Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 11, 2018 | 讻状讞 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Zevachim 59

A third interpretation of the mishna聽quoted previously is brought – that it was not Rabbi Yossi’s opinion聽but Rabbi Yosi the Galilean who held the altar was in the north and a source is brought from which it can be derived that Rabbi Yosi the Galilean,聽in fact, holds that position. Rav and Rabbi Yochanan have a debate regarding the status of sanctified animals that were designated and then the altar becomes broken. From there the gemara tangents to a debate between Rrabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi regarding the size of the altar in the time of Moshe.

诪讝讘讞 讛注讜诇讛 讜讙讜壮 诪讝讘讞 讘驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜诇讗 讻讬讜专 讘驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讛讬讻谉 讛讬讛 谞讜转谞讜 讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 诪砖讜讱 拽讬诪注讗 讻诇驻讬 讛讚专讜诐

the altar of the burnt offering he set at the entrance to the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting.鈥 (Exodus 40:29), indicating that no object was allowed to be located between the altar and the Tent of Meeting, whose parallel, in the Temple, was the Sanctuary. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derives from these verses that only the altar stood at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, but the Basin did not stand at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. Where would they place the Basin? It was placed between the Entrance Hall and the altar, extended slightly toward the south. Therefore, although the Basin was closer to the Sanctuary than the altar was, it did not actually stand between the altar and the Sanctuary.

诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 讻讜诇讬讛 诪讝讘讞 讘讚专讜诐 拽讗讬 谞讜拽诪讬讛 诪讻讜转诇 讛讬讻诇 讜诇讚专讜诐 讘讬谉 讗讜诇诐 诇诪讝讘讞

The Gemara seeks to clarify: What does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili hold? If he holds that the entire altar stands in the south section of the Temple courtyard, let him stand the Basin anywhere from where the wall of the Sanctuary begins and southward, so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary but it is between the Entrance Hall and the altar. This would allow for the optimal fulfillment of both verses (Exodus 40:29; Leviticus 4:7), as the Basin would be located between the altar and the Sanctuary without interposing between the altar and the entrance to the Sanctuary.

讜讗讬 谞诪讬 拽住讘专 拽讚讜砖转 讛讬讻诇 讜讗讜诇诐 讞讚讗 讛讬讗 谞讜拽诪讬讛 诪讻讜转诇 讗讜诇诐 讜诇讚专讜诐 讘讘讬谉 讗讜诇诐 诇诪讝讘讞

The Gemara continues: And even if he holds that the level of sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall is the same, in which case the Basin could not be located opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall as this too would be considered a violation of the second verse, let him stand the Basin anywhere from where the wall of the Entrance Hall begins and southward, so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall but is in between the Entrance Hall and the altar. From the fact that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili did not say that, it is clear he held that the altar was not located in the southern section of the Temple courtyard.

讗讬 谞诪讬 拽住讘专 讞爪讬讜 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讞爪讬讜 讘讚专讜诐 谞讜拽诪讬讛 诪讻讜转诇 讛讬讻诇 讜诇讚专讜诐 讘讬谉 讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞

Alternatively, if Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that half of the altar was located in the north section of the Temple courtyard and half of it was located in the south, let him stand the Basin anywhere from where the wall of the Sanctuary begins and southward, so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary but between the Entrance Hall and the altar. Since the entrance to the Sanctuary was five cubits wide and stood in the middle of the courtyard, and the altar was thirty-two cubits long, there would have been eleven cubits to both the north and the south of the entrance to the Sanctuary where the Basin could be placed in order to be located between the altar and the Sanctuary without interposing between the altar and the entrance to the Sanctuary.

讜讗讬 谞诪讬 拽住讘专 拽讚讜砖转 讛讗讜诇诐 讜讛讬讻诇 讞讚讗 讛讬讗 谞讜拽诪讬讛 诪讻讜转诇 讗讜诇诐 讜诇讚专讜诐 讘讬谉 讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 讻讜诇讬讛 诪讝讘讞 讘爪驻讜谉

And even if Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the level of sanctity of the Entrance Hall and that of the Sanctuary is the same, in which case the Basin could not be located opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall because this too would be considered a violation of the second verse, let him stand the Basin anywhere from where the wall of the Entrance Hall begins and southward, so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall but in between the Entrance Hall and the altar. Why does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili require that the Basin be placed south of the altar? The Gemara concludes: Rather, is it not due to the fact that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the entire altar stood in the north section of the Temple courtyard?

讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 诪讻讜转诇 讛讬讻诇 讜诇爪驻讜谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞

The Gemara asks: Even if this is the case, why does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili require that the Basin be located to the south of the altar so that it is not actually in between the altar and the Sanctuary? Even if you stand it anywhere from where the wall of the Sanctuary begins and northward, it would not interpose between the altar and the entrance to the Sanctuary but it would actually be located in between the Entrance Hall and the altar.

