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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 12, 2018 | 讻状讟 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 60

The answer brought for the contradiction against Rav was that Rava said that Rabbi Yehuda admitted that when it came to sprinkling the blood, the altar was needed. Where did Rava make that statement? A long argument between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi is brought to give background. Then a proof is brought for Rava but then rejected. Sources are brought to derive the need for the altar for remains of the minachot, kodshai聽kodashim聽and kodshai kalim.

讗诪讛 讗诇 讛讻转祝 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞诪砖 讗诪讜转 诪砖驻转 诪讝讘讞 讜诇诪注诇讛

cubits for the one side鈥 (Exodus 38:14), which indicates that the height of the curtains surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle was fifteen cubits. And what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd the height five cubits鈥 (Exodus 27:18)? It is referring to the height of the curtains from the upper edge of the altar and above; the curtains surrounding the courtyard were five cubits higher than the altar.

讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖诇砖 讗诪讜转 拽讜诪转讜 诪砖驻转 住讜讘讘 讜诇诪注诇讛

Rabbi Yosei continues: And what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall make the altar鈥and its height shall be three cubits鈥 (Exodus 27:1)? The verse means that the altar measures three cubits from the edge of the surrounding ledge and above.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬 讙诪讬专 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讘专讞讘讛 讛讜讗 讚讙诪讬专

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda, who understands that the copper altar built in the time of Moses was actually three cubits high, interpret the verbal analogy based upon the word 鈥渟quare,鈥 from which Rabbi Yosei derived that the height of the copper altar was ten cubits? The Gemara answers: When he learns the verbal analogy, he learns it with regard to the altar鈥檚 width, not its height. This is based on the verse in Ezekiel (see 59b). Accordingly, it teaches that the altar built in the time of Moses was ten cubits by ten cubits.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 拽讗 诪讬转讞讝讬 讻讛谉 谞讛讬 讚讻讛谉 诪讬转讞讝讬 注讘讜讚讛 讚讘讬讚讜 诇讗 诪讬转讞讝讬

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that the altar was three cubits high and the curtains surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle were five cubits high, isn鈥檛 the priest visible while performing the service atop the altar? The Gemara answers: Granted, the priest is visible, but the items with which he performs the sacrificial service that are in his hand are not visible.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 拽讬讚砖 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讗讬 拽讬讚砖 诇讛注诪讬讚 讘讛 诪讝讘讞

The Gemara returns to the original dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei with regard to whether or not Solomon consecrated the floor of the Temple courtyard. Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that the floor of the Temple courtyard was consecrated so that it could serve as an altar, this is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淭he king sanctified the middle of the court鈥 (I聽Kings 8:64). But according to Rabbi Yosei, what is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渢he king sanctified鈥? The Gemara answers: It means that Solomon sanctified the courtyard in order to stand the altar in it.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 拽讟谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 拽讟谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讝讘讞 讗讘谞讬诐 砖注砖讛 砖诇诪讛 转讞转 诪讝讘讞 讛谞讞砖转 拽讟谉 讛讜讛

The Gemara continues: Granted, according to Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that the surface of the altar built in the time of Moses was five cubits by five cubits, this is the meaning of that which is written in the continuation of that verse: 鈥淏ecause the copper altar that was before the Lord was too small to receive.鈥 But according to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that its surface area was ten cubits by ten cubits, what is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渢oo small鈥? The Gemara answers: The verse is referring to the altar built by Solomon, and this is what it is saying: The stone altar that Solomon built in place of the copper altar built in the time of Moses was too small to accommodate the large quantity of offerings.

讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讞讜抓 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪驻谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei disagree that causes them to interpret differently the verbal analogy based on the word 鈥渟quare鈥? The Gemara answers: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that we derive the dimensions of the external altar built in the time of Moses from the external altar described in Ezekiel; but we do not derive the dimensions of the external altar from the dimensions of the inner altar, used for burning the incense.

