Tractate Tamid Chapter One

We enter through the main gateway through this partition, which is on the eastern side of the Temple
complex. This entrance is often referred to colloquially as 'the Beautiful Gate'. Inside there is a
narrow walkway that completely surrounds the complex. This walkway is about 5 meters wide. Crossing it
and continuing directly forward we enter into the largest of the courtyards of the Temple precincts.

This courtyard, about 70 meters square, is known as the Courtyard of the Women. This is not, as is often
thought, because it was here that the women were segregated. In fact, the vast majority of men would
proceed no further either. (Perhaps it is not out of place to note here that the masses attending
worship in the Bet Mikdash did so in the Court of Women [Ezrat Nashim] and there was no
segregation of the sexes in this court (except on one occasion during the year, which was not essentially
religious in nature.) A large and imposing flight of fifteen semi-circular steps gave entrance from the
Court of Women to the innermost court.

Thus the court of the Bet Mikdash where the general public
assembled for worship was completely separate from the inner court where the actual sacrificial cult was
performed. A magnificent flight of fifteen broad semi-circular step gave access from the main court to
the inner court. At the top of this flight was 'the Platform' on which the levitical choir and orchestra
performed while the two daily sacrifices, the Tamid, were being offered in the inner court – not visible
to the assembled worshippers. As we have said, it was in the Court of Priests, which is usually referred
to simply as the Azarah [the Court] that the sacrificial cult took place, unseen by the lay people
massed in the Court of Women. A small strip, about 5 meters wide, just within the entrance was marked by
a line painted on the floor. Within this line we, the twenty-four representatives of the Jewish people,
will stand to witness the ritual on behalf of the whole people. Generally, but not exclusively, Beyond
this strip only the priests would go. It was here that the main altar was, upon which the sacrifices were
incinerated and it was here that the rest of the equipment and furniture associated with a slaughter-house
were kept and used. The Azarah gave entrance to the actual building of the Bet Mikdash, which was divided
into two rooms: the larger one housed the small golden altar of incense, the golden table of the Shewbread
and the famous candelabrum whose similitude is engraved on the Arch of Titus in Rome and which serves as
the emblem of the State of Israel. The smaller one, the Holy of Holies, was completely empty.

7:
The last part of our mishnah deals with the behaviour of a priest who has a nocturnal seminal emission –
in other words an ejaculation of semen during his sleep. (Actually, the halakhic procedure would have
been the same in all cases of seminal emission – coitus, masturbation etc – except that these seminal
emissions would, presumably, not have taken place in the sacred area of the Bet Mikdash.) According
to the Torah all emissions of semen require ritual purification before contact with priestly perquisites.
The Torah [Leviticus 22:2-7} states:

10:
Our mishnah mentions that the underground public convenience area also housed a toilet. This is called
in Hebrew 'Bet Kisseh shel Kavod'. The word 'Kavod' means 'honour' and our mishnah seeks
to explain why the toilet facility received this name. It explains that the dignity of human privacy was
observed: if the toilet was locked this meant that it was occupied and the occupant should not be
disturbed.

Is it clear from early sources that the passages from the ĥuldah gates into the esplanade were, in
fact, underground at the time of the Second Temple? Or is it possible that they entered the south side of
King Herod's Royal Stoa with corresponding exits at ground level on its northern side, and that the
underground passageways were created after the destruction of the Temple and Herod's stoa as a result of
Hadrian raising the ground level within the esplanade?

I respond:

I think this is very unlikely, and I have not heard of this being discussed in authoritative archeological
circles. The underground entrance through the Ĥuldah Gates is mentioned in early rabbinical sources,
including the Mishnah. If, as Richley suggests, people could enter through the south side of the complex,
which is where the Ĥuldah Gates were (and are!) how were they to reach the esplanade from the valley
below? – especially since archeologists have found no external approach via a staircase on the southern
wall and they have found the Ĥuldah passageway (under what is now the Aqsa mosque).
There were indeed external staircases giving access to the esplanade on the western side: the buttress
remains are visible for all to see today as Robinson's Arch and Wilson's Arch.

Richley's second question:

Is it certain that the Holy of Holies stood on the spot now occupied by the Dome of the Rock?