讜谞讜拽诪讛 诪讻讜转诇 讗讜诇诐 讜诇爪驻讜谉 讘讘讬谉 讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞

And even if Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the sanctity of the Entrance Hall is equal to that of the Sanctuary, and that the Basin cannot interpose between the altar and the entrance to the Entrance Hall, stand the Basin anywhere from where the wall of the Entrance Hall begins and northward, so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall but it is located in between the Entrance Hall and the altar.

讗诪专 拽专讗 爪驻讜谞讛 砖讬讛讗 爪驻讜谉 驻谞讜讬 诪讻诇讬诐

The Gemara answers: That suggestion is technically not feasible, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward [tzafona]鈥 (Leviticus 1:11). This verse indicates that the north section of the Temple courtyard must be vacant of all vessels, including the Basin. This concludes the Gemara鈥檚 explanation of Rav Sherevya鈥檚 assertion that the mishna in Tamid, which holds that the altar was located in the northern part of the Temple courtyard, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 爪驻讜谞讛 砖讬讛讗 爪驻讜谉 驻谞讜讬 诪讻诇讜诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛诪讝讘讞

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: The verse states: 鈥淣orthward before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 1:11). This indicates that the north section of the Temple courtyard must be vacant of everything, and even of the altar. Therefore, he maintains that the entire altar stood in the southern section of the Temple courtyard.

讗诪专 专讘 诪讝讘讞 砖谞驻讙诐 讻诇 讛拽讚砖讬诐 砖谞砖讞讟讜 砖诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 诪拽专讗 讛讜讗 讘讬讚讬谞讜 讜砖讻讞谞讜讛讜 讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 讚拽讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪谞讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞 砖谞驻讙诐 砖讻诇 讛拽讚砖讬诐 砖谞砖讞讟讜 砖诐 驻住讜诇讬谉

Rav says: In a case of an altar that was damaged, all sacrificial animals that were slaughtered there are disqualified. Rav continues: We have a verse as the source for this halakha but we have forgotten which one it is. When Rav Kahana, Rav鈥檚 disciple, ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, saying in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei: From where is it derived that in the case of an altar that was damaged, that all sacrificial animals that were slaughtered there are disqualified?

砖谞讗诪专 讜讝讘讞转 注诇讬讜 讗转 注诇转讬讱 讜讗转 砖诇诪讬讱 讜讻讬 注诇讬讜 讗转讛 讝讜讘讞 讗诇讗 讻砖讛讜讗 砖诇诐 讜诇讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讞住专 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 拽专讗 讚讗讬砖转诪讬讟 诇讬讛 诇专讘

It is derived from a verse, as it is stated in the verse with regard to the altar: 鈥淎n altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall slaughter upon it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings [shelamekha]鈥 (Exodus 20:21). Is it true that you slaughter sacrificial animals on the altar itself? They are slaughtered on the ground near the altar. No, rather, the verse indicates that one is able to slaughter the sacrificial animals on account of the altar, i.e., when the altar is complete [shalem], but not when it is lacking, i.e., damaged. Rav Kahana said: This is the verse that eluded Rav.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 驻住讜诇讬谉 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘 住讘专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讚讞讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 谞讬讚讞讬谉

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Both this one and that one are disqualified, i.e., all animals that were designated as offerings when the altar was in a damaged state are disqualified, even if they were not yet slaughtered. The Gemara asks: With regard to what issue do Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree? The Gemara answers: Rav holds that living animals are not permanently deferred, and Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that living animals are permanently deferred. If the altar is damaged and it is therefore impossible to sacrifice offerings, Rav holds that only offerings that were already slaughtered become permanently deferred, whereas Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that even those that were not yet slaughtered become permanently deferred.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 讛拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛讬讜 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讘谞讛 讛诪讝讘讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讘谞讛 讛诪讝讘讞 驻住讜诇讬谉 谞讘谞讛 讚讞讜讬讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 opinion, based on a baraita: In the case of all sacrificial animals that were consecrated before the altar was built, and then the altar was subsequently built, the animals are disqualified. The Gemara assumes that this baraita is referring to animals that were consecrated before the building of the altar in the Second Temple. The Gemara responds: In a case where the animals were consecrated before the altar was built, the animals are considered initially deferred, i.e., deferred from the time they were initially consecrated. In this case all agree they are not permanently deferred and they can be sacrificed when the altar is built.

讗诇讗 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讛专住 讛诪讝讘讞 谞讛专住 讛讗 讗讬讝拽讜谉 诇讛讜

Rather, explain the baraita as follows: If the animals were consecrated before the altar was destroyed in the First Temple, and then the altar was destroyed and rebuilt, the animals are still disqualified. The Gemara questions this reading: Can the baraita be referring to a case where the altar was destroyed in the First Temple? Didn鈥檛 the animals become too old for sacrifice by the time the altar was constructed in the Second Temple?

