Sacrifices Page S, altar damaged

Talmud page S. Page A reads:

“Said Rabbi Elazar: the altar has been corrupted – not eating for which songs Advisor.”

Went simple is not possible to make sacrifices when the altar is damaged. This went point clear: is the sacrificial altar, corrupted there is no sacrifice of the victims. Renewal of R. Eleazar is, no eating of Holies, which does not need an altar, the altar is not possible when damaged.

The main question under discussion in the Gemara is what the scope of this Halacha. He said he specifically mentions only the moderator, but plainly Gemara assumes all concerned about my holy of holies. Abbey believes that the minor holy altar are eaten when damaged, however, see Jeremiah strongly condemns this statement (“wear and tear Ttipsi”), his opinion should be distinguished from holy shrines holy light.

The Talmud is the basis of comments of Dana R. Lazarus. As stated above, both realistic altar of sacrifice is necessary, but not for eating. Why, then, believes Rabbi Elazar not eat when the altar is damaged? The simple answer to this question is, in the opinion of R. Eleazar is a link between eating and order of sacrifice. This answer is to formulate two ways:

Through Sunday – Gemara Yevamot (C.) states that eating meat and sacrifice by the priests excused the owner. In other words, eating is an integral part of the Order of the atonement sacrifice. Demand management in eating altar expresses the obvious connection between her eating and the Order of atonement preceded it, throwing blood on the altar.

Through B – different issues that we Shas priests “received from higher Ka.” This statement may be interpreted in different ways, one of which binds him to our cause. Viz – The purpose of the victim is to be a battle on the altar, or in other words be eaten by altar. Rather, the Torah renews that not all meat consumed on the altar, and some of it is transferred from the altar to the priests, the winners from the high. So, eating and eating altar priests fulfilling his destiny with the victim, and to maintain the connection between them, it is necessary to perfect at the altar eating.

You can also offer a third way, though the issue is another question. We mentioned above the discussion on the question of the scope of Gemara Vsugein Dino R. Lazarus. During the hearing, quoting Talmud teaches older baraita eaten only when the altar is not damaged. Baraita compares the reactor and the second ten, and among the first ten concluded that it is not eaten as two corrupted altar. Thus, for example, wrote the column (Yoreh Deah, a sign to “);

“Ten two … you can not eat because there is no altar, Daitaks chose an animal.”

Maimonides seems, did not receive the means of the column, and so brought the words of Rabbi Elazar only in relation to sacred, and not about tithing two (so it seems also stopped table is set, then the “Article Kel”ab). But if we go his way of the column, we can offer another interpretation Vsogyitino.

Many stood on the central altar of the temple structure. Altar is a point of connection between the physical material world, and the sacred world. Altar animal can receive – for which she represents the physical animal – and make it a sacred sacrifice. Well, in the absence of the altar there is a violation at the connection point between the top and bottom.

As mentioned above, according to this basis can explain the renewal of the column: words of Rabbi Elazar touch not only victims, but for anything edible that has a sacred one level or another. Eating in holiness – that connects top and bottom – needed for the existence of the altar of management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rabbi Avihud Schwartz