Zevachim 58b (נח:) — the Talmud in English

Rather, necessarily,

it is Rabbi Yosei! As it is taught:

Rabbi Yosei says: This is a sign for you: Anything taken from inside

the Sanctuary

to be placed outside

on the outer altar

is not placed

on the outer altar

except adjacent

as close as possible to the inner side, in a place

where there is no

other place on the outer altar that is closer

to the inside

than it.

And anything taken from outside

from atop the outer altar in order

to be placed inside

in the Sanctuary

is not taken

from the outer altar

except at the

place that is

adjacent

to the inside,

where there is no

place closer than it

to the

inner

side!

And we explain Rabbi Yosei's statement:

“Anything taken from inside to be placed outside”—what is this? If you say it is the remainder

of the blood of the inner sin-offerings, which is taken from inside in order to pour it onto the base of the outer altar, why did Rabbi Yosei need to give a sign indicating that it is placed on the western base, which is the closest to the inner side?

It is explicitly written concerning them:

“It shall be poured

onto the base of the altar of the burnt-offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,”

and from there we derive that the place for pouring the remainder is on the base opposite the entrance!?

Furthermore,

we challenge Rabbi Yosei's statement:

“Anything taken from outside to be placed inside”—what is this? If you say it is the coals of Yom Kippur

whose law is that they are taken from atop the outer altar in a coal pan for the purpose of burning the incense by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, within and inward,

it is explicitly written concerning them: “And he shall take a coal pan full of fiery coals from atop the altar, from before the Lord,” and

from the fact that it is written “from before the Lord,” we expound that this means adjacent to the inner side, that is, toward the Sanctuary; so why does Rabbi Yosei need to state a sign concerning them?

Rather,

Rabbi Yosei's statement that

“anything taken from inside to be placed outside”

is referring to the

two bowls of frankincense of the shewbread

that were taken on Shabbat from atop the Table standing inside, and whose law was that they be burned on the outer altar,

as we derive this from the remainder

of the blood of the inner sin-offerings, whose place on the outer altar is as close as possible, opposite the entrance.

And that which Rabbi Yosei said,

“anything taken from outside to be placed inside,”

is referring to

coals

of the incense

every day,

whose law is that they be burned on the inner altar,

as we derive it from the coals of Yom Kippur

which are taken from opposite the entrance.

And from here we resolve that, according to Rabbi Yosei, the entire altar stood in the north. And we explain:

And what does he hold,

Rabbi Yosei in the beraita in which he gave these signs?

If he holds that the entire altar stood in the south,

then

twenty-seven

cubits

would have to be measured

and drawn from the southwestern corner toward the north side of the altar, so that the pyre would be opposite the entrance. For the altar was thirty-two cubits long and stood entirely in the south, while the entrance of the Sanctuary was ten cubits wide and stood exactly in the middle of the courtyard: its northern five cubits were in the northern half of the courtyard, and its southern five cubits were in the southern half. Thus, if the entire altar stood in the south, extending to the midpoint of the courtyard, the southern half of the Sanctuary entrance, five cubits, would be aligned with the five cubits of the altar bordering the central line. Therefore, one would have to measure twenty-seven cubits [27 = 32 - 5] from the southwestern corner of the altar to reach those five cubits aligned with the entrance.

Alternatively,

we may explain Rabbi Yosei's statement as meaning that he

holds that the sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Hall is one

and that “before the Lord” includes the area opposite the entrance of the Hall, and not only the area opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary. The entrance of the Hall was twenty cubits wide, ten to the north and ten to the south. Nevertheless, it remains difficult, for in that case

twenty-two

cubits

would have to be measured

from the southwestern corner toward the north, since the entrance of the Hall was twenty cubits wide, ten to the north and ten to the south; and since the altar was thirty-two cubits long, one would have to measure twenty-two cubits [22 = 32 - 10] for the requirement of “before the Lord” to be fulfilled.

And if he holds

Rabbi Yosei

that half

of the altar was

in the north and half in the south,

it is still difficult, for in that case

eleven

cubits

would have to be measured,

since half the altar was sixteen cubits wide, and when one measured eleven cubits from the southwestern corner, one would be within the five cubits opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary.

And alternatively, if he holds that the sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Hall is one,

and the area opposite the entrance of the Hall is also called “before the Lord,” and the entrance of the Hall was ten cubits to the north and ten to the south, then

six

cubits

would have to be measured,

since the southern half of the altar was sixteen cubits, while the entrance of the Hall was ten cubits. Consequently, after six cubits were measured from the southwestern corner of the altar toward the north, the place would be aligned with the entrance of the Hall [6 = 10 - 16].

Rather, is it not

because Rabbi Yosei says that the place of the pyre was drawn only four cubits from the southwestern corner that, necessarily, this is

because he holds

Rabbi Yosei

that the entire altar stood in the north,

and therefore all five cubits at the southwestern corner were opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary. And the reason that the place of the pyre was only on the fifth cubit, and was not brought closer toward the south, is that the southern four cubits of the altar could not be used to arrange the pyre, as will be explained regarding what occupied those four cubits.