I respond:

This certainly has been discussed by archeologists, but it is still a very moot point. In any case, the
difference is a matter of a few metres, and wherever the site of the Holy of Holies may have been it is
certainly occupied today by some part of the Mosque of Omar. It seems from my layman's point of view
that if our own sources refer to a rock in the Holy of Holies and if the present site also houses a
rock in the general area in which the Holy of Holies was…

Marc Auslander writes:

I was wondering if the Yom Kippur ritual described in the Seder Ha'avodah changed when the
innermost sanctum was empty. Did the Kohen Gadol still carry in the fire-pan and burn incense? Did he
sprinkle the blood in the empty room?

I respond:

The innermost sanctum was empty throughout the whole of the existence of the second Temple (very nearly
600 years). The fire-pan containing incense was placed by the High Priest on the rock inside the Holy of
Holies. He then sprinkled the blood on the bottom of the curtain covering the entrance, and then
re-entered the Holy of Holies in order to retrieve the fire-pan.

2:
On the top of the altar was a fire stack, fueled by wood. This fire stack was kept alight all the time,
all day every day, as required by the Torah [Leviticus 6:6]. The first item of 'housekeeping'
every day was the removal of ashes from the fire stack so that the fire would burn properly. The mishnah
in tractate Yoma [1:8] reads as follows:

3:
The superintendent referred to by our mishnah was obviously a priest who was a permanent member of the
staff of the Bet Mikdash. Since all the priests on duty were probably doing this for the first time in
their lives (and for the last time as well, most likely!) there had to be someone who could direct them
and 'orchestrate' their performance. This superintendent would arrive and knock on the door of the
Hearth Chamber where the duty roster were sleeping sometime in the wee hours of the morning. The first
item on their agenda was to decide which of the priests on duty would have the task of clearing the ashes
from the main altar (there was another one, much smaller and much grander, inside the Heikhal, as we have
already mentioned). This was not considered a chore, of course, but a desirable privilege. Indeed, this
was the case regarding all the tasks to be allotted that day. There were always far more priests who
wished to earn a privilege than there were tasks to go round, so each task was preceded by a lottery, thus
leaving the choice of the priest to chance (or to Heaven, as one chooses to interpret).

4:
I shall now describe how the 'lottery' was performed. My explanation is based on that given by Rambam in
his commentary to Mishnah Yoma 2:1. The superintendent would line all the priests up in a row or a
circle. He would then say 'think of a number', or something like that. Anyway a number was agreed –
twenty, thirty, forty, fifty-seven, whatever. He would then say from which priest he would start
counting – let's say from the tenth man to his left. He would then tell them all to hold out one finger
(a term still used in modern Hebrew to indicate voting). The superintendent would then count the fingers
from the one he had indicated as the starting point until he reached the number which had been agreed, and
thus the lucky winner was known.

The detailed description of the guard arrangements so closely parallels the arrangements used by armies
today (which probably follow a very long tradition), that I think that the possibility that this guard
was not merely honorary, but also functional, should be considered. Assuming that professional, armed
guards patrolled the outer regions of the temple and provided 'exterior security', it would be prudent to
likewise patrol the interior region, i.e. the priestly precincts, in case someone slipped past the
exterior guards, or even to maintain accountability for the sacred objects, i.e. to prevent non-malicious
misappropriation or misplacing. Presumably, if only priests were allowed in these interior areas, only
they could perform this duty. Even if unarmed, the priestly guard (or maybe a better word would be
watchman) could shout an alarm, summon help, or direct the attention of his superiors, according to the
nature of the incident.

Paula Tobenfeld writes:

Could you please explain to me the difference between Mishnah and Talmud? It seems that both texts start
out with a Mishnah followed by commentary. Are they structured similarly? Are all Mishnayot of the
Mishnah included in the Talmud? Does the Talmud merely elaborate on the discussions of the Mishnah?

I respond:

The Talmud – or rather, the Talmuds, since there are two of them – contain material from the period of
the Amora'im, and this material is an attempt to elaborate on the Mishnah and to understand its
provisions. Amora is a term used to describe the sages who lived in Eretz-Israel and Babylon from about
the year 220 CE to about the year 500 CE (from the death of Rabbi until the temporary closure of
the Yeshivot of Babylon by the Persian authorities. The greatest of the first generation of these sages
was Rav. Rav had been a student of Rabbi's in Eretz-Israel but returned to Babylon
before Rabbi's death (around 217 CE) and founded a Bet Midrash in the town of Sura – only instead
of calling it a Bet Midrash he called it a Yeshiva. Just as Rabbi had taken a revolutionary step
and committed the Unwritten Torah to writing (the Mishnah) so Rav took an unprecedented step. In
his Yeshiva the textbook to be studied was no longer the Torah (as was the case in the Bet Midrash until
Rabbi), but from now on the text to be studied was the Mishnah. Thus, just as the Tanna'im had
elaborated and delved into the Torah, so the Amora'im would elaborate and delve into the Mishnah.

