the altar of the burnt offering he set at the entrance to the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting.” (Exodus 40:29), indicating that no object was allowed to be located between the altar and the Tent of Meeting, whose parallel, in the Temple, was the Sanctuary. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derives from these verses that only the altar stood at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, but the Basin did not stand at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. Where would they place the Basin? It was placed between the Entrance Hall and the altar, extended slightly toward the south. Therefore, although the Basin was closer to the Sanctuary than the altar was, it did not actually stand between the altar and the Sanctuary.

The Gemara seeks to clarify: What does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili hold? If he holds that the entire altar stands in the south section of the Temple courtyard, let him stand the Basin anywhere from where the wall of the Sanctuary begins and southward, so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary but it is between the Entrance Hall and the altar. This would allow for the optimal fulfillment of both verses (Exodus 40:29; Leviticus 4:7), as the Basin would be located between the altar and the Sanctuary without interposing between the altar and the entrance to the Sanctuary.

The Gemara continues: And even if he holds that the level of sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall is the same, in which case the Basin could not be located opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall as this too would be considered a violation of the second verse, let him stand the Basin anywhere from where the wall of the Entrance Hall begins and southward, so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall but is in between the Entrance Hall and the altar. From the fact that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili did not say that, it is clear he held that the altar was not located in the southern section of the Temple courtyard.

Alternatively, if Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that half of the altar was located in the north section of the Temple courtyard and half of it was located in the south, let him stand the Basin anywhere from where the wall of the Sanctuary begins and southward, so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary but between the Entrance Hall and the altar. Since the entrance to the Sanctuary was five cubits wide and stood in the middle of the courtyard, and the altar was thirty-two cubits long, there would have been eleven cubits to both the north and the south of the entrance to the Sanctuary where the Basin could be placed in order to be located between the altar and the Sanctuary without interposing between the altar and the entrance to the Sanctuary.

And even if Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the level of sanctity of the Entrance Hall and that of the Sanctuary is the same, in which case the Basin could not be located opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall because this too would be considered a violation of the second verse, let him stand the Basin anywhere from where the wall of the Entrance Hall begins and southward, so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall but in between the Entrance Hall and the altar. Why does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili require that the Basin be placed south of the altar? The Gemara concludes: Rather, is it not due to the fact that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the entire altar stood in the north section of the Temple courtyard?

The Gemara asks: Even if this is the case, why does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili require that the Basin be located to the south of the altar so that it is not actually in between the altar and the Sanctuary? Even if you stand it anywhere from where the wall of the Sanctuary begins and northward, it would not interpose between the altar and the entrance to the Sanctuary but it would actually be located in between the Entrance Hall and the altar.

And even if Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the sanctity of the Entrance Hall is equal to that of the Sanctuary, and that the Basin cannot interpose between the altar and the entrance to the Entrance Hall, stand the Basin anywhere from where the wall of the Entrance Hall begins and northward, so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall but it is located in between the Entrance Hall and the altar.

The Gemara answers: That suggestion is technically not feasible, as the verse states: “And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward [tzafona]” (Leviticus 1:11). This verse indicates that the north section of the Temple courtyard must be vacant of all vessels, including the Basin. This concludes the Gemara’s explanation of Rav Sherevya’s assertion that the mishna in Tamid, which holds that the altar was located in the northern part of the Temple courtyard, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: The verse states: “Northward before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:11). This indicates that the north section of the Temple courtyard must be vacant of everything, and even of the altar. Therefore, he maintains that the entire altar stood in the southern section of the Temple courtyard.

§ Rav says: In a case of an altar that was damaged, all sacrificial animals that were slaughtered there are disqualified. Rav continues: We have a verse as the source for this halakha but we have forgotten which one it is. When Rav Kahana, Rav’s disciple, ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, saying in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei: From where is it derived that in the case of an altar that was damaged, that all sacrificial animals that were slaughtered there are disqualified?

It is derived from a verse, as it is stated in the verse with regard to the altar: “An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall slaughter upon it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings [shelamekha]” (Exodus 20:21). Is it true that you slaughter sacrificial animals on the altar itself? They are slaughtered on the ground near the altar. No, rather, the verse indicates that one is able to slaughter the sacrificial animals on account of the altar, i.e., when the altar is complete [shalem], but not when it is lacking, i.e., damaged. Rav Kahana said: This is the verse that eluded Rav.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Both this one and that one are disqualified, i.e., all animals that were designated as offerings when the altar was in a damaged state are disqualified, even if they were not yet slaughtered. The Gemara asks: With regard to what issue do Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree? The Gemara answers: Rav holds that living animals are not permanently deferred, and Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that living animals are permanently deferred. If the altar is damaged and it is therefore impossible to sacrifice offerings, Rav holds that only offerings that were already slaughtered become permanently deferred, whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that even those that were not yet slaughtered become permanently deferred.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s opinion, based on a baraita: In the case of all sacrificial animals that were consecrated before the altar was built, and then the altar was subsequently built, the animals are disqualified. The Gemara assumes that this baraita is referring to animals that were consecrated before the building of the altar in the Second Temple. The Gemara responds: In a case where the animals were consecrated before the altar was built, the animals are considered initially deferred, i.e., deferred from the time they were initially consecrated. In this case all agree they are not permanently deferred and they can be sacrificed when the altar is built.

Rather, explain the baraita as follows: If the animals were consecrated before the altar was destroyed in the First Temple, and then the altar was destroyed and rebuilt, the animals are still disqualified. The Gemara questions this reading: Can the baraita be referring to a case where the altar was destroyed in the First Temple? Didn’t the animals become too old for sacrifice by the time the altar was constructed in the Second Temple?

The Gemara emends the baraita yet again: Rather, the baraita is referring to a case where one consecrated the animals before the altar was damaged, and subsequently the altar was damaged. The halakha is that the animals are disqualified. It seems from this baraita that even sacrificial animals that were not yet slaughtered when the altar became damaged are nevertheless permanently disqualified, in contrast to the opinion of Rav. The Gemara rejects this proof: But did you not already have to emend the text of the baraita? Emend it differently and say that the case is where the animals were slaughtered before the altar became damaged. Accordingly, there is no proof from this baraita with regard to the deferral of living animals.

Rav said that sacrificial animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard when the altar was in a damaged state are disqualified. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav Giddel say that Rav says: In a case where the golden altar became uprooted from its location in the Sanctuary, one may burn the incense in its place? Apparently, it is not essential to have the altar in order to sacrifice offerings.

The Gemara answers: It is like that which Rava says (60a): Although Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the entire Temple courtyard is fit for burning the sacrificial portions of offerings, Rabbi Yehuda would concede with regard to the presenting of the blood that it must be performed specifically on the altar. Here too, the Gemara says, Rav concedes with regard to the blood that an altar is required. Consequently, if consecrated offerings were slaughtered when the altar was in a damaged state, since the blood may not be presented, the offering is disqualified.

Having briefly mentioned Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, the Gemara asks: What is the context of the statement of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the inauguration of the Temple in the time of King Solomon: “On that day the king sanctified the middle of the court that was before the House of the Lord; as there he offered the burnt offering, and the meal offering, and the fat of the peace offerings; because the copper altar that was before the Lord was too small to receive the burnt offering, and the meal offering, and the fat of the peace offerings” (I Kings 8:64). The matters in the verse are to be understood as they are written, i.e., that the altar in the Temple was too small to receive all of the offerings that Solomon sacrificed, and Solomon therefore sanctified the Temple courtyard so that it, too, could function as an altar; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei said to him: