Zevachim 56

אורך מאה ושמונים ושבע על רוחב מאה ושלשים וחמש

an area whose length is 187 cubits by 135 cubits in width.

תני תנא קמיה דרב נחמן כל העזרה היתה מאה שמונים ושבע על רוחב מאה שלשים וחמש אמר ליה הכי אמר לי אבא כגון זה כהנים נכנסין לשם ואוכלין שם קדשי קדשים ושוחטין שם קדשים קלים וחייבין משום טומאה

A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman: The entire Temple courtyard was 187 cubits in length by 135 cubits in width. Rav Naḥman said to the tanna: My father said this to me: In an area such as this, the priests enter there and eat offerings of the most sacred order there, and slaughter offerings of lesser sanctity there, and are liable due to entering in a state of ritual impurity.

למעוטי מאי אילימא למעוטי חלונות דלתות ועובי החומה תנינא החלונות ועובי החומה כלפנים

The Gemara asks: These specific dimensions serve to exclude what? If we say they are stated to exclude the windows, doors, and thickness of the wall, we learn the opposite in a mishna (Pesaḥim 85b): The windows in the wall and the thickness of the wall are considered as though they are inside the Temple courtyard.

ואלא למעוטי לשכות ואי בנויות בחול ופתוחות לקדש והתנן תוכן קודש מדרבנן

But rather, they are stated to exclude the chambers in the Temple courtyard. The Gemara asks: And if it is referring to chambers that are built in the non-sacred area, which is outside this designated space, and open to the sacred area, but didn’t we learn in a mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 3:8): The inside of chambers that are built in the sacred area but are open to the non-sacred area is non-sacred, but their roofs are sacred. If they are built in a non-sacred area and open to a sacred area, their interior is sacred and their roofs are non-sacred? The Gemara answers: They have sanctity by rabbinic law.

ודאורייתא לא והתניא לשכות בנויות בחול ופתוחות לקדש מנין שהכהנים נכנסין לשם ואוכלים שם קדשי קדשים ושירי מנחה תלמוד לומר בחצר אהל מועד יאכלוה התורה ריבתה חצירות הרבה אצל אכילה אחת

The Gemara asks: And do they not have sanctity by Torah law? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to the chambers that are built in the non-sacred area of the Temple Mount and open to the sacred area, from where is it derived that the priests enter there and eat there offerings of the most sacred order and the remainders of meal offerings? The verse states with regard to a meal offering: “It shall be eaten without leaven in a holy place; in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it.” (Leviticus 6:9). The verse could have simply stated: “In a holy place,” which indicates the courtyard. By also stating: “In the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting,” the Torah amplified many courtyards with one type of eating, i.e., of the meal offering. If the chambers do not have sanctity by Torah law, the Sages would not have permitted the priests to eat offerings of the most sacred order there.

אמר רבא לאכילה שאני

Rava said: The halakha concerning eating is different. The Torah specifically includes these chambers in addition to the Temple courtyard itself for eating offerings of the most sacred order. By contrast, with regard to slaughtering offerings of lesser sanctity and the punishment for entering the courtyard in a state of ritual impurity, these chambers are not considered sacred by Torah law.

אבל לענין טומאה לא והתניא לשכות הבנויות לחול ופתוחות לקודש כהנים נכנסין לשם ואוכלין שם קדשי קדשים ואין שוחטין שם קדשים קלים וחייבין משום טומאה

The Gemara asks: But with regard to ritual impurity, is one not liable to receive karet for entering these chambers? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to the chambers that are built in the non-sacred area and that open to the sacred area, priests enter there and eat offerings of the most sacred order there, but may not slaughter offerings of lesser sanctity there, and are liable to receive karet due to ritual impurity if they enter there while ritually impure?

לאו אמרת אין שוחטין תני נמי אין חייבין

Rava could answer: Did you not say in the baraita that they may not slaughter offerings of lesser sanctity in those chambers? If so, emend the text of the baraita and teach also: They are not liable to receive karet for entering in a state of ritual impurity.

