Zevachim 60

Hook

Imagine you are standing in a vast, open courtyard under the desert sun. Before you stands a towering, multi-tiered structure—the Altar, the beating heart of the sacred space, the Mishkan (Tabernacle). Every dimension, every copper plate, every height measurement was divinely ordained. But what happens when the architects, the great Sages of Israel, look at the exact same verses describing this structure, and come up with radically different blueprints?

The Talmud, in Tractate Zevachim (Sacrifices), is obsessed with geometry, not for aesthetic reasons, but because these dimensions are the physical manifestation of divine law. Zevachim 60 takes us into a fierce, technical debate over the precise height of the Altar and the curtains surrounding the courtyard. This argument, seemingly about mere cubits, quickly evolves into a profound theological discussion: Does the entire holy space absorb the sanctity of its central fixture, the Altar? And if the Altar is damaged or missing, does the entire religious enterprise—from the highest ritual to the simplest meal—come to a grinding halt?

Context

The Setting: Zevachim and the Temple System

Tractate Zevachim focuses on the laws governing animal and meal offerings brought in the Tabernacle and the Temple. It is, perhaps, the most complex and intricate part of the Talmud, dealing with issues of intention, time, location, and proper physical action. Our specific passage, Zevachim 60, is concerned with the integrity of the Altar (Mizbe’ach) itself, particularly the Mizbe’ach HaNechoshet (the Copper Altar) built by Moses.

The Talmudic Method: Precision Through Debate

The Talmud rarely offers a single, simple answer. Instead, it presents a sustained argument between great Sages, most notably Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei in this section. Their disagreement is rooted in how they interpret cryptic phrases and how they apply midrashic rules like Gezeirah Shavah (Verbal Analogy), where a shared word in two different contexts allows us to transfer a legal ruling or dimension from one context to the other.

This deep dive into architectural law serves a vital purpose for the Jewish people after the Temple’s destruction: it ensures that the memory, rules, and potential for rebuilding remain intact, preserving the spiritual blueprint even when the physical edifice is gone.

Text Snapshot

Zevachim 60 presents three critical, interwoven debates:

1. The Altar’s Height and the Curtains: Rabbi Yosei argues the Altar was ten cubits high and the courtyard curtains were fifteen cubits high, interpreting the verse "five cubits" as referring only to the height above the altar's ledge. Rabbi Yehuda argues the Altar was only three cubits high, forcing him to interpret the textual clues differently.
2. The Sanctity of the Courtyard Floor: The Sages debate whether King Solomon, upon dedicating the First Temple, consecrated the entire Courtyard floor (Azarah) with the status of the Altar itself. This determines whether spilled sacrificial blood landing on the floor is considered properly placed.
3. The Necessity of the Complete Altar: The Gemara shifts focus to the post-facto validity of rituals. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yishmael argue that if the Altar is damaged (nifgam) or missing, certain holy foods—even those of "lesser sanctity" like the Second Tithe (Ma’aser Sheni)—may no longer be eaten, because the Altar’s completeness is a prerequisite for their consumption.

The Big Question

How does physical, architectural precision define and maintain spiritual sanctity, particularly when the structure itself is imperfect or absent?

(Word Count Target: 500-700 words)

The foundational inquiry of Zevachim 60 is the relationship between the physical vessel and the divine function it performs. Judaism often requires concrete, measurable actions performed in specific, measurable spaces. But what happens when the measurements themselves are contested, as in the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei?

The Tension Between Dimensions and Function

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei are arguing about the dimensions of the Copper Altar. While the verses seem to give conflicting numbers (three cubits in Exodus 27:1 vs. the ten cubits derived via analogy), their differing interpretations are not arbitrary; they reflect divergent views on the functionality of the sacred space.

If the Altar was ten cubits high (Rabbi Yosei), it was a formidable structure, ensuring maximum separation between the priest performing the service and the onlookers outside the curtain. If it was only three cubits high (Rabbi Yehuda), the priest performing the service was visible, though his implements were hidden. This seemingly small difference—seven cubits—touches upon a fundamental question: Is the service meant to be fully public, or does it require a degree of protected privacy, shielding the sacred work from the common gaze? The Talmud accepts that both views, though contradictory in dimension, are valid attempts to reconcile the divine text. This teaches us that sometimes, the process of rigorous textual interpretation is as important as the final, agreed-upon dimension.