讗诇讗 注讚 砖诇讗 谞驻讙诐 讛诪讝讘讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞驻讙诐 讛诪讝讘讞 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜诇讗 转专讜爪讬 拽讗 诪转专爪转 讗讬诪讗 砖谞砖讞讟讜

The Gemara emends the baraita yet again: Rather, the baraita is referring to a case where one consecrated the animals before the altar was damaged, and subsequently the altar was damaged. The halakha is that the animals are disqualified. It seems from this baraita that even sacrificial animals that were not yet slaughtered when the altar became damaged are nevertheless permanently disqualified, in contrast to the opinion of Rav. The Gemara rejects this proof: But did you not already have to emend the text of the baraita? Emend it differently and say that the case is where the animals were slaughtered before the altar became damaged. Accordingly, there is no proof from this baraita with regard to the deferral of living animals.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 诪讝讘讞 砖谞注拽专 诪拽讟讬专讬谉 拽讟专转 讘诪拽讜诪讜

Rav said that sacrificial animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard when the altar was in a damaged state are disqualified. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rav Giddel say that Rav says: In a case where the golden altar became uprooted from its location in the Sanctuary, one may burn the incense in its place? Apparently, it is not essential to have the altar in order to sacrifice offerings.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讚诪讬诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘 讘讚诪讬诐

The Gemara answers: It is like that which Rava says (60a): Although Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the entire Temple courtyard is fit for burning the sacrificial portions of offerings, Rabbi Yehuda would concede with regard to the presenting of the blood that it must be performed specifically on the altar. Here too, the Gemara says, Rav concedes with regard to the blood that an altar is required. Consequently, if consecrated offerings were slaughtered when the altar was in a damaged state, since the blood may not be presented, the offering is disqualified.

诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 拽讬讚砖 讛诪诇讱 转讜讱 讛讞爪专 讜讙讜壮 讻讬 诪讝讘讞 (砖注砖讛 诪砖讛) 拽讟谉 诪讛讻讬诇 讚讘专讬诐 讻讻转讘谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Having briefly mentioned Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion, the Gemara asks: What is the context of the statement of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the inauguration of the Temple in the time of King Solomon: 鈥淥n that day the king sanctified the middle of the court that was before the House of the Lord; as there he offered the burnt offering, and the meal offering, and the fat of the peace offerings; because the copper altar that was before the Lord was too small to receive the burnt offering, and the meal offering, and the fat of the peace offerings鈥 (I聽Kings 8:64). The matters in the verse are to be understood as they are written, i.e., that the altar in the Temple was too small to receive all of the offerings that Solomon sacrificed, and Solomon therefore sanctified the Temple courtyard so that it, too, could function as an altar; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

Rabbi Yosei said to him:

讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讗诇祝 注诇讜转 讬注诇讛 砖诇诪讛 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讛讛讜讗 讜讗讬诇讜 讘讘讬转 注讜诇诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬讝讘讞 砖诇诪讛 讗转 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讗砖专 讝讘讞 诇讛壮 讘拽专 注砖专讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 讗诇祝

But isn鈥檛 it already stated with regard to the altar that Moses built: 鈥淎 thousand burnt offerings did Solomon offer upon that altar鈥 (I聽Kings 3:4), while with regard to the Eternal House, i.e., the Temple, it states: 鈥淎nd Solomon offered for the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he offered to the Lord, two and twenty thousand cattle and one hundred and twenty thousand sheep鈥 (I聽Kings 8:63)?

讜讻砖讗转讛 诪讙讬注 诇讞砖讘讜谉 注讜诇讜转 讜诇诪谞讬谉 讗诪讜转 讝讛 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛

And when you arrive at the calculation of burnt offerings and the number of cubits for each altar, this was greater than that, i.e., Solomon sacrificed more offerings per square cubit on Moses鈥 altar than he did on the altar in the Temple upon its inauguration. Therefore, it is difficult to suggest that the altar in the Temple was not large enough to accommodate the number of offerings that Solomon sacrificed.