Paula is incorrect when she says that the Mishnah is text followed by commentary. The Mishnah is pure
text: each segment is a didactic statement of law according to set principles (which we sometimes have
mentioned in our Shiurim). An explanation of the nature of the Mishnah has already been given by me in
the Introduction to the Mishnah which is posted in the archives.

One great institution of Babylonian Jewry was that of the Kallah. Twice a year, for a month at a time,
ordinary Jews would crowd into the Yeshivot to listen to the great Amora'im discussing Mishnah. The
Mishnah to be discussed was recited for all to hear and then a general discussion would begin. One sage
might ask for the meaning of a certain word, and several suggestions would be made as to its correct
meaning. These suggestions would not be the personal guess of the Amora, but his understanding of what
the original Tanna had intended, and he would have to back up his suggestion with citations and
prooftexts. Each suggestion might be challenged, until one explanation is accepted as the correct one.
Someone might then point out that it seems to him that the mishnah under discussion is in direct
contradiction to another Mishnah or to a Baraita. The discussion will then move to and fro until the
matter is resolved. Sometimes one such discussion [Sugya in Aramaic] might be resolved in a couple
of words or a couple of lines of text. At other times the discussion might extend of several folios of a
modern edition of the Talmud. When the discussion is exhausted the elucidation of the mishnah is
complete – on that topic. The discussion might come to an end because there is general concurrence or it
might come to an end because one of the disputants can make no further response. Rarely, it is found to
be impossible to resolve and issue and it is left in abeyance.

These discussions took place over nearly three centuries in many great Yeshivot – Sura, Pumbedita,
Mechoza, Naresh etc. They were not collated, edited and formulated until the beginning of the fifth
century CE. Traditionally, the work of editing the Babylonian Talmud is attributed to two Amora'im,
Ravina and Rav Ashi, though modern scholarship sees the process of editing being completed much later,
towards the end of the fifth century.

I hope this description offered 'while standing on one leg' as it were is acceptable and answers Paula's
questions.

2:
Thus we have learned that the Hearth Room was built into the portico on the northern wall of the Court
(if we are facing the actual Temple building it would be on our right). This room had two entrances:
one, on the right, gave access to the narrow terrace that surrounded the whole complex, and that
eventually exited into the main esplanade. The other entrance was, of course, on the left, and it gave
access directly into the Priests' Court. The door was a massive door which was certainly not used daily –
if ever. Within this massive door was set a much smaller door: this is the wicket that the Superintendent
opens with the keys. By passing through this wicket the priestly party finds itself in the Court.

3:
We must bear in mind that all this is happening during the last hours of the night before the first light
of dawn. Therefore the priestly party is making its way by the light of torches. When Rambam reviews
this topic in his great Halakhic code Mishneh Torah [Bet ha-Beĥirah 8:12] he remarks that
when this check was made in the early hours of Shabbat morning they did not use torches. This is very
surprising, since it is a well-known fact that all restrictive laws of Shabbat were permitted as part of
the procedure of the Bet Mikdash. In which case why should they have hesitated to light and carry
burning torches? – even though that same procedure would have been forbidden outside the Bet Mikdash.
It has been suggested [Kesef Mishneh ad loc] that on Shabbat their way was lit for them by lights
that had been burning since the previous afternoon, and this was because this check was not a direct part
of the sacrificial cult, and that therefore they refrained from desecrating Shabbat where it was possible
to avoid such desecration. All this seems unnecessary, for surely if this had been the case why does the
mishnah omit such a relevant piece of information?

4:
The party now divides up into two groups. If we can imagine them just having entered the Court from the
Hearth Room and were facing the main altar, they would have the actual building of the Bet Mikdash to
their right. One party now turned leftwards and started making its way round the perimeter of the Court,
skirting the area reserved for the lay representatives and then making their way up the opposite side of
the perimeter portico. It would seem that the purpose of this walk was to check that everything was in
its proper place and that no item was missing. (This may also have assisted in familiarizing the
participants with the various utensils that they would be using.) The other party would, of course, turn
right and make its way around the perimeter of the Court, passing behind the main Temple building and the
Holy of Holies and back down the opposite side. The two groups would finally meet up at the Pancake
Makers' Room. We shall explain that curious expression very shortly. Let us just note at this point
that because of the location of that room it would take the group making the right hand turn much longer
to reach their destination than the group who took the left hand turn. Presumably they would wait
patiently at the rendezvous point for their colleagues to arrive.