The Scope of Sanctity: Localized vs. Pervasive

This debate leads directly into the question of the Azarah (Courtyard) sanctity. Rabbi Yehuda believes King Solomon consecrated the entire floor to act as an altar, effectively multiplying the sacred space. This view suggests that holiness is pervasive; once established, it expands to meet the needs of the community (like handling the massive number of Paschal offerings). Rabbi Yosei, conversely, holds that sanctity remains localized—the Altar is the Altar, and the floor is merely the ground upon which the Altar stands. He argues that Solomon consecrated the space merely for the future altar, not as an altar.

This distinction is crucial: is the sacred space defined by the primary object (the Altar), or does the primary object infuse the entire surrounding area with its legal status? If sanctity is localized (R. Yosei), ritual mistakes (like spilled blood) are fatal unless corrected. If sanctity is pervasive (R. Yehuda), the system is more robust and forgiving.

The Endurance of the Prerequisite

Finally, the most enduring question for post-Temple Judaism arises: If the physical structure (the Altar) is damaged or absent, does the sacred law related to it immediately lapse? Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yishmael’s arguments regarding the meal offering and the Second Tithe establish a powerful principle: the Altar is not just a stage for sacrifices; it is a prerequisite for the consumption of holiness. The existence of the Altar acts as a spiritual engine that authorizes the downstream consumption rituals. When the engine stops, the associated laws governing the eating of sacred food—even those of "lesser sanctity"—are suspended. This realization forces us to confront the reality that Jewish law is fundamentally tied to the physical integrity of its central institutions. The Altar’s physical completeness is essential for the validity of rituals performed in its orbit, teaching us that spiritual efficacy requires physical infrastructure.

One Core Concept

(Word Count Target: 200-300 words)

Mitzvah Min HaMuvchar (Optimal Performance of the Commandment)

A key concept that emerges from the debate between Rava and the Gemara concerning Rabbi Yehuda’s view on the sanctified courtyard is Mitzvah Min HaMuvchar—performing a commandment in the optimal or preferred manner.

Rava argues that even if Rabbi Yehuda believes the entire Courtyard floor is consecrated and thus legally capable of receiving sacrificial blood, the priest still pours a cup of mixed blood onto the actual Altar. Why? If the floor works, why the extra step?

The Gemara offers two answers: first, perhaps the priest requires "pouring by human force," but this is rejected because he could just pour it on the floor. The second, more enduring answer, is that the action is performed on the Altar only due to Mitzvah Min HaMuvchar. Even if the floor is kosher (valid) post-facto, the primary, beautiful, and optimal way to fulfill the commandment is by interacting directly with the dedicated, functional Altar itself.

This concept teaches us that Jewish law distinguishes between minimum legal requirement (bedi’avad) and ideal performance (l’chatchilah). We are encouraged not just to meet the legal floor, but to elevate the performance of the commandment through aesthetic beauty, intention, and precision. It transforms compliance into devotion.

Breaking It Down: The Precision of Holiness

(Word Count Target: 2500-3500 words)

The text of Zevachim 60 moves with deliberate intensity from the smallest physical measurement to the broadest legal implications regarding the survival of Jewish practice after destruction.

Architectural Geometry and Divine Intent: The Altar’s Dimensions

The initial segment of Zevachim 60 is a classic example of Talmudic physics and textual archaeology, attempting to reconstruct the physical reality of the Tabernacle and Temple from often contradictory biblical verses.

The Contradiction of Cubits

The dispute centers on the dimensions of the Copper Altar built by Moses. Exodus 27:1 states, “And its height shall be three cubits.” However, when comparing this altar to the one described by the prophet Ezekiel, a textual analogy (Gezeirah Shavah) suggests a different height.

Rabbi Yosei, who holds that the Altar was ten cubits high, resolves the contradiction by interpreting the verse about the courtyard curtains. The verse mentions two curtain heights: “fifteen cubits for the one side” (Exodus 38:14) and “five cubits” (Exodus 27:18). Rabbi Yosei explains that the fifteen cubits refers to the total height of the curtains. The "five cubits," however, refers only to the portion that rose above the Altar’s edge: “from the upper edge of the altar and above.” Since the curtains were fifteen cubits high, and five cubits were above the altar, the altar must have been ten cubits high (15 - 5 = 10). This interpretation requires a complex harmonization of verses.