讜诪专 住讘专 讚谞讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讻诇讬 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讘谞讬谉

And one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds that we derive the dimensions of a portable vessel, i.e., the copper altar built in the time of Moses, from the dimensions of another portable vessel, i.e., the golden incense altar built at that time; but we do not derive the dimensions of a portable vessel from the dimensions of an edifice, i.e., the stone altar in the Temple.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讚诪讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讜住 讗讞讚 讛讬讛 诪诪诇讗 诪讚诐 讛转注专讜讘讜转 讜砖讜驻讻讜 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 砖讗诐 讬砖驻讱 讚诪讜 砖诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 谞诪爪讗 讝讛 诪讻砖讬专讜

Rava says: Although Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the entire Temple courtyard is fit for burning the sacrificial portions of offerings, he concedes with regard to the blood and holds that it must be presented on the altar, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: On Passover eve, a priest would fill one cup with the blood of the many offerings brought that day and that was now mixed together on the floor. And then he would pour it on the altar, so that if all of the blood of one of the offerings had been spilled and was never presented on the altar, this cup would contain a small amount of that blood and pouring it on the altar would render the offering fit.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讜诇讛 注讝专讛 诪讬拽讚砖讗 讛讗 讗讬转注讘讬讚讗 诇讬讛 诪爪讜讜转讬讛

Rava explains his proof: And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yehuda maintains the entire Temple courtyard was consecrated so that it had the status of the altar, then the mitzva of sacrificing the Paschal offering was performed even if the blood spilled on the ground of the courtyard and was never presented on the altar.

讜讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 砖驻讬讻讛 诪讻讞 讛讗讚诐 讘注讬谞谉 讗诐 讻谉 谞砖拽诇讬讛 讜谞砖驻讬讱 诇讬讛 讗讚讜讻转讬讛

The Gemara attempts to reject this proof: Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda requires pouring a cup of the mixture of blood on the altar due to the fact that he holds we require pouring of the blood of the Paschal offering by human force. Since the blood on the floor of the courtyard was not poured there by a person, the mitzva has not yet been fulfilled despite the fact that the floor has the same status as the altar. The Gemara responds: If so, let the priest take the cup of the mixture of blood and pour it in its place on the floor rather than on the altar.

讜讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬谞谉 诪爪讜讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专

The Gemara rejects Rava鈥檚 proof: But perhaps Rabbi Yehuda requires the blood to be poured on the altar only due to the fact that we require the mitzva to be performed in the optimal manner. Even if Rabbi Yehuda holds that the floor of the courtyard has the same status as the altar, he would agree that it is preferable for the blood to be poured on the altar itself.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讝讘讞 砖谞驻讙诐 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讘讙讬谞讜 砖讬专讬 诪谞讞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讻诇讜讛 诪爪讜转 讗爪诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讜讻讬 讗爪诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讗讻诇讜讛 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 砖诇诐 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讞住专

Rabbi Elazar says: In the case of an altar that was damaged, one may not eat the remainder of a meal offering on its account, as it is stated: 鈥淭ake the meal offering鈥and eat it without leaven beside the altar; for it is most holy鈥 (Leviticus 10:12). The verse is difficult: But did the priests have to eat the meal offering beside the altar? A priest may eat sacrificial items even of the most sacred order anywhere in the Temple courtyard. Rather, the verse means that one may eat the meal offering only at a time when the altar is complete, but not at a time when it is lacking.

讗砖讻讞谉 砖讬专讬 诪谞讞讛 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诪谞诇谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara continues: We found a source for this halakha with regard to the remainder of a meal offering; from where do we derive that this halakha applies to all offerings of the most sacred order? The Gemara answers: The end of the verse states: 鈥淔or it is most holy.鈥 Since this term is also used with regard to the other offerings of the most sacred order, it is derived through verbal analogy that these offerings may not be eaten if the altar is damaged.

拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗转讬讗 诪讚专砖讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪砖讜诐

The Gemara continues: From where is it derived that this halakha also applies to offerings of lesser sanctity? Abaye said: It is derived from the exposition of Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says three halakhic matters in the name of

砖诇砖讛 讝拽谞讬诐 讜讝讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讬注诇讛 讗讚诐 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讬讗讻诇谞讜 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 讟注讜谉 讛讘讗转 诪拽讜诐 讜诪注砖专 讟注讜谉 讛讘讗转 诪拽讜诐 诪讛 讘讻讜专 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讛讘讬转 讗祝 诪注砖专 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讛讘讬转

three elders, and this is one of them: Rabbi Yishmael says: One might have thought that a person would bring second-tithe produce up to Jerusalem in the present, after the destruction of the Temple, and eat it. And ostensibly, it could be derived by means of a logical inference that one may not do so: A firstborn offering requires bringing it to the place, to Jerusalem, and eating it there, and second-tithe produce requires bringing it to the place (see Deuteronomy 12:17鈥18); just as the firstborn offering may be eaten there only in the presence of the Temple, so too, second-tithe produce may be eaten there only in the presence of the Temple.

诪讛 诇讘讻讜专 砖讻谉 讟注讜谉 诪转谉 讚诪讬诐 讜讗讬诪讜专讬诐 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞

Rabbi Yishmael notes that this derivation can be challenged: What is notable about a firstborn? Bringing the firstborn to Jerusalem is required only in the presence of the Temple, because it is notable in that it requires placement of its blood and its sacrificial portions upon the altar; will you say the same with regard to second-tithe produce, which requires only that it be consumed in Jerusalem?

讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讬讜讻讬讞讜 诪讛 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讛谞讞讛

He continues: First fruits will prove that placement of blood upon the altar is not a factor, as they do not require placement of blood upon the altar, and yet they are brought to Jerusalem only in the presence of the Temple. Rabbi Yishmael counters: What is notable about first fruits? They are notable in that they require placement alongside the altar. Perhaps, since second-tithe produce does not require placement at all, even in the present one must bring it to Jerusalem and eat it there.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讘讗转诐 砖诪讛 注诇转讬讻诐 讜讙讜壮 诪拽讬砖 诪注砖专 诇讘讻讜专 诪讛 讘讻讜专 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讛讘讬转 讗祝 诪注砖专 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讛讘讬转

Rabbi Yishmael concludes: Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd there you shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes鈥nd the firstborns of your herd and of your flock鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:6); the Torah juxtaposes second-tithe produce with the firstborn. Just as the firstborn offering may be eaten there only in the presence of the Temple, so too, second-tithe produce may be eaten there only in the presence of the Temple.

讜谞讬讛讚专 讚讬谞讗 讜谞讬转讬 讘诪讛 讛爪讚

The Gemara questions why a verse was needed to teach that second-tithe produce may not be consumed nowadays: But let the logical derivation return and the halakha will be derived from the common element between the halakhot of firstborn animals and first fruits. Although each has a unique factor, they share a common element: They must be brought to Jerusalem and that they may be eaten only in the presence of the Temple. So too, second-tithe produce, which also must be brought to Jerusalem, should be permitted for consumption only in the presence of the Temple.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 爪讚 诪讝讘讞

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael did not present this derivation because it can be refuted in the following manner: What is notable about the two sources that share a common element? Both firstborn animals and first fruits are notable in that they possess an aspect of being offered upon the altar. Since second-tithe produce does not share this characteristic, its halakhot cannot be derived from those pertaining to firstborn animals and first fruits.

诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻讜专 谞诪讬 讜讗讬 拽住讘专 诇讗 拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻讜专 谞诪讬 转讬讘注讬

The Gemara asks: What does Rabbi Yishmael hold? If he holds that the initial consecration of the Temple sanctified it for its time and sanctified it forever, then it should be permitted to build an altar and sacrifice offerings even nowadays, and therefore even a firstborn animal may be eaten. And if he holds that the initial consecration of the Temple area did not sanctify it forever, let the dilemma be raised with regard to a firstborn as well.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 诇讗 拽讬讚砖讛 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讘讻讜专 砖谞讝专拽 讚诪讜 拽讜讚诐 讞讜专讘谉 讛讘讬转 讜讞专讘 讛讘讬转 讜注讚讬讬谉 讘砖专讜 拽讬讬诐

Ravina said: Actually, Rabbi Yishmael holds that that the initial consecration of the Temple did not sanctify it forever. And al-though one cannot slaughter the firstborn to begin with, here we are dealing with a firstborn that was slaughtered and whose blood was sprinkled on the altar before the destruction of the Temple, and then the Temple was destroyed, and the meat of the firstborn still exists.

