Zevachim 60

Sugya Map

Issue

The sugya grapples with the interplay between the physical dimensions of the Mizbe'ach HaNechoshet (Copper Altar) and the spatial extent of its sanctity, focusing on whether the entire Temple Courtyard (Azarah) was consecrated with the status of the Altar itself, and the implications for sacrificial law.

Nafka Mina(s)

1. Dimensions: The actual size of the Mizbe'ach (R. Yehuda: 10x10 cubits vs. R. Yosei: 5x5 cubits), derived through Gezeirah Shavah (Zevachim 60a).
2. Kiddush Azarah: Whether the entire courtyard floor was consecrated to burn sacrifices (I Kings 8:64, "Sanctified the middle of the court").
3. Mitzvat HaDam: The permissibility of blood atonement (Kippur) if the blood spills onto the Azarah floor (Zevachim 60a, Rava's proof).
4. Mizbe'ach Shenifgam: Whether the consumption of Kodshim (sacrificial portions) is suspended if the physical altar structure is damaged or missing (Zevachim 60a/b).

Primary Sources

Exodus 27:1 (Altar height), I Kings 8:64 (Solomon's consecration), Leviticus 10:12 (Eating Menachot), Deuteronomy 12:6 (Juxtaposition of Ma'aser Sheni and Bechor).

Text Snapshot

The core dispute analyzed by Rava centers on the efficacy of blood spilled on the Azarah floor, assuming R. Yehuda’s expansive view of Kiddush Azarah:

ואי סלקא דעתך סבר ר' יהודה כולה עזרה מיקדשא בקדושת מזבח, הא איתעבידא ליה מצוותיה? ¹ (Zevachim 60a)

Translation: "And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yehuda maintains the entire Temple courtyard was consecrated with the sanctity of the altar, then the mitzvah of [the blood application] was performed [when the blood spilled on the floor]?"

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The Aramaic phrase הא איתעבידא ליה מצוותיה ("the mitzvah has been performed") is crucial. It implies that the physical location is the sole determining factor for the fulfillment of the mitzvah. Rava is challenging R. Yehuda: if the floor is an altar, the spillage itself constitutes a valid zerikah (sprinkling), making the subsequent act of pouring the mixed blood on the actual Mizbe'ach superfluous. The Gemara's rejection of Rava's proof hinges on defining why the Mizbe'ach structure remains essential, even if the floor is consecrated.

Readings

The sugya regarding the Azarah's consecration forces the Rishonim to define the boundaries between Kiddush Makom (sanctity of the place) and Kiddush Ma'aseh (sanctity of the ritual act).

Rashi: Hierarchy of Sanctity in Functionality

Rashi addresses R. Yehuda’s position that the Azarah was consecrated בקדושת מזבח (with the sanctity of the altar). Rashi interprets this consecration as Solomon’s intentional expansion of the burn area for the overwhelming volume of offerings brought during the dedication. ²

Chiddush: Rashi views the Kiddush Azarah as enabling the Azarah to function as an altar for Haktarah (burning of fats/parts) but not necessarily for the precise ritual of Matanot Dam (application of blood). Rashi’s acceptance of the terutz of Mitzvah Min HaMuvchar confirms that the physical Mizbe'ach retains a unique, superior status, particularly for the atoning element of the sacrifice. While the floor is Kodesh, the structure is Muvchar (optimal/preferred).

Tosafot: The Blood Requirement and Mikhach Ha'Adam

Tosafot address the Gemara’s rejection of the first terutz offered against Rava: שפיכה מכח האדם בעינן (We require pouring by human force). Rava initially suggests that the blood on the floor was spilled passively (shelo mekhach adam). The Gemara asks: If that is the only issue, why not scoop it up and pour it back onto the floor (נשקליה ונשפיך ליה אדוכתיה), since the floor is consecrated? ³

Chiddush: Tosafot imply that even if the Azarah has the sanctity of the Mizbe'ach, the ritual of Zerikah itself may carry spatial requirements tied to the defined corners of the altar structure. More acutely, they suggest that the Kiddush of the Azarah may only apply to the Eimurim (parts designated for fire), which R. Yehuda agrees can be burned there, but not to the Dam (blood), which requires the precise Ma'aseh (action) on the Mizbe'ach itself. This highlights a fundamental distinction between the spatial validity for consumption/burning and the essential location for atonement.

Ramban (Chiddushei HaRamban): The Limits of Kiddush Azarah

Ramban analyzes the dispute over Mitzvah Min HaMuvchar. He states that R. Yehuda's expansive view of Kiddush Azarah only applies to the Halakha that allows burning Eimurim on the floor. However, regarding the act of Kippur (atonement) via the blood, the Torah fixed the location (the corners of the altar) and the required action (Matanah—application). ⁴

Chiddush: Ramban formalizes the hierarchy: R. Yehuda did not believe the Azarah was literally a secondary altar for all purposes, but rather that its sanctity was enhanced to allow for the overflow of Eimurim. The Mizbe'ach proper remains the Makom HaKavua (fixed location) for the essential Avodah of Kippur. Therefore, when R. Yehuda seeks to guarantee the missed Pesach blood is covered, he must revert to the primary and undisputed source of Kippur: the physical Mizbe'ach. This makes the Mitzvah Min HaMuvchar not a mere preference, but a safeguard against ritual failure.

Friction

The Strongest Kushya: The Contradiction in Dimensions and Consecration

The most significant friction arises from the internal structure of R. Yehuda’s position. R. Yehuda asserts that the original Mizbe'ach was 10x10 cubits (Zevachim 60a) ⁵ and that the entire Azarah was consecrated as a Mizbe'ach. If the Mizbe'ach was already 10x10 (a massive size) and the entire Azarah floor shared its sanctity, why did Solomon need to sanctify the middle of the court at all (I Kings 8:64)? The area was already consecrated via the Mishkan’s original establishment.

