Zevachim 58a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Most holy offerings

which are to be slaughtered only in the north of the Temple courtyard

if they slaughtered them on top of the altar

1 , Rabbi Yosei says:

their slaughtering is valid

as though they had been slaughtered in the north 2 .

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda says: From the middle of the altar and toward the south

it

is like the south,

and their slaughtering there is invalid;

from the middle of the altar and toward the north

it

is like the north

and their slaughtering there is valid.

Gemara:

Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Rabbi Yosei used to say —

the entire altar stood in the north

of the Temple courtyard.

And what is

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

“as though”

they had been slaughtered in the north, although according to his view they were slaughtered in the actual north? This teaches us:

lest you say

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

we require “on the side”

literally, namely, on the ground at the foot of the altar,

and it is absent

when he slaughters on top of the altar, and it might enter your mind that the slaughtering there should be invalid,

it teaches us

that the slaughtering there is valid [ and that which is written in the verse, “on the side,” comes to exclude a case in which he suspended the animal in the air and slaughtered it, as explained above, 26a — according to Shita Mekubetzet, letter alef].

Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: If so

that Rabbi Yohanan explained Rabbi Yosei’s words in the Mishna as meaning that the entire altar is valid for slaughtering because it stands entirely in the north, then

according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda,

who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei,

so too

shall we explain his reason as being that he holds that the altar was

half in the north

of the Temple courtyard

and half in the south

of the Temple courtyard, and that he disagreed with Rabbi Yosei concerning where the altar stood?!

And if you would say, so too,

that they disagreed concerning the location of the altar, and according to Rabbi Yosei son of 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 son of 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!

And necessarily Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda holds that the entire altar stood on the southern side of the courtyard. Therefore, one who slaughters on the ground, even in the part north of the altar, is invalid, since he slaughtered in the south of the courtyard. And that which he is valid when slaughtering on top of the altar in its northern part 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 disagreement between Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna:

Both expounded one verse.

It is written:

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

that the altar is

entirely

valid

for

the slaughtering of

a burnt-offering

which is a most holy offering

and entirely

valid

for

the slaughtering of

peace-offerings

which are lesser sanctity offerings.

And Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda holds

that the verse is to be interpreted by

dividing it:

that

half

of the altar, its northern half, is valid

for a burnt-offering,

for which a law of the north was stated,

and half

of the altar, its southern half, is valid

for peace-offerings,

for which no law of the north was stated. And although Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda holds that the entire altar stood in the south, it is a scriptural decree to make the north of the altar valid for slaughtering most holy offerings.

Rabbi Yosei son of 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 entire altar 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 entire altar is valid for a burnt-offering, is it necessary to say that the entire altar is valid for peace-offerings? This follows from the law of the entire north of the courtyard, which is also valid for peace-offerings. And from the fact that the verse specified a burnt-offering and peace-offerings, learn from it: divide it — its northern half for a burnt-offering and its southern half for peace-offerings!

And the other one,

Rabbi Yosei, who interpreted the verse as meaning that the entire altar is for a burnt-offering and the entire altar is for peace-offerings, does not hold that the verse compels the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, because necessarily

it was necessary

to write peace-offerings as well. For if only a burnt-offering had been written,

it might enter your mind to say

that only

a burnt-offering is what

the Merciful One made valid to slaughter on top of the altar, because

its place is cramped,

since the slaughtering of burnt-offerings is only in the north, and when the burnt-offerings are numerous, their slaughtering place is cramped. Therefore the Merciful One made it valid to slaughter them even on top of the altar.

But peace-offerings, for which the place is not cramped,

since their slaughtering is valid throughout the courtyard,

say that it is not so:

the Merciful One did not teach that the top of the altar is valid for slaughtering them .

It teaches us

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

The substance of the matter: Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Rabbi Yosei son of 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 is “opposite it on the ground”

which Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda invalidates?

If you say

that he slaughtered in its northern half on

the one-cubit יסוד

or

on

the northern half on

the one-cubit סובב,

then

this

place

itself is the altar,

and in this case Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda certainly makes it valid.

And furthermore,

it is difficult to interpret it in this manner, for

what

is the meaning of the expression

“on the ground”

if it is referring to the יסוד and the סובב?

And if you would say

that it is referring to a case in which

he made cavities in the ground

beneath the altar

and slaughtered in them,

and in this Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda invalidated it, this cannot be interpreted so, for if so, the following difficulty arises:

And in such a case,

in which he made cavities beneath the altar,

is it an altar

that is valid?

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

and we expound:

that the altar shall be connected

the altar

to the earth —

that he may not build it over cavities or over arches?!

Rather,

it is not necessary

that the case in which Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda invalidated is where

he reduced by reducing

the northern width of the altar and slaughtered there. Since the entire altar stood in the south of the courtyard, it was therefore invalidated.

Rabbi Zeira said: Is it possible that Rabbi Yohanan’s statement is present

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

and we did not learn it in

all six orders of

Mishna? Rabbi Zeira went out,

Rabbi Zeira

examined and found

that we did learn it.

For 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 every morning

the second arrangement for incense

on the outer altar [ The first arrangement, which was on top of the outer altar, was intended for burning fats and limbs upon it. From the second arrangement, which was there, they took coals every day for burning the incense on top of the inner altar. And we derive from the verse written concerning the burning of the incense on Yom Kippur, “And he shall take a censerful of fiery coals from upon the altar before the Lord,” that the place of the second arrangement should be in the part of the altar located opposite the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, namely, “before the Lord.” This place was

opposite the southwestern corner

of the altar,

drawn from the corner toward the north four cubits,

and the measure of the wood placed there was

estimated

so that there would be from it

five seahs of coals

in order to burn incense upon them in the Sanctuary.

And on Shabbat

they would place wood

estimated at eight seahs of coals

because

there

on top of the second arrangement

they would place

on Shabbat

the two bowls of frankincense of the showbread,

for the place of burning the bowls was on the second arrangement on the outer altar. Therefore, on Shabbat they needed three additional seahs of coals in order to burn upon them the frankincense in the bowls. And now we inquire concerning this Mishna:

And what is the sign?

What is the meaning of this sign that the Sages gave concerning the second arrangement, that its place must specifically be at the “southwestern corner, drawn four cubits toward the north”?