Zevachim Daf 120 (זבחים דף ק״כ)

Breakdown

Amud Aleph (120a)

Segment 1

TYPE: בעיא (Query)

Continuation of discussion about offerings brought inside and then taken outside

Hebrew/Aramaic:

שֶׁהִכְנִיסָהּ לִפְנִים וְהוֹצִיאָהּ לַחוּץ – מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דַּעֲיַילָא – קָלְטָה לַהּ מְחִיצְתָּא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דַּהֲדַר – הֲדַר?

English Translation:

That one brought inside and subsequently took outside, what is the halakha? Does it have the status of a sacrificial item of a public altar? The Gemara clarifies the question: Do we say that once it was brought in, the partition has already absorbed it; or perhaps, once it returns outside, it returns to its prior status?

Claude Al HaDaf:

This segment continues the Gemara’s exploration of the relationship between physical location and the halakhic status of offerings. The question probes whether the sanctity absorbed by an offering when brought into the Temple precincts becomes permanent or can be “undone” by removing it. This has practical implications for whether such an offering can then be offered on a private altar.

Key Terms:

• מְחִיצְתָּא (Partition) = The Temple walls that define the sacred space
• קָלְטָה (Absorbed) = The idea that the sanctity “captures” or attaches to the offering

Segment 2

TYPE: קושיא (Challenge)

Connecting to dispute between Rabba and Rav Yosef

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לָאו הַיְינוּ פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף? דִּתְנַן: קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וְאִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: Isn’t this issue a disagreement between Rabba and Rav Yosef? As we learned in a mishna (Me’ila 2a): With regard to offerings of the most sacred order that were slaughtered in the south, one who derives benefit from them is liable for misuse (me’ilah), and if they ascended the altar they shall not descend.

Claude Al HaDaf:

The Gemara attempts to link the current question to a known dispute. The mishna discusses offerings slaughtered in the wrong location (the south instead of the north) - they are invalid but still have a residual sanctity (hence me’ilah applies), and if they go up on the altar they stay there.

Key Terms:

• קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים (Most sacred offerings) = Offerings with stricter sanctity rules like olah and chattat
• מוֹעֲלִין (Me’ilah) = Liability for unauthorized use of consecrated property

Segment 3

TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים (Amoraic Dispute)

The dispute between Rabba and Rav Yosef

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: יָרְדוּ, מַהוּ שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ? רַבָּה אָמַר: לֹא יַעֲלוּ, וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: יַעֲלוּ.

English Translation:

And a dilemma was raised before the Sages: If they did descend the altar, what is the halakha with regard to ascending again? Rabba says: They shall not ascend, and Rav Yosef says: They shall ascend.

Claude Al HaDaf:

This is the core dispute. Rabba holds that once an invalid offering descends from the altar, it loses whatever status it had and cannot go back up. Rav Yosef holds that the altar’s acceptance was not nullified - the offering can return. This parallels our question about whether leaving the Temple precincts undoes the sanctity absorbed there.

Segment 4

TYPE: תירוץ (Answer)

Distinguishing the cases

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבָּה, תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף. תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבָּה: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבָּה – אֶלָּא בְּמִזְבֵּחַ; דַּחֲזֵי לֵיהּ מְקַדֵּשׁ, דְּלָא חֲזֵי לָא מְקַדֵּשׁ; אֲבָל מְחִיצָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חֲזֵי – קְלָטָה.

English Translation:

The Gemara responds: The disagreements are not identical, as the dilemma can be raised according to the opinion of Rabba, and the dilemma can be raised according to the opinion of Rav Yosef. The dilemma can be raised according to Rabba: Rabba says his opinion only with regard to the altar; that which is fit for it, the altar sanctifies, and that which is not fit, it does not sanctify; but with regard to a partition, even though it is not fit, it absorbed the offering.