讗诇讗 诪讛讜 拽讟谉 诪讛讻讬诇 讻讗讚诐 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 驻诇讜谞讬 谞谞住 讛讜讗 讜驻住讜诇 诇注讘讜讚讛

Rabbi Yosei presents an alternative understanding of the verse: Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渂ecause the copper altar鈥was too small to receive鈥? It is not referring to the altar built by Solo-mon, but rather to the copper altar built in the time of Moses, which was disqualified from use from the day of the Temple鈥檚 inauguration on. Rather than stating outright that the altar became disqualified, the verse employed a euphemism, like a person who says to his friend: So-and-so is a dwarf [nanas], and what he really means to say is that he is disqualified from performing the Temple service. Similarly, rather than stating outright that the altar built in the time of Moses became disqualified, the verse states that it was too small to accommodate the offerings sacrificed in the Temple.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪讝讘讞 砖注砖讛 诪砖讛 讙讚讜诇 讛讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讞诪砖 讗诪讜转 讗专讱 讜讞诪砖 讗诪讜转 专讞讘 讚讘专讬诐 讻讻转讘谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda respond to this claim? Rabbi Yosei is saying well, i.e., his claim is persuasive. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that the altar that Moses built was large. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states that the altar built in the time of Moses was: 鈥淔ive cubits long and five cubits wide鈥 (Exodus 27:1). The matters in the verse are to be understood as they are written; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 专讘讜注 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 专讘讜注 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪讗诪爪注讬转讜 讛讬讛 诪讜讚讚 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪讗诪爪注讬转讜 讛讬讛 诪讜讚讚

Rabbi Yehuda says: It is stated here that the altar built in the time of Moses was: 鈥淪quare鈥 (Exodus 27:1), and it is stated there, in Ezekiel鈥檚 prophetic description of the altar, that it is: 鈥淪quare鈥 (Ezekiel 43:16). Just as there, in Ezekiel鈥檚 vision, he was measuring the distance in each direction from its center, so too here, the verse was measuring the altar that Moses built from its center. Accordingly, the altar built by Moses was ten cubits by ten cubits. As a result, Solomon sacrificed more offerings per square cubit of space on the altar in the Temple than he did on the altar built by Moses. It is therefore possible that the altar in the Temple was not sufficient to accommodate the offerings, and Solomon consecrated the Temple courtyard to serve as an altar.

讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讗专讬讗诇 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 注诇 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诇 讗专讘注转 专讘注讬讜 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讗诪爪注 讛讜讗 诪讜讚讚

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that the altar mentioned there, in Ezekiel, was measured from its center? The Gemara answers: As it is written: 鈥淎nd the hearth shall be twelve cubits long by twelve wide, square, to its four sides鈥 (Ezekiel 43:16). The Gemara asks: Does the verse mean twelve cubits in each direction from the center of the altar, so that in total it was twenty-four by twenty-four cubits? Or perhaps the altar was only a total of twelve by twelve cubits. The Gemara answers: When the verse states: 鈥淭o its four sides,鈥 it teaches that Ezekiel was measuring from the center of the altar.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讬 讙诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讘讙讜讘讛讛 讛讜讗 讚讙诪讬专 讚转谞讬讗 讜砖诇砖 讗诪讜转 拽讜诪转讜 讚讘专讬诐 讻讻转讘谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yosei respond to Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 claim? The Gemara answers: When he learns the verbal analogy, he learns it with regard to the altar鈥檚 height. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the altar built in the time of Moses: 鈥淎nd its height shall be three cubits鈥 (Exodus 27:1). The matters in the verse are to be understood as they are written, i.e., that the height of the altar was three cubits. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 专讘讜注 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 专讘讜注 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讙讜讘讛讜 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讻讗专讻讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讻讗专讻讜

Rabbi Yosei says: It is stated here that the altar built in the time of Moses was: 鈥淪quare鈥 (Exodus 27:1), and it is stated there that the incense altar was: 鈥淪quare鈥 (Exodus 30:2). The verbal analogy indicates that just as there, with regard to the incense altar, its height was twice its length, so too here, the height of the altar built in the time of Moses was twice its length, i.e., ten cubits.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讗转 讛讞爪专 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 讜拽讜诪讛 讞诪砖 讗诪讜转 讜讙讜壮 讗驻砖专 讻讛谉 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讜注讘讜讚讛 讘讬讚讜 讜讻诇 讛注诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讘讞讜抓

Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Yosei: But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淭he length of the court shall be a hundred cubits鈥nd the height five cubits鈥 (Exodus 27:18)? Is it possible that the priest would stand atop the altar and hold the items with which he would perform the sacrificial service in his hand, and the whole nation could see him from outside the courtyard? That would constitute a lack of respect for the service in the Tabernacle.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讗转 拽诇注讬 讛讞爪专 讜讗转 诪住讱 砖注专 讛讞爪专 讗砖专 注诇 讛诪砖讻谉 讜注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 诪讛 诪砖讻谉 注砖专 讗诪讜转 讗祝 诪讝讘讞 注砖专 讗诪讜转 讜讗讜诪专 拽诇注讬诐 讞诪砖 注砖专讛

