Parallel
זבחים 60
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
What then is the meaning of ‘And the height five cubits’? From the [upper] edge of the altar to the top [of the hangings]. And what does ‘and the height thereof shall be three cubits’ mean? From the edge of the terrace to the top [of the altar]. And R. Judah? — He relates the gezerah shawah to the breadth. Now according to R. Judah, surely the priest could be seen? — Granted that the priest could be seen, the service [sacrifice] in his hand could not be seen. As for R. Judah. it is well: hence it is written, [did the king] hallow. But according to R. Jose, what is the meaning of ‘did hallow [the middle of the court]?’ — [He hallowed it] to set up the altar therein. As for R. Jose, it is well: hence it is written, ‘[was] little’. But according to R. Judah, what is meant by ‘little’? — This is what it means: The altar of stones which Solomon made instead of the brazen altar was too small. Wherein do they differ? — One master holds: You learn without from without, but you do not learn without from within. While the other master holds: You learn a utensil from a utensil, but you do not learn a vessel from an edifice. Raba said: R. Judah admits in respect of the blood. For it was taught. R. Judah said: He used to fill a goblet with the mingled blood, so that should the blood of one of them be spilt, it is found that this renders it fit. But if you think that R. Judah holds that the whole of the Temple court was sanctified, the precept has been already performed. — [No:] perhaps that is because he holds that we require pouring out with man's force? — If so, let us take it and pour it out in its place. [No:] perhaps [that cannot be done] because he holds that the precept must be performed in the most fitting way. R. Eleazar said: If the altar was damaged, you cannot eat the remainder of the meal-offering on account of it, because it is said, And eat it without leaven beside the altar. Now did they eat it then beside the altar? Rather [it means]: when it is whole, and not when it is damaged. We have found [it true of] the residue of the meal-offering. How do we know [it of] sacrifices of higher sanctity? — The implication of ‘holy’ [kodesh] is learnt by a gezerah shawah. Whence do we know [it of] sacrifices of lesser sanctity? — Said Abaye: It is derived by R. Jose's exegesis. For it was taught: R. Jose stated three laws on the authority of
—
three elders, and the following is one of them: R. Ishmael said: You might think that a man can take up second tithe to Jerusalem and consume it there now-a-days. and that would be logical: a firstling must be brought to the ‘Place’ , and tithe must be brought to the ‘Place’: as [the law of] firstling operates only whilst the Temple stands, so [the law of] tithe is valid only whilst the Temple stands. [No:] as for a firstling, the reason is because its blood and emurim must be presented at the altar! Let first-fruits prove it. As for first-fruits, the reason is because they must be placed [before the altar]! Therefore it states, And thither shall ye bring your burnt-offerings. and your tithes . . . and the firstlings of your herd and of your flock: this assimilates tithe to firstling: as [the law of] firstling is valid only whilst the Temple stands, so is tithe valid only whilst the Temple stands. Yet let us revert to the argument and learn it from the common characteristic? — Because that can be refuted: the feature common to both is that each is connected with the altar. What does he hold? If he holds that the first sanctity hallowed it for the nonce and for the future. then even a firstling too [is thus]? While if he holds that it did not hallow it for the future, there should be a question even about a firstling too? — Said Rabina: In truth he holds that it did not hallow it [for all time], but here we discuss a firstling whose blood was sprinkled before the Temple was destroyed, then the Temple was destroyed, and we still have its flesh. Now its flesh is likened to its blood: as its blood requires the altar, so does its flesh require the altar. Then tithe comes and is learnt from a firstling. But can then that which is derived by a hekkesh teach in turn by a hekkesh? — The tithe of corn is merely hullin. That is well on the view that the taught is the determining factor; but on the view that the teacher is the determining factor, what can be said? — Blood and flesh are the same thing. When Rabin went up, he reported this teaching in R. Jeremiah's presence, whereupon he observed: The Babylonians are fools. Because they dwell in a land of darkness they engage in dark discussions. Have they not heard what was taught: During the dismantling [of the Tabernacle] on their travels, sacrifices became unfit, and zabin and lepers were sent out of their precincts. Whereas another [Baraitha] taught: Sacrifices might be eaten in two places. Surely then, the former refers to sacrifices of higher sanctity, and the latter to sacrifices of lesser sanctity? — Said Rabina: Both refer to sacrifices of lesser sanctity, yet there is no difficulty:
—