Claude Al HaDaf:

The Gemara distinguishes between the altar (which sanctifies based on fitness) and the Temple partition (which may absorb sanctity regardless of fitness). Even according to Rabba who says invalid offerings don’t return to the altar, he might agree that the partition’s effect is different - more permanent and not dependent on the offering’s status.

Segment 5

TYPE: תירוץ (Continuation of Answer)

The question according to Rav Yosef

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אוֹ דִלְמָא, אֲפִילּוּ לְרַב יוֹסֵף – עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּחַד מָקוֹם הוּא; אֲבָל הָכָא, דִּתְרֵי מְקוֹמוֹת נִינְהוּ – לָא. אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? תֵּיקוּ.

English Translation:

Or perhaps the dilemma of the burnt offering of a private altar can be raised even according to the opinion of Rav Yosef. Rav Yosef states his opinion there, that offerings that descended may ascend again, only because it is one place; but here, where there are two places - no. Or perhaps there is no difference? Teiku.

Claude Al HaDaf:

The Gemara concludes with “teiku” - the question remains unresolved. Even Rav Yosef, who is more lenient about re-ascending, might draw a line when the offering has moved between fundamentally different domains (Temple vs. private altar). The distinction between “one place” (different parts of the altar) and “two places” (Temple vs. outside) may be crucial.

Key Terms:

• תֵּיקוּ (Teiku) = The question stands unresolved

Segment 6

TYPE: בעיא (Query)

Rabbi Yannai’s question about altar limbs

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מִילְּתָא דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְרַבָּה בְּחַד גִּיסָא, וּלְרַב יוֹסֵף בְּחַד גִּיסָא – מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יַנַּאי. דְּבָעֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: אֵבְרֵי עוֹלַת בָּמַת יָחִיד, שֶׁעָלוּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְיָרְדוּ – מַהוּ?

English Translation:

The Gemara notes that a matter that is obvious to Rabba on one side, i.e., that these offerings shall not ascend the altar again, and to Rav Yosef on the other side, i.e., that they may ascend, is raised as a dilemma by Rabbi Yannai. As Rabbi Yannai raised a dilemma: Regarding the limbs of a burnt offering of a private altar that ascended the communal altar and descended, what is the halakha?

Claude Al HaDaf:

Rabbi Yannai’s question involves a hybrid scenario: limbs from a private altar offering that ended up on the public altar. This combines elements of both positions in a unique way, showing how the underlying principles can lead to uncertainty even for those certain about simpler cases.

Segment 7

TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים (Amoraic Dispute)

Introduction to the night slaughter dispute

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אִיתְּמַר: שְׁחִיטַת לַיְלָה בְּבָמַת יָחִיד – רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל; חַד אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה, וְחַד אָמַר: פְּסוּלָה. וְקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר;

English Translation:

Additionally, with regard to a private altar it was stated: With regard to the slaughter of offerings at night on a private altar, Rav and Shmuel disagree: One says that it is valid, and one says that it is invalid. And they disagree concerning the statement of Rabbi Elazar.

Claude Al HaDaf:

A new topic begins: night slaughter on a private altar. In the Temple, slaughter must be by day. But private altars have different rules. Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether this Temple restriction applies to private altars as well.

Segment 8

TYPE: ראיה (Proof)

Rabbi Elazar’s contradiction between verses

Hebrew/Aramaic:

דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר רָמֵי קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי – כְּתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר בְּגַדְתֶּם גֹּלּוּ אֵלַי הַיּוֹם אֶבֶן גְּדוֹלָה״,

English Translation:

As Rabbi Elazar raised a contradiction between two verses: It is written in the context of Saul’s war with the Philistines: “And the people flew upon the spoil and took sheep and cattle and slew them on the ground, and the people ate with the blood. And it was told to Saul saying: Behold, the people sin against God, eating with the blood. And he said: You have dealt treacherously; roll a great stone to me this day” (I Samuel 14:32-33).

Claude Al HaDaf:

Rabbi Elazar brings a narrative proof from the time of Saul. The story describes people slaughtering and eating meat. The question is: were they sinning by eating blood, or by slaughtering at night? This historical incident becomes the basis for understanding what was permitted on private altars.