The Verbal Analogy and the Scope of Law

Rabbi Yehuda rejects this harmonization and maintains the literal reading that the Altar was three cubits high. The Gemara asks: How does Rabbi Yehuda deal with the verbal analogy (Gezeirah Shavah) that Rabbi Yosei used to derive the ten-cubit height?

Rabbi Yehuda accepts the analogy but limits its application. The analogy is based on the shared term "square" used for both the Copper Altar and the altar described in Ezekiel. Rabbi Yehuda argues that this analogy only applies to the width of the Altar, teaching that the Copper Altar was ten cubits wide by ten cubits long. It does not apply to the height. This demonstrates a core principle of midrash: even when a textual link is established, Sages can limit the scope of the resulting legal transfer. For Rabbi Yehuda, the literal verse stating three cubits for the height remains paramount.

Visibility and the Sacred Service

The Gemara pushes Rabbi Yehuda on the functional consequence of a short altar. If the Altar was only three cubits high, and the curtains surrounding the courtyard were five cubits high, the priest standing on the Altar (which would have required ascending a ramp) would be visible to those outside the curtains (5 cubits - 3 cubits = 2 cubits difference).

The Gemara asks: “And according to Rabbi Yehuda... isn’t the priest visible while performing the service atop the altar?”

Rabbi Yehuda concedes: “Granted, the priest is visible, but the items with which he performs the sacrificial service that are in his hand are not visible.”

Insight 1: Privacy vs. Transparency in Divine Service

This seemingly minor architectural difference reveals a deep philosophical divergence. Rabbi Yosei favors total separation and privacy for the holy service, achieved through a taller altar and higher curtains, ensuring the entire ritual is shielded. Rabbi Yehuda permits a degree of transparency; the person (the priest) is visible, emphasizing his role as a public servant, but the critical tools and components (the blood, the implements, the fat portions) remain hidden, maintaining the sanctity of the ritual act itself. This is an early exploration of the balance between priestly accountability and ritual mystique.

The Sanctity of Space: Solomon’s Consecration

The Gemara then transitions to a related, but even more profound, debate regarding the sanctity of the Temple Courtyard floor during the dedication of the First Temple by King Solomon (I Kings 8:64). The verse states that the king “sanctified the middle of the court.”

Two Meanings of "Sanctification"

1. Rabbi Yehuda’s View (Pervasive Sanctity): Rabbi Yehuda holds that Solomon consecrated the courtyard floor so that it could legally serve as an altar, meaning the entire area possessed the functional sanctity of the Altar. This was necessary because the Copper Altar built by Moses was too small to handle the immense number of offerings brought during the dedication festival.
2. Rabbi Yosei’s View (Localized Sanctity): Rabbi Yosei interprets the verse differently. Since he believes the original Copper Altar was already large (ten cubits by ten cubits), it was sufficient. Therefore, Solomon merely sanctified the courtyard in order “to stand the altar in it.” That is, he confirmed the space’s status as a holy location, but the floor itself did not become an altar.

Insight 2: The Proof of the Paschal Blood (Rava’s Challenge)

This debate is immediately tested by Rava, who introduces a baraita (a teaching outside the Mishnah) concerning the Paschal offering. On Passover eve, immense quantities of blood were spilled. Rabbi Yehuda taught that a priest would collect the mixed blood from the floor and pour a cup of it onto the actual Altar to ensure that if any individual offering’s blood had been completely missed, a trace of it would be properly applied, thus validating the offering.

Rava challenges Rabbi Yehuda: “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.”

If the floor is an altar, why the mandatory action of pouring on the physical Altar?

Counterarguments and the Power of the Optimal

The Gemara rejects Rava’s seemingly airtight proof by introducing nuance:

1. Human Force (Shfichah): Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda requires the pouring to be done by human force (active pouring), rather than merely letting it spill. However, the Gemara refutes this: if "human force" is the only requirement, the priest could simply pour the cup back onto the floor (Steinsaltz on Zevachim 60a:11).
2. Optimal Performance (Mitzvah Min HaMuvchar): This is the strongest counterargument. Even if the floor is consecrated and legally sufficient (kasher), it is not the ideal location. The physical Altar is the designated site for the blood ritual. Thus, pouring the cup on the Altar is performing the mitzva in the optimal manner (Steinsaltz on Zevachim 60a:12).

