בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: תְּלָתָא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי, חַד – לְגוּפֵיהּ, דְּנִיבְעֵי פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, וְחַד – לְהַכְשִׁיר צְדָדִין, וְחַד – לִפְסוֹל צִידֵּי צְדָדִין; וְצָפוֹן לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא.

The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do they disagree? The first tanna holds that three verses are written. One verse serves to teach the halakha itself, that we require that the slaughter take place at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. And one verse serves to render fit slaughter at the sides, i.e., the entire length of the Temple courtyard eastward from the entrance, and not only that part which is directly in front of the entrance. And one verse serves to disqualify the sides of the sides, i.e., those parts of the courtyard that are not in front of the entrance at all. And it was not necessary to have a verse teach the fitness of slaughtering in the north, as it can be derived via an a fortiori inference.

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: חַד – לְגוּפֵיהּ, דְּנִיבְעֵי פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, וְחַד – לְהַכְשִׁיר צָפוֹן, וְחַד – לְהַכְשִׁיר צְדָדִין; וְצִידֵּי צְדָדִין לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא.

And Rabbi Eliezer holds that one verse is necessary to teach the halakha itself, that we require slaughter at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. And one verse serves to render fit slaughter in the north of the courtyard. And one verse serves to render fit slaughter at the sides of the courtyard. But according to him, it was not necessary to have a verse teach that the sides of the sides are not fit for the slaughter of the offering.

מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דִּכְתִיב: ״פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דִּכְתִיב: ״לִפְנֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״? קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן קוֹדֶם שֶׁיִּפָּתְחוּ דַּלְתוֹת הַהֵיכָל – פְּסוּלִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּשְׁחָטוֹ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ – בִּזְמָן שֶׁהוּא פָּתוּחַ, וְלֹא בִּזְמָן שֶׁהוּא נָעוּל.

§ The Gemara asks: What is different here that it is written: “At the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 3:2), and what is different there that it is written: “Before the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 3:8, 13)? The Gemara answers: This teaches us a matter in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says. As Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Peace offerings that one slaughtered in the Temple before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened are disqualified, as it is stated with regard to peace offerings: “And he shall slaughter it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 3:2), which teaches that it must be slaughtered when the entrance is open and serves as an actual entrance, and not when it is locked. As long as the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, or in the Temple the doors to the Sanctuary, remain closed, one may not sacrifice the peace offerings, and if they are sacrificed, they are disqualified.

אִיתְּמַר נַמִי, אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן קוֹדֶם שֶׁיִּפָּתְחוּ דַּלְתוֹת הַהֵיכָל – פְּסוּלִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּשְׁחָטוֹ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ – בִּזְמָן שֶׁפֶּתַח הַהֵיכָל פָּתוּחַ, וְלֹא בִּזְמָן שֶׁהוּא נָעוּל.

It was also stated: Mar Ukva bar Ḥama says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Peace offerings that one slaughtered before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened are disqualified, as it is stated in the verse: “He shall slaughter it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 3:2). This means when the entrance of the Sanctuary is open, and not when it is locked.

בְּמַעֲרָבָא מַתְנֵי הָכִי, אָמַר רַב יַעֲקֹב בַּר אַחָא אָמַר רַב אַשִׁי: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן קוֹדֶם שֶׁיִּפָּתְחוּ דַּלְתוֹת הַהֵיכָל – פְּסוּלִים. וּבַמִּשְׁכָּן – קוֹדֶם שֶׁיַּעֲמִידוּ לְוִיִּם אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן, וּלְאַחַר שֶׁיְּפָרְקוּ לְוִיִּם אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן – פְּסוּלִים.

In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they teach this halakha like this: Rav Ya’akov bar Aḥa says that Rav Ashi says: Peace offerings that one slaughtered before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened are disqualified. And in the Tabernacle, which had no doors, peace offerings that were slaughtered before the Levites erected the Tabernacle or after the Levites dismantled the Tabernacle are disqualified.