Segment 9

TYPE: ראיה (Continuation of Proof)

The second verse

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל פֻּצוּ בָעָם וַאֲמַרְתֶּם לָהֶם הַגִּישׁוּ אֵלַי אִישׁ שׁוֹרוֹ וְאִישׁ שְׂיֵהוּ, וּשְׁחַטְתֶּם בָּזֶה וַאֲכַלְתֶּם, וְלֹא תֶחֶטְאוּ לַה׳ לֶאֱכוֹל עַל הַדָּם. וַיַּגִּשׁוּ כׇל הָעָם אִישׁ שׁוֹרוֹ בְיָדוֹ הַלַּיְלָה, וַיִּשְׁחֲטוּ שָׁם״.

English Translation:

And immediately thereafter it is written: “And Saul said: Disperse yourselves among the people and say to them: Bring me here every man his ox and every man his sheep, and slay them here and eat, and do not sin against God to eat with the blood. And all the people brought every man his ox with him that night and slew them there” (I Samuel 14:34).

Claude Al HaDaf:

The second verse shows that the slaughter took place “that night.” If night slaughter were prohibited, how could Saul command it? This suggests night slaughter was permitted - at least for certain types of offerings or circumstances.

Segment 10

TYPE: תירוץ (Resolution)

Two resolutions to the contradiction

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מָר מְשַׁנֵּי: כָּאן בְּחוּלִּין, כָּאן בְּקָדָשִׁים. וּמַר מְשַׁנֵּי: כָּאן בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, כָּאן בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בָּמָה קְטַנָּה.

English Translation:

Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the resolution of this contradiction: One Sage answers that here, i.e., when the slaughter took place at night, it was of non-sacred animals, and here, i.e., when they sinned, it was of sacred animals. And one Sage answers that here it was of sacred offerings of a great public altar, and here it was of sacred offerings of a small private altar.

Claude Al HaDaf:

Two different ways to reconcile the verses: (1) The night slaughter was ordinary meat (chullin), while the sin involved sacrificial animals; (2) Both involved sacrifices, but the sin was about public altar offerings while the night slaughter was permitted for private altar offerings. The second resolution directly supports the view that night slaughter is valid on private altars.

Segment 11

TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים (Amoraic Dispute)

Flaying and cutting on private altars

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אִיתְּמַר: עוֹלַת בָּמַת יָחִיד – רַב אָמַר: אֵין טְעוּנָה הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: טְעוּנָה הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ. וְקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בִּדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי – דְּתַנְיָא,

English Translation:

It was stated that with regard to the burnt offering of a private altar, Rav says: It does not require flaying and cutting into pieces, which the Torah requires of a burnt offering (see Leviticus 1:6). And Rabbi Yochanan says: It requires flaying and cutting into pieces. And they disagree concerning the interpretation of the baraita of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Claude Al HaDaf:

Another dispute about private altar procedures. The Torah explicitly requires flaying (removing the skin) and cutting a burnt offering into pieces. The question is whether this applies only to the central altar or also to private altars. This reflects a broader question about how many Temple procedures carry over to private worship.

Key Terms:

• הֶפְשֵׁט (Flaying) = Removing the hide of the animal
• נִיתּוּחַ (Cutting) = Dividing the animal into prescribed pieces

Segment 12

TYPE: תירוץ (Explanation)

The basis of the dispute

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מָר סָבַר: מֵאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְאֵילָךְ – לָא שְׁנָא בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְלָא שְׁנָא בָּמָה קְטַנָּה. וּמָר סָבַר: בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה אִין, בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה לָא.

English Translation:

One Sage, Rabbi Yochanan, holds that from the Tent of Meeting and onward there is a requirement of flaying and cutting into pieces, and there is no difference whether the offering is on a great public altar or a small private altar. And one Sage, Rav, holds that on a great public altar yes, but on a small private altar no.

