## Zevachim Daf 120a

###### Zevachim 120a:1
[Zevachim 120a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/120a:1)

שֶׁהִכְנִיסָהּ לִפְנִים וְהוֹצִיאָהּ לַחוּץ – מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דַּעֲיַילָא – קָלְטָה לַהּ מְחִיצְתָּא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דַּהֲדַר – הֲדַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**that one brought inside and** subsequently **took outside, what is** the *halakha*? Does it have the status of a sacrificial item of a public altar? The Gemara clarifies the question: **Do we say** that **once** it was **brought in the partition** has already **absorbed it,** and all *halakhot* of sacrificial items of a public altar apply; **or perhaps once it returns,** i.e., was taken outside again, **it returns** to its prior status as an offering of a private altar?


###### Zevachim 120a:2
[Zevachim 120a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/120a:2)

לָאו הַיְינוּ פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף? דִּתְנַן: קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וְאִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Isn’t this** issue **a disagreement between Rabba and Rav Yosef? As we learned** in a mishna (*Me’ila* 2a): With regard to **offerings of the most sacred order,** e.g., a sin offering or a guilt offering, **that were slaughtered in the south** of the Temple courtyard, and not in the north as dictated by *halakha*, and are therefore disqualified, one who derives benefit **from** them is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property, **and** despite the fact that they should not ascend the altar, **if they ascended they shall not descend.**


###### Zevachim 120a:3
[Zevachim 120a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/120a:3)

וְאִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: יָרְדוּ, מַהוּ שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ? רַבָּה אָמַר: לֹא יַעֲלוּ, וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: יַעֲלוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And a dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If they **did descend** the altar, **what is** the *halakha* with regard to **ascending** again? **Rabba says: They shall not ascend, and Rav Yosef says: They shall ascend.** Consequently, they disagree with regard to the issue of whether an item that is not fit to be sacrificed in a consecrated area acquires the sanctity of that area even if it is removed from there.


###### Zevachim 120a:4
[Zevachim 120a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/120a:4)

תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבָּה, תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף. תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבָּה: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבָּה – אֶלָּא בְּמִזְבֵּחַ; דַּחֲזֵי לֵיהּ מְקַדֵּשׁ, דְּלָא חֲזֵי לָא מְקַדֵּשׁ; אֲבָל מְחִיצָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חֲזֵי לַיהּ – קָלְטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The disagreements are not identical, as **the dilemma can be raised according to** the opinion of **Rabba,** and **the dilemma can be raised according to** the opinion of **Rav Yosef.** The Gemara elaborates: It is possible to **raise the dilemma according to** the opinion of **Rabba,** as **Rabba says** his statement: Offerings of the most sacred order that were slaughtered in the south shall not descend if they ascended, **only with regard to the altar, as** the altar **consecrates that which is fit for it,** while it **does not consecrate that which is not fit for it. But** with regard to the **partition** of the public altar, **even though** an offering that was consecrated for a private altar **is not fit for** that altar, the partition nevertheless **absorbs** the offering and it is sacrificed there. Consequently, all the *halakhot* of the public altar apply to that offering, even if it is taken outside.


###### Zevachim 120a:5
[Zevachim 120a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/120a:5)

אוֹ דִלְמָא, אֲפִילּוּ לְרַב יוֹסֵף – עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּחַד מָקוֹם הוּא; אֲבָל הָכָא, דִּתְרֵי מְקוֹמוֹת נִינְהוּ – לָא. אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps** the dilemma of the burnt offering of a private altar can be raised **even according to** the opinion of **Rav Yosef. Rav Yosef states** his opinion **there,** that offerings of the most sacred order that were slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard and descended the altar shall ascend again, **only because** the altar and the offering are both located in **one place,** i.e., the Temple courtyard. **But here** in Rabbi Zeira’s case, **where** the private altar and public altar **are two** separate **places,** the *halakhot* of the public altar do **not** apply if the offering was taken outside the designated location. **Or perhaps** there **is no difference,** and the opinions of Rabba and Rav Yosef in one case are identical to their opinions in the other. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Zevachim 120a:6
[Zevachim 120a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/120a:6)

מִילְּתָא דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְרַבָּה בְּחַד גִּיסָא, וּלְרַב יוֹסֵף בְּחַד גִּיסָא – מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יַנַּאי. דְּבָעֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: אֵבְרֵי עוֹלַת בָּמַת יָחִיד, שֶׁעָלוּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְיָרְדוּ – מַהוּ? הֵיכָא דְּלֹא מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר – לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ; כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ – הֵיכָא דְּמָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר. מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that **a matter that is obvious to Rabba on one side,** i.e., that these offerings shall not ascend the altar again, **and to Rav Yosef on** the other **side,** i.e., that they shall ascend again, **was raised as a dilemma by Rabbi Yannai. As Rabbi Yannai raises a dilemma: What is** the *halakha* with regard to **the limbs of a burnt offering of a private altar that ascended the altar and descended?** The Gemara notes: In a case **where the fire has not** yet **taken hold of them, do not raise the dilemma,** as they certainly shall not ascend again. **When should you raise the dilemma?** Raise it in a case **where the fire has taken hold of them: What** is the *halakha*? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Zevachim 120a:7
[Zevachim 120a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/120a:7)

