Zevachim 59a (נט.) — the Talmud in English

And it is written in another verse, “

in another verse: “

The

burnt-offering altar there, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,”

and it is explicit there that

the altar was at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and not the laver at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting!

This was so that there would be no interruption between the altar and the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. If so,

where did he place it,

the laver, so that the phrase “between the Tent of Meeting and the altar” would apply to it? He placed it

between the Entrance Hall and the altar, shifted slightly toward the south,

and it was considered as being between the Tent of Meeting and the altar.

And from here it is proven that he holds that the entire altar stood in the north. For:

What does

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

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

so that much of the altar was located on the southern side,

let us position it

the laver

from the Sanctuary wall toward the south,

opposite the portion of the altar that was not opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary, and the requirement that the laver be actually

between the Entrance Hall and the altar would be fulfilled. Alternatively, if he holds that the sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall is one and the same,

then, since we have learned that the laver may not be placed opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary, it may likewise not be placed opposite the entrance of the Entrance Hall, since that too is included in the exclusion that the laver may not be opposite “the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.”

Let us position it

the laver

from the Entrance Hall wall toward the south,

in the portion that was not opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall, and thereby the requirement that it be

between the Entrance Hall and the altar would be fulfilled.

Alternatively, if he holds that half

of the altar was

in the north and half in the south, let us position it

the laver

from the Sanctuary wall toward the south,

as eleven cubits of the altar’s sixteen cubits would still be on the southern side of the azara and would not be opposite the entrance. It would still be called

“between the Entrance Hall and the altar.” Alternatively, if he holds that the sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall is one and the same,

it would be impossible to place the laver in the ten cubits of the sixteen cubits on the southern side;

let us position it from the Entrance Hall wall toward the south

in the remaining six cubits, and it would be

between the Entrance Hall and the altar.

If so, it is difficult: Why did Rabbi Yosei HaGelili say that the laver stood shifted slightly from the entire width of the altar toward the south? The laver could have been placed directly between the altar and the Tent of Meeting without standing opposite the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

Rather, is it not

necessarily

because he holds

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

that the entire altar stood in the north,

and the southern side of the altar was opposite the entrance? Therefore, they did not place the laver directly opposite the altar.

And we raise an objection:

Let us position it

the laver

from the Sanctuary wall toward the north,

not opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary, but opposite the blocked section of the northern wall.

And we answer:

He holds that the sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall is one and the same,

and the prohibition against placing the laver between the altar and the entrance of the Sanctuary applies even opposite the entrance of the Entrance Hall.

And even if you establish it from the Sanctuary wall toward the north,

opposite the entrance of the Entrance Hall,

it would be between

the

Entrance Hall and the altar,

where one may not place anything that would interrupt between the altar and the entrance.

And we raise an objection:

Let us position it

the laver

from the Entrance Hall wall toward the north,

on the northern side of the altar, not opposite the entrance of the Entrance Hall, but opposite the blocked section of the wall of the Entrance Hall. In this way the requirement that it be

between the Entrance Hall and the altar would be fulfilled.

But from where do we know that the laver stood in the south? And we answer:

The verse states: “northward”—

the north must be free of all vessels,

and the laver is included among the vessels.

Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

and holds that the entire altar stood in the south?

It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: “northward”—

the north must be free of everything, even of the altar 13 .

Three cases were discussed with regard to an altar that was damaged:

A.

Offerings that were slaughtered while the altar was damaged.

B.

Offerings that were consecrated while the altar was damaged and slaughtered after the altar had already been repaired.

C.

Offerings that were consecrated while the altar was intact, after which the altar was damaged and repaired, and afterward they were slaughtered while the altar was intact.

Rav said: An altar that was damaged—

all offerings that were slaughtered there

in the azara while it was damaged

are invalid!

We had a verse

from which we had learned this law

and we forgot it.

When Rav Kahana ascended, he found Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi saying in the name of Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosei: From where is it derived that when an altar is damaged, all offerings slaughtered there are invalid? As it is stated: “And you shall slaughter upon it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings.”

The word “upon it” cannot be interpreted as referring literally to the altar:

And do you slaughter upon it?

For there is no mitzva to slaughter specifically on top of the altar.

Rather,

the fact that the verse wrote

“upon it”

teaches us that offerings are slaughtered in the azara at a time

when it is

the altar

intact, and not when it is lacking.

