ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 58
ZEVACHIM 58 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
***** Perek Kodshei Kodshim *****
(a) Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah rules that if Kodshei Kodshim are Shechted on
top of the Mizbe'ach, it is as if they have been Shechted in the north.
According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebi Yehudah - the northern half of the Mize'ach
is considered Tzafon, and the southern half, Darom.
(b) Rebbi Zeira asked Rav Asi that if Rebbi Yossi considers the entire
Mizbe'ach to have been on the north of the Azarah, why he then say '*ke'Ilu*
Nishchatu ba'Tzafon'. Rav Asi replied - that the Tana is teaching us that
although the Shechitah did not take place "al Yerech ha'Mizbe'ach" (beside
the Mizbe'ach), it is as if it did.
(a) From the above, we can infer, that according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi
Yehudah - the Mizbe'ach stood half in the northern section of the Azarah and
half in the south.
(b) The problem with this is a statement that Rav Asi himself quoting Rebbi
Yochanan, who in turn quoted Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, ruled - that if
Kodshei Kodshim that are Shechted in the equivalent spot to the one he
refers to in the Mishnah, only on the ground - the Korban is Pasul ...
(c) ... because according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - the entire
Mizbe'ach stood in the south of the Azarah.
(a) The problem is - that the theory linking the Machlokes Tana'im to the
location of the Mizbe'ach which we assumed until now, has now been
disproven, since, according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, the Mizbe'ach
stood in the south of the Azarah, yet he considers the northern half of the
(b) Consequently, Rav Asi, citing Rebbi Yochanan, ascribes the Machlokes
Tana'im to different interpretations of the same Pasuk. According to Rebbi
Yossi, the Pasuk "Ve'zavachta Alav es Olosecha ve'es Shelamecha" - teaches
us that one is permitted to Shecht both the Olah and the Shelamim anywhere
on the Mizbe'ach; whereas, according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, it
designates the northern half the Mizbe'ach for the Olah, and the southern
half for the Shelamim, in the way that we explained.
(c) What prompts Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah to explain the Pasuk this way
is the fact that, if "es Olosecha" came to permit Shechting Olos anywhere on
the Mizbe'ach - then we would not require a Pasuk to permit Shelamim (which
we learn from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' as we learned in the previous Perek.
(d) Rebbi Yossi will argue however - that if not for "ve'es Shelamecha", we
would have considered Shechting on the Mizbe'ach a special disensation
pertaining to Olos exclusively, for which there might be a shortage of
space, since they can only be Shechted on the north, whereas Shelamim, which
can be Shechted anywhere in the Azarah, do not need it.
(a) We quoted Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan who stated that Rebbi Yossi
b'Rebbi Yehudah concedes that if Kodshei Kodshim that are Shechted in the
equivalent spot to the one he refers to in the Mishnah, only on the ground,
the Korban is Pasul. He cannot be referring to ...
1. ... the Amah Yesod or the Amah Sovev - because that is considered on the
Mizbe'ach, and not on the ground.
(b) Nor can Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah be referring to tunnels that run
under the Mizbe'ach, because of a Beraisa, where the Tana Darshens from the
Pasuk "Mizbach Adamah Ta'aseh Li" - that the Mizbe'ach must be firmly
attached to the ground, and not stand on tunnels or archways.
2. ... east or west of the Mizbe'ach - because that would negate Rav Asi's
proof that, according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, the Mizbe'ach is
situated in the south of the Azarah, because even if it was completely in
the north, the Shechitah would be Pasul, seeing as in his opinion, the
Shechitah must take place due north or south of the Mizbe'ach (and not to
(c) We finally conclude that when Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah says that if
the Korban is Shechted on the equivalent spot to the one he refers to in the
Mishnah, only on the ground, the Korban is Pasul, he means - that if they
reduced the size of the Mizbe'ach, omitting half the north side, that space
will be disqualified from bringing both Olos and Shelamim.
(a) Rebbi Zeira searches for a Mishnah that will corroborate Rebbi
Yochanan's statement - that the entire Mizbe'ah was situated entirely on the
(b) To that end, he cites a Mishnah in Tamid which discusses the
arrangements of wood on the Mizbe'ach. The Tana describes how the Kohen
would pick good-quality fig-tree wood for the second Ma'arachah. which was
used to supply coal for the Ketores on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.