This exchange is critical because it highlights that the Talmud is not always seeking the minimal legal threshold, but often the highest standard of devotion. Even when the law allows for a shortcut (the floor), devotion compels the direct engagement with the primary object of sanctity (the Altar).

The Imperative of the Complete Altar

The focus of the Gemara shifts dramatically to the legal implications of a missing or damaged Altar, a topic profoundly relevant to the post-destruction community.

Rabbi Elazar and the Meal Offering

Rabbi Elazar states that if the Altar is damaged (nifgam), the priests “may not eat the remainder of a meal offering on its account.” This refers to the portion of the meal offering that the priests were permitted to consume after the designated portion was burned on the Altar.

The source for this is Leviticus 10:12: “Take the meal offering…and eat it without leaven beside the altar; for it is most holy.”

The Gemara recognizes the difficulty: why does the verse specify eating beside the Altar? Priests could eat the most sacred offerings anywhere within the Courtyard (Rashi on Zevachim 60a:13:2).

Insight 3: The Altar as a Prerequisite, Not Just a Location

Rabbi Elazar explains that the phrase "beside the altar" does not refer to physical proximity but to temporal and functional completeness. It means: “only at a time when [the altar] is complete, but not at a time when it is lacking.” The Altar’s integrity is a necessary condition for the consumption ritual to proceed. If the Altar is broken, the entire system of atonement and subsequent consumption is suspended.

Extending the Principle: Most Sacred to Lesser Sanctity

The Gemara first proves that this rule applies to all Kodshei Kodashim (Most Sacred Offerings) by noting the concluding phrase of the verse: "For it is most holy," a term used generically for all such offerings.

The real challenge is extending this rule to Kodashim Kalim (Offerings of Lesser Sanctity), such as peace offerings, and even to non-sacrificial produce like the Ma’aser Sheni (Second Tithe), which only needs to be eaten in Jerusalem.

The Case of the Second Tithe: Juxtaposition and Law

Abaye seeks to prove that the need for a complete Altar extends even to Ma’aser Sheni by citing a statement by Rabbi Yishmael, quoted by Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yishmael argues that Ma’aser Sheni may not be eaten in Jerusalem nowadays, after the Temple’s destruction.

The Proof from Juxtaposition

Rabbi Yishmael uses a sophisticated textual argument, linking Ma’aser Sheni to the Bechor (Firstborn Offering), which is definitely contingent on the Altar's existence:

1. The Logical Inference (Challenged): One might logically infer that since both the Firstborn Offering and the Second Tithe must be brought to Jerusalem, they share the same rule: they can only be eaten in the presence of the Temple.
2. The Refutation: This inference is refuted because the Firstborn Offering requires the placement of its blood on the Altar, a requirement lacking for the Tithe.
3. The Conclusion (Juxtaposition): Therefore, Rabbi Yishmael relies on the verse (Deuteronomy 12:6), which juxtaposes the tithes with the firstborn: “And there you shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes…and the firstborns.” The juxtaposition teaches that just as the Firstborn may only be eaten in the presence of the Temple, so too the Second Tithe.

The Post-Destruction Scenario

The discussion then deepens, asking how Rabbi Yishmael can prohibit eating the Firstborn or the Tithe today. If the original consecration of the Temple was eternal, we should still be able to eat it! If the consecration was temporary, why is the Firstborn prohibited?

Ravina offers a crucial clarification: we are discussing a Firstborn animal that was slaughtered and whose blood was sprinkled before the destruction, but whose meat remained after the destruction. The meat is prohibited because “its meat was juxtaposed with its blood” (Numbers 18:17–18). Just as the blood requires the Altar, so too the meat requires the presence of the Altar for its consumption. Since the Second Tithe is juxtaposed with the meat of the Firstborn (Deuteronomy 12:6), it too requires a complete Altar.

Insight 4: The Rule of Derived Juxtaposition

This sophisticated argument runs into a major legal hurdle: there is a principle that “a matter derived via a juxtaposition then [cannot] teach that the halakha applies to a third case via a juxtaposition” (Ein Darchin L’Lamed). In this case:

1. The status of the meat is derived from the blood (Juxtaposition 1).
2. The status of the tithe is derived from the meat (Juxtaposition 2).

