Zevachim 60a — the Talmud in English

And he says: “Hangings fifteen ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

cubits to the shoulder”

beside the gate; and Rabbi Yose holds that the intention of this verse is that the height of the hangings on the eastern side of the courtyard was fifteen cubits, and he likewise holds that the same law applies throughout the courtyard: the height of the hangings was fifteen cubits,

and what does it teach

in the verse stated concerning the hangings:

“and its height five cubits”

—but the height of the hangings was fifteen cubits? Rather, the meaning of the verse “five cubits” is

from the rim of the altar and above,

for the height of the altar was ten cubits, and above it the height of the courtyard hangings was another five cubits; it follows that their height was fifteen cubits,

and what does it teach

in the verse stated concerning the height of the altar,

“and three cubits was its height”

—but it was ten cubits high? Rather, the meaning of the verse “three cubits” is

from the rim of the surrounding ledge and above

for the surrounding ledge was located on the altar at a height of six cubits, and from it to the horns was a height of three cubits, and one cubit was the height of the horns; it follows that according to Rabbi Yose the altar was ten cubits high.

And Rabbi Yehuda

who holds that the height of the altar was only three cubits, and no more, because the matters are as they are written,

when he learned the gzera shava “

square—square”

in the width

of the place of the altar-fire upon the altar,

that is what he learned from it.

And we challenge this:

And for Rabbi Yehuda

who holds that the height of the altar was three cubits and the height of the hangings was five cubits, it is difficult, for in the end,

the priest is visible

for when the priest stands, whose height is three cubits—for that is the measure of an average person, whose height is three cubits—upon the altar, whose height is three cubits, the priest’s head is visible to all the people from outside. But Rabbi Yehuda rejected Rabbi Yose’s words that the altar was ten cubits high for this very reason: it is possible that a priest would stand and all the people would see him from outside.

And we answer:

Granted, the priest is visible,

nevertheless, since

the service that is in his hand is not visible

to all the people standing outside, we are not concerned.

And we challenge this:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that the floor of the courtyard was sanctified,

this is why it is written

in the verse, “On that day

he sanctified”

and so on: the interior of the courtyard.

But according to Rabbi Yose,

who holds that Solomon did not sanctify the floor of the courtyard, this is difficult:

what

is the verse saying,

“he sanctified”?

And we answer: The meaning of the verse is that he sanctified the courtyard as the courtyard of the Temple

to erect in it an altar

of stones.

And we challenge this:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yose,

who says that Solomon’s altar was large and Moses’ was small,

this is why it is written,

“For the copper altar that was before the Lord

was small,”

because of this Solomon hid the copper altar, since it was small.

But according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who explains that Solomon’s altar was small and therefore he had to sanctify the floor also for offering incense, this is difficult:

what is meant by “small”

that the verse says concerning the copper altar? After all, Solomon’s stone altar was small.

And we answer:

This is what the verse says:

the verse that says that Solomon sanctified the floor of the courtyard, because

the stone altar that Solomon made in place of the copper altar was small,

and since the stone altar stood in the place of the copper altar, the verse here called it “the copper altar.”

In what do they differ,

Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Yehuda, who differed concerning the gzera shava “square—square”? Rabbi Yose learned it from the inner altar, while Rabbi Yehuda learned it from the altar of the Second Temple mentioned in Ezekiel.

One master,

Rabbi Yehuda,

holds that we derive

from an altar that stands

outside from

an altar that stands

outside, and we do not derive

by means of a gzera shava from an altar that stands

outside from

the golden altar that stands

inside. And one master,

Rabbi Yose,

holds that we derive

by means of a gzera shava

a vessel from a vessel:

the copper altar from the golden altar, for both of them are vessels;

and we do not derive

the outer altar, which is a

vessel

from

the stone altar of the Second Temple, which is a

structure.

Rava said: Rabbi Yehuda concedes

that he holds that the floor of the courtyard was sanctified for offering the fats, but this is not the law

with regard to blood,

whose sprinkling is specifically upon the altar.

For it was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says:

At the time of slaughtering the Passover offerings,

he would fill one cup from the blood mixture

of many Passover offerings that had spilled onto the floor and become mixed,

and he would pour it

the priest

upon the altar

so that

if the blood of one of them should spill

from the Passover offerings, and none of its blood had been sprinkled upon the altar at all as required,

it would turn out that

its blood had been sprinkled in the cup of the mixture, for there is mixing in liquid, and all the bloods are mixed in this cup,

he renders it fit,

for sprinkling had been performed with it. From here it is proven that Rabbi Yehuda holds that sprinkling cannot be performed upon the floor of the courtyard. And he explains:

And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the entire

floor of the

courtyard is sanctified

also for sprinkling,

then

when the blood was spilled onto the ground, even without being sprinkled upon the altar,

its mitzva had been performed for it

of sprinkling. If so, there is no need to sprinkle again upon the altar from the offering whose blood spilled onto the floor, but rather it is proven that sprinkling must be performed specifically upon the altar.

And we reject this:

But perhaps

there is no support here for Rava, for one may indeed say that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the floor of the courtyard was sanctified also for the sprinkling of blood. And the matter concerning the Passover offerings, that he requires filling one cup from the blood mixture and it is insufficient that the blood has already reached the ground,

is because he holds that pouring must be by human force,

and we are concerned that perhaps the blood of one offering spilled at the time of slaughter, and the service of sprinkling was not performed upon it in accordance with its law.

And we reject again:

If so,

since the reason we require him to fill a cup is that we require pouring by human force, it would have been sufficient that he

take

other blood with which he fills the cup

and pour it

the blood onto the floor

in its place,

and since Rabbi Yehuda requires that he pour it specifically upon the altar, this proves Rava’s view: the floor was not sanctified for the sprinkling of blood.

And we reject this:

But perhaps

there is no proof from that beraita for Rava, for indeed it is possible that Rabbi Yehuda also concedes with regard to blood; and the reason he requires it upon the altar is

because we require the choicest mitzva,

and upon the altar is more choice than upon the floor.

Rabbi Elazar said: An altar that became damaged does not cause

the

remnants of a meal-offering

to be eaten while it is damaged, as it is stated: “And they shall eat them unleavened beside the altar.” But did they eat the meal-offering beside the altar?

After all, it was eaten throughout the courtyard.

Rather,

it teaches you that the meal-offering is eaten

when it is

the altar

complete, and not when it is deficient.

We have found

the disqualification of eating

the remnants of a meal-offering

when the altar is damaged. As for

most sacred offerings,

which may be eaten only when the altar is complete,

from where do we derive it? It is derived

by a gzera shava

“holy—holy”

stated in the passage of meal-offerings.

We have found this for most sacred offerings and meal-offerings. As for

lesser sacred offerings,

which may be eaten in Jerusalem only when the altar is complete,

from where do we derive it?