Wherein do they differ? — The first Tanna holds, Three texts are written: (1) one is for its own purpose, to intimate that the door of the tent of meeting is required; (2) the second is to permit the sides; (3) and the third is to invalidate the sides of the sides; (4) while no text is necessary for the north. Whereas R. Eliezer holds: One is for its own purpose, to intimate that the door of the tent of meeting is required; the second is to permit the north; and the third is to permit the sides; but no text is required in respect of the sides of the sides. Why is ‘the door of the tent of meeting’ written in one case, whereas ‘before the tent of meeting’ is written in the others? — We are thereby informed of Rab Judah's teaching in Samuel's name. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: If a peace-offering is slaughtered before the doors of the Hekal are opened, it is invalid, for it is said, ‘And he shall kill it at the entrance [opening] of the tent of meeting’: when it is open, but not when it is shut. It was stated likewise: Mar ‘Ukba b. Hama said in R. Jose son of R. Hanina's name: If one slaughtered a peaceoffering before the doors of the Hekal were opened, it is invalid, because it is said, ‘And he shall kill it at the entrance [opening] of the tent of meeting’: when it is open, and not when it is shut. In the West [Palestine] they recited it thus: R. Aha b. Jacob said in R. Ashi's name: If a peace-offering is slaughtered before the doors of the Hekal are opened, it is invalid; in the Tabernacle, (5) [if it is slaughtered] before the Levites set up the Tabernacle or after the Levites take down the Tabernacle, it is invalid. It is obvious that if it is shut, it is as though it were locked. (6) What if a curtain [shuts it off]? — Said R. Zera: That itself is made only for an open door. (7) What of an elevation? (8) — Come and hear: For it was taught, R. Jose b. R. Judah said: There were two wickets in the knives’ recess and their elevation was eight cubits, in order that the whole of the Temple court might be made fit for the consumption of sacrifices of higher sanctity and the slaughtering of sacrifices of lower sanctity. (9) Does this not mean that [an elevation] eight [cubits high] stood before them [these wickets]? (10) — No: it means that they [themselves] (11) were eight cubits high. An objection is raised: All the gates there were twenty cubits high and ten cubits wide? (12) — The wickets were different. (13) But there were the sides? (14) — They were built at the corners. (15) What about the space behind the place of the Mercy Seat [Kapporeth]? (16) — Come and hear, for Rami son of Rab Judah said in Rab's name: There was a small passage way behind the place of the Mercy Seat, in order to make the whole Temple court fit for the consumption of most holy sacrifices and the slaughtering of minor sacrifices, and there were two such, (17) and thus it is written, And two le-par bar. (18) What does le-par bar mean? — Said Rabbah son of R. Shila: As one says, facing without [ke-lappe le-bar]. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: Liability for uncleanness (19) is incurred

---

(1). ↑ The ‘tent of meeting’ is repeated three times.
(2). ↑ I.e., as stated infra, the animal may be slain only when this door is open.
(3). ↑ One is not limited to the space directly in front of the door.
(4). ↑ I.e., chambers opening into the Temple court. These, even if sanctified, are unfit.
(5). ↑ When there was no door, but only an opening.
(6). ↑ The sacrifice then is certainly invalid.
(7). ↑ The curtain is hung there only because the door of the Hekal is open and it is indecorous for the priests to look into the Hekal while they are engaged on the sacrifice. Hence it counts as open, and the sacrifice is valid (Sh. Mek.).
(8). ↑ I.e., a raised construction, e.g., a beam or a board which shuts off the door while it is actually open.
(9). ↑ The Ulam (v. Glos.) overlapped the Hekal by (11) cubits on each side. Now, the sacrifices had to be slain in front of the Hekal, corresponding to ‘before the tent of meeting’, and this would apparently not include the area directly in front of the overlap, in which there was a special recess for the knives. By means of wickets set in the Ulam on either side the whole of the area facing the Ulam, including the overlap, was thus made fit.
(10). ↑ Which proves that such leaves it technically open.
(11). ↑ The entrances to the wickets.
(12). ↑ Consequently the reference must be to the construction before the wickets.
(13). ↑ Since their purpose was only symbolic.
(14). ↑ Of the Ulam, on the north and the south beyond the wickets. The area in front of these would not be made fit by the wickets.
(15). ↑ Diagonally, so that the space opposite them, viz., up to the north and the south walls of the Temple court, would still be technically ‘before the door’.
(16). ↑ A space of eleven cubits between it and the western wall of the court (v. Mid. V, I); was that fit too?
(17). ↑ Emended text.
(18). ↑ E.V. ‘at the precinct’. I. Chron. XXVI, 18. The M.T. reads this as one word: parbar.
(19). ↑ I.e., for entering the precincts of the Temple court in an unclean state.