This double derivation should be invalid for consecrated matters.

The Solution: The Status of the Derived Matter

The Gemara resolves this by arguing that Ma’aser Sheni (tithe grain) is considered non-sacred for the purpose of deriving law. Therefore, the restrictive rules against double-juxtaposition do not apply.

This leads to a further clarification: When determining if a derivation is restricted, do we follow the legal status of the item that is derived (the tithe, which is non-sacred), or the item that teaches (the firstborn offering, which is sacred)? The accepted conclusion is that in this context, the tithe is considered non-sacred, validating the derivation and proving that even items of lesser sanctity cannot be consumed if the Altar is missing or damaged.

The Foolish Babylonians and the Journeying Tabernacle

The final segment of Zevachim 60 provides a remarkable counterpoint to the ruling that a damaged altar invalidates all consumption.

When Ravin brought this ruling (that even items of lesser sanctity are invalid when the altar is damaged) from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yirmeya ridiculed him: “Foolish Babylonians! Because they dwell in a dark land, they state halakhot that are dim.”

Rabbi Yirmeya cited a baraita showing that when the Jewish people dismantled the Tabernacle for journeying in the wilderness, sacrificial food was disqualified. Yet, a second baraita states that sacrificial food “could be consumed in two locations.”

Rabbi Yirmeya suggests that the first baraita (disqualified) refers to Most Sacred Offerings, while the second baraita (consumed) refers to Lesser Sacred Offerings. If Lesser Sacred Offerings could be consumed even when the Altar was disassembled, then the ruling that a damaged Altar invalidates them must be incorrect!

Ravina, however, offers a reconciliation: both baraitot refer to Lesser Sacred Offerings. The difference lies in the context. This final complex reconciliation shows the relentless effort of the Sages to harmonize seemingly contradictory sources, ensuring that even under conditions of travel or disruption, the laws of holiness could be maintained, reinforcing the idea that the system, though rigorous, is ultimately designed to be resilient.

How We Live This: The Echoes of the Altar

(Word Count Target: 1500-2000 words)

The debates over cubits and consecration in Zevachim 60 feel distant, yet they establish principles fundamental to modern Jewish life: the primacy of intention, the sanctity of space, and the commitment to optimal performance.

The Principle of Zerizut and Hiddur Mitzvah

The concept of Mitzvah Min HaMuvchar (optimal performance), highlighted in the blood-pouring debate, translates directly into Hiddur Mitzvah (beautifying the commandment) and Zerizut (zealousness).

Detailed Example 1: Hiddur Mitzvah in Ritual Objects

We are encouraged not merely to own a tallit (prayer shawl) or tefillin (phylacteries), but to ensure they are beautiful and high-quality. A plain, legally acceptable esrog (citron) for Sukkot is sufficient, but spending extra time and money to find a perfect, unblemished, beautiful one is an act of Hiddur Mitzvah. This commitment is the modern spiritual echo of the priest’s choice to pour the blood onto the physical Altar, even when the consecrated floor would have sufficed. The effort expended in selecting the optimal object mirrors the precision demanded by the sacred architecture.

Detailed Example 2: Kavanah (Intention) as Completeness

Just as the physical Altar had to be complete to validate the sacrifices, our personal spiritual vessel—our body and mind—must be "complete" and ready to perform a commandment. This is the role of Kavanah (intention). When reciting the Shema or standing in the Amidah prayer, the physical act of speaking the words is only the bedi’avad (minimal requirement). The Mitzvah Min HaMuvchar requires deep focus, concentration on the meaning, and the recognition that one is standing before the Divine. Without this mental "completeness," the ritual, while technically valid, lacks its true spiritual efficacy, much like the consumption of the meal offering when the Altar was damaged.

Sanctity and Separation: The Kitchen as a Mini-Altar

The debates over the precise boundaries of the Altar and the Courtyard inform the modern laws of Kashrut (dietary laws), which act as a miniature system of holiness separation in the home.

Application: Kashrut and the Sacred Boundary

In the Temple, the separation between the Holy and the Most Holy was absolute. We find similar rigor in the separation of milk and meat (and parve). The kitchen becomes a sacred space where different areas (dishes, counters, sinks) are designated for specific forms of food, mimicking the compartmentalization of the Temple courtyard. The act of making a siyum (completion celebration) or reciting a bracha (blessing) over food elevates the mundane act of eating, turning the dining table into a “mini-altar,” as the Talmud sometimes refers to it.