פְּשִׁיטָא: מוּגָּף – כְּנָעוּל דָּמֵי, וִילוֹן מַאי? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הוּא עַצְמוֹ אֵין נַעֲשֶׂה אֶלָּא כְּפֶתַח פָּתוּחַ.

The Gemara comments: It is obvious that if the door is closed but not locked it has the same status as if it were locked. The Gemara asks: If there is a curtain covering the entrance, what is the halakha ? Rabbi Zeira says: A curtain itself is made only to be used like an open entrance, and therefore it is not considered as if the entrance is closed.

גּוֹבְהָה מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵי פִשְׁפָּשִׁין הָיוּ בְּבֵית הַחֲלִיפוֹת וְגוֹבְהָן שְׁמֹנֶה, כְּדֵי לְהַכְשִׁיר אֶת הָעֲזָרָה כּוּלָּהּ לַאֲכִילַת קָדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים, וְלִשְׁחִיטַת קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים;

The Gemara asks: What is the halakha if a tall item is blocking the entrance? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof that a tall item does not render an entrance as closed, as it is taught in a baraita : Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: There were two wickets, i.e., openings, 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. Due to the openings, the western area of the courtyard was considered to be “before the Tent of Meeting.”

מַאי לָאו דְּאִיכָּא קַמַּיְיהוּ שְׁמוֹנֶה? לָא, דְּגָבְהוּ נִינְהוּ שְׁמוֹנֶה.

The Gemara explains the inference: What, is the reference to eight cubits not referring to the fact that in front of the wickets there was an obstruction eight cubits high? Nevertheless, the area outside of it is considered open to the Chamber of Knives. The Gemara answers: No, their height was eight cubits, i.e., the wickets themselves were eight cubits high.

מֵיתִיבֵי: כָּל הַשְּׁעָרִים שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם, גּוֹבְהָן עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה וְרוֹחְבָּן עֶשֶׂר אַמָּה! פִּשְׁפָּשִׁין שָׁאנֵי.

The Gemara raises an objection to this explanation from a mishna ( Middot 35a), which teaches: All the gates that were there, in the Temple, were twenty cubits high and ten cubits wide. If so, how could these wickets be only eight cubits high? The Gemara answers: The wickets are different, and they are not considered gates.

וְהָאִיכָּא צְדָדִין! דִּמְעַיֵּיל לְהוּ בְּקֶרֶן זָוִית.

The Gemara questions the ruling of the baraita . How did the wickets render fit the entire Temple courtyard? But there are the sides, i.e., to the north and south of the Chamber of Knives, and the wickets faced only to the west. The Gemara answers that they inserted the wickets in the corner of the Chamber, so that one opened to the northwest, and one to the northeast.

אֲחוֹרֵי בֵּית הַכַּפּוֹרֶת מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רָמִי בַּר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לוּל קָטָן הָיָה אֲחוֹרֵי בֵית הַכַּפּוֹרֶת גָּבוֹהַּ שְׁמוֹנֶה אַמּוֹת, כְּדֵי לְהַכְשִׁיר אֶת הָעֲזָרָה לַאֲכִילַת קָדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים וְלִשְׁחִיטַת קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים. וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״שְׁנַיִם לַפַּרְבָּר״. מַאי ״לַפַּרְבָּר״? אֲמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא: כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: ״כְּלַפֵּי בַּר״.

The Gemara asks: What is the halakha with regard to the area behind the Hall of the Ark Cover, i.e., behind the Sanctuary, from where one could not see the entrance of the Temple courtyard or the two wickets? The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as Rami bar Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was a small niche behind the Hall of the Ark Cover, which was eight cubits high. The function of this niche 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. And this is as it is written: “For the precinct westward, four at the causeway, and two at the precinct” (I Chronicles 26:18). What is the meaning of the term: “For the precinct [ laparbar ]”? Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: It is like one who says: Facing outward [ kelappei bar ].

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין חַיָּיבִין מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה אֶלָּא עַל

§ Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One is liable for entering the Temple courtyard in a state of ritual impurity only with regard to