, שֶׁכֵּן מִינֵי דָמִים!

The Gemara adds: It also cannot be suggested to draw an analogy from the common element shared by all of the offerings mentioned above. What is notable about all of them? They are notable in that they are all types of offerings whose sacrificial rites are performed with their blood.

אֶלָּא אִיצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב: ״וְהִגִּישָׁהּ אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, ״וְהֵרִים מִמֶּנּוּ בְּקֻמְצוֹ״ –

The Gemara presents a different answer: Rather, it was necessary for the baraita to teach that the handful may be taken from the meal offering anywhere in the Temple courtyard because it may enter your mind to say that since it is written: “And he shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8), and then it states: “And he shall take up from there his handful” (Leviticus 6:8), indicating that the handful must be taken from the vessel in which the meal offering was brought near the altar, that the verses also indicate that the handful must be taken in the place where the vessel is brought near the altar.

מָה הַגָּשָׁה בְּקֶרֶן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית, אַף קְמִיצָה בְּקֶרֶן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

Therefore, just as one must bring the meal offering to the southwest corner of the altar, so too, the removal of its handful must take place at the southwest corner of the altar. To counter this, the baraita teaches us that the removal of the handful may take place anywhere in the Temple courtyard.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּהֵיכָל – כְּשֵׁרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁחֲטוּ (אוֹתוֹ) פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ – וְלֹא יְהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִיקָּר.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Peace offerings that one slaughtered in the Sanctuary are valid, as it is stated: “And he shall slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 3:2), i.e., in the courtyard; and the courtyard, which is of secondary sanctity, should not be weightier than the place of primary sanctity. Accordingly, as the offering is valid if it was slaughtered in the courtyard, it is certainly valid if it was slaughtered in the Sanctuary.

מֵיתִיבִי: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּתִירָה אוֹמֵר, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם הִקִּיפוּ גּוֹיִם אֶת כׇּל הָעֲזָרָה – שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין לְשָׁם וְאוֹכְלִין שָׁם קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּקֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ״.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement from a baraita : Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that if gentiles surrounded the entire Temple courtyard and were attacking, making it impossible for the priests to remain there, the priests may enter that area, i.e., the Sanctuary, and eat the offerings of the most sacred order there? The verse states: “In a most holy place shall you eat it” (Numbers 18:10).

וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא: ״בְּחָצֵר אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד יֹאכְלוּהָ״ – וְלֹא יְהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִיקָּר!

The Gemara asks: But why is there a need to derive the halakha from this source? Let us say that it can be derived from the verse: “In the court of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:9), and the place of secondary sanctity should not be weightier than the place of primary sanctity. Therefore, similar to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, if the sacrificial food can be eaten in the courtyard, it can certainly be eaten in the Sanctuary. The fact that the baraita requires another source indicates that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s method of derivation is not valid.

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם עֲבוֹדָה – דְּאָדָם עוֹבֵד בִּמְקוֹם רַבּוֹ, אָמְרִינַן: לֹא יְהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִיקָּר. אֲכִילָה – דְּאֵין אָדָם אוֹכֵל בִּמְקוֹם רַבּוֹ, לֹא יְהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִיקָּר – לָא אָמְרִינַן.

The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to slaughtering offerings, the act of slaughter is a sacrificial rite, and a person serves in the presence of his master. Therefore, we say that the place of secondary sanctity should not be weightier than the place of primary sanctity, and if one can slaughter an offering in the courtyard, he can certainly do so in the Sanctuary. By contrast, in the case of eating sacrificial food, which is different because a person does not eat in the presence of his master, we do not say the rationale that the place of secondary sanctity should not be weightier than the place of primary sanctity. Therefore, a verse was required to teach that the priest may partake of the offerings in the Sanctuary.

מַתְנִי׳ חַטַּאת הָעוֹף הָיְתָה נַעֲשֵׂית עַל קֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מַעֲרָבִית; וּבְכׇל מָקוֹם הָיְתָה כְּשֵׁירָה, אֶלָּא זֶה הָיְתָה מְקוֹמָהּ. וּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים הָיְתָה אוֹתָהּ קֶרֶן מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת מִלְּמַטָּה, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מִלְּמַעְלָה. מִלְּמַטָּה: חַטַּאת הָעוֹף, וְהַגָּשׁוֹת, וּשְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם.

MISHNA: The sacrificial rite of a bird sin offering would be performed at the southwest corner of the altar. And if its sacrificial rite was performed in any place on the altar, the offering was deemed valid; but that corner was its designated place. And there were three matters for which the portion of that corner below the red line that served as the demarcation between the upper and lower portions of the altar served as the proper location, and there were three matters for which the portion of that corner above the red line served as their proper location. The following rites were performed below the red line: Sacrificing a bird sin offering, and bringing meal offerings near the altar before removal of the handful, and pouring out the remaining blood.

וּמִלְּמַעְלָן: נִיסּוּךְ הַיַּיִן, וְהַמַּיִם, וְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף כְּשֶׁהִיא רַבָּה בַּמִּזְרָח.

And the following rites were performed above the red line: The wine libation that is brought together with animal offerings or as an offering by itself, and the water libation on the festival of Sukkot , and sacrificing a bird burnt offering when they were numerous and it was impossible to perform the rite in the east, i.e., the southeastern corner where the bird burnt offering was sacrificed.

כׇּל הָעוֹלִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – עוֹלִין דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין,

All those who ascend the ramp to the altar ascend via the right side of the ramp toward the southeast corner