Zevachim 59a — the Talmud in English

And it is written in another verse, "

in another verse" "

the ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

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

and it is explicit in it that

the altar is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and not the basin at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting!

So that there should not be an interruption between the altar and the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and if so,

where was he placing it

the basin, so that the statement “between the Tent of Meeting and the altar” would be fulfilled in it? He was placing it

between the Ulam and the altar, withdrawn slightly toward the south,

and it was thus like “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 Yose the Galilean

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

with much of the altar located on the southern side,

let us position it

the basin

from the wall of the Sanctuary and toward the south,

opposite the altar, in the part that is not opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary, and the law that the basin should be actually

between the Ulam and the altar would be fulfilled; alternatively, if he holds that the sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Ulam is one,

and if so, since we have learned that the basin is not placed opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary, it is likewise not placed opposite its entrance of the Ulam, since it too is included in the exclusion that the basin should not be opposite the “entrance of the Tent of Meeting,”

let us position it

the basin

from the wall of the Ulam and toward the south,

in the part that is not opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary and the Ulam, and in this it would be

like between the Ulam and the altar.

Alternatively, if he holds that half

of the altar

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

the basin

from the wall of the Sanctuary and toward the south,

since eleven cubits out of the altar’s sixteen cubits would still be on the southern side of the courtyard, not opposite the entrance. And it would still be called

“between the Ulam and the altar”; alternatively, if he holds that the sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Ulam is one,

and if so, it is impossible to place the basin in the ten cubits out of the sixteen cubits on the southern side,

let us position it from the wall of the Ulam and toward the south

in the remaining six cubits, and it would be

like between the Ulam and the altar. And if so, it is difficult: Why did Rabbi Yose the Galilean say that the basin stood withdrawn slightly from the entire width of the altar toward the south? For it could be found that we would place the basin actually between the altar and the Tent of Meeting, and it would not stand opposite the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

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 Yose the Galilean

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 basin directly opposite the altar.

And we raise an objection:

Let us position it

the basin

from the wall of the Sanctuary and toward the north,

not opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary, but opposite the sealed part of the northern wall.

And we answer:

He holds that the sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Ulam is one,

and the prohibition against placing the basin between the altar and the entrance of the Sanctuary applies even opposite the entrance of the Ulam.

And even when you establish it from the wall of the Sanctuary and toward the north,

opposite the entrance of the Ulam,

it is for him between

the

Ulam and the altar,

for one may not place anything there that interrupts between the altar and the entrance.

And we raise an objection:

Let us position it

the basin

from the wall of the Ulam and toward the north,

on the northern side of the altar, not opposite the entrance of the Ulam, but opposite the sealed part of the wall of the Ulam, and through this the law that it is

like between the Ulam and the altar would be fulfilled.

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

The verse says, “northward”—

that the north should be free of vessels,

and the basin is included among the vessels.

Who is the tanna who disputes Rabbi Yose the Galilean

and holds that the entire altar stood in the south?

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

that the north should be free of anything, even of the altar 13 .

Three cases were discussed concerning an altar that became damaged:

a.

Sacrifices that were slaughtered while the altar was damaged.

b.

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

c.

Sacrifices that were consecrated while the altar was intact, and the altar became damaged, and they repaired it, and afterward slaughtered them while the altar was intact.

Rav said: An altar that became damaged —

all the sacrifices that were slaughtered there

in the courtyard while it was damaged

are invalid!

We had a verse

from which we had learned this law

and we forgot it.

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

And one cannot interpret “upon it” as referring literally to the altar:

Do you slaughter upon it?

For there is no mitzva to slaughter specifically upon the altar.

Rather,

the fact that the verse wrote

“upon it”

teaches us that one slaughters sacrifices in the courtyard at the time

when it is

the altar

intact, and not when it is deficient.

He said

Rav Kahana:

This is the verse

that verse

which had slipped Rav’s mind!