And these four cubits

were:

one cubit for the base, one cubit for the walkway, one cubit for the place of the horns, and one cubit for the place of the priests' feet,

which was designated for the priests' passage on the altar; the pyre could not be arranged in those areas. Rabbi Yosei therefore says that the pyre should be arranged immediately on the fifth cubit, because

when one proceeds farther

toward the north

there is no longer

even one cubit

that exists

opposite the

entrance

of the Sanctuary, and it is not called “before the Lord.” For when the entire altar stands in the north of the courtyard, only the five cubits at its southwestern corner stand opposite the northern five cubits of the Sanctuary entrance [and Rabbi Yosei holds that the sanctity of the Hall is not like the sanctity of the Sanctuary, and therefore it must be aligned specifically with the entrance of the Sanctuary].

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

It is possible to explain the statement of the Mishna in tractate Tamid even not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, who holds that the entire altar stood in the north. One can explain that

who is the author of this?

It is Rabbi Yehuda!

As it is taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: The altar

was centered and stood in the middle of the courtyard;

half of it was to the north and half to the south.

The ten central cubits

were

opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary, and eleven cubits on this side

to the north, not opposite the entrance,

and eleven cubits on this side

to the south, not opposite the entrance.

It follows that the altar was aligned with the Sanctuary and its walls,

for the Sanctuary was twenty cubits wide, and the walls of the Sanctuary were six cubits thick each, making thirty-two cubits altogether, equal to the width of the altar.

And we challenge Rav Adda bar Ahava's statement:

Ultimately,

there is still a difficulty

for Rabbi Yehuda,

just as we challenged Rabbi Yosei: If he holds that only the area opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary is called “before the Lord,” then

eleven

cubits from the southwestern corner

would have to be measured,

as we challenged earlier according to the possibility that Rabbi Yosei held that the altar was half in the north and half in the south.

And if he also holds that the sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Hall is one,

then

six

cubits

would have to be measured

from the corner of the altar toward its midpoint, so that the requirement of “before the Lord” would be fulfilled. If so, why did we learn in the Mishna there that they measured only four cubits toward the north?

And we answer:

Do you think that these four cubits

that we learned in our Mishna were measured from the southwestern corner of the altar

together with the cubit of the base and the cubit of the walkway

[that is, that those four cubits include both the cubit of the base and the cubit of the walkway]? Do not explain it this way. Rather, explain that one measures

four cubits in addition to the cubit of the base and the cubit of the walkway,

which together make six cubits from the beginning of the altar. And the tanna holds that the sanctity of the Hall and the Sanctuary is one entity, so that from the seventh cubit of the altar through the twenty-seventh cubit of the altar, the area is opposite the entrance of the Hall, which was twenty cubits wide, and is called “before the Lord.”

And we challenge this: If so, what was Rav Adda bar Ahava challenging Rabbi Zeira by saying that the Mishna is well explained according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the altar was centered in the middle of the courtyard? It would also be possible to establish the above Mishna from tractate Tamid in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, and to say that Rabbi Yosei likewise holds that the altar stood in the middle of the courtyard like Rabbi Yehuda. The difficulty against Rabbi Zeira would then again disappear. This is how we challenge him:

And let us establish it

as referring to the Mishna that says that the place of the second incense pyre was drawn four cubits toward the north

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, and

let us explain Rabbi Yosei's statement in the beraita, “anything taken from inside and so on,”

as referring to a centered altar,

since Rabbi Yosei too holds that the altar was half in the north and half in the south, sixteen cubits on each side. And we can resolve the difficulty according to Rabbi Yosei as we resolved it according to Rabbi Yehuda: Those four cubits are in addition to the cubit of the base and the cubit of the walkway. Therefore, it was necessary to measure six cubits, until reaching the area opposite the entrance of the Hall [16 = 10 + 6]. Although Rabbi Zeira's proof from here that Rabbi Yosei holds that the entire altar stood in the north is thereby refuted, it is nevertheless possible to establish our Mishna according to Rabbi Yosei as well.

And we answer: It is indeed so; it is possible to establish the Mishna according to Rabbi Yosei. And the reason Rav Adda bar Ahava established it according to Rabbi Yehuda is

because we hear explicitly from Rabbi Yehuda

that the place of the altar was

centered,

half in the north and half in the south,

explicitly.

Whereas Rabbi Yosei's statement in the beraita, “anything taken from outside and so on,” can be explained under any arrangement of the altar—according to each position, whether it stood in the south, in the north, or in the middle. We therefore have no necessity to establish the Mishna concerning the measurements, which says that the place of the pyre was drawn precisely four cubits, according to Rabbi Yosei.

And Rav Sharya said: Who is the author of this?

Our Mishna, which teaches that the place of the second pyre was drawn four cubits from the southeastern corner toward the north,

it is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

For he holds that the entire altar stood in the north, and the four cubits mentioned in our Mishna include the cubit of the base and the cubit of the walkway,

as it is taught: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Since it is stated, “And you shall place the laver between the Tent of Meeting and the altar,”

which implies literally between the altar and the Tent of Meeting,