讜讗讬转拽砖 讘砖专讜 诇讚诪讜 诪讛 讚诪讜 讘诪讝讘讞 讗祝 讘砖专讜 讘诪讝讘讞 讜讗转讬 诪注砖专 讜讬诇讬祝 诪讘讻讜专

It is prohibited to eat the meat of the firstborn in this case because its meat was juxtaposed with its blood, which is mentioned in the previous verse, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall sprinkle their blood鈥nd you shall burn their fats鈥nd their flesh shall be yours鈥 (Numbers 18:17鈥18). The juxtaposition teaches that just as its blood is sprinkled only on the altar, so too, its meat may be consumed only in a time when there is an altar. And the case of second-tithe produce comes and is derived from the case of a firstborn. Consequently, second-tithe produce may not be consumed unless there is an altar.

讜讻讬 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 讞讜讝专 讜诪诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 诪注砖专 讚讙谉 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: But does a matter derived via a juxtaposition with another case then teach that the halakha applies to a third case via a juxtaposition between the second and third cases? There is a principle that this is not a valid method of deriving halakhot pertaining to consecrated matters. Since the halakha with regard to the meat of the firstborn offering is derived from the juxtaposition of the meat with the blood of the firstborn, one cannot then prove that the same halakha applies to second-tithe produce simply because it is juxtaposed in a verse with the meat of the firstborn. The Gemara answers: Second-tithe grain is non-sacred, and therefore the acceptable methods for deriving its halakhot are not limited in this manner.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 诇诪讚 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 诪诇诪讚 讗讝诇讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says: In determining whether the derivation involves consecrated matters or whether it involves non-sacred matters, we follow the matter that is derived from a matter derived from a juxtaposition. Since in this case the matter derived is second-tithe produce, which for these purposes is non-sacred, its legal status may be derived from juxtaposition with the halakhot of sacrificial matters. But according to the one who says: We follow the matter that teaches, i.e., from which the halakha is derived, what is there to say? The status of second-tithe produce may not be derived by means of juxtaposition with the status of the firstborn offering, which itself was derived from the blood of the offering, because the firstborn offering is a sacrificial matter.

讚诐 讜讘砖专 讞讚讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: This is not a matter derived from a matter derived from a juxtaposition, as the status of the firstborn offering is not derived from the status of blood; blood and meat are one matter. There is only one derivation in this case, which is that the status of second-tithe produce is derived from the status of the blood and the meat of the firstborn. In any event, Abaye has proven, quoting Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 statement cited by Rabbi Yosei, that even sacrificial items of lesser sanctity may not be eaten if the altar is missing or damaged.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬谉 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 讘讘诇讗讬 讟驻砖讗讬 讗诪讟讜诇 讚讬转讘讬 讘讗专注讗 讞砖讜讻讗 讗诪专讬 砖诪注转讗 讚诪讞砖讻讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘砖注转 住讬诇讜拽 诪住注讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 谞驻住诇讬谉 讜讝讘讬诐 讜诪爪讜专注讬诐 诪砖转诇讞讬诐 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讬爪讛

The Gemara relates: When Ravin ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he stated this halakha, that even items of lesser sanctity are disqualified if the altar is damaged or missing, in the presence of Rabbi Yirmeya. Rabbi Yirmeya said: Foolish Babylonians! Because they dwell in a dark land, they state halakhot that are dim. Have they not heard that which is taught in a baraita: At the time when the Jewish people would dismantle the Tabernacle in order to depart on their journeys in the wilderness, sacrificial food was disqualified from being consumed, since the altar was not in place. Nevertheless, zavim and lepers were sent out of the relevant partition; a zav was sent out of the Levite camp and a leper was sent out of the Israelite camp.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘砖谞讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐

And it is taught in another baraita: Sacrificial food could be consumed in two locations, i.e., one could eat it while the Tabernacle was in place and one could continue eating it after the Tabernacle had been disassembled and transported. What, is it not that this first baraita is referring to offerings of the most sacred order, and that second baraita is referring to offerings of lesser sanctity? Accordingly, Abaye鈥檚 statement that offerings of lesser sanctity may not be consumed if the altar is damaged is incorrect.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗

Ravina said that there is an alternative reconciliation of the two baraitot: Both this baraita and that baraita are referring to offerings of lesser sanctity, and it is not difficult:

  • 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 60

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 60

讗诪讛 讗诇 讛讻转祝 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞诪砖 讗诪讜转 诪砖驻转 诪讝讘讞 讜诇诪注诇讛

cubits for the one side鈥 (Exodus 38:14), which indicates that the height of the curtains surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle was fifteen cubits. And what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd the height five cubits鈥 (Exodus 27:18)? It is referring to the height of the curtains from the upper edge of the altar and above; the curtains surrounding the courtyard were five cubits higher than the altar.

讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖诇砖 讗诪讜转 拽讜诪转讜 诪砖驻转 住讜讘讘 讜诇诪注诇讛

Rabbi Yosei continues: And what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall make the altar鈥and its height shall be three cubits鈥 (Exodus 27:1)? The verse means that the altar measures three cubits from the edge of the surrounding ledge and above.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬 讙诪讬专 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讘专讞讘讛 讛讜讗 讚讙诪讬专

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda, who understands that the copper altar built in the time of Moses was actually three cubits high, interpret the verbal analogy based upon the word 鈥渟quare,鈥 from which Rabbi Yosei derived that the height of the copper altar was ten cubits? The Gemara answers: When he learns the verbal analogy, he learns it with regard to the altar鈥檚 width, not its height. This is based on the verse in Ezekiel (see 59b). Accordingly, it teaches that the altar built in the time of Moses was ten cubits by ten cubits.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 拽讗 诪讬转讞讝讬 讻讛谉 谞讛讬 讚讻讛谉 诪讬转讞讝讬 注讘讜讚讛 讚讘讬讚讜 诇讗 诪讬转讞讝讬

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that the altar was three cubits high and the curtains surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle were five cubits high, isn鈥檛 the priest visible while performing the service atop the altar? The Gemara answers: Granted, the priest is visible, but the items with which he performs the sacrificial service that are in his hand are not visible.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 拽讬讚砖 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讗讬 拽讬讚砖 诇讛注诪讬讚 讘讛 诪讝讘讞

The Gemara returns to the original dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei with regard to whether or not Solomon consecrated the floor of the Temple courtyard. Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that the floor of the Temple courtyard was consecrated so that it could serve as an altar, this is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淭he king sanctified the middle of the court鈥 (I聽Kings 8:64). But according to Rabbi Yosei, what is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渢he king sanctified鈥? The Gemara answers: It means that Solomon sanctified the courtyard in order to stand the altar in it.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 拽讟谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 拽讟谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讝讘讞 讗讘谞讬诐 砖注砖讛 砖诇诪讛 转讞转 诪讝讘讞 讛谞讞砖转 拽讟谉 讛讜讛

The Gemara continues: Granted, according to Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that the surface of the altar built in the time of Moses was five cubits by five cubits, this is the meaning of that which is written in the continuation of that verse: 鈥淏ecause the copper altar that was before the Lord was too small to receive.鈥 But according to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that its surface area was ten cubits by ten cubits, what is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渢oo small鈥? The Gemara answers: The verse is referring to the altar built by Solomon, and this is what it is saying: The stone altar that Solomon built in place of the copper altar built in the time of Moses was too small to accommodate the large quantity of offerings.

讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讞讜抓 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪驻谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei disagree that causes them to interpret differently the verbal analogy based on the word 鈥渟quare鈥? The Gemara answers: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that we derive the dimensions of the external altar built in the time of Moses from the external altar described in Ezekiel; but we do not derive the dimensions of the external altar from the dimensions of the inner altar, used for burning the incense.