בשלמא אין שוחטין בעינא נגד הפתח וליכא אלא אין חייבין אמאי

The Gemara challenges: Granted, the priests may not slaughter there, because slaughtering an offering requires that it be performed before the entrance of the Temple courtyard, and if he slaughters it inside a chamber, it is not. But why would they not be liable for entering there in a state of ritual impurity?

וליטעמיך אין שוחטין מי לא עסקינן דאיכא שחיטה כנגד הפתח דאי ליכא למאי איצטריך אלא אף על גב דקא שחיט כנגד הפתח תני אין שוחטין משום דלא קדיש תני נמי אין חייבין

The Gemara answers: And according to your reasoning, when it teaches that they may not slaughter there, are we not dealing even with a case in which there is an act of slaughter performed before the entrance, i.e., the entrance to the chamber directly faced the entrance of the Temple? As if not, for what purpose was it necessary to teach this at all? Rather, even though he slaughters the offering before the entrance, the baraita teaches that a priest may not slaughter offerings in the chambers because that area is not sacred. If so, teach also that they are not liable to receive karet for entering the chambers in a state of ritual impurity, as they are not sacred.

ולאכילה לא בעינן כנגד הפתח והתניא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר שני פשפשין היו בבית החליפות גובהן שמונה כדי להכשיר את העזרה לאכילת קדשי קדשים ולשחיטת קדשים קלים אמר רבינא סמי מכאן אכילה

The Gemara asks: And for eating an offering, do we not require that this take place before the entrance of the Temple courtyard? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: There were two wickets in the Chamber of Knives, and their height was eight cubits; the function of these openings was in order to render fit the entire Temple courtyard for the eating of offerings of the most sacred order, and to render fit all of the Temple courtyard for the slaughter of offerings of lesser sanctity? Ravina said: Remove from here the clause concerning eating. The eating of offerings does not have to take place before the entrance of the Temple courtyard.

והכתיב בשלו את הבשר פתח אהל מועד ושם תאכלו אותו קדשי שעה שאני

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written with regard to the offerings brought at the inauguration of the Tabernacle: “And Moses said to Aaron and to his sons: Cook the meat at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting; and eat it there” (Leviticus 8:31). This indicates that the eating of offerings had to be at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. The Gemara answers: Offerings that were sacrificed only one time are different. Since they were specifically commanded for just that time, one cannot derive from there any halakhot with regard to offerings in general.

אמר רב יצחק בר אבודימי מנין לדם שנפסל בשקיעת החמה שנאמר ביום הקריבו את זבחו יאכל ביום שאתה זובח אתה מקריב ביום שאי אתה זובח אי אתה מקריב

§ Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi says: From where is it derived that the blood of offerings becomes disqualified at sunset and can no longer be presented on the altar? This is as it is stated in the verse: “But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a gift offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he sacrifices his offering [zivḥo], and on the morrow” (Leviticus 7:16). This means that on the day that you slaughter [zove’aḥ] the offering you sacrifice it on the altar and present its blood. But on the day that you do not slaughter the offering you may not sacrifice it and present its blood.

האי מיבעי ליה

The Gemara challenges: But he requires this verse

לגופיה אם כן נימא קרא ביום זבחו יאכל הקריבו למה לי שמע מינה ביום שאתה זובח אתה מקריב ביום שאי אתה זובח אי אתה מקריב

for the matter itself, to teach that a peace offering may be eaten for only two days? The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse state: On the day he slaughters it shall it be eaten, and the following day. Why do I need the verse to add the term “that he sacrifices it”? Conclude from the wording of the verse that on the day that you slaughter the offering you sacrifice the blood on the altar, but on a day that you do not slaughter the offering you do not sacrifice the blood on the altar.