Rabbi Yosei said back to him: But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淎nd the curtains of the court, and the screen for the door of the gate of the court which is by the Tabernacle and by the altar鈥 (Numbers 4:26)? This verse juxtaposes the Tabernacle with the altar to teach that just as the Tabernacle was ten cubits high, so too, the altar was ten cubits high. And another verse states: 鈥淭he curtains were fifteen

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 59

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 59

诪讝讘讞 讛注讜诇讛 讜讙讜壮 诪讝讘讞 讘驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜诇讗 讻讬讜专 讘驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讛讬讻谉 讛讬讛 谞讜转谞讜 讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 诪砖讜讱 拽讬诪注讗 讻诇驻讬 讛讚专讜诐

the altar of the burnt offering he set at the entrance to the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting.鈥 (Exodus 40:29), indicating that no object was allowed to be located between the altar and the Tent of Meeting, whose parallel, in the Temple, was the Sanctuary. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derives from these verses that only the altar stood at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, but the Basin did not stand at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. Where would they place the Basin? It was placed between the Entrance Hall and the altar, extended slightly toward the south. Therefore, although the Basin was closer to the Sanctuary than the altar was, it did not actually stand between the altar and the Sanctuary.

诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 讻讜诇讬讛 诪讝讘讞 讘讚专讜诐 拽讗讬 谞讜拽诪讬讛 诪讻讜转诇 讛讬讻诇 讜诇讚专讜诐 讘讬谉 讗讜诇诐 诇诪讝讘讞

The Gemara seeks to clarify: What does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili hold? If he holds that the entire altar stands in the south section of the Temple courtyard, let him stand the Basin anywhere from where the wall of the Sanctuary begins and southward, so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary but it is between the Entrance Hall and the altar. This would allow for the optimal fulfillment of both verses (Exodus 40:29; Leviticus 4:7), as the Basin would be located between the altar and the Sanctuary without interposing between the altar and the entrance to the Sanctuary.

讜讗讬 谞诪讬 拽住讘专 拽讚讜砖转 讛讬讻诇 讜讗讜诇诐 讞讚讗 讛讬讗 谞讜拽诪讬讛 诪讻讜转诇 讗讜诇诐 讜诇讚专讜诐 讘讘讬谉 讗讜诇诐 诇诪讝讘讞

The Gemara continues: And even if he holds that the level of sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall is the same, in which case the Basin could not be located opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall as this too would be considered a violation of the second verse, let him stand the Basin anywhere from where the wall of the Entrance Hall begins and southward, so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall but is in between the Entrance Hall and the altar. From the fact that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili did not say that, it is clear he held that the altar was not located in the southern section of the Temple courtyard.

讗讬 谞诪讬 拽住讘专 讞爪讬讜 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讞爪讬讜 讘讚专讜诐 谞讜拽诪讬讛 诪讻讜转诇 讛讬讻诇 讜诇讚专讜诐 讘讬谉 讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞

Alternatively, if Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that half of the altar was located in the north section of the Temple courtyard and half of it was located in the south, let him stand the Basin anywhere from where the wall of the Sanctuary begins and southward, so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary but between the Entrance Hall and the altar. Since the entrance to the Sanctuary was five cubits wide and stood in the middle of the courtyard, and the altar was thirty-two cubits long, there would have been eleven cubits to both the north and the south of the entrance to the Sanctuary where the Basin could be placed in order to be located between the altar and the Sanctuary without interposing between the altar and the entrance to the Sanctuary.

讜讗讬 谞诪讬 拽住讘专 拽讚讜砖转 讛讗讜诇诐 讜讛讬讻诇 讞讚讗 讛讬讗 谞讜拽诪讬讛 诪讻讜转诇 讗讜诇诐 讜诇讚专讜诐 讘讬谉 讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 讻讜诇讬讛 诪讝讘讞 讘爪驻讜谉

And even if Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the level of sanctity of the Entrance Hall and that of the Sanctuary is the same, in which case the Basin could not be located opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall because this too would be considered a violation of the second verse, let him stand the Basin anywhere from where the wall of the Entrance Hall begins and southward, so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall but in between the Entrance Hall and the altar. Why does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili require that the Basin be placed south of the altar? The Gemara concludes: Rather, is it not due to the fact that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the entire altar stood in the north section of the Temple courtyard?

讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 诪讻讜转诇 讛讬讻诇 讜诇爪驻讜谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞

The Gemara asks: Even if this is the case, why does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili require that the Basin be located to the south of the altar so that it is not actually in between the altar and the Sanctuary? Even if you stand it anywhere from where the wall of the Sanctuary begins and northward, it would not interpose between the altar and the entrance to the Sanctuary but it would actually be located in between the Entrance Hall and the altar.