The requirement that the Altar be complete to allow consumption of the tithe reinforces the idea that holiness must be handled with care and only under sanctioned conditions. Kashrut ensures that our daily intake is sanctioned, even in the absence of the central Altar.

Dealing with Absence: The Enduring Sanctity of Space

The long-running debate over whether the initial consecration of the Temple area (Kiddusha Rishona) was l’shato (for its time only) or l’olam (forever) remains crucial. Although Ravina’s explanation regarding the Firstborn Offering leaned towards the need for a physical, functioning Altar for consumption, the prevailing legal tradition holds that the sanctity of the ground itself is eternal.

Application: The Status of the Temple Mount

This means the Temple Mount today, even without the Altar, retains its inherent holiness. This belief dictates the strict laws regarding entry and behavior in that space—one cannot simply enter the holiest parts because, while the service is suspended, the sanctity remains. The absence of the Altar does not erase the sacred geography established by Moses and Solomon; it simply suspends the functions dependent upon that structure.

The Practical Legacy: Ma’aser Sheni Today

The legal conclusion derived from Rabbi Yishmael’s use of juxtaposition—that the Second Tithe requires the presence of a complete Altar—has a direct bearing on modern halakha concerning agricultural laws in Israel.

Detailed Example 3: Redemption of the Tithe

Today, during the years when Ma’aser Sheni (Second Tithe) is required (years 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the seven-year agricultural cycle), the produce cannot be brought to Jerusalem and consumed, because the Altar is missing. Instead, the sanctity is redeemed onto a small coin, and the money (or the equivalent food purchased with it) must be disposed of or consumed in a manner that preserves its sanctity, confirming the legal precedent that the physical infrastructure of the Altar is a prerequisite for the full expression of certain commandments.

This meticulous adherence to a law derived from an abstract Talmudic debate (Juxtaposition 1 teaching Juxtaposition 2) demonstrates how the ancient discussions over the Altar’s completeness continue to govern modern agricultural practice in the Land of Israel.

The Lesson of Resilience and Repair

Zevachim 60 forces us to confront the reality of the damaged structure (Mizbe’ach shenifgam). When the central mechanism of connection is broken, the downstream rituals halt. This provides a metaphor for personal and communal repair.

If a community suffers a schism or a loss of ethical integrity, the peripheral rituals (celebrations, shared learning) may feel invalid or “lacking.” The lesson of the damaged Altar is that repair must begin at the core. We must first restore the foundation of trust, ethical behavior, or focused devotion before the peripheral actions can regain their full spiritual validity. The physical necessity for a complete Altar underscores the spiritual necessity for a complete, undamaged core commitment to God and Torah.

One Thing to Remember

(Word Count Target: 200-300 words)

Zevachim 60 teaches us that in Judaism, the spiritual and the physical are inseparable. The efficacy of the highest rituals—atonement and consecrated consumption—is directly dependent on the precise dimensions and structural integrity of a physical object: the Altar. The debates over whether the Altar was three or ten cubits high, or whether the courtyard floor was consecrated, are not just historical footnotes; they are exercises in discerning the exact parameters of divine will. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that a damaged Altar suspends the permission to consume holy food, reinforcing a profound principle: holiness requires a vessel that is whole. Our modern commitment to Hiddur Mitzvah and Kavanah is our way of ensuring that our own spiritual vessels are “complete,” striving for the optimal performance that honors the exacting standards of the sacred space we yearn to rebuild.

Citations

• Zevachim 60a (Core Text): https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_60a
• Exodus 38:14: https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.38.14
• Exodus 27:18: https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.27.18
• Exodus 27:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.27.1
• I Kings 8:64: https://www.sefaria.org/I_Kings.8.64
• Leviticus 10:12: https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus.10.12
• Deuteronomy 12:6: https://www.sefaria.org/Deuteronomy.12.6
• Numbers 18:17–18: https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.18.17-18
• Steinsaltz on Zevachim 60a:10: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Zevachim.60a.10
• Steinsaltz on Zevachim 60a:11: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Zevachim.60a.11
• Steinsaltz on Zevachim 60a:12: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Zevachim.60a.12
• Rashi on Zevachim 60a:13:2: https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Zevachim.60a.13.2