Claude Al HaDaf:

The dispute hinges on interpreting the scope of the Torah’s requirement. Rabbi Yochanan reads the law as universal once the Tent of Meeting was established - it applies everywhere. Rav limits the requirement to the public altar only, viewing private altars as having a more simplified set of procedures.

Segment 13

TYPE: ברייתא (Baraita)

Support for Rabbi Yochanan

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּבָרִים שֶׁבֵּין בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה לְבָמָה קְטַנָּה – קֶרֶן וְכֶבֶשׁ וִיסוֹד וְרִיבּוּעַ בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְאֵין קֶרֶן וִיסוֹד וְכֶבֶשׁ וְרִיבּוּעַ בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה.

English Translation:

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan: What are the matters that are different between a great public altar and a small private altar? The corner, ramp, base, and square shape are required at a great public altar, but there is no corner, base, ramp, or square shape required at a small private altar.

Claude Al HaDaf:

This baraita lists the physical differences between public and private altars. The public altar has specific architectural requirements (corners, ramp, base, square shape) that private altars lack. Importantly, the baraita then lists what is the same - implying that procedures like flaying and cutting apply to both.

Key Terms:

• קֶרֶן (Corner) = The horn-like projections at the altar’s corners
• כֶבֶשׁ (Ramp) = The incline used to walk up to the altar
• יְסוֹד (Base) = The foundation of the altar

Segment 14

TYPE: ברייתא (Continuation)

What is the same between altars

Hebrew/Aramaic:

דְּבָרִים שֶׁשָּׁוְותָה בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה לְבָמָה קְטַנָּה: שְׁחִיטָה בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה, הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ בִּגְדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה, דָּם מַתִּיר וּמְפַגֵּל בִּגְדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה, מוּמִין פּוֹסֵל בִּגְדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה.

English Translation:

And there are other matters in which a great public altar is identical to a small private altar: Slaughter is required at both a great public altar and a small one, flaying and cutting into pieces is required at both a great one and a small one, blood permits and renders piggul at both a great one and a small one, and blemishes disqualify at both a great one and a small one.

Claude Al HaDaf:

This baraita explicitly states that flaying and cutting apply to both altar types, supporting Rabbi Yochanan. It also establishes other common requirements: proper slaughter, the blood application process, and that blemished animals are invalid on both.

Segment 15

TYPE: משנה (Mishna Continuation)

Notar, time, and impurity

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲבָל נוֹתָר וְהַזְּמַן וְהַטָּמֵא – שָׁוִין בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה.

English Translation:

Following the detailing of the differences between a communal altar and a private altar, the mishna teaches: But the halakha that portions of the offering left over (notar) are prohibited, and the halakha that time disqualifies (piggul), and the halakha of ritual impurity - are identical at both a great public altar and a small private altar.

Claude Al HaDaf:

The mishna concludes with three more identical requirements: notar (leftover portions must be burned), time limits (eating within the proper timeframe), and purity laws. These fundamental sanctity principles apply universally regardless of altar type.

Segment 16

TYPE: ברייתא (Baraita)

Deriving time disqualification for private altars

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן לַעֲשׂוֹת זְמַן בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה כְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה? אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: לָן יִשָּׂרֵף, וּפִיגּוּל יִשָּׂרֵף; מָה פִּיגּוּל – פָּסוּל בְּבָמָה, אַף לָן – פָּסוּל בְּבָמָה.

English Translation:

With regard to this the Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that time, i.e., the halakha that an offering left over beyond its designated time is disqualified, applies to a small private altar as it does to a great public altar? The Torah stated that an offering left overnight must be burned, and it also stated that piggul must be burned. Just as piggul disqualifies on a private altar, so too an offering left overnight disqualifies on a private altar.

Claude Al HaDaf:

The Gemara provides the scriptural basis for applying time limits to private altars. The Torah treats overnight leftovers (notar) and piggul similarly - both must be burned. Since piggul applies to private altars, so must the time requirements.

