Tamid IV

1:
The latter part of Chapter Three, describing the housekeeping activities that went on inside the Sanctuary while the actual sacrifice was taking place outside, interrupted the description of the sacrificial procedure. This description is now resumed.

2:
Our mishnah states that the animal about to be killed was not trussed up but 'secured'. This is the best translation that I could think of for the Hebrew terms, which unintentionally shed light on a well-known story in the book of Genesis. The Hebrew term which I translated 'secured' comes from the same root as the term we traditionally use to identify the intended sacrifice of Isaac by his father Abraham: Akedah. The Gemara [Tamid 31b] states that the reason why the lamb was not 'trussed up' was because this was the way that contemporary non-Jews would prepare their animals for sacrifice. On that explanation Rashi comments: 'they would tie all its four feet'. (For the sake of completeness let me add that the Gemara also gives another opinion that the reason why the animal was not trussed up in this way was because this was the way that animals were taken to market, and this would be unseemly when the animal was about to be killed for the greater glory of heaven.)

3:
Tying knots and taking animals captive are two of the thirty-nine major prohibitions that apply to Shabbat - indeed, following Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, these prohibitions and their ramifications actually create the 'Temple in Time' which is Shabbat - and ignoring them destroys the illusion. When the Mishnah [Shabbat 5:3] discusses this matter it, too, uses the terms 'truss' and 'secure'. In his commentary on that mishnah, Rambam explains that 'secure' means the securing of one 'hand' to one 'foot', and in Mishneh Torah [Temidim ve-Musafim 1:10] he adds that this was not done with a rope but his fellow priests just held the lamb down in this manner with their hands while the slaughterer did his work. This, presumably, is how Abraham is to be pictured preparing his son for sacrifice: securing with his grip Isaac's hand and foot as he raises the knife to slit his throat. (If you don't know this story [!?] you can read the happy end in Genesis, chapter 22.)

4:
Our mishnah describes how the animal was secured in one of the rings in the slaughterhouse, while it was held down by the other priests in attendance as we have described. It will be easier to understand all the details given in our mishnah with such loving precision if we imagine ourselves, once again, as the men of the Ma'amad witnessing this sacrifice. You will recall that we are standing in a narrow strip just inside the Courtyard of the Priests; ahead of us to our left is the altar and ahead of us to our right is the slaughtering area. In the slaughtering area twenty-four rings are set into the ground. Each of the six rows contain four rings, the first being the one nearest us and the fourth being the one farthest from us. (We could, of course, imagine a different arrangement where there are four rows with six rings in each row; it is not clear from the sources which was the arrangement.)

5:
We note that the lamb has been secured in the ring farthest from us in the second row of rings. (For the corresponding Afternoon sacrifice the animal is secured in the ring nearest us in the second row.) The lamb has been secured in such a way that its head is nearest the altar and it is facing the Sanctuary. The slaughterer, of course, is standing behind the animal with his back to us. The other priests hold the animal down (as described previously) as their colleague slits the animal's throat with one swift pass of his knife. (The manner of slaughtering animals today for Jewish consumption is, of course, derived from the way it was done in the Bet Mikdash.)

6:
The moment the animal's throat is slit the blood gushes out. This blood is caught in a special receptacle by 'the receiver' - the priest who won the privilege of performing this function. He, of course, faces us, so that he can perform his function properly.

You may recall that David Sieradzki wrote: Also, with all respect, can you comment on or remind us of what greater principles or lessons for life we can learn from the material in this massekhet of Mishnah... I'm afraid I'm having difficulties motivating myself to focus on some of this material.

My colleague, David Bockman, writes:

True. It seems weird to read these descriptions. But I'd like to commend you for going through this masechet. I found myself during Ĥanukka reading about the various bonfires ignited in places on the altar, and it immensely enriched for me the import of this 'holiday' that celebrates the re-institution of sacrificial rituals in a building complex that is long gone, and has perhaps been superseded. The shiur on the magrefa and the ability of the Temple rituals to be perceived clearly in Jericho, meant a lot as well. First of all, because I am a musician, and the legends about Buddy Bolden's trumpet music being heard across Lake Pontchartrain (27 miles) are similar tribute and similar exaggeration. But think also of the 'distance' between 'Jerusalem' and 'Jericho', and the unifying effect of the sounds, sights and smells that were said to connect them, and you have an immediately contemporary starting point for a discussion regarding what peace between Israel and the PA might be based upon. Shared mideastern music? Foods? way of life? To me, although the Temple is far away, our study of it lights countless fires in my mind vis-à-vis living a Jewish life: prayer, peace, connectedness, the ordinary lives of janitors, etc. Mightn't someone undertake the construction of the Temple in virtual reality and sell it as a meditation assisting video game? I know my nephew would play it for hours, were it in the nintendo format...