讜诪专 住讘专 讚谞讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讻诇讬 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讘谞讬谉

And one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds that we derive the dimensions of a portable vessel, i.e., the copper altar built in the time of Moses, from the dimensions of another portable vessel, i.e., the golden incense altar built at that time; but we do not derive the dimensions of a portable vessel from the dimensions of an edifice, i.e., the stone altar in the Temple.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讚诪讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讜住 讗讞讚 讛讬讛 诪诪诇讗 诪讚诐 讛转注专讜讘讜转 讜砖讜驻讻讜 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 砖讗诐 讬砖驻讱 讚诪讜 砖诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 谞诪爪讗 讝讛 诪讻砖讬专讜

Rava says: Although Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the entire Temple courtyard is fit for burning the sacrificial portions of offerings, he concedes with regard to the blood and holds that it must be presented on the altar, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: On Passover eve, a priest would fill one cup with the blood of the many offerings brought that day and that was now mixed together on the floor. And then he would pour it on the altar, so that if all of the blood of one of the offerings had been spilled and was never presented on the altar, this cup would contain a small amount of that blood and pouring it on the altar would render the offering fit.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讜诇讛 注讝专讛 诪讬拽讚砖讗 讛讗 讗讬转注讘讬讚讗 诇讬讛 诪爪讜讜转讬讛

Rava explains his proof: And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yehuda maintains the entire Temple courtyard was consecrated so that it had the status of the altar, then the mitzva of sacrificing the Paschal offering was performed even if the blood spilled on the ground of the courtyard and was never presented on the altar.

讜讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 砖驻讬讻讛 诪讻讞 讛讗讚诐 讘注讬谞谉 讗诐 讻谉 谞砖拽诇讬讛 讜谞砖驻讬讱 诇讬讛 讗讚讜讻转讬讛

The Gemara attempts to reject this proof: Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda requires pouring a cup of the mixture of blood on the altar due to the fact that he holds we require pouring of the blood of the Paschal offering by human force. Since the blood on the floor of the courtyard was not poured there by a person, the mitzva has not yet been fulfilled despite the fact that the floor has the same status as the altar. The Gemara responds: If so, let the priest take the cup of the mixture of blood and pour it in its place on the floor rather than on the altar.

讜讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬谞谉 诪爪讜讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专

The Gemara rejects Rava鈥檚 proof: But perhaps Rabbi Yehuda requires the blood to be poured on the altar only due to the fact that we require the mitzva to be performed in the optimal manner. Even if Rabbi Yehuda holds that the floor of the courtyard has the same status as the altar, he would agree that it is preferable for the blood to be poured on the altar itself.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讝讘讞 砖谞驻讙诐 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讘讙讬谞讜 砖讬专讬 诪谞讞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讻诇讜讛 诪爪讜转 讗爪诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讜讻讬 讗爪诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讗讻诇讜讛 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 砖诇诐 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讞住专

Rabbi Elazar says: In the case of an altar that was damaged, one may not eat the remainder of a meal offering on its account, as it is stated: 鈥淭ake the meal offering鈥and eat it without leaven beside the altar; for it is most holy鈥 (Leviticus 10:12). The verse is difficult: But did the priests have to eat the meal offering beside the altar? A priest may eat sacrificial items even of the most sacred order anywhere in the Temple courtyard. Rather, the verse means that one may eat the meal offering only at a time when the altar is complete, but not at a time when it is lacking.

讗砖讻讞谉 砖讬专讬 诪谞讞讛 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诪谞诇谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara continues: We found a source for this halakha with regard to the remainder of a meal offering; from where do we derive that this halakha applies to all offerings of the most sacred order? The Gemara answers: The end of the verse states: 鈥淔or it is most holy.鈥 Since this term is also used with regard to the other offerings of the most sacred order, it is derived through verbal analogy that these offerings may not be eaten if the altar is damaged.

拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗转讬讗 诪讚专砖讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪砖讜诐

The Gemara continues: From where is it derived that this halakha also applies to offerings of lesser sanctity? Abaye said: It is derived from the exposition of Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says three halakhic matters in the name of

砖诇砖讛 讝拽谞讬诐 讜讝讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讬注诇讛 讗讚诐 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讬讗讻诇谞讜 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 讟注讜谉 讛讘讗转 诪拽讜诐 讜诪注砖专 讟注讜谉 讛讘讗转 诪拽讜诐 诪讛 讘讻讜专 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讛讘讬转 讗祝 诪注砖专 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讛讘讬转

three elders, and this is one of them: Rabbi Yishmael says: One might have thought that a person would bring second-tithe produce up to Jerusalem in the present, after the destruction of the Temple, and eat it. And ostensibly, it could be derived by means of a logical inference that one may not do so: A firstborn offering requires bringing it to the place, to Jerusalem, and eating it there, and second-tithe produce requires bringing it to the place (see Deuteronomy 12:17鈥18); just as the firstborn offering may be eaten there only in the presence of the Temple, so too, second-tithe produce may be eaten there only in the presence of the Temple.