Segment 17

TYPE: קא סלקא דעתך (Alternative Logic)

Potential counter-argument

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ – דְּהָא אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: לָן יִשָּׂרֵף, וְיוֹצֵא יִשָּׂרֵף; מָה יוֹצֵא – כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה, אַף לָן – כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה. וְלָאו קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא מֵעוֹפוֹת:

English Translation:

Or go this way, and say that because the Torah stated: An offering that was left overnight must be burned, and likewise, the Torah stated that an offering that leaves the Temple precinct must be burned. Just as leaving the precinct is valid at a private altar, so too an offering left overnight is valid at a private altar. And is this not refuted through an a fortiori inference from bird offerings?

Claude Al HaDaf:

The Gemara presents an alternative argument that could lead to leniency - comparing “overnight” to “leaving the precinct” (which is permitted at private altars). But this is refuted through a kal vachomer from bird offerings, which leads into the next amud.

Amud Bet (120b)

Segment 1

TYPE: קל וחומר (A Fortiori Argument)

Bird offerings prove time disqualifies

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מָה עוֹפוֹת, שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן – זְמַן פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן; קׇדְשֵׁי בָּמָה קְטַנָּה, שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁזְּמַן פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן?!

English Translation:

If bird offerings, whose halakhot are more lenient in that a blemish does not disqualify them, are nevertheless disqualified by time, then with regard to sacrificial animals of a small private altar, where a blemish does disqualify them - is it not right that time should also disqualify them?!

Claude Al HaDaf:

A powerful kal vachomer argument: Bird offerings have lenient rules (blemishes don’t disqualify them), yet they still have time limits. Private altar offerings are stricter (blemishes do disqualify them), so certainly time limits must apply. This refutes the alternative lenient argument.

Key Terms:

• קַל וָחוֹמֶר (A fortiori) = If X applies to the lenient case, it certainly applies to the strict case

Segment 2

TYPE: פירכא (Refutation Attempt)

Challenging the kal vachomer

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מָה לְעוֹפוֹת – שֶׁכֵּן אֵין הַזָּר כָּשֵׁר בָּהֶן; תֹּאמַר בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה, שֶׁהַזָּר כָּשֵׁר בָּהּ – לֹא יְהֵא זְמַן פָּסוּל בָּהּ?! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים״ – לַעֲשׂוֹת זְמַן בְּקָטָנָה כִּגְדוֹלָה.

English Translation:

The Gemara questions the inference: What is notable about bird offerings? They are notable in that a non-priest is not fit to sacrifice them. Shall you say the same with regard to a small private altar, where a non-priest is fit to sacrifice - perhaps time should not disqualify? The verse states: “And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:11) - teaching that time disqualifies on a small altar just as on a great one.

Claude Al HaDaf:

The Gemara attempts to break the kal vachomer: bird offerings require kohanim, but private altars allow non-kohanim to serve. Perhaps this difference means time limits don’t apply! But the verse “this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings” establishes a universal principle that time disqualifies everywhere.

Segment 3 (Hadran - Conclusion of Tractate)

TYPE: הדרן (Hadran)

Conclusion of Tractate Zevachim

Hebrew/Aramaic:

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ פָּרַת חַטָּאת, וּסְלִיקָא לַהּ מַסֶּכֶת זְבָחִים

English Translation:

We return to you, “The Red Heifer,” and [with this] Tractate Zevachim is concluded.

Claude Al HaDaf:

With this segment, we complete Tractate Zevachim. The hadran formula expresses the hope that we will return to study this material again. Zevachim has covered the entire range of Temple sacrifice laws - from the basic procedures to the philosophical underpinnings of the sacrificial system.