7:
Those who still follow the old custom of reciting every morning before prayers the whole of Chapter Five of Tractate Zevachim (which starts with the Hebrew words Ezehu Mekoman) will recall the fourth mishnah of that chapter, which reads:

The receiving of the blood of the slaughtered animal and splashing it on the altar were essential parts of the philosophy of the sacrificial system. In general we can say that the basic concept is that the sins of a person or a group render their lives forfeit to God. The animal is a substitute for the person. In private sacrifices it was absolutely essential that the person bringing the offering press down with his hands on the head of the animal about to be sacrificed. This was called Semikhah, the imposition of hands, and it implied that the human being was transferring his whole persona to the animal. (When the sage imposed his hands on his student this was also called Semikhah and it also implied that all the authority that was vested in the sage was now transferred to the student as well, who was his worthy representative.) Thus, when the animal died the person who had offered it had also symbolically 'paid his debt', and in the death of the animal, his representative and substitute, his too had paid with his life for his sins.

8:
This paragraph is purely parenthetical. The Christian tradition to this day in its worship maintains the philosophy and format of the Bet Mikdash. At the heart of its worship is the 'sacrifice' which is offered by the priest on the altar, and this sacrifice 'of the lamb', the divinely ordained 'substitute' effectively performs the 'salvation' of the group and the absolution of its sins is achieved by being 'washed in the blood of the lamb'. In the Bet Mikdash the people, present in the person of their representatives, the Ma'amad, were entirely passive spectators. The whole sacrifice was performed by the priests. This is still the case in Christian worship. When we compare the philosophical bases of traditional Christian worship with the traditional bases of the ritual of the Synagogue we can appreciate the enormous distance that Judaism has covered. The synagogue was never a substitute for the Bet Mikdash: it was a completely separate institution in which the individual worshipper personally fulfilled (and fulfills) his or her ritual duty, and not through the mediation of a priest; and when the individual joins forces with other individuals for the purpose of public worship the ceremony is conducted by a fellow 'representative' and not by an ordained priest. In the synagogue ritual the congregation is not a passive spectator but an active participant - and thereby hangs the whole ethos of the synagogue experience. (It is unfortunate that too many Ashkenazi congregations have adopted a church-inspired seating arrangement. Our Conservative congregations would well to adopt the Sefaradi custom of sitting around the Bimah on three sides, not in front of it.)

9:
The blood of a living creature was considered its very life. When the throat is slit what gushes out is the 'life blood'. Behind this concept lies the whole attitude of Judaism against the consumption of blood. The blood of a living creature is sacred because its life is sacred. At the very beginning of the Torah [Genesis 9:4-6] this thought is clearly expressed in the prohibition of murder:

The expiatory nature of this life blood is made abundantly clear elsewhere in the Torah [Leviticus 17:11-12]:

Thus it is not sufficient to merely kill the animal for its death to effect its expiatory characteristics: the lifeblood, the blood that gushes out from the slit throat, must be brought into contact with the altar in order for the expiation to become effective.

10:
The Torah requires that the lifeblood be splashed on the altar, separately from the burning of the carcass. In the case of the daily lamb (Tamid) the Torah does not specifically mention the splashing of the blood. However, the Tamid is to be classified as an Olah, a holocaust; it is no different from the others of that same category except that it is a public sacrifice, not a private one. As far as the latter are concerned, the procedure is made very clear by the Torah [Leviticus 1:3-5]:

11:
The priest who had earned the privilege of performing this task would stand with his bowl ready to receive the life blood of the lamb at the moment of slaughtering. This blood he would splash on the north-eastern corner of the altar - the corner that was nearest the slaughterhouse and also nearest the spectators of the Ma'amad. The blood was splashed directly out of the bowl in such a way that it would land on both the northern and eastern sides of the altar. This same priest would then go and take his stand at the south-western corner of the altar, diagonally opposite the previous place and would splash some more blood from the bowl in such a way that it would land on both the southern and western sides of the altar.