ודילמא הכי קאמר רחמנא אי קריב דם האידנא ניתאכיל בשר האידנא ולמחר אי קריב דם למחר ניתאכיל בשר למחר וליומא אוחרא אם כן נימא קרא ביום הקריבו יאכל זבחו למה לי שמע מינה ביום שאתה זובח אתה מקריבו ביום שאי אתה זובח אי אתה מקריבו

The Gemara questions this proof: But perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying: If the blood is sacrificed today, i.e., the day the offering was slaughtered, the meat may be eaten today and tomorrow. If the blood is sacrificed tomorrow, the meat may be eaten tomorrow and the following day. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse state: On the day it is sacrificed it shall be eaten, and the following day. Why do I need the verse to state: “That he sacrifices his offering”? Conclude from the wording of the verse that on the day that you slaughter the offering you sacrifice the blood on the altar, but on a day that you do not slaughter the offering you do not sacrifice the blood on the altar.

איתמר המחשב לאור שלישי חזקיה אמר כשר רבי יוחנן אמר פסול חזקיה אמר כשר דהא לא אינתיק לשריפה רבי יוחנן אמר פסול דהא אידחי ליה מאכילה

§ It was stated: With regard to one who slaughters a peace offer-ing and intends to eat it on the evening preceding the third day, Ḥizkiyya says: The offering is valid, and it is not disqualified due to his intention to eat it after its designated time [piggul]. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is disqualified. The Gemara explains: Ḥizkiyya says that the offering is valid because on the evening preceding the third day, the peace offering has not yet been removed from its previous status and designated for burning. A peace offering is not burned until the third morning, as the verse states: “It shall be eaten the same day you offer it, and on the following day; and if anything remain until the third day, it shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 19:6). Rabbi Yoḥanan says it is disqualified, because it has been rejected from being eaten.

האוכל לאור שלישי חזקיה אמר פטור דלא אינתיק לשריפה רבי יוחנן אמר חייב דהא אידחי ליה מאכילה

These two amora’im have the same dispute concerning a similar matter: With regard to one who eats a peace offering on the evening preceding the third day, Ḥizkiyya says: He is exempt from karet, because the offering has not yet been removed from its previous status and designated for burning. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is liable to receive karet, because it has been rejected from being eaten.

תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן קדשים הנאכלין ליום אחד מחשבין בדמן משתשקע החמה ובבשרן ובאימוריהן משיעלה עמוד השחר קדשים הנאכלין לשני ימים ולילה אחת מחשבין בדמן משתשקע החמה ובאימוריהן משיעלה עמוד השחר ובבשרן משתשקע החמה של שני ימים

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to sacrificial animals that may be eaten for one day, if one intends to present their blood after sunset, or if one intends to eat their meat or to sacrifice their sacrificial portions after the first rays of dawn, the offering is considered to be piggul and is disqualified. With regard to sacrificial animals that may be eaten for two days and one night, if one intends to present their blood after sunset, or if one intends to sacrifice their sacrificial portions after the first rays of dawn, or if one intends to eat their meat after sunset following the second of the two days, the offering is considered to be piggul and is disqualified.

תנו רבנן יכול יהו נאכלין לאור שלישי ודין הוא זבחים נאכלין ליום אחד וזבחים נאכלין לשני ימים מה זבחים הנאכלין ליום אחד לילה אחריהן אף זבחים הנאכלין לשני ימים לילה אחריהן

The Gemara cites another baraita on this topic. The Sages taught: One might have thought that peace offerings, which may be eaten for two days, may also be eaten on the evening preceding the third day. And this is the conclusion of a logical inference: Other offerings, e.g., thanks offerings, are eaten for one day, and peace offerings are eaten for two days. Just as with regard to offerings that are eaten for one day, the night follows the previous day, i.e., the offering may be eaten during the day and the subsequent night, so too, with regard to peace offerings that are eaten for two days, say that the night follows the day, and rule that they may be eaten on the night after the second day.