Summary

Overview

Daf 120 concludes Tractate Zevachim with discussions about the relationship between public and private altars. The Gemara explores whether sanctity absorbed by an offering can be undone, debates about night slaughter and flaying requirements on private altars, and establishes which Temple laws apply universally versus only to the central altar.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• Sanctity and location: Debate whether an offering brought into the Temple and then removed retains its absorbed sanctity or reverts to its prior status - concludes with teiku (unresolved)
• Connection to Rabba vs. Rav Yosef dispute: About whether invalid offerings that descended from the altar can re-ascend
• Night slaughter dispute: Rav and Shmuel disagree whether night slaughter is valid on private altars, based on interpreting the narrative of Saul’s army
• Flaying and cutting dispute: Rav says not required on private altars; Rabbi Yochanan says required

Amud Bet Highlights

• Kal vachomer from birds: Since bird offerings (lenient re: blemishes) are disqualified by time, certainly private altar offerings (strict re: blemishes) are too
• Verse establishes universal principle: “This is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings” proves time limits apply to all altars
• Tractate conclusion: Hadran marking the completion of Zevachim

Key Disputes

Conclusions

• The question about sanctity absorbed and then “undone” remains teiku
• A baraita supports Rabbi Yochanan that flaying and cutting apply to private altars
• Time disqualification (piggul/notar) applies universally to all altars per explicit verse

Key Figures

Tannaim: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, Rabbi Elazar Amoraim: Rabba, Rav Yosef, Rav, Shmuel, Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Yannai

One-Line Takeaway

While private altars have fewer physical requirements than the Temple altar, the core sanctity laws - time limits, purity, and certain procedures - apply universally.

ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture

This is the last page of Tractate Zevachim! We’re finishing up by talking about “private altars” - special places where people used to bring offerings before there was a permanent Temple. The big question: which Temple rules apply to these home altars?

Can You “Undo” Holiness?

Think of it like… You have a special toy that becomes “super special” when you bring it into your bedroom (your special place). If you then take it back to the living room, is it still “super special” or does it go back to being regular?

The rabbis couldn’t decide! Some said once something becomes holy by being in the Temple area, it stays holy. Others said if you take it out, it goes back to normal.

The Simple Idea: Some things that happen to us leave permanent marks; other things can be “undone.” The rabbis weren’t sure which category holiness falls into.

Is Nighttime OK?

Think of it like… In school, there are rules like “lunch is at noon.” But what about when you’re homeschooled? Do you still have to eat lunch exactly at noon?

Rav and Shmuel argued about whether you had to sacrifice during the day (like at the Temple) or if nighttime was OK on a private altar.

They looked at a story about King Saul’s soldiers who were so hungry after a battle that they started eating meat at night. Was this OK or not? One rabbi said they were eating regular food (not sacrifices), so night was fine. Another said they were doing sacrifices, but on private altars where night is OK.

The Simple Idea: When you’re at home vs. at school, some rules might be different!

Do You Have to Take Off the Skin?

At the Temple, when you brought an animal offering, you had to:

1. Remove the skin (called “flaying”)
2. Cut it into specific pieces

But on a private altar - do you have to do this too?

Think of it like… At a fancy restaurant, the chef has to plate food in a specific beautiful way. At home, you can just put food on a plate however you want. OR - maybe good cooking practices apply everywhere?

Rav said: At home (private altar), keep it simple. No need for fancy cutting. Rabbi Yochanan said: These rules apply everywhere!

The rabbis found an old teaching that listed what’s different between the Temple and private altars (like shape and size), and what’s THE SAME (like the cutting rules). This supported Rabbi Yochanan!

The Simple Idea: Some things are about the fancy building, but other things are about respecting the offering itself - and those apply everywhere.

Time Limits Apply Everywhere!

One rule at the Temple: you have to eat your offering within a certain time. If you leave it too long, it becomes “notar” (leftovers) and you can’t eat it.

Does this apply to private altars too?

The rabbis prove it does using a clever argument:

• Bird offerings have EASY rules (even birds with small injuries can be offered)
• But even birds have time limits!
• Private altar offerings have STRICT rules (injuries DO disqualify them)
• So CERTAINLY private altars must have time limits too!

The Simple Idea: If the easy version has a rule, the strict version definitely has that rule too!

