Zevachim 60a (ס.) — the Talmud in English

And it says: “Hangings fifteen

cubits to the shoulder.”

Near the gate. And Rabbi Yosei holds that the meaning 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 was true throughout the courtyard: The height of the hangings was fifteen cubits.

And what is the meaning of

the verse stated with regard to 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 ledge of the altar and above:

The height of the altar was ten cubits, and above it the height of the courtyard hangings was another five cubits; consequently, their height was fifteen cubits.

And what is the meaning of

the verse stated with regard to the height of the altar:

“And its height was three cubits”?

But it was ten cubits high! Rather, the meaning of the verse “three cubits” is

from the ledge of the surrounding walkway and above

The surrounding walkway was situated on the altar at a height of six cubits, and from it to the horns there were three cubits in height, while the horns themselves were one cubit high. Consequently, according to Rabbi Yosei, the altar was ten cubits high.

And Rabbi Yehuda,

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

when he derived the verbal analogy

“square—square”

with regard to the width

of the place of the altar fire on top of the altar,

that is what he derived it with regard to.

And we raise an objection:

But according to 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 ultimately

the priest would be visible,

as when the priest, whose height was three cubits—for that was the measure of an average person—stood on the altar, whose height was three cubits, the priest’s head would be visible to all the people from outside. Yet Rabbi Yehuda rejected Rabbi Yosei’s statement that the altar was ten cubits high for this very reason: It is possible that a priest would stand upon it and all the people would see him from outside.

And we answer:

Granted, the priest would be visible,

nevertheless, since

the service in his hands would not be visible

to all the people standing outside, we are not particular about it.

And we raise an objection:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that the floor of the Temple 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 Yosei,

who holds that Solomon did not sanctify the floor of the Temple courtyard, if so, it 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 Temple courtyard

for erecting in it an altar

of stones .

And we raise an objection:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yosei,

who says that Solomon’s altar was larger and Moses’ was smaller,

this is why it is written:

“For the copper altar that was before the Lord was

small,”

as for this reason Solomon concealed the copper altar, since it was small.

But according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who interprets the verse as saying that Solomon’s altar was small and therefore it was necessary to sanctify the floor also for burning offerings, it is difficult:

What is the meaning of “small”

that the verse says with regard to the copper altar? Surely Solomon’s stone altar was small!

And we answer:

This is what the verse is saying: Solomon sanctified the floor of the Temple 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.”

With regard to what do they disagree,

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda, who disagreed concerning the verbal analogy of “square—square,” as Rabbi Yosei derived it from the inner altar, while Rabbi Yehuda derived it from the altar of the Second Temple mentioned by Ezekiel?

One Master,

Rabbi Yehuda,

holds that one derives

an altar that stands

outside from

an altar that stands

outside, and one does not derive

by means of a verbal analogy an altar that stands

outside from

the golden altar that stands

inside. And one Master,

Rabbi Yosei,

holds that one derives

by means of a verbal analogy

one vessel from another vessel:

the copper altar from the golden altar, as both of them are vessels.

And one does not derive

the outer altar, which is a

vessel

from

the stone altar of the Second Temple, which is a

building 35 .

Rava said: Rabbi Yehuda concedes

that he holds that the floor of the Temple courtyard was sanctified for burning fats and other sacrificial parts, but this is not the case

with blood,

whose sprinkling must be performed specifically on the altar .

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says:

At the time of the slaughtering of the Paschal offerings,

one cup was filled with the blood of the mixture

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

and he poured it

the priest

onto the altar,

so that

if the blood of one of them were spilled,

of the Paschal offerings, and none of its blood was sprinkled on the altar as required,

it would be found

that its blood had been sprinkled in the cup containing the mixture, for liquids mix, and all the bloods were mixed together in this cup.

This renders it fit,

as sprinkling was performed with regard to it. And from here it is proven that Rabbi Yehuda holds that sprinkling cannot be performed on the floor of the Temple courtyard. And he explains:

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

floor of the

Temple courtyard is sanctified

also for sprinkling,

then,

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

its mitzva would have been performed

with regard to sprinkling. If so, there would be no need to sprinkle again on the altar from the offering whose blood spilled onto the floor . Rather, it is proven that sprinkling must be performed specifically on the altar.

And we reject this:

Perhaps

there is no support for Rava from here, for one could always say that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the floor of the Temple courtyard was sanctified also for the sprinkling of blood. And as for the case of the Paschal offerings, where he requires that one cup be filled with the blood of the mixture, and it is not sufficient that the blood has already reached the ground,

it is because he holds that pouring must be performed by human force 38 ,

and we are concerned that perhaps the blood of one offering was spilled at the time of slaughter, and the service of sprinkling was not performed upon it as required.

And we reject this again:

If so,

since the reason that we require him to fill a cup is that pouring must be performed by human force, it would have sufficed that he

take

other blood with which to fill the cup

and pour it

onto the floor

in its proper place 39 . Since Rabbi Yehuda requires that he pour it specifically onto the altar, it is proven in accordance with Rava that the floor was not sanctified for the sprinkling of blood.

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:

Perhaps

there is no proof from that beraita for Rava, for it is indeed possible that Rabbi Yehuda concedes even with regard to blood. And the fact that he requires it to be poured onto the altar is

because we require the ideal mitzva,

and pouring it onto the altar is more ideal than pouring it onto the floor.

Rabbi Elazar said: A damaged altar does not enable one to eat

the

remainder of a meal-offering

40, as it is stated: “And they shall eat them as unleavened bread beside the altar.” And did they eat the meal-offering beside the altar?

But it was eaten throughout the Temple courtyard!

Rather,

this teaches you that a meal-offering is eaten

when

the

altar is intact, and not when it is deficient.

We have found

that the eating of the

remainder of a meal-offering

is disqualified when the altar is damaged. With regard to

most sacred offerings,

which may be eaten only when the altar is intact,

from where do we derive this? It is derived

by means of the verbal analogy

“sacred—sacred,”

which is stated in the passage concerning meal-offerings.

We have found this with regard to most sacred offerings and meal-offerings. With regard to

lesser sanctity offerings,

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

from where do we derive this?