12:
Our mishnah also states that the blood remaining in the bowl after these two splashings was poured out at the base of the altar. The Mishnah [Middot 3:2-3] amplifies:

13:
I am sure that someone will ask whether, over the centuries, the sides of the altar were not completely covered in blood. Middot 3:4 clarifies this point:

לֹא הָיָה שׁוֹבֵר בּוֹ אֶת הָרֶגֶל, אֶלָּא נוֹקְבוֹ מִתּוֹךְ עַרְכּוּבוֹ וְתוֹלֶה בוֹ. הָיָה מַפְשִׁיט וְיוֹרֵד עַד שֶׁהוּא מַגִּיעַ לֶחָזֶה. הִגִּיעַ לֶחָזֶה, חָתַךְ אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וּנְתָנוֹ לְמִי שֶׁזָּכָה בוֹ. חָתַךְ אֶת הַכְּרָעַיִם וּנְתָנָן לְמִי שֶׁזָּכָה בָהֶן. מֵרַק אֶת הַהֶפְשֵׁט. קָרַע אֶת הַלֵּב וְהוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ. חָתַךְ אֶת הַיָּדַיִם וּנְתָנָן לְמִי שֶׁזָּכָה בָהֶן. עָלָה לְרֶגֶל הַיְמָנִית, חֲתָכָהּ וּנְתָנָהּ לְמִי שֶׁזָּכָה בָהּ, וּשְׁתֵּי בֵיצִים עִמָּהּ. קְרָעוֹ, וְנִמְצָא כֻלּוֹ גָּלוּי לְפָנָיו. נָטַל אֶת הַפֶּדֶר וּנְתָנוֹ עַל בֵּית שְׁחִיטַת הָרֹאשׁ מִלְמַעְלָן. נָטַל אֶת הַקְּרָבַיִם וּנְתָנָן לְמִי שֶׁזָּכָה בָהֶם לְהָדִיחָן. וְהַכֶּרֶס מְדִיחִין אוֹתָהּ בְּבֵית מְדִיחִין כָּל צָרְכָּהּ. וְהַקְּרָבַיִם מְדִיחִין אוֹתָן שְׁלשָׁה פְעָמִים בְּמִעוּטָהּ, עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹת שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ שֶׁבֵּין הָעַמּוּדִים:

1:
The rest of the mishnayot of this chapter are not for the squeamish. Nor do I intend explaining every small point in this mishnah or the next. But I think that the details included in this chapter are important towards our understanding of what the sacrificial cult entailed, in all its gory detail. (The 'he' in our mishnah is, of course, the priest who had actually slaughtered the lamb, the Tamid.)

2:
After it had been slaughtered the animal was hung upside down by passing the hooks that were on the posts through the knees of the animal's hind legs. (These posts had been described in the fifth mishnah of the previous chapter.) As the animal was skinned the various limbs were placed on the silver salvers that were held ready by all the priests who had gained the various privileges. These were detailed in the first mishnah of the previous chapter, and I quote them here for your convenience.

'Who will take the limbs up the ramp - the head, the foot'. The various parts of the dismembered carcass would be ceremonially carried to the altar. This would actually be done in two stages: the limbs would be left halfway up the ramp at which point everybody would go back to the Gazit Room for morning prayers and only afterwards would the sacrificial ritual be resumed. The rest of our mishnah details the various parts of the dismembered animal. The first in the procession carried the animals head and rear right leg.
'The two hands' refers to the two front feet.
'The tail and the [other] foot': the rear part of the animal's tail, where it joins the rump, and the animal's left foot.
'The breast and the neck'. More accurately we would mention the fatty tissue adhering to the breast and the whole alimentary segment of the carcass - the neck and the ribs and connected to them the windpipe, the heart and the lungs.
'Both flanks', together with the backbone, the spleen and the liver.
'The guts' - what was left of them together with the legs.

3:
The suet refers to the hard fat surrounding the intestines. This fatty tissue, after it was removed from the carcass, was placed on top of the animal's head. The head had been placed face-up on the salver, which meant that the slit in the animal's throat made by the act of slaughter was visible and probably still oozing blood. Since this was not a 'pleasant sight to see' and might well spoil the decorous procession that was about to carry the dismembered carcass to the altar, the suet was placed on top of the slit in the animal's throat in order to conceal it, and probably also to prevent the blood dripping out.