תלמוד לומר והנותר עד יום בעוד יום הוא נאכל ואינו נאכל לאור שלישי

To counter this logic, the verse states: “And when you sacrifice a peace offering to God, you shall sacrifice it of your own will. It shall be eaten the same day you sacrifice it, and on the next day; and if any remains until the third day, it shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 19:5–6). This teaches that it may be eaten while it is still daytime, i.e., during the second day, but it may not be eaten on the evening preceding the third day.

יכול ישרף מיד ודין הוא זבחים נאכלין ליום אחד וזבחים נאכלין לשני ימים מה זבחים הנאכלין ליום אחד תיכף לאכילה שריפה אף זבחים הנאכלין לשני ימים תיכף לאכילה שריפה

The baraita continues: If a peace offering may not be eaten beyond the second day, one might have thought that it should be burned immediately after the conclusion of the second day, and this too is the conclusion of a logical inference: Other offerings are eaten for one day, and peace offerings are eaten for two days. Just as with regard to offerings that are eaten for one day, immediately after the conclusion of their permitted time for eating should their burning commence, on the morning of the second day, so too, with regard to peace offerings that are eaten for two days say that immediately after the conclusion of their permitted time for eating should their burning commence, at night after the second day.

תלמוד לומר ביום השלישי באש ישרף ביום אתה שורפו ואי אתה שורפו בלילה

To counter this logic, the verse states: “And if any remains of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day, it shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 7:17), meaning: You must burn it during the day, but you may not burn it during the night.

מתני׳ הבכור והמעשר והפסח קדשים קלים שחיטתן בכל מקום בעזרה ודמן טעון מתנה אחת ובלבד שיתן כנגד היסוד

MISHNA: The firstborn offering, the animal tithe offering, and the Paschal offering are offerings of lesser sanctity. Their slaughter is anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and their blood requires one placement, provided that the priest places it so that the blood goes on the base of the altar.

שינה באכילתן הבכור נאכל לכהנים והמעשר לכל אדם ונאכלין בכל העיר בכל מאכל לשני ימים ולילה אחד הפסח אינו נאכל אלא בלילה ואינו נאכל אלא עד חצות ואינו נאכל אלא למנויו ואינו נאכל אלא צלי

The halakha differs with regard to their consumption. The firstborn offering is eaten by the priests, and the animal tithe offer-ing is eaten by any person, i.e., any ritually pure Jew. And they are eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem, prepared in any manner of food preparation, for two days and one night. The Paschal offering is eaten only at night, and it is eaten only until midnight, and it is eaten only by its registrants, i.e., those who registered in advance to partake of the offering, and it is eaten only roasted, not prepared in any other manner.

גמ׳ מאן תנא אמר רב חסדא רבי יוסי הגלילי היא דתניא רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר חלבו לא נאמר אלא חלבם דמו לא נאמר אלא דמם לימד על בכור ומעשר ופסח שטעונין מתן דמים ואימורין לגבי מזבח

GEMARA: Who is the tanna who taught that the blood of these offerings is placed, not poured, so that it goes on the base of the altar? Rav Ḥisda says that it is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The verse states: “But the firstborn of an ox, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are sacred; you shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar and you shall burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Numbers 18:17). It is not stated: Its fat, but rather: “Their fat.” Similarly, it is not stated: Its blood, but rather: “Their blood.” This teaches with regard to a firstborn offering, which is mentioned explicitly in the verse, and an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering, which are similar in their sanctity to a firstborn offering, that they all require placement of their blood and the burning of their sacrificial portions on the altar.

כנגד היסוד מנא לן אמר רבי אליעזר אתיא זריקה זריקה מעולה

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that their blood must be placed so that it goes on the base of the altar? Rabbi Eliezer says: This is derived by way of a verbal analogy, with the meaning of the word “sprinkling” stated here derived from the meaning of the word “sprinkling” stated with regard to a burnt offering.