讜谞讜拽诪讛 诪讻讜转诇 讗讜诇诐 讜诇爪驻讜谉 讘讘讬谉 讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞

And even if Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the sanctity of the Entrance Hall is equal to that of the Sanctuary, and that the Basin cannot interpose between the altar and the entrance to the Entrance Hall, stand the Basin anywhere from where the wall of the Entrance Hall begins and northward, so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall but it is located in between the Entrance Hall and the altar.

讗诪专 拽专讗 爪驻讜谞讛 砖讬讛讗 爪驻讜谉 驻谞讜讬 诪讻诇讬诐

The Gemara answers: That suggestion is technically not feasible, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward [tzafona]鈥 (Leviticus 1:11). This verse indicates that the north section of the Temple courtyard must be vacant of all vessels, including the Basin. This concludes the Gemara鈥檚 explanation of Rav Sherevya鈥檚 assertion that the mishna in Tamid, which holds that the altar was located in the northern part of the Temple courtyard, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 爪驻讜谞讛 砖讬讛讗 爪驻讜谉 驻谞讜讬 诪讻诇讜诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛诪讝讘讞

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: The verse states: 鈥淣orthward before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 1:11). This indicates that the north section of the Temple courtyard must be vacant of everything, and even of the altar. Therefore, he maintains that the entire altar stood in the southern section of the Temple courtyard.

讗诪专 专讘 诪讝讘讞 砖谞驻讙诐 讻诇 讛拽讚砖讬诐 砖谞砖讞讟讜 砖诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 诪拽专讗 讛讜讗 讘讬讚讬谞讜 讜砖讻讞谞讜讛讜 讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 讚拽讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪谞讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞 砖谞驻讙诐 砖讻诇 讛拽讚砖讬诐 砖谞砖讞讟讜 砖诐 驻住讜诇讬谉

Rav says: In a case of an altar that was damaged, all sacrificial animals that were slaughtered there are disqualified. Rav continues: We have a verse as the source for this halakha but we have forgotten which one it is. When Rav Kahana, Rav鈥檚 disciple, ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, saying in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei: From where is it derived that in the case of an altar that was damaged, that all sacrificial animals that were slaughtered there are disqualified?

砖谞讗诪专 讜讝讘讞转 注诇讬讜 讗转 注诇转讬讱 讜讗转 砖诇诪讬讱 讜讻讬 注诇讬讜 讗转讛 讝讜讘讞 讗诇讗 讻砖讛讜讗 砖诇诐 讜诇讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讞住专 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 拽专讗 讚讗讬砖转诪讬讟 诇讬讛 诇专讘

It is derived from a verse, as it is stated in the verse with regard to the altar: 鈥淎n altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall slaughter upon it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings [shelamekha]鈥 (Exodus 20:21). Is it true that you slaughter sacrificial animals on the altar itself? They are slaughtered on the ground near the altar. No, rather, the verse indicates that one is able to slaughter the sacrificial animals on account of the altar, i.e., when the altar is complete [shalem], but not when it is lacking, i.e., damaged. Rav Kahana said: This is the verse that eluded Rav.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 驻住讜诇讬谉 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘 住讘专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讚讞讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 谞讬讚讞讬谉

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Both this one and that one are disqualified, i.e., all animals that were designated as offerings when the altar was in a damaged state are disqualified, even if they were not yet slaughtered. The Gemara asks: With regard to what issue do Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree? The Gemara answers: Rav holds that living animals are not permanently deferred, and Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that living animals are permanently deferred. If the altar is damaged and it is therefore impossible to sacrifice offerings, Rav holds that only offerings that were already slaughtered become permanently deferred, whereas Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that even those that were not yet slaughtered become permanently deferred.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 讛拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛讬讜 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讘谞讛 讛诪讝讘讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讘谞讛 讛诪讝讘讞 驻住讜诇讬谉 谞讘谞讛 讚讞讜讬讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 opinion, based on a baraita: In the case of all sacrificial animals that were consecrated before the altar was built, and then the altar was subsequently built, the animals are disqualified. The Gemara assumes that this baraita is referring to animals that were consecrated before the building of the altar in the Second Temple. The Gemara responds: In a case where the animals were consecrated before the altar was built, the animals are considered initially deferred, i.e., deferred from the time they were initially consecrated. In this case all agree they are not permanently deferred and they can be sacrificed when the altar is built.

讗诇讗 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讛专住 讛诪讝讘讞 谞讛专住 讛讗 讗讬讝拽讜谉 诇讛讜

Rather, explain the baraita as follows: If the animals were consecrated before the altar was destroyed in the First Temple, and then the altar was destroyed and rebuilt, the animals are still disqualified. The Gemara questions this reading: Can the baraita be referring to a case where the altar was destroyed in the First Temple? Didn鈥檛 the animals become too old for sacrifice by the time the altar was constructed in the Second Temple?