4:
The guts - everything that was left inside the animal's stomach, together with the stomach itself, had to be washed thoroughly. The stomach was washed clean in the Rinsing Room. According to the mishnah [Middot 5:3] this was one of the three chambers on the northern side of the Azarah. However, as we have noted before, the Gemara [Yoma 19a] reverses the sides; so it may well be that this room was on the southern wall of the Azarah. The purpose of this rinsing was not only to remove unwanted blood, but also to remove all the refuse that must still have been inside the stomach. The guts were rinsed at the same time, but on the marble tables that were in the vicinity of the slaughterhouse, and not in the Rinsing Room.

Rémy Landau has sent me the following, which certainly depicts the view of one modern of the sacrificial system:

May I horn in on the debate governing the reinstitution of the sacrificial cult should the Bet Mikdash ever be reconstructed? Last summer, I had the rare opportunity of returning to the site in which I was hidden during the [second world] war. It was a convent abbutting the historic building which was used by the Gestapo as a deportation centre for the Jewish people of Belgium. 25,257 Kadoshim [martyrs] were transported from there to Auschwitz. About 1000 witnesses survived. Almost 75% were gassed on arrival. In those 25 convoys were people ranging from infancy to seniority. My father was one of them. I survived by virtue of being on one side of the wall between the convent and the barracks, while infants my age perished on the other side of that wall. So the Shoah [Holocaust], and the massive evil that perpetrated this unredeemable catastrophe, is always a part of my thinking on religious and spiritual issues. And in view of that recent butchery, and the agonizing Jewish history of the last 2000 years I have to ask why would anyone ever want the reinstution of the sacrificial cult, and what kind of a god would demand it of us? Have not the Jewish people already been enough of a sacrifice?

I quoted from the Torah: The life of flesh is in the blood. I have assigned it for you to atone for your lives on the altar, for it is blood that atones for life. That is why I have told the Israelites, You may consume no blood... [Leviticus 17:1-12]

Sue Mackson asks:

Can you explicate this Torah a bit. Is this a commandment which requires capital punishment as atonement for murder?

I respond:

No, not at all. The intention of this passage is to require that meat intended for consumption by Jews must have all the blood removed, because the blood of meat had a different purpose: atonement on the altar. The verse that most seems to be requiring capital punishment for homicide is Genesis 9:6, which I also quoted in that Shiur: The blood of anyone who sheds human blood shall be shed by a human, for He made man in the Divine Image. [Genesis 9:6]

Juan-Carlos Kiel writes:

In Mishnah Tamid 3:9 we learnt how the priests would clean the Menorah and the incense altar in the Heichal. Who would just clean the Temple itself? As we know from living here in Israel, if you do not clean, wash, broom a building for a few decades, more so for hundreds of years, the amount of sand and dust would cover it with a thick layer of dirt. Unfit for the Temple. Enough for us to look at the Tel of Megiddo as an example. So, someone must have done the humble chores of cleaning and housekeeping. Someone must have cleaned the stains of blod from the floors. Someone must have removed the incense from the Kodesh HaKodashim. Someone must have removed the Paroĥet - as there were the Paroĥet weavers that would weave a new one all time. So someone else, besides the Cohen Gadol must have entered the inner Sanctum. Who were they? Do we have any description of this?

I respond:

We have already dealt with some aspects of this very practical question. I quoted a mishnah [Middot 3:4] which clarifies one aspect of this topic: Both the stones for the ramp and the stones for the altar came from Bet ha-Kerem valley, hewn from below the bedrock. From there they would bring whole stones ... They were whitewashed twice a year: at Passover and at Tabernacles (and the sanctuary once a year at Passover). Rabbi says every Friday with a cloth because of the blood...

However, I think that the main thrust of the question is concerning the housekeeping of the main sanctuary in general and the Holy of Holies in particular. We do have some information on this topic. (Given the detail into which the Mishnah lovingly goes as regards all aspects of the activities of the Bet Mikdash perhaps this should not surprise us.)

