## Zevachim Daf 60a

###### Zevachim 60a:1
[Zevachim 60a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60a:1)

אַמָּה אֶל הַכָּתֵף״. וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת״? מִשְּׂפַת מִזְבֵּחַ וּלְמַעְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**cubits for the one side”** (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:** “And the height **five cubits”** (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.


###### Zevachim 60a:2
[Zevachim 60a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60a:2)

וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְשָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת קוֹמָתוֹ״? מִשְּׂפַת סוֹבֵב וּלְמַעְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yosei continues: **And what** is the meaning when **the verse states:** “And you shall make the altar…**and its height shall be three cubits”** (Exodus 27:1)? The verse means that the altar measures three cubits **from the edge of** the **surrounding ledge and above.**


###### Zevachim 60a:3
[Zevachim 60a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60a:3)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, כִּי גְּמִיר גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה – בְּרָחְבָּהּ הוּא דִּגְמִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 “square,” 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’s **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.


###### Zevachim 60a:4
[Zevachim 60a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60a:4)

וּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא קָא מִיתְחֲזֵי כֹּהֵן! נְהִי דְּכֹהֵן מִיתְחֲזֵי; עֲבוֹדָה דִּבְיָדוֹ – לָא מִיתְחֲזֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’t 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.**


###### Zevachim 60a:5
[Zevachim 60a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60a:5)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״קִידֵּשׁ״; אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, מַאי ״קִידֵּשׁ״? לְהַעֲמִיד בָּהּ מִזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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:** “The king **sanctified** the middle of the court” (I Kings 8:64). **But according to Rabbi Yosei, what** is the meaning of the phrase “the king **sanctified”?** The Gemara answers: It means that Solomon sanctified the courtyard in order **to stand the altar in it.**


###### Zevachim 60a:6
[Zevachim 60a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60a:6)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״קָטָן״; אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַאי ״קָטָן״? הָכִי קָאָמַר: מִזְבַּח אֲבָנִים שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה תַּחַת מִזְבַּח הַנְּחֹשֶׁת – קָטָן הֲוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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: “Because the copper altar that was before the Lord was **too small** to receive.” **But according to Rabbi Yehuda,** who maintains that its surface area was ten cubits by ten cubits, **what** is the meaning of the phrase **“too small”?** 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.


###### Zevachim 60a:7
[Zevachim 60a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60a:7)

בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? מָר סָבַר: דָּנִין חוּץ מִחוּץ, וְאֵין דָּנִין חוּץ מִפְּנִים;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 “square”? 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.


###### Zevachim 60a:8
[Zevachim 60a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60a:8)

וּמָר סָבַר: דָּנִין כְּלִי מִכְּלִי, וְאֵין דָּנִין כְּלִי מִבִּנְיָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 60a:9
[Zevachim 60a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60a:9)

אָמַר רָבָא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּדָמִים. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כּוֹס אֶחָד הָיָה מְמַלֵּא מִדַּם הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת, וְשׁוֹפְכוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ; שֶׁאִם יִשָּׁפֵךְ דָּמוֹ שֶׁל אַחַת מֵהֶן – נִמְצָא זֶה מַכְשִׁירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.**


###### Zevachim 60a:10
[Zevachim 60a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60a:10)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ סָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה כּוּלַּהּ עֲזָרָה מִיקַּדְּשָׁא – הָא אִיתְעֲבִידָא לֵיהּ מִצְוְותֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 60a:11
[Zevachim 60a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60a:11)

וְדִלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר שְׁפִיכָה מִכֹּחַ הָאָדָם בָּעֵינַן? אִם כֵּן, נִשְׁקְלֵיהּ וְנִשְׁפֹּיךְ לֵיהּ אַדּוּכְתֵּיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 60a:12
[Zevachim 60a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60a:12)

וְדִלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵינַן מִצְוָה מִן הַמּוּבְחָר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects Rava’s 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.


###### Zevachim 60a:13
[Zevachim 60a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60a:13)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנִּפְגַּם – אֵין אוֹכְלִים בְּגִינוֹ שְׁיָרֵי מִנְחָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִכְלוּהָ מַצּוֹת אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – וְכִי אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֲכָלוּהָ?! אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא שָׁלֵם, וְלֹא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא חָסֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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:** “Take the meal offering…**and eat it without leaven beside the altar;** for it is most holy” (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.**


###### Zevachim 60a:14
[Zevachim 60a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60a:14)

אַשְׁכְּחַן שְׁיָרֵי מִנְחָה, קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים מְנָלַן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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:** “For it is **most holy.”** 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.


###### Zevachim 60a:15
[Zevachim 60a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/60a:15)

קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים מִנַּיִן? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אָתְיָא מִדְּרָשָׁא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים מִשּׁוּם

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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**