讗诇讗 注讚 砖诇讗 谞驻讙诐 讛诪讝讘讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞驻讙诐 讛诪讝讘讞 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜诇讗 转专讜爪讬 拽讗 诪转专爪转 讗讬诪讗 砖谞砖讞讟讜

The Gemara emends the baraita yet again: Rather, the baraita is referring to a case where one consecrated the animals before the altar was damaged, and subsequently the altar was damaged. The halakha is that the animals are disqualified. It seems from this baraita that even sacrificial animals that were not yet slaughtered when the altar became damaged are nevertheless permanently disqualified, in contrast to the opinion of Rav. The Gemara rejects this proof: But did you not already have to emend the text of the baraita? Emend it differently and say that the case is where the animals were slaughtered before the altar became damaged. Accordingly, there is no proof from this baraita with regard to the deferral of living animals.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 诪讝讘讞 砖谞注拽专 诪拽讟讬专讬谉 拽讟专转 讘诪拽讜诪讜

Rav said that sacrificial animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard when the altar was in a damaged state are disqualified. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rav Giddel say that Rav says: In a case where the golden altar became uprooted from its location in the Sanctuary, one may burn the incense in its place? Apparently, it is not essential to have the altar in order to sacrifice offerings.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讚诪讬诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘 讘讚诪讬诐

The Gemara answers: It is like that which Rava says (60a): Although Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the entire Temple courtyard is fit for burning the sacrificial portions of offerings, Rabbi Yehuda would concede with regard to the presenting of the blood that it must be performed specifically on the altar. Here too, the Gemara says, Rav concedes with regard to the blood that an altar is required. Consequently, if consecrated offerings were slaughtered when the altar was in a damaged state, since the blood may not be presented, the offering is disqualified.

诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 拽讬讚砖 讛诪诇讱 转讜讱 讛讞爪专 讜讙讜壮 讻讬 诪讝讘讞 (砖注砖讛 诪砖讛) 拽讟谉 诪讛讻讬诇 讚讘专讬诐 讻讻转讘谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Having briefly mentioned Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion, the Gemara asks: What is the context of the statement of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the inauguration of the Temple in the time of King Solomon: 鈥淥n that day the king sanctified the middle of the court that was before the House of the Lord; as there he offered the burnt offering, and the meal offering, and the fat of the peace offerings; because the copper altar that was before the Lord was too small to receive the burnt offering, and the meal offering, and the fat of the peace offerings鈥 (I聽Kings 8:64). The matters in the verse are to be understood as they are written, i.e., that the altar in the Temple was too small to receive all of the offerings that Solomon sacrificed, and Solomon therefore sanctified the Temple courtyard so that it, too, could function as an altar; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

Rabbi Yosei said to him:

讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讗诇祝 注诇讜转 讬注诇讛 砖诇诪讛 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讛讛讜讗 讜讗讬诇讜 讘讘讬转 注讜诇诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬讝讘讞 砖诇诪讛 讗转 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讗砖专 讝讘讞 诇讛壮 讘拽专 注砖专讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 讗诇祝

But isn鈥檛 it already stated with regard to the altar that Moses built: 鈥淎 thousand burnt offerings did Solomon offer upon that altar鈥 (I聽Kings 3:4), while with regard to the Eternal House, i.e., the Temple, it states: 鈥淎nd Solomon offered for the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he offered to the Lord, two and twenty thousand cattle and one hundred and twenty thousand sheep鈥 (I聽Kings 8:63)?

讜讻砖讗转讛 诪讙讬注 诇讞砖讘讜谉 注讜诇讜转 讜诇诪谞讬谉 讗诪讜转 讝讛 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛

And when you arrive at the calculation of burnt offerings and the number of cubits for each altar, this was greater than that, i.e., Solomon sacrificed more offerings per square cubit on Moses鈥 altar than he did on the altar in the Temple upon its inauguration. Therefore, it is difficult to suggest that the altar in the Temple was not large enough to accommodate the number of offerings that Solomon sacrificed.

讗诇讗 诪讛讜 拽讟谉 诪讛讻讬诇 讻讗讚诐 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 驻诇讜谞讬 谞谞住 讛讜讗 讜驻住讜诇 诇注讘讜讚讛