The Mishnah [Middot 4:3] tells us that the sanctuary [Heikhal] was surrounded by cells - three stories of five cells on each of the long sides and two stories of three cells and a third story of two behind the Holy of Holies, on the west. These cells were all interconnecting. We have already learned how two priests gained access, first thing in the morning, to the Sanctuary. Incidentally we mentioned a cell which was different from the others that we have mentioned: it had five entrances: to the cell next to it on its right, to the cell above it, to a winding staircase, to the wicket and to the Heikhal itself. This winding staircase eventually gave access to the roof. The Mishnah [Middot 4:5] tells us that on the roof on the southern side there was an opening covered by two planks of cedarwood. This opening gave access to the Holy of Holies from above. Workmen were let down through this opening in crates that were attached to pulleys. The crates were closed on three sides so that the priestly workmen would be able to clean the walls of the Holy of Holies without 'feasting their eyes on the inside of the Holy of Holies'.

The Paroĥet, the thick curtain separating the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies was not cleaned. It's lower edges were clotted with the blood of centuries as High Priest after High Priest, year in year out, would splash the blood of the sacrifice of Yom Kippur on the Paroĥet 'once upwards and seven times downwards' carefully counting 'one, one plus one, one plus two' and so forth. It was the High Priest himself who removed the censer from the Holy of Holies, before completing the awesome ceremony.

נָטַל אֶת הַסַּכִּין וְהִפְרִישׁ אֶת הָרֵיאָה מִן הַכָּבֵד, וְאֶצְבַּע הַכָּבֵד מִן הַכָּבֵד, וְלֹא הָיָה מְזִיזָהּ מְמְּקוֹמָהּ. נָקַב אֶת הֶחָזֶה וּנְתָנוֹ לְמִי שֶׁזָּכָה בוֹ. עָלָה לְדֹפֶן הַיְמָנִית, הָיָה חוֹתֵךְ וְיוֹרֵד עַד הַשִּׁדְרָה, וְלֹא הָיָה נוֹגֵעַ בַּשִּׁדְרָה, עַד שֶׁהוּא מַגִּיעַ לִשְׁתֵּי צְלָעוֹת רַכּוֹת. חֲתָכָהּ וּנְתָנָהּ לְמִי שֶׁזָּכָה בָהּ, וְהַכָּבֵד תְּלוּיָה בָהּ. בָּא לוֹ לַגֵּרָה, וְהִנִּיחַ בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי צְלָעוֹת מִכָּאן וּשְׁתֵּי צְלָעוֹת מִכָּאן. חֲתָכָהּ וּנְתָנָהּ לְמִי שֶׁזָּכָה בָהּ, וְהַקָּנֶה וְהַלֵּב וְהָרֵיאָה תְּלוּיִים בָּהּ. בָּא לוֹ לְדֹפֶן הַשְּמָאלִית, וְהִנִּיחַ בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי צְלָעוֹת רַכּוֹת מִלְמַעְלָן וּשְׁתֵּי צְלָעוֹת רַכּוֹת מִלְּמַטָּן. וְכָךְ הָיָה מַנִּיחַ בַּחֲבֶרְתָּהּ. נִמְצָא מַנִּיחַ בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם מִלְמַעְלָן וּשְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם מִלְּמַטָּן. חֲתָכָהּ וּנְתָנָהּ לְמִי שֶׁזָּכָה בָהּ, וְהַשִּׁדְרָה עִמָּהּ, וְהַטְּחוֹל תָּלוּי בָּהּ, וְהִיא הָיְתָה גְדוֹלָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁל יָמִין קוֹרִין גְּדוֹלָה, שֶׁהַכָּבֵד תְּלוּיָה בָהּ. בָּא לוֹ לָעֹקֶץ, חוֹתְכוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לְמִי שֶׁזָּכָה בוֹ, וְאַלְיָה וְאֶצְבַּע הַכָּבֵד וּשְׁתֵּי כְלָיוֹת עִמּוֹ. נָטַל רֶגֶל הַשְּמָאלִית וּנְתָנָהּ לְמִי שֶׁזָּכָה בָהּ. נִמְצְאוּ כֻלָּן עוֹמְדִין בַּשּׁוּרָה וְהָאֵבָרִים בְּיָדָם. הָרִאשׁוֹן, בָּרֹאשׁ וּבָרֶגֶל. הָרֹאשׁ בִּימִינוֹ, וְחָטְמוֹ כְּלַפֵּי זְרוֹעוֹ, וְקַרְנָיו בֵּין אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו, וּבֵית שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מִלְמַעְלָן, וְהַפֶּדֶר נָתוּן עָלֶיהָ. וְהָרֶגֶל שֶׁל יָמִין בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ, וּבֵית עוֹרוֹ לַחוּץ. הַשֵּׁנִי, בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדַיִם. שֶׁל יָמִין בִּימִינוֹ, שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ, וּבֵית עוֹרָן לַחוּץ. הַשְּׁלִישִׁי, בָּעֹקֶץ וּבָרֶגֶל. הָעֹקֶץ בִּימִינוֹ, וְהָאַלְיָה מְדֻלְדֶּלֶת בֵּין אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו, וְאֶצְבַּע הַכָּבֵד וּשְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיוֹת עִמּוֹ, הָרֶגֶל שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ, וּבֵית עוֹרוֹ לַחוּץ. הָרְבִיעִי, בֶּחָזֶה וּבַגֵּרָה. הֶחָזֶה בִּימִינוֹ, וְהַגֵּרָה בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ, וְצַלְעוֹתֶיהָ בֵּין אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו. הַחֲמִישִׁי, בִּשְׁתֵּי דְפָנוֹת. שֶׁל יָמִין בִּימִינוֹ, וְשֶׁל שְׂמֹאל בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ, וּבֵית עוֹרָן לַחוּץ. הַשִּׁשִּׁי, בַּקְּרָבַיִם הַנְּתוּנִין בְּבָזָךְ וּכְרָעַיִם עַל גַּבֵּיהֶם מִלְמָעְלָה. הַשְּׁבִיעִי, בַּסֹּלֶת. הַשְּׁמִינִי, בַּחֲבִתִּין. הַתְּשִׁיעִי, בַּיָּיִן. הָלְכוּ וּנְתָנוּם מֵחֲצִי הַכֶּבֶשׁ וּלְמַטָּה בְּמַעֲרָבוֹ, וּמְלָחוּם. וְיָרְדוּ וּבָאוּ לָהֶם לְלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית, לִקְרוֹת אֶת שְׁמַע:

He took the knife, separated the lung from the liver and the liver itself from its protuberance, which he did not remove. He severed the breast and handed it to the one who had gained that privilege. Now he cut the right flank, from top to bottom, away from the spine (leaving the spine in place) until he reached the two soft ribs [next to the neck]. Thus he severed it [the right flank] and handed it - with the liver attached to it - to the one who had gained that privilege.

Now he had reached the neck, with the two ribs on either side that he had left, and handed it to the one who had gained that privilege, with the windpipe, heart and lung still attached.

Now he had reached the left flank. He left the two topmost soft ribs [next to the hindquarters - the animal was hanging upside down] and placed [this flank] next to the other. Thus he had left from both [flanks] two [ribs] at the top and two at the bottom. Now he severed [the left flank] and handed it to the one who had gained that privilege, together with the spine and the spleen attached. Now this flank was the larger [because it included the spine], but the right flank was termed the greater because it had the liver attached to it.

He now reached the rump, severed it and gave it to the one who had gained that privilege, with the tail, the protuberance of the liver and the two kidneys attached.

He removed the left hind leg and gave it to the one who had gained that privilege.

Thus they were all now standing in a row holding the limbs. The first had the head and [right] hind leg: the head to the right [of the leg], the snout facing inwards towards his arm and his fingers securing the horns. The slit in the throat was uppermost, covered by the suet. The right hind leg was [of course] to the left, with the spot where the skinning had started on the outside.

The second [priest was holding] the two front legs, the right leg in his right hand and the left leg in his left, with the spot where the skinning had started on the outside.

The third [carried] the rump and the [left] hind leg, the rump in his right hand with the tail dangling between his fingers and with the protuberance of the liver and the two kidneys. The left hind leg was in his left hand, with the spot where the skinning had started on the outside.

The fourth [priest carried] the breast and the neck, the breast in his right hand and the neck in his left, with its ribs between his fingers.

The fifth [carried] both flanks, the right in his right hand and the left in his left, with the spot where the skinning had started on the outside.

The sixth carried the guts in a basin, with the lower legs on top of them.

The seventh carried the flour, the eighth the pancakes, and the ninth the wine.

Now they carried them [to the altar] and placed them halfway up the western side of the ramp [the side nearest the Sanctuary] and salted them [as required by Leviticus 2:13, 'with all your offerings shall you offer salt'.] Now they descended [the ramp] and repaired to the Gazit Room to recite the Shema.