诪讛 诇讘讻讜专 砖讻谉 讟注讜谉 诪转谉 讚诪讬诐 讜讗讬诪讜专讬诐 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞

Rabbi Yishmael notes that this derivation can be challenged: What is notable about a firstborn? Bringing the firstborn to Jerusalem is required only in the presence of the Temple, because it is notable in that it requires placement of its blood and its sacrificial portions upon the altar; will you say the same with regard to second-tithe produce, which requires only that it be consumed in Jerusalem?

讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讬讜讻讬讞讜 诪讛 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讛谞讞讛

He continues: First fruits will prove that placement of blood upon the altar is not a factor, as they do not require placement of blood upon the altar, and yet they are brought to Jerusalem only in the presence of the Temple. Rabbi Yishmael counters: What is notable about first fruits? They are notable in that they require placement alongside the altar. Perhaps, since second-tithe produce does not require placement at all, even in the present one must bring it to Jerusalem and eat it there.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讘讗转诐 砖诪讛 注诇转讬讻诐 讜讙讜壮 诪拽讬砖 诪注砖专 诇讘讻讜专 诪讛 讘讻讜专 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讛讘讬转 讗祝 诪注砖专 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讛讘讬转

Rabbi Yishmael concludes: Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd there you shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes鈥nd the firstborns of your herd and of your flock鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:6); the Torah juxtaposes second-tithe produce with the firstborn. Just as the firstborn offering may be eaten there only in the presence of the Temple, so too, second-tithe produce may be eaten there only in the presence of the Temple.

讜谞讬讛讚专 讚讬谞讗 讜谞讬转讬 讘诪讛 讛爪讚

The Gemara questions why a verse was needed to teach that second-tithe produce may not be consumed nowadays: But let the logical derivation return and the halakha will be derived from the common element between the halakhot of firstborn animals and first fruits. Although each has a unique factor, they share a common element: They must be brought to Jerusalem and that they may be eaten only in the presence of the Temple. So too, second-tithe produce, which also must be brought to Jerusalem, should be permitted for consumption only in the presence of the Temple.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 爪讚 诪讝讘讞

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael did not present this derivation because it can be refuted in the following manner: What is notable about the two sources that share a common element? Both firstborn animals and first fruits are notable in that they possess an aspect of being offered upon the altar. Since second-tithe produce does not share this characteristic, its halakhot cannot be derived from those pertaining to firstborn animals and first fruits.

诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻讜专 谞诪讬 讜讗讬 拽住讘专 诇讗 拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻讜专 谞诪讬 转讬讘注讬

The Gemara asks: What does Rabbi Yishmael hold? If he holds that the initial consecration of the Temple sanctified it for its time and sanctified it forever, then it should be permitted to build an altar and sacrifice offerings even nowadays, and therefore even a firstborn animal may be eaten. And if he holds that the initial consecration of the Temple area did not sanctify it forever, let the dilemma be raised with regard to a firstborn as well.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 诇讗 拽讬讚砖讛 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讘讻讜专 砖谞讝专拽 讚诪讜 拽讜讚诐 讞讜专讘谉 讛讘讬转 讜讞专讘 讛讘讬转 讜注讚讬讬谉 讘砖专讜 拽讬讬诐

Ravina said: Actually, Rabbi Yishmael holds that that the initial consecration of the Temple did not sanctify it forever. And al-though one cannot slaughter the firstborn to begin with, here we are dealing with a firstborn that was slaughtered and whose blood was sprinkled on the altar before the destruction of the Temple, and then the Temple was destroyed, and the meat of the firstborn still exists.