The Super Simple Summary

• Once something becomes holy, it might stay holy forever - the rabbis couldn’t decide
• Some Temple rules might not apply to home altars (like daytime-only)
• But other rules (like cutting the animal properly) probably do apply everywhere
• Time limits for eating offerings definitely apply everywhere - even at home altars
• MAZAL TOV! We finished the whole tractate of Zevachim!

Halacha

Topic 1: Time Disqualification (Piggul) on Private Altars

Source in Daf: 120a-120b, Segments 16-17 and 1-2

The Gemara establishes that time limits for consuming offerings apply to private altars just as they do to the Temple altar. This is derived through both textual comparison (linking notar to piggul) and a kal vachomer from bird offerings.

Rambam — Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 18:7

Hebrew:

אֵין חַיָּבִין כָּרֵת אֶלָּא עַל אֲכִילַת דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֻתְּרוּ בֵּין לְאָדָם בֵּין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אֲבָל אִם אָכַל מִן הַמַּתִּיר עַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת אֶלָּא לוֹקֶה כְּאוֹכֵל פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם פִּגּוּל.

English:

One is not liable for karet unless one partakes of entities that were permitted for consumption, either by a person or by the altar. If, however, one eats of the entity that permits [the sacrifice to be eaten] itself, one is not liable for karet. Instead, he is liable for lashes like one who partakes of disqualified sacrificial animals for which the transgression of karet is not involved.

Connection: This Rambam codifies the broader principle of piggul liability. While our daf discusses whether time limits apply to private altars, the Rambam here explains the mechanics of piggul - it only applies to things “permitted” by another act, establishing the foundational framework for understanding disqualification.

Topic 2: Blemishes in Bird Offerings

Source in Daf: 120b, Segment 1

The kal vachomer argument relies on the principle that blemishes do not disqualify bird offerings, unlike animal offerings.

Rambam — Hilkhot Issurei Mizbeach 3:1

Hebrew:

אֵין הַמּוּמִין פּוֹסְלִין בָּעוֹף וְכֵן אֶחָד הַזָּכָר וְאֶחָד הַנְּקֵבָה בָּעוֹף שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר “תָמִים זָכָר” אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה בִּלְבַד.

English:

Blemishes do not disqualify a fowl as a sacrifice. This applies both with regard to a male and to a female in the instance of a fowl, for the expression “a perfect male” was stated only with regard to an animal.

Connection: This Rambam directly states the principle used in our daf’s kal vachomer. Since birds have this leniency (blemishes don’t disqualify) yet still have time limits, the Gemara argues that private altar offerings (which ARE strict about blemishes) certainly have time limits.

Topic 3: Differences Between Public and Private Altars

Source in Daf: 120a, Segments 13-14

The baraita details the structural differences (corner, ramp, base, square shape) and procedural similarities (slaughter, flaying, cutting) between altar types.

Rambam — Hilkhot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 19:16

The Rambam in various places discusses the laws of bamot (private altars). While codifying primarily for the Temple era, he preserves these distinctions:

Key Ruling: When private altars were permitted (before the Temple was permanently established), they had fewer structural requirements but many of the same procedural requirements as the central altar.

Practical Note: These Temple-era laws are preserved in Rambam for study and for when the Temple is rebuilt. In the absence of the Temple today, sacrifice is prohibited, and private altars are certainly not permitted.

Summary of Rulings

Visuals

Infographics for this daf coming soon.

Tosafot

Note: The standard Vilna Shas edition does not contain Tosafot commentary on Zevachim 120. This is the final daf of the tractate, and the printed Tosafot commentary ends earlier in the masechet.

The absence of Tosafot on this daf is not unusual - several tractates have dafim near the end where the Tosafot commentary is not extant, either because the original manuscripts did not cover these pages or because they were not included in the standard printed editions.

For analysis of the sugyot on this daf, see the Breakdown tab which provides detailed explanation of the Gemara’s logic and arguments.