אִיתְּמַר: שְׁחִיטַת לַיְלָה בְּבָמַת יָחִיד – רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל; חַד אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה, וְחַד אָמַר: פְּסוּלָה. וְקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Additionally, with regard to a private altar it **was stated:** With regard to **the slaughter of** offerings at **night on a private altar, Rav and Shmuel** disagree: **One says** that it is **valid, and one says** that it is **not valid.** The Gemara explains: **And they disagree with regard to** the resolution to a contradiction that was raised **by Rabbi Elazar.**


###### Zevachim 120a:8
[Zevachim 120a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/120a:8)

דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר רָמֵי קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי – כְּתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר בְּגַדְתֶּם גֹּלּוּ אֵלַי הַיּוֹם אֶבֶן גְּדוֹלָה״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Elazar raised a contradiction between** two **verses: It is written** in the context of Saul’s war with the Philistines: “And the people flew upon the spoil and took sheep and cattle and calves and slew them on the ground; and the people ate them with the blood. Then they told Saul, saying: ‘Behold, the people sin against the Lord in that they eat with the blood. **And he said: You have dealt treacherously; roll a great stone to me this day”** (I Samuel 14:32–33). That stone was made into a private altar upon which offerings could be slaughtered and sacrificed. Evidently, Saul was particular about slaughtering offerings during the day and not at night, despite the fact that it was a private altar and not a public altar.


###### Zevachim 120a:9
[Zevachim 120a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/120a:9)

וּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל פֻּצוּ בָעָם וַאֲמַרְתֶּם לָהֶם הַגִּישׁוּ אֵלַי אִישׁ שׁוֹרוֹ וְאִישׁ שְׂיֵהוּ, וּשְׁחַטְתֶּם בָּזֶה וַאֲכַלְתֶּם, וְלֹא תֶחֶטְאוּ לַה׳ לֶאֱכוֹל עַל הַדָּם. וַיַּגִּשׁוּ כׇל הָעָם אִישׁ שׁוֹרוֹ בְיָדוֹ הַלַּיְלָה, וַיִּשְׁחֲטוּ שָׁם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** immediately thereafter **it is written: “And Saul said: Disperse yourselves among the people and say to them: Bring me here every man his ox and every man his sheep, and slay them here and eat and sin not against the Lord in eating with the blood. And all the people brought every man his ox with him that night, and slew them there”** (I Samuel 14:34). This verse states explicitly that the slaughter took place at night and not during the day.


###### Zevachim 120a:10
[Zevachim 120a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/120a:10)

מָר מְשַׁנֵּי: כָּאן בְּחוּלִּין, כָּאן בְּקָדָשִׁים. וּמַר מְשַׁנֵּי: כָּאן בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, כָּאן בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בָּמָה קְטַנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the resolution of this contradiction: One **Sage answers** that **here,** i.e., when the slaughter took place at night, it was **of non-sacred** animals, while **there,** i.e., when Saul was particular about slaughtering during the day, it was the slaughter **of sacrificial** animals. According to this opinion, the sacrificial service was performed only during the day, even on a private altar. **And** the other **Sage answers** that both verses are referring to the slaughter of offerings: **Here,** in the verse that states that Saul was particular about slaughtering during the day, it is referring **to the sacrificial** animals **of a great** public **altar,** while **there,** in the verse that states that the slaughter took place at night, it is referring **to sacrificial** animals **of a small** private **altar.**


###### Zevachim 120a:11
[Zevachim 120a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/120a:11)

אִיתְּמַר: עוֹלַת בָּמַת יָחִיד – רַב אָמַר: אֵין טְעוּנָה הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: טְעוּנָה הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ. וְקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בִּדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי – דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר – אֵין טְעוּנָה הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ; שֶׁאֵין הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ אֶלָּא מֵאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְאֵילָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It **was stated** that with regard to **the burnt offering of a private altar, Rav says: It does not require flaying and cutting** into pieces, which the Torah requires of a burnt offering (see Leviticus 1:6), **and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It does require flaying and cutting** into pieces. The Gemara explains: **And they disagree with regard to** the meaning of a statement **of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The burnt offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the wilderness,** i.e., at Mount Sinai before the establishment of the Tabernacle, **did not require flaying and cutting** into pieces, **because** the requirement of **flaying and cutting** into pieces applied **only from the Tent of Meeting and onward,** as this *halakha* was first taught in the Tent of Meeting.


