Zevachim 63
Share this shiur:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
All ramps in the Temple had a slope of three cubits in length for every one cubit of height, except for the ramp of the altar, which had a gentler incline of three and five-ninths cubits. This was to accommodate the kohanim, who had to carry the animal body parts up to the top of the altar.
The kmitza—a handful taken from the meal offering—could be performed anywhere within the Azara (Temple courtyard). The remainder of the offering was eaten by male kohanim, could be prepared in any manner, and was permitted to be eaten only on that day and the following night until midnight.
Rabbi Elazar taught that if the kmitza was taken in the Heichal (Sanctuary), it was still valid. He compared it to the bowls of frankincense, since both are referred to with the term azkarata, and the frankincense is brought from inside the Sanctuary and burned outside. Rabbi Yirmia raised a challenge from a braita that seemed to imply the kmitza must be performed where the owner presents the offering—i.e., not in the Sanctuary, which is restricted to kohanim. However, two interpretations of that braita are offered, the first of which is rejected. Both explanations ultimately show that the braita was not intended to restrict the location of the kmitza, but rather to broaden it.
Rabbi Yochanan ruled that peace offerings may be slaughtered in the Sanctuary. He reasoned that since slaughtering may be done outside the Ohel Moed, it stands to reason that it may also be done inside. If the secondary location is valid, then certainly the primary one should be. A difficulty is raised from a braita concerning eating in the Sanctuary, which is prohibited, if not for a verse permitting it in unique circumstances. To resolve this, a distinction is made: slaughtering is a sacrificial rite, whereas eating is not.
The bird sin offering is ideally performed on the lower half of the altar at the southwest corner, though it may be offered anywhere on the altar. Six actions were performed at the southwest corner—three on the lower half and three on the upper half of the altar. On the lower half: the bird sin offering, bringing the meal offering to the altar for kmitza, and pouring the remainder of the blood into the yesod (base). On the upper half: pouring the wine and water libations, and offering the bird burnt offering.
When ascending the altar, people would typically go up the ramp on the right side, turn right at the top, begin at the southeast corner, and circle counter-clockwise around the altar before descending via the left side of the ramp. However, for the three actions performed on the upper southwest corner, they would ascend via the left side of the ramp to reach that spot directly, then turn around and descend from there after completing the task.
The bird sin offering is brought at the southwest corner, a location derived from the placement of the meal offering. The meal offering’s placement is itself derived from the verse in Vayikra 6:7.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Zevachim 63
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: ״וּשְׁחָטוֹ (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
וּמַקִּיפִין וְיוֹרְדִין דֶּרֶךְ שְׂמֹאל; חוּץ מִן הָעוֹלֶה לִשְׁלֹשָׁה אֵלּוּ – שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹלִין וְיוֹרְדִין עַל הֶעָקֵב.
and circle the altar until reaching the southwest corner and descend via the left side of the ramp, except for one who ascends for one of these three matters, where they would ascend directly to the southwest corner of the altar, and descend by turning on their heels and retracing the path by which they ascended rather than circling the altar.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא יִתֵּן עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה כִּי חַטָּאת הִיא״ – חַטָּאת קְרוּיָה מִנְחָה, וּמִנְחָה קְרוּיָה חַטָּאת;
GEMARA: The Gemara asks a question about the mishna’s statement that the sacrificial rite of a bird sin offering is performed at the southwest corner of the altar: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yehoshua says: The verse states with regard to the sin offering of a destitute sinner, which is a meal offering brought in lieu of an animal or bird: “He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense on it; for it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11). From this verse it is evident that a sin offering is called a meal offering and a meal offering is called a sin offering, so that their halakhot may be compared.
מָה חַטָּאת טְעוּנָה צָפוֹן – אַף מִנְחָה טְעוּנָה צָפוֹן, וּמָה מִנְחָה בְּקֶרֶן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית – אַף חַטָּאת בְּקֶרֶן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית.
Just as a sin offering requires slaughtering in the north section of the Temple courtyard, so too, the handful of a meal offering requires sanctification in a service vessel in the north. And just as a meal offering is brought near to the southwest corner of the altar, so too, the blood of a sin offering is sprinkled on the southwest corner of the altar.
וּמִנְחָה גּוּפַהּ מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – יָכוֹל בַּמַּעֲרָב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.
The Gemara asks: And with regard to a meal offering itself, from where do we derive that it must be brought near the altar at the southwest corner? As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And this is the law of the meal offering…before the Lord, in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7). From the phrase: “Before the Lord,” one might have thought that the rite of bringing the meal offering near the altar must be performed at the west side of the altar, which faces the Sanctuary. Therefore, the verse states: “In front of the altar,” which is its south side, from where the priests ascend the ramp.
אִי ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – יָכוֹל בַּדָּרוֹם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״. הָא כֵּיצַד? מַגִּישָׁהּ בְּקֶרֶן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית כְּנֶגֶד חוּדָּהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן, וְדַיּוֹ.
The baraita continues: If the verse merely stated: “In front of the altar,” one might have thought that the practice of bringing the meal offering near the altar must be performed at the south side of the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “Before the Lord,” which indicates the west side. How can these texts be reconciled? The priest brings it near at the southwest corner of the altar, opposite the edge of the corner of the altar, and that is sufficient.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יַגִּישֶׁנָּה לְמַעֲרָבָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן אוֹ לִדְרוֹמָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן? אָמַרְתָּ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁנֵי מִקְרָאוֹת, אֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ, וְאֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל חֲבֵירוֹ – מַנִּיחִין זֶה שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְתוֹפְשִׂין אֶת שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer says: One might have thought that the priest may bring it near the altar to the west of the southwest corner or to the south of the southwest corner. You must say: Anywhere you find two verses, and acting in accordance with one of them fulfills itself, i.e., the requirement stated in that verse, and fulfills the requirement stated in the other verse, whereas acting in accordance with the other one of them fulfills itself and negates the requirement stated in the other verse, one leaves the verse that fulfills itself and negates the other, and seizes the verse that fulfills itself and fulfills the other verse as well.
כְּשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״אֶל פְּנֵי ה׳״ בַּמַּעֲרָב, הֵיכָן קִיַּימְתָּ ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״? וּכְשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ בַּדָּרוֹם, קִיַּימְתָּ ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״.
The Gemara explains: In this context, when you say: “Before the Lord,” which indicates that the meal offering should be brought near the altar at the west side of the altar, how have you fulfilled the other part of the verse: “In front of the altar,” which indicates the south side? But when you say: “In front of the altar,” and bring it near the altar at the south side, you have also fulfilled the phrase: “Before the Lord.” Consequently, the meal offering must be brought near the south side of the altar.
בַּדָּרוֹם הֵיכָן קִיַּימְתָּ? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: קָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא, כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בַּצָּפוֹן קָאֵי.
The Gemara asks: If one brought the meal offering near the altar at the south side, how have you fulfilled the phrase: “Before the Lord”? Rav Ashi says: This tanna holds that the entire altar stood in the north section of the Temple courtyard. The southern side of the altar was directly aligned with the midpoint of the Temple courtyard, directly opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary, and therefore it is considered “before the Lord.”
בְּכׇל מָקוֹם הָיְתָה כְּשֵׁירָה [וְכוּ׳]. מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: בְּכׇל מָקוֹם הָיְתָה כְּשֵׁירָה לִמְלִיקָתָהּ, אֶלָּא זֶה הָיָה מְקוֹמָהּ לְהַזָּאָתָהּ.
§ The mishna teaches that if the sacrificial rite of a bird sin offering was performed in any place on the altar, the offering is valid, but the southwest corner was its designated place. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying when it states that the southwest corner was its designated place? The mishna already stated that the sacrificial rite of a bird sin offering should be performed at the southwest corner. Rav Ashi said: This is what the mishna is saying: Any place was valid for its pinching, but the southwest corner was the place for the sprinkling of its blood.
תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְלָקָהּ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ – כְּשֵׁירָה. הִיזָּה דָּמָהּ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם – כְּשֵׁירָה, הִיזָּה וְלֹא מִיצָּה – כְּשֵׁירָה; וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן מִחוּט הַסִּיקְרָא וּלְמַטָּה מִדַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ.
The Gemara notes: We learn in this mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita with regard to a bird sin offering: If the priest pinched its nape in any place on the altar, it is valid. If he sprinkled its blood in any place on the altar, it is valid. If he sprinkled the blood, but did not squeeze out the remaining blood upon the lower part of the wall of the altar, in accordance with the verse: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar” (Leviticus 5:9), it is nevertheless valid, provided that he places some of the blood of the soul anywhere on the altar from the red line and below.
מַאי קָאָמַר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: מְלָקָהּ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ – כְּשֵׁירָה. מִיצָּה דָּמָהּ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ – כְּשֵׁירָה,
The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? It first states that the offering is valid no matter where on the altar its blood is sprinkled, and it then states that blood must be placed specifically below the red line. The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is saying: If he pinched its nape in any place on the altar, it is valid. If he squeezed out its blood in any place on the altar, it is valid,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Zevachim Daf 58-65 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
New York, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
Raanana, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
Zevachim 63
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: ״וּשְׁחָטוֹ (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
וּמַקִּיפִין וְיוֹרְדִין דֶּרֶךְ שְׂמֹאל; חוּץ מִן הָעוֹלֶה לִשְׁלֹשָׁה אֵלּוּ – שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹלִין וְיוֹרְדִין עַל הֶעָקֵב.
and circle the altar until reaching the southwest corner and descend via the left side of the ramp, except for one who ascends for one of these three matters, where they would ascend directly to the southwest corner of the altar, and descend by turning on their heels and retracing the path by which they ascended rather than circling the altar.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא יִתֵּן עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה כִּי חַטָּאת הִיא״ – חַטָּאת קְרוּיָה מִנְחָה, וּמִנְחָה קְרוּיָה חַטָּאת;
GEMARA: The Gemara asks a question about the mishna’s statement that the sacrificial rite of a bird sin offering is performed at the southwest corner of the altar: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yehoshua says: The verse states with regard to the sin offering of a destitute sinner, which is a meal offering brought in lieu of an animal or bird: “He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense on it; for it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11). From this verse it is evident that a sin offering is called a meal offering and a meal offering is called a sin offering, so that their halakhot may be compared.
מָה חַטָּאת טְעוּנָה צָפוֹן – אַף מִנְחָה טְעוּנָה צָפוֹן, וּמָה מִנְחָה בְּקֶרֶן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית – אַף חַטָּאת בְּקֶרֶן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית.
Just as a sin offering requires slaughtering in the north section of the Temple courtyard, so too, the handful of a meal offering requires sanctification in a service vessel in the north. And just as a meal offering is brought near to the southwest corner of the altar, so too, the blood of a sin offering is sprinkled on the southwest corner of the altar.
וּמִנְחָה גּוּפַהּ מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – יָכוֹל בַּמַּעֲרָב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.
The Gemara asks: And with regard to a meal offering itself, from where do we derive that it must be brought near the altar at the southwest corner? As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And this is the law of the meal offering…before the Lord, in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7). From the phrase: “Before the Lord,” one might have thought that the rite of bringing the meal offering near the altar must be performed at the west side of the altar, which faces the Sanctuary. Therefore, the verse states: “In front of the altar,” which is its south side, from where the priests ascend the ramp.
אִי ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – יָכוֹל בַּדָּרוֹם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״. הָא כֵּיצַד? מַגִּישָׁהּ בְּקֶרֶן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית כְּנֶגֶד חוּדָּהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן, וְדַיּוֹ.
