Zevachim

the altar of burnt-offering [before the door of the tabernacle of the tent of meeting].1 [it follows that] the altar was at the door of the tent of meeting, while the laver was not at the door of the tent of meeting. Where then was it [the laver] placed? Between the ulam and the altar, slightly toward the south. Now what does he hold? If he holds that the whole altar stood in the south, let it be placed southward from the wall of the hekal, [for that would be] between the ulam and the altar? And even if he holds that the sanctity of the ulam and that of the hekal are one, let it be placed southward from the wall of the ulam, [for that would still be as] between the ulam and the altar? Or if he holds that half was in the north and half in the south, let it be placed southward from the wall of the hekal, between the ulam and the altar? And even if he holds that the sanctity of the ulam and that of the hekal are one, let it be placed southward from the wall of the ulam, this being between the ulam and the altar? Hence it must surely be that he2 holds that the whole altar stood in the north. Then let it be placed between the altar and the hekal northward? — He holds that the sanctity of the hekal and ulam is identical.3 Then let it be placed northward from the wall of the ulam, when it would be between the ulam and the altar? — Scripture saith, northward, which means that the north must be free from vessels.4 Which Tanna disagrees with R. Jose the Galilean?5 — R. Eleazar b. Jacob. For it was taught: R. Eleazar b. Jacob said: ‘Northward’ [intimates] that the north must be free from everything, even from the altar: Rab said, If the altar was damaged, all sacrifices slaughtered there are unfit. We have a text to this effect, but have forgotten it. When R. Kahana went up,6 he found R. Simeon b. Rabbi teaching in R. Ishmael b. R. Jose's name: How do we know that all the sacrifices slaughtered at a damaged altar are unfit? Because it is said, And thou shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings and thy peace-offerings:7 now, do you then sacrifice on it?8 Rather, [it means:] when it is whole, and not when it is defective. Said he: That is the text which eluded Rab. But R. Johanan maintained: In both cases they are unfit.9 Wherein do they disagree? — Rab holds: Live animals cannot be [permanently] rejected; while R. Johanan holds: Live animals can be [permanently] rejected. 10 An objection is raised. All the sacred animals which were before the altar was built,11 and then the altar was built, are unfit.12 [Now before] it was built, they were rejected ab initio?13 — [Say] rather: before it was razed.14 ‘[Before] it was razed?’ But they [the animals] would be too old!15 Rather [it means] [the animals which were consecrated] before the altar was damaged, and then the altar was damaged, are unfit!16 — Now, did you not emend it? Then read, which were slaughtered.17 But surely R. Giddal said in Rab's name: If the altar was removed [from its place], the incense was burnt on its [the altar's] site?18 — Even as Raba said, R. Judah agrees in respect of the blood,19 so here too. Rab agrees in respect of the blood.20 What [statement of] R. Judah [is referred to]? — It was taught: The same day did the king hallow the middle of the court that was before the house of the Lord . . . because the brazen altar that was before the Lord was too little to receive the burnt-offering, and the meal-offering and the fat of the peace-offerings:21 this is meant literally:22 these are the words of R. Judah. Said R. Jose to him: damaged, or after it was repaired. The controversy is whether this rejection is permanent or not. is a view that the animals do not become permanently rejected, v. Kid. 7a. second was built. been repaired. damaged. damaged, and so Rab is self-contradictory. the burning of the limbs, etc., upon it.