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 קפ"ז על רוחב קל"ה 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 ואוכלין שם קדשי קדשים ושירי מנחה תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ו, ט) 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 כנגד 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 (ויקרא ח, לא) 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 (ויקרא ז, טז) 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