And Rabbi Yohanan said: [to dispute and add to Rav’s words, for it is not only sacrifices slaughtered while the altar was damaged, but]

[to disagree with and add to Rav’s statement: It is not only offerings slaughtered while the Altar was damaged, but]

both this one

that was slaughtered at the time of the altar’s damage

and this one

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

are invalid.

In what do

Rav and Rabbi Yohanan

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

and therefore he invalidated only those slaughtered while the altar was damaged.

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

and since there was a time when the altar was not fit for the slaughter of sacrifices, the sacrifices were rejected and are no longer fit to be offered.

A challenge is raised

to Rav: It was taught in a beraita:

All the sacrifices that were

consecrated

before the altar was built,

for the returned exiles had not yet built it,

and afterward the altar was built, are invalid,

because they were rejected from being offered.

And earlier we came to explain the beraita, for apparently it is difficult from here to one who holds that something rejected from the outset is not considered rejection: Why does it teach that the sacrifices are rejected when it was

built

after they had been consecrated? For

they are rejected from the outset, are they not?

And we answer:

Rather,

this should not be difficult from here to one who holds that rejection from the outset is not considered rejection. Let us establish the beraita as dealing with a case where they consecrated them

before the altar was destroyed,

in the days of Nebuchadnezzar,

and afterward the altar was destroyed,

before the slaughter, so that it was not rejection from the outset, since at the time of their consecration they were fit to be offered upon the altar; and therefore they

are invalid.

And we raise an objection: How can we say that it deals with a case where it was

destroyed?

It is obvious that they are invalid, not on account of rejection, but because

they have aged,

for old age is an invalidating defect like a blemish, and an animal that was consecrated in the days of the First Temple and waited seventy years until it was slaughtered, until the building of the Second Temple, is old .

Rather,

the beraita must be explained as dealing with a case where they consecrated them

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

and the sacrifices were slaughtered when the altar was intact; and it teaches that they

are invalid,

because they were once rejected from being offered. And this is difficult for Rav, who deems valid a case of this kind!?

And we answer:

“But you are indeed answering [by way of a forced emendation],”

for are we not interpreting the beraita not according to its plain meaning, but adding to its wording? And if so,

teach also

in the beraita

“that were slaughtered”

at a time when the altar was defective; and there is no refutation of Rav from here.

And we raise an objection: According to Rav, who invalidates sacrificial offerings that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard when the altar was defective,

but did Rav Giddel say in the name of Rav

the

inner

altar

that was removed, they burn incense

on the Temple floor

in its place ?

For the floor was also sanctified in that place, and its law is like that of an altar. And it might enter your mind that the same is true of the outer altar: the place of the altar on the floor is like an altar. This is difficult from one statement of Rav to another statement of Rav: why did he invalidate sacrificial offerings that were slaughtered when the outer altar was damaged? After all, the place of the altar on the floor of the courtyard still exists, and its law is like that of an altar!? [Based on the explanation of the Taharot HaKodesh].

And we answer:

as Rava said

with regard to Rabbi Judah’s innovation, that he holds that the entire floor of the courtyard was sanctified like an altar with regard to burning the fats, and Rava held that even so,

Rabbi Judah agrees concerning the blood

which requires sprinkling upon the altar, for it is impossible to fulfill sprinkling upon the floor, because the floor is not actually like an altar, and it was sanctified only for burning;

here too

Rav agrees concerning the blood 24 ,

and for this reason the sacrificial offerings that were slaughtered when the altar became defective are invalid, for even when there is a floor, it is still considered that there is no altar here.

What is [the source of] Rabbi Judah

who holds that the floor was sanctified for burning?

For it was taught in a beraita:

It is written in the verse:

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

and Rabbi Judah holds that the verse should be interpreted as

“matters according to their wording”

that Solomon sanctified the entire floor with the sanctity of an altar, so that they could burn upon it. This was because the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings that they offered for the dedication of the altar had become numerous, and the altar was too small to contain the offerings of that day. This is

the statement of Rabbi Judah.