Zevachim 58a (נח.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Most Holy Offerings

which must be slaughtered only in the north of the Temple courtyard:

if they slaughtered them on top of the altar

1, Rabbi Yosei says:

their slaughter is valid

as though they had been slaughtered in the north 2.

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda says: From the midpoint of the altar and southward

it

is considered south,

and their slaughter there is invalid;

from the midpoint of the altar and northward

it

is considered north,

and their slaughter there is valid.

Gemara:

Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Yosei would say —

the entire altar stood in the north

of the courtyard.

And what is the meaning of

what Rabbi Yosei says in our Mishna, that on top of the altar it is

“as though”

they had been slaughtered in the north, even though according to his view they were slaughtered in the actual north? It teaches us this:

lest you say

that from the verse, “And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward,” we derive that

we require ‘on the side’

literally—that is, on the ground at the foot of the altar—

and it is not present

when one slaughters on top of the altar, and one might therefore have thought that slaughter there is invalid;

it teaches us

that the slaughter there is valid. [The fact that the verse states “on the side” serves to exclude the case where one suspended the animal in the air and slaughtered it, as explained above, 26a, based on Shita Mekubetzet, note 1.]

Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: If that is so,

since Rabbi Yoḥanan explained Rabbi Yosei’s statement in our Mishna as meaning that the entire altar is valid for slaughter because it all stood in the north, then

according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda,

who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei,

is it likewise

possible to explain his reasoning as follows: He holds that the altar stood with

half of it in the north

of the courtyard

and half of it in the south

of the courtyard, and that he disagrees with Rabbi Yosei about the location of the altar?!

And if you would say that this is indeed so,

that they disagreed about the location of the altar, and according to Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda the altar stood half in the north and half in the south,

but you are the one who said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda concedes that if they slaughtered them

the Most Holy Offerings

opposite it

the altar, even opposite the northern side of the altar,

on the ground,

they are invalid!

It necessarily follows that Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda holds that the entire altar stood on the southern side of the courtyard. Therefore, one who slaughters on the ground is liable to be invalid even in the portion north of the altar, since he slaughtered in the south of the courtyard. The fact that slaughter on top of the altar in its northern portion is valid is a scriptural decree, even though the altar stood in the south of the courtyard?!

He said to him: This is what Rabbi Yohanan means

in explaining the dispute between Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna:

Both expounded the same verse.

It is written:

“And you shall slaughter upon it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings.” Rabbi Yosei holds

that the altar

in its entirety

is valid

for

the slaughter of

a burnt offering,

which is a Most Holy Offering,

and in its entirety

is valid

for

the slaughter of

peace offerings,

which are Lesser Sanctity offerings.

And Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda holds

that the verse should be interpreted by

dividing it:

that

half

the northern portion of the altar is valid

for a burnt offering,

for which a law of the north is stated,

and half

the southern portion of the altar is valid

for peace offerings,

for which no law of the north is stated. And although Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda holds that the entire altar stood in the south, it is a scriptural decree that the northern part of the altar is valid for slaughtering Most Holy Offerings.

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda was compelled to interpret the verse in this manner because

if it enters your mind

that the intention of the verse is to say that

the entirety is valid for a burnt offering,

then it is difficult: why was it necessary for the verse to state that it is also valid for peace offerings?

Now, if the entirety is valid for a burnt offering, is it necessary to say that the entirety is valid for peace offerings? As is the law concerning the entire north of the courtyard, which is valid also for peace offerings. Since the verse specifies both a burnt offering and peace offerings, conclude from this that one must divide it: half—the northern half—is for a burnt offering, and half—the southern half—is for peace offerings!

But the other one,

Rabbi Yosei, who interprets the verse as meaning that the entire altar is valid for a burnt offering and the entire altar is valid for peace offerings, does not hold that the verse compels the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda, because in any event

it was necessary

to write peace offerings as well. For if the verse had mentioned only a burnt offering,

it might enter your mind to say

that only

a burnt offering is

what the Merciful One permitted to be slaughtered on top of the altar, because

its place is confined,

as the slaughter of burnt offerings is only in the north, and when there are many burnt offerings, the place for their slaughter is constricted. Therefore, the Merciful One made it valid to slaughter them even on top of the altar.

But with regard to peace offerings, whose place is not confined,

as their slaughter is valid throughout the courtyard,

I would say no:

the Merciful One did not extend the verse to make the top of the altar valid for their slaughter.

It teaches us

that peace offerings, too, are valid to be slaughtered on top of the altar.

The essential matter: Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda concedes that if they slaughtered them

the Most Holy Offerings

opposite it

the altar

on the ground, they are invalid,

because he holds that the entire altar stood in the south.

Rav Aha of Difti said to Ravina: What does “on the ground opposite it” mean,

which Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda deems invalid?

If you say

that he slaughtered in the northern half on

the one-cubit foundation

or

on

the northern half on

the one-cubit surrounding ledge,

then

this

place

itself is part of the altar,

and in such a case Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda certainly declares it valid.

Furthermore,

it is difficult to interpret it in this manner, for

what

is the meaning of the wording

“on the ground”

if it is referring to the foundation and the surrounding ledge?

And if you would say

that it is referring to a case where one

made tunnels in the ground

beneath the altar

and slaughtered in them,

and Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda invalidated it, this cannot be the interpretation. If so, the following difficulty arises:

and in such a case,

where he made tunnels beneath the altar,

is it considered an altar

that is valid?

But it was taught in a beraita: “You shall make an altar of earth for Me,”

and we expound:

the altar must be connected

the altar

to the earth,

so that one may not build it over tunnels or over arches?!

Rather,

it is necessary

that Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda invalidates the slaughter in a case where

they reduced the altar

by shortening its northern width and slaughtered there. Since the entire altar stood in the south of the courtyard, the slaughter was consequently invalid.

Rabbi Zeira said: Is it possible that this statement of Rabbi Yohanan is indeed found

that Rabbi Yosei holds that the entire altar stood in the north,

but we did not learn it in

all six orders of the

Mishna? He went out,

Rabbi Zeira,

examined and found

that we did learn it.

As we learned

in tractate Tamid: There was a wood chamber in the Temple, and

from there they selected beautiful fig wood to arrange

from it each morning

the second arrangement for the incense

on the outer altar. [The first arrangement, which was on the outer altar, was intended for burning the fats and limbs, while from the second arrangement, which was also there, coals were taken each day for burning the incense on the inner altar. We derive from the verse stated concerning the incense of Yom Kippur, “And he shall take a panful of fiery coals from upon the altar before the Lord,” that the second arrangement had to be located on the portion of the altar opposite the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, namely, “before the Lord.” This place was]

opposite the southwestern corner

of the altar,

set back from the corner toward the north by four cubits,

and the quantity of wood placed there was

measured

so that it would produce

five se’a of coals

on which to burn the incense in the Sanctuary.

And on Shabbat

they placed wood

measured to produce eight se’a of coals,

because

there

on the second arrangement

they would place

on Shabbat

the two bowls of frankincense from the showbread,

as the place for burning the frankincense in the bowls was on the second arrangement of the outer altar. Therefore, on Shabbat they needed three additional se’a of coals on which to burn the frankincense in the bowls. We now inquire concerning this Mishna:

And what is the significance of the sign?

What is the meaning of this sign that the Sages gave concerning the second arrangement—that its place was specifically “at the southwestern corner, set back four cubits toward the north”?