The baraita continues: If the verse merely stated: “In front of the altar,” one might have thought that the practice of bringing the meal offering near the altar must be performed at the south side of the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “Before the Lord,” which indicates the west side. How can these texts be reconciled? The priest brings it near at the southwest corner of the altar, opposite the edge of the corner of the altar, and that is sufficient.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יַגִּישֶׁנָּה לְמַעֲרָבָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן אוֹ לִדְרוֹמָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן? אָמַרְתָּ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁנֵי מִקְרָאוֹת, אֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ, וְאֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל חֲבֵירוֹ – מַנִּיחִין זֶה שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְתוֹפְשִׂין אֶת שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer says: One might have thought that the priest may bring it near the altar to the west of the southwest corner or to the south of the southwest corner. You must say: Anywhere you find two verses, and acting in accordance with one of them fulfills itself, i.e., the requirement stated in that verse, and fulfills the requirement stated in the other verse, whereas acting in accordance with the other one of them fulfills itself and negates the requirement stated in the other verse, one leaves the verse that fulfills itself and negates the other, and seizes the verse that fulfills itself and fulfills the other verse as well.
כְּשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״אֶל פְּנֵי ה׳״ בַּמַּעֲרָב, הֵיכָן קִיַּימְתָּ ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״? וּכְשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ בַּדָּרוֹם, קִיַּימְתָּ ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״.
The Gemara explains: In this context, when you say: “Before the Lord,” which indicates that the meal offering should be brought near the altar at the west side of the altar, how have you fulfilled the other part of the verse: “In front of the altar,” which indicates the south side? But when you say: “In front of the altar,” and bring it near the altar at the south side, you have also fulfilled the phrase: “Before the Lord.” Consequently, the meal offering must be brought near the south side of the altar.
בַּדָּרוֹם הֵיכָן קִיַּימְתָּ? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: קָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא, כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בַּצָּפוֹן קָאֵי.
The Gemara asks: If one brought the meal offering near the altar at the south side, how have you fulfilled the phrase: “Before the Lord”? Rav Ashi says: This tanna holds that the entire altar stood in the north section of the Temple courtyard. The southern side of the altar was directly aligned with the midpoint of the Temple courtyard, directly opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary, and therefore it is considered “before the Lord.”
בְּכׇל מָקוֹם הָיְתָה כְּשֵׁירָה [וְכוּ׳]. מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: בְּכׇל מָקוֹם הָיְתָה כְּשֵׁירָה לִמְלִיקָתָהּ, אֶלָּא זֶה הָיָה מְקוֹמָהּ לְהַזָּאָתָהּ.
§ The mishna teaches that if the sacrificial rite of a bird sin offering was performed in any place on the altar, the offering is valid, but the southwest corner was its designated place. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying when it states that the southwest corner was its designated place? The mishna already stated that the sacrificial rite of a bird sin offering should be performed at the southwest corner. Rav Ashi said: This is what the mishna is saying: Any place was valid for its pinching, but the southwest corner was the place for the sprinkling of its blood.
תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְלָקָהּ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ – כְּשֵׁירָה. הִיזָּה דָּמָהּ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם – כְּשֵׁירָה, הִיזָּה וְלֹא מִיצָּה – כְּשֵׁירָה; וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן מִחוּט הַסִּיקְרָא וּלְמַטָּה מִדַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ.
The Gemara notes: We learn in this mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita with regard to a bird sin offering: If the priest pinched its nape in any place on the altar, it is valid. If he sprinkled its blood in any place on the altar, it is valid. If he sprinkled the blood, but did not squeeze out the remaining blood upon the lower part of the wall of the altar, in accordance with the verse: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar” (Leviticus 5:9), it is nevertheless valid, provided that he places some of the blood of the soul anywhere on the altar from the red line and below.
מַאי קָאָמַר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: מְלָקָהּ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ – כְּשֵׁירָה. מִיצָּה דָּמָהּ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ – כְּשֵׁירָה,
The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? It first states that the offering is valid no matter where on the altar its blood is sprinkled, and it then states that blood must be placed specifically below the red line. The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is saying: If he pinched its nape in any place on the altar, it is valid. If he squeezed out its blood in any place on the altar, it is valid,