R. Yosei, conversely, holds the original altar was 5x5, necessitating a larger dedicated space for Solomon's sacrifices, thus justifying the verse "too small to receive" (I Kings 8:64). ⁶ R. Yehuda's response that the verse refers to Solomon’s stone altar being too small is weak, as the context is clearly the copper altar that preceded it.

If R. Yehuda holds the Azarah is Mizbe'ach based on Solomon's act, this suggests the original Kiddush was insufficient. Yet, he simultaneously argues the original altar was large (10x10). This creates a functional redundancy: if the Azarah was consecrated from the start, Solomon's act is superfluous; if it wasn't, R. Yehuda's justification for the 10x10 size based on Gezeirah Shavah is undermined by the need for later expansion.

The Best Terutz: The Nature of Solomon's Kiddush

The most effective resolution is to refine the nature of Solomon’s consecration according to R. Yehuda.

Solomon’s act of Kiddush was not about creating sanctity, but about extending the permitted function of the existing sanctity. The Azarah was inherently Kodesh, but only the Mizbe'ach structure was authorized for Haktarah. R. Yehuda interprets Solomon’s sanctification of "the middle of the court" as a special, temporary, or permanent authorization (depending on the scope of Kiddush Sheini) to use the courtyard floor for the Mitzvah of burning Eimurim—an act usually restricted to the Mizbe'ach top. ⁷

This distinction preserves the 10x10 dimension (derived from the Gezeirah Shavah to Ezekiel's altar, focused on width) while explaining Rava's proof: even when consecrated for Eimurim, the Azarah floor never fully substitutes the structural Mizbe'ach for the definitive, atoning acts of Matanot Dam. The Kiddush Azarah is functional expansion; the Mizbe'ach integrity is ritual necessity.

Intertext

The Integrity Requirement: Mizbe'ach Shenifgam

The sugya pivots to R. Elazar’s teaching: מזבח שנפגם, אין אוכלים בגינו שירי מנחה (If an altar is damaged, one may not eat the remainder of a meal offering on its account). This is derived from the verse ואכלוה מצות אצל המזבח (Leviticus 10:12), interpreted as requiring the meal offering to be eaten only when the altar is Shalem (complete). ⁸

This drasha provides a critical cross-reference to the R. Yehuda/Rava debate. It establishes that the consumption rights of Kodshim—even Kodshei Kodashim like Menachot, which can be eaten anywhere in the Azarah ⁹—are fundamentally dependent on the altar’s physical integrity, even if the surrounding area is consecrated. The Mizbe'ach acts as the Tana'i (condition) for the entire courtyard's functionality regarding consumption.

The Scope of Permanence: Bechor and Ma'aser Sheni

The subsequent discussion regarding Ma'aser Sheni (Second Tithe) and the Bechor (Firstborn) reinforces the necessity of the altar's existence. R. Yishmael teaches that Ma'aser Sheni cannot be eaten after the Temple’s destruction because it is juxtaposed (Hekesh) with the Bechor. The Bechor's meat is permitted only when there is an altar for its blood: 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. ¹⁰

This chain of derivation (Bechor meat derived from Bechor blood; Ma'aser Sheni derived from Bechor meat) demonstrates that even Kodshei Kalim (lesser sacred things) and non-sacrificial produce consumed in Jerusalem have their viability tied, directly or indirectly, to the functional presence of the Mizbe'ach. This lomdus supports the general meta-psak heuristic that the cessation of Avodah due to the lack of a functional altar affects peripheral halachot across the board.

Psak/Practice

The halacha follows the conclusion regarding Mizbe'ach Shenifgam derived from R. Elazar. Maimonides rules explicitly that if the altar is damaged, lacking a foundation (yesod), or missing the ramp (Kevish), all Kodshim must be left until the altar is repaired, and if the damage persists past the time limit, they become notar (leftover) and must be burned. This applies equally to Kodshei Kodashim (most sacred) and Kodshei Kalim (lesser sacred). ¹¹

This psak confirms that the physical, structural integrity of the Mizbe'ach is an absolute M'akev (essential precondition) for the entire system of consumption of sacrifices. The expansive Kiddush Azarah attributed to R. Yehuda is thus limited in scope; it may facilitate the expansion of Haktarah (burning) lechatchila, but it does not substitute for the structural altar’s prerequisite status for Kippur and subsequent eating rights.

Takeaway

The sugya delineates a critical tension in Temple law: while sanctity can be geographically expansive (Kiddush Azarah), the fulfillment of core ritual requirements (Kippur via blood, and the subsequent consumption of Kodshim) remains strictly conditional upon the structural integrity and functionality of the primary, divinely designated object: the Mizbe'ach.

Citations

1. Zevachim 60a:10
2. Rashi on Zevachim 60a s.v. משפת מזבח ולמעלה:1:1
3. Steinsaltz on Zevachim 60a:11
4. Chiddushei HaRamban, Zevachim 60a s.v. ודלמא משום דבעינן מצוה מן המובחר
5. Zevachim 60a:4
6. Zevachim 60a:7
7. Rashi on Zevachim 60a s.v. מקדשא בקדושת מזבח:1:1
8. Leviticus 10:12. See Zevachim 60a:13
9. Rashi on Zevachim 60a s.v. וכי אצל המזבח אכלוה:13:2
10. Zevachim 60a:20
11. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sacrifices 14:14-15 (based on Zevachim 60a/b)