讜讗讬转拽砖 讘砖专讜 诇讚诪讜 诪讛 讚诪讜 讘诪讝讘讞 讗祝 讘砖专讜 讘诪讝讘讞 讜讗转讬 诪注砖专 讜讬诇讬祝 诪讘讻讜专

It is prohibited to eat the meat of the firstborn in this case because its meat was juxtaposed with its blood, which is mentioned in the previous verse, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall sprinkle their blood鈥nd you shall burn their fats鈥nd their flesh shall be yours鈥 (Numbers 18:17鈥18). The juxtaposition teaches that just as its blood is sprinkled only on the altar, so too, its meat may be consumed only in a time when there is an altar. And the case of second-tithe produce comes and is derived from the case of a firstborn. Consequently, second-tithe produce may not be consumed unless there is an altar.

讜讻讬 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 讞讜讝专 讜诪诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 诪注砖专 讚讙谉 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: But does a matter derived via a juxtaposition with another case then teach that the halakha applies to a third case via a juxtaposition between the second and third cases? There is a principle that this is not a valid method of deriving halakhot pertaining to consecrated matters. Since the halakha with regard to the meat of the firstborn offering is derived from the juxtaposition of the meat with the blood of the firstborn, one cannot then prove that the same halakha applies to second-tithe produce simply because it is juxtaposed in a verse with the meat of the firstborn. The Gemara answers: Second-tithe grain is non-sacred, and therefore the acceptable methods for deriving its halakhot are not limited in this manner.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 诇诪讚 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 诪诇诪讚 讗讝诇讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says: In determining whether the derivation involves consecrated matters or whether it involves non-sacred matters, we follow the matter that is derived from a matter derived from a juxtaposition. Since in this case the matter derived is second-tithe produce, which for these purposes is non-sacred, its legal status may be derived from juxtaposition with the halakhot of sacrificial matters. But according to the one who says: We follow the matter that teaches, i.e., from which the halakha is derived, what is there to say? The status of second-tithe produce may not be derived by means of juxtaposition with the status of the firstborn offering, which itself was derived from the blood of the offering, because the firstborn offering is a sacrificial matter.

讚诐 讜讘砖专 讞讚讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: This is not a matter derived from a matter derived from a juxtaposition, as the status of the firstborn offering is not derived from the status of blood; blood and meat are one matter. There is only one derivation in this case, which is that the status of second-tithe produce is derived from the status of the blood and the meat of the firstborn. In any event, Abaye has proven, quoting Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 statement cited by Rabbi Yosei, that even sacrificial items of lesser sanctity may not be eaten if the altar is missing or damaged.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬谉 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 讘讘诇讗讬 讟驻砖讗讬 讗诪讟讜诇 讚讬转讘讬 讘讗专注讗 讞砖讜讻讗 讗诪专讬 砖诪注转讗 讚诪讞砖讻讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘砖注转 住讬诇讜拽 诪住注讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 谞驻住诇讬谉 讜讝讘讬诐 讜诪爪讜专注讬诐 诪砖转诇讞讬诐 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讬爪讛

The Gemara relates: When Ravin ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he stated this halakha, that even items of lesser sanctity are disqualified if the altar is damaged or missing, in the presence of Rabbi Yirmeya. Rabbi Yirmeya said: Foolish Babylonians! Because they dwell in a dark land, they state halakhot that are dim. Have they not heard that which is taught in a baraita: At the time when the Jewish people would dismantle the Tabernacle in order to depart on their journeys in the wilderness, sacrificial food was disqualified from being consumed, since the altar was not in place. Nevertheless, zavim and lepers were sent out of the relevant partition; a zav was sent out of the Levite camp and a leper was sent out of the Israelite camp.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘砖谞讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐

And it is taught in another baraita: Sacrificial food could be consumed in two locations, i.e., one could eat it while the Tabernacle was in place and one could continue eating it after the Tabernacle had been disassembled and transported. What, is it not that this first baraita is referring to offerings of the most sacred order, and that second baraita is referring to offerings of lesser sanctity? Accordingly, Abaye鈥檚 statement that offerings of lesser sanctity may not be consumed if the altar is damaged is incorrect.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗

Ravina said that there is an alternative reconciliation of the two baraitot: Both this baraita and that baraita are referring to offerings of lesser sanctity, and it is not difficult:

Scroll To Top