5:
At this point let us quote tractate Middot 1:4-5

6:
The Torah [Leviticus 6:13-15] states:

2:
We must also bear in mind that the priest who had won this privilege was performing this duty probably
for the first (and last) time in his life. That is why it was necessary to give him verbal instructions.
The language of our mishnah ('they would warn him') suggests that the instructions were given by his
fellow-priests. However, this seems unlikely, since they would be as uncertain as he was. It seems far
more sensible to understand the word 'they' as the impersonal – as is almost common in mishnaic (and
modern) Hebrew. Thus it seems most likely that the instructions were given to this priest by the
superintendent – who has already been mentioned several times. The specific instruction was a warning to
the priest not to touch 'the tool' – i.e. the silver shovel used for clearing the ashes from the altar –
before washing his hands and feet. This procedure is a direct requirement of the Torah [Exodus 30:
18-21]:

3:
It was dark, as we have said. The priest had no lamp to guide him and could only make his way by the
light shed by the fire still burning on top of the altar; and since it had yet to be cleared of ashes we
can imagine that even that light was rather dim. It must have been quite an eerie experience for the
priest, particularly since, as our mishnah specifically states, no one could accompany him. The rest of
the contingent would not be able to see him. They were still standing by 'the Pancake Makers' Room' and
therefore the enormous bulk of the main altar was between them and their fellow priest; and even if it
had not been there they would not have been able to see him clearly in that very dim light. Since the
priests officiated barefoot (even in winter!) they would not be able to hear the priest either as he made
his way to the laver.

4:
The water in the laver was sacred. However, if the water were left in the laver overnight it would
thereby become profaned. On the other hand there had to be water in the laver first thing in the morning
for the priests to use to sanctify themselves. A certain ben-Katin (and Rabbi Ovadyah of Bertinoro in
his commentary says that he was a High Priest) had solved this problem by having a contraption made.
This contraption was a wooden wheel of some kind by which the laver could be lowered overnight so that it
was sunk into the water in the cistern. Thus, all the priest had to do was to hoist the laver up from
the cistern in order to wash his hands and feet. His colleagues would know that he had arrived when they
heard the creaking sound of this wheel being turned. At this point most codices of the mishnah have the
wording that, upon hearing the creaking sound, they would say, 'The time has come'. This doesn't really
make any sense. There are codices that have reached us that do not have the word 'time', and the
resultant text makes much more sense: they would say to themselves, 'he has arrived' – or, as I translated
in the text of our mishnah above, 'he made it' safely in the dark to the laver.

5:
As we shall see in the next mishnah subsequently all the priests would wash their hands and feet. This
act was later transferred to all Jews, who should start their day by ceremonially washing their hands
first thing in the morning 'like a priest sanctifying his hands from the laver before performing his
worship' [Mishnah Berurah of Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 4:1]. It is
interesting that Rabbi Isaac Klein [A guide to Jewish Religious Practice, page 3] when presenting
Conservative Jews with a rationale for this morning washing of the hands quotes a quaint midrash about
heathen washing statues and brings support for the custom from a Christian theologian, but does not
mention this picturesque priestly rationale at all.

6:
After having washed his hands and feet the priest would retrieve the shovel, ascend the ramp to the top
of the altar, and start clearing away the ashes and remains. Actually, his act was only symbolic since
there was far too much to be done for just one man. As we shall see in the next mishnah the work was be
to completed by the rest of the contingent. After shovelling the charred remains of fuel (wood) and
carcasses he would bring a shovel full down the ramp and deposit the contents in a dump which was
situated on the pavement about one third along the length of the ramp – about 5 metres along – and a few
inches away from the eastern side of the ramp – i.e. the side furthest from the laver and nearest the
Nicanor Gate. This dump was also used for the ashes of the inner altar of incense and the candelabrum
(which we have only mentioned in passing so far). The dump was also where they would throw the crops –
gizzards – removed from the bird sacrifices.

This concludes our study of the first chapter of this tractate.