Rav Kahana said

Rav Kahana:

This is the verse

this passage

that had escaped Rav!

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

[To disagree with and add to Rav’s words—not only are offerings slaughtered while the altar was damaged invalid, but]

both this one

that was slaughtered while the altar was damaged

and that one

that was slaughtered after the damage was repaired, but had been consecrated while the altar was damaged,

are invalid.

With regard to what do

Rav and Rabbi Yohanan

disagree? Rav holds that living animals are not subject to rejection,

and therefore he invalidates only offerings slaughtered while the altar was damaged.

And Rabbi Yohanan holds that living animals are subject to rejection,

and once there was a time when the altar was unfit for slaughtering offerings, the offerings were rejected and are no longer fit to be sacrificed.

Meytivi

to challenge Rav: It is taught in a beraita:

All offerings that were

consecrated

before the altar was built,

as the exiles had not yet built it,

and afterward the altar was built, are invalid,

because they were rejected from being sacrificed.

We initially came to explain the beraita, for it seemingly poses a difficulty to the one who holds that an initial rejection is not considered rejection: Why does it teach that the offerings were rejected when it was

built

after they had been consecrated?

Were they not initially rejected?

And we answer:

Rather,

there is no difficulty from here for the one who holds that an initial rejection is not considered rejection. Let us establish that the beraita is discussing offerings consecrated

before the altar was destroyed,

in the days of Nebuchadnezzar,

and afterward the altar was destroyed

before the slaughter, which is not an initial rejection, since at the time of their consecration they were fit to be sacrificed on the altar. Therefore,

they are invalid.

And we raise an objection: How can we say that the beraita is discussing a case in which the altar was

destroyed?

It is obvious that the offerings are invalid, not because of rejection, but because

they have become aged,

as an aged animal is invalid like a blemished animal. An animal consecrated during the First Temple period that waited seventy years to be slaughtered, until the building of the Second Temple, is aged.

Rather,

the beraita must be explained as discussing offerings consecrated

before the altar was damaged, then it was damaged, and afterward the altar was repaired,

and the offerings were slaughtered while the altar was intact. Yet it teaches that they are

invalid,

because they had once been rejected from being sacrificed. This is difficult for Rav, who deems them valid in such a case!?

And we answer:

But you are merely offering a resolution,

and yet we are not interpreting the beraita according to its plain meaning; rather, we are adding to its wording. If so,

teach also

in the beraita

“that were slaughtered”

at a time when the altar was defective, and there is no tiyufta against Rav from here.

And we raise an objection: According to Rav, who invalidates sacred offerings slaughtered in the Temple courtyard at a time when the altar is defective,

did Rav Giddel not say in the name of Rav

With regard to the altar

the inner altar,

that was removed,

they burn the incense

on the Temple floor

in its place ?

For the floor was also consecrated in that place, and its status is like that of the altar. One might have thought that the same applies to the outer altar: The place of the altar on the floor is like the altar itself. This presents a difficulty from Rav to Rav: Why did Rav invalidate sacred offerings slaughtered when the outer altar was defective? The place of the altar on the floor of the courtyard still exists, and its status should be like that of the altar! [Based on the explanation of the Taharat HaKodesh].

And we answer:

As Rava said

with regard to Rabbi Yehuda’s innovation, that he holds that the entire floor of the courtyard was consecrated like the altar with regard to burning the fats, Rava holds that even so,

Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to the blood

which requires sprinkling on the altar, for it is impossible to perform sprinkling on the floor, since the floor is not truly like the altar; it was consecrated only for burning.

Here too,

Rav concedes with regard to the blood 24 ,

and that is why sacred offerings slaughtered when the altar was damaged are invalid: Even when there is a floor, it is still considered that there is no altar here.

What is the source of Rabbi Yehuda’s

view that the floor was consecrated for burning?

As it was taught:

It is written in the verse:

“On that day the king consecrated the inside of the courtyard, etc., for the copper altar that was before the Lord was too small to contain”

and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the verse should be interpreted

according to its wording

meaning that Solomon consecrated the entire floor with the sanctity of an altar, so that offerings could be burned upon it. This was because the burnt offerings and peace offerings brought for the dedication of the altar had become so numerous that the altar was too small to contain the offerings of that day. This is

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.