Rabbi Yosei presents an alternative understanding of the verse: Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渂ecause the copper altar鈥was too small to receive鈥? It is not referring to the altar built by Solo-mon, but rather to the copper altar built in the time of Moses, which was disqualified from use from the day of the Temple鈥檚 inauguration on. Rather than stating outright that the altar became disqualified, the verse employed a euphemism, like a person who says to his friend: So-and-so is a dwarf [nanas], and what he really means to say is that he is disqualified from performing the Temple service. Similarly, rather than stating outright that the altar built in the time of Moses became disqualified, the verse states that it was too small to accommodate the offerings sacrificed in the Temple.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪讝讘讞 砖注砖讛 诪砖讛 讙讚讜诇 讛讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讞诪砖 讗诪讜转 讗专讱 讜讞诪砖 讗诪讜转 专讞讘 讚讘专讬诐 讻讻转讘谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda respond to this claim? Rabbi Yosei is saying well, i.e., his claim is persuasive. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that the altar that Moses built was large. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states that the altar built in the time of Moses was: 鈥淔ive cubits long and five cubits wide鈥 (Exodus 27:1). The matters in the verse are to be understood as they are written; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 专讘讜注 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 专讘讜注 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪讗诪爪注讬转讜 讛讬讛 诪讜讚讚 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪讗诪爪注讬转讜 讛讬讛 诪讜讚讚

Rabbi Yehuda says: It is stated here that the altar built in the time of Moses was: 鈥淪quare鈥 (Exodus 27:1), and it is stated there, in Ezekiel鈥檚 prophetic description of the altar, that it is: 鈥淪quare鈥 (Ezekiel 43:16). Just as there, in Ezekiel鈥檚 vision, he was measuring the distance in each direction from its center, so too here, the verse was measuring the altar that Moses built from its center. Accordingly, the altar built by Moses was ten cubits by ten cubits. As a result, Solomon sacrificed more offerings per square cubit of space on the altar in the Temple than he did on the altar built by Moses. It is therefore possible that the altar in the Temple was not sufficient to accommodate the offerings, and Solomon consecrated the Temple courtyard to serve as an altar.

讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讗专讬讗诇 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 注诇 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诇 讗专讘注转 专讘注讬讜 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讗诪爪注 讛讜讗 诪讜讚讚

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that the altar mentioned there, in Ezekiel, was measured from its center? The Gemara answers: As it is written: 鈥淎nd the hearth shall be twelve cubits long by twelve wide, square, to its four sides鈥 (Ezekiel 43:16). The Gemara asks: Does the verse mean twelve cubits in each direction from the center of the altar, so that in total it was twenty-four by twenty-four cubits? Or perhaps the altar was only a total of twelve by twelve cubits. The Gemara answers: When the verse states: 鈥淭o its four sides,鈥 it teaches that Ezekiel was measuring from the center of the altar.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讬 讙诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讘讙讜讘讛讛 讛讜讗 讚讙诪讬专 讚转谞讬讗 讜砖诇砖 讗诪讜转 拽讜诪转讜 讚讘专讬诐 讻讻转讘谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yosei respond to Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 claim? The Gemara answers: When he learns the verbal analogy, he learns it with regard to the altar鈥檚 height. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the altar built in the time of Moses: 鈥淎nd its height shall be three cubits鈥 (Exodus 27:1). The matters in the verse are to be understood as they are written, i.e., that the height of the altar was three cubits. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 专讘讜注 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 专讘讜注 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讙讜讘讛讜 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讻讗专讻讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讻讗专讻讜

Rabbi Yosei says: It is stated here that the altar built in the time of Moses was: 鈥淪quare鈥 (Exodus 27:1), and it is stated there that the incense altar was: 鈥淪quare鈥 (Exodus 30:2). The verbal analogy indicates that just as there, with regard to the incense altar, its height was twice its length, so too here, the height of the altar built in the time of Moses was twice its length, i.e., ten cubits.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讗转 讛讞爪专 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 讜拽讜诪讛 讞诪砖 讗诪讜转 讜讙讜壮 讗驻砖专 讻讛谉 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讜注讘讜讚讛 讘讬讚讜 讜讻诇 讛注诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讘讞讜抓

Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Yosei: But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淭he length of the court shall be a hundred cubits鈥nd the height five cubits鈥 (Exodus 27:18)? Is it possible that the priest would stand atop the altar and hold the items with which he would perform the sacrificial service in his hand, and the whole nation could see him from outside the courtyard? That would constitute a lack of respect for the service in the Tabernacle.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讗转 拽诇注讬 讛讞爪专 讜讗转 诪住讱 砖注专 讛讞爪专 讗砖专 注诇 讛诪砖讻谉 讜注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 诪讛 诪砖讻谉 注砖专 讗诪讜转 讗祝 诪讝讘讞 注砖专 讗诪讜转 讜讗讜诪专 拽诇注讬诐 讞诪砖 注砖专讛

Rabbi Yosei said back to him: But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淎nd the curtains of the court, and the screen for the door of the gate of the court which is by the Tabernacle and by the altar鈥 (Numbers 4:26)? This verse juxtaposes the Tabernacle with the altar to teach that just as the Tabernacle was ten cubits high, so too, the altar was ten cubits high. And another verse states: 鈥淭he curtains were fifteen

Scroll To Top