###### Zevachim 120a:12
[Zevachim 120a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/120a:12)

מָר סָבַר: מֵאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְאֵילָךְ – לָא שְׁנָא בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְלָא שְׁנָא בָּמָה קְטַנָּה. וּמָר סָבַר: בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה אִין, בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **Sage,** Rabbi Yoḥanan, **holds** that **from the Tent of Meeting and onward** there is a requirement of flaying and cutting into pieces, and there **is no difference** whether the offering is brought upon **a great** public **altar, and** there **is no difference** whether it is brought upon **a small** private **altar. And** one **Sage,** Rav, **holds** that **with regard to a great** public **altar, yes,** flaying and cutting are required, but **with regard to a small** private **altar** they are **not.**


###### Zevachim 120a:13
[Zevachim 120a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/120a:13)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּבָרִים שֶׁבֵּין בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה לְבָמָה קְטַנָּה – קֶרֶן וְכֶבֶשׁ וִיסוֹד וְרִיבּוּעַ בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְאֵין קֶרֶן וִיסוֹד וְכֶבֶשׁ וְרִיבּוּעַ בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה. כִּיּוֹר וְכַנּוֹ בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְאֵין כִּיּוֹר וְכַנּוֹ בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה. חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְאֵין חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yoḥanan:** What are the **matters that are different between a great** public **altar and a small** private **altar?** The **corner** of the altar, the **ramp,** the **base** of the altar, **and** the **square** shape are required **in a great** public **altar, but** the **corner,** the **base,** the **ramp, and** the **square** shape **are not** required **in a small** private **altar.** The **Basin and its base** are required **in a great** public **altar, but** the **Basin and its base are not** required **in a small** private **altar.** The **breast and thigh** of a peace offering, which are given to a priest, are waved **at a great** public **altar, but** the **breast and thigh are not** waved **at a small** private **altar.**


###### Zevachim 120a:14
[Zevachim 120a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/120a:14)

דְּבָרִים שֶׁשָּׁוְותָה בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה לְבָמָה קְטַנָּה: שְׁחִיטָה בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה, הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ בִּגְדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה, דָּם מַתִּיר וּמְפַגֵּל בִּגְדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה, מוּמִין וּזְמַן בִּגְדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And there are other **matters** in **which a great** public **altar is identical to a small** private **altar: Slaughter** is required **at** both **a great** public **altar and a small** private altar. **Flaying** a burnt offering **and cutting** it into pieces is required **at** both **a great** public altar **and a small** private altar. Sprinkling the **blood permits** the meat to be eaten, **and** if at that time the priest thought of eating or sacrificing this offering outside its appropriate time, this **renders** the offering ***piggul*** both **at a great** public altar **and** at **a small** private altar. Likewise, the *halakha* that **blemishes** disqualify an offering **and** the *halakha* that there is a limited **time** for eating offerings are in effect **at** both **a great** public altar **and a small** private altar.


###### Zevachim 120a:15
[Zevachim 120a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/120a:15)

אֲבָל נוֹתָר וְהַזְּמַן וְהַטָּמֵא – שָׁוִין בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Following the detailing of the differences between a communal altar and a private altar, the mishna teaches: **But** the *halakha* that portions of the offering **left over [*notar*]** beyond the time it is permitted must be burned and that one who eats them incurs *karet*, **and the** *halakha* that intent to sacrifice or partake of the offering beyond its designated **time** renders the offering *piggul*, **and the** prohibition against performing the sacrificial service or eating consecrated meat while **ritually impure are equal in this,** i.e., a private altar, **and that,** i.e., a public altar.


###### Zevachim 120a:16
[Zevachim 120a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/120a:16)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן לַעֲשׂוֹת זְמַן בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה כְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה? אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: לָן יִשָּׂרֵף, וּפִיגּוּל יִשָּׂרֵף; מָה פִּיגּוּל – פָּסוּל בְּבָמָה, אַף לָן – פָּסוּל בְּבָמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived that **time,** i.e., the *halakha* that an offering left over beyond its designated time is disqualified, in the case **of a small** private **altar should be made equivalent to** the *halakha* in the case **of a great** public **altar? The Torah stated:** An offering that was **left overnight** must **be burned, and** likewise the Torah stated that **an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [*piggul*]** must **be burned.** Therefore, another parallel may be drawn between them: **Just as *piggul* is disqualified** in the case **of** a private **altar, so too,** an offering that was **left overnight** is **disqualified** in the case **of** a private **altar.**


###### Zevachim 120a:17
[Zevachim 120a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/120a:17)

אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ – דְּהָא אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: לָן יִשָּׂרֵף, וְיוֹצֵא יִשָּׂרֵף; מָה יוֹצֵא – כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה, אַף לָן – כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה. וְלָאו קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא מֵעוֹפוֹת:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or go this way,** and say that **because the Torah stated:** An offering that was **left overnight must be burned, and** likewise, the Torah stated that an offering that **leaves** the Temple courtyard **must be burned,** the following conclusion may be drawn: **Just as** an offering that **leaves** the Temple courtyard is **valid in** the case of a private **altar** because it has no set perimeter, **so too,** an offering that was **left overnight** is **valid in** the case of a private **altar,** and it may therefore be concluded that the *halakha* of time does not apply to offerings on a private altar. The Gemara asks: **And is it not an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the *halakha* of **bird** offerings that in the case of a private altar, time should render an offering disqualified?