(c) The Kohen would take the wood (fig-tree wood to atone for the sin of
Adam ha'Rishon, according to those who hold that this was the tree from
which he ate).
(d) The second Ma'arachah was arranged four Amos to the north of the
(a) The Kohen placed sufficient wood to produce an estimated five Sa'ah of
coals during the week - but enough to produce eight Sa'ah of coals on
Shabbos, because that is also where they burned the two bowls of Levonah
from the Lechem ha'Panim.
(b) The specifications listed by the Beraisa tally wth the opinion of Rebbi
Yossi. When, giving a Si'man for things (which will be explained
immediately) that are taken 'inside to a place outside' or vice-versa, he
says 'Eino Nosen Ela be'Samuch she'Ein Lifenim', he means - that they placed
these things on the closest possible spot to the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.
(c) Things that are taken ...
1. ... 'inside to place outside' cannot refer to the pouring of the Sheyarei
ha'Dam of the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos - because the Torah specifically writes
with regard to it "el Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah *Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed*",
implying from the spot that is closest to the Heichal.
(d) When Rebbi Yossi speaks of ...
2. ... 'outside to place inside' not refer to the coals of Yom Kipur that
were taken from on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon ("me'al ha'Mizbe'ach Asher
Lifnei Hashem") for the Ketores that was taken into the Kodesh Kodshim -
since the Torah explicitly writes there "Ve'lakach M'lo ha'Machtah
Gachalei-Eish me'al Mizbe'ach *mi'Lifnei Hashem*", which implies from the
closest spot to the entrance of the Heichal.
1. ... 'Kol ha'Nital bi'Fenim Linasen ba'Chutz', he is in fact, referring
to - the two bowls of Levonah.
(e) We learn the latter Halachah - from the aforementioned Ketores of Yom
2. ... 'Kol ha'Nital ba'Chutz Linasen bi'Fenim' - ... to the coals for the
(a) The width of ...
1. ... the Mizbe'ach was - thirty-two Amos at the Yesod (and twenty-eight
Amos on top).
(b) If Rebbi Yossi had held that 'Kuleih Mizbe'ach be'Darom Ka'i', for the
Ma'arachah Sheniyah to be in line with the beginning of the entrance of ...
2. ... the entrance of the Heichal was - ten Amos.
3. ... the entrance of the Ulam was - twenty Amos.
1. ... the Heichal - they would have had to arrange it twenty-seven Amos
from the south-western Keren for it to be in line with the Ma'arachah
(c) And if Rebbi Yossi had held 'Chetzyo be'Tzafon ve'Chetzyo be'Darom',
assuming that the Ulam ...
2. ... the Ulam, presuming the Ulam to have had the same Kedushah as the
Heichal - it would have had to be twenty-two Amos away. Note, that all these
measurements assume the Mizbe'ach to be thirty-two Amos wide, which it was,
from the base, but from the top, it was only twenty-eight Amos (as we
pointed out). And the Beraisa specifically states 'four Amos from the
Keren', which was on top?
1. ... did not have the Kedushah of the Heichal, they would have had to
arrange the Ma'arachah Sheniyah eleven Amos from the south-western Keren
for it to be in line with the entrance of the Heichal, and ...
(d) Despite the fact that Rebbi Yossi must therefore hold 'Kuleih Mizbe'ach
be'Tzafon Ka'i', they could not arrange the Ma'arachah Sheniyah less than
four Amos away from the south-western Keren - because the first four Amos of
the Makom ha'Ma'arachah were taken up by the Amah of the Yesod, the Amah of
the Sovev, the Amah of the Keren, and the Amah where the Kohanim walked,
leaving one Amah still in line with the entrance of the Heichal for the
Ma'arachah Sheniyah shel Ketores.
2. ... six Amos away from it, if it did.
(a) Rav Ada bar Ahavah establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, who
maintains that the Mizbe'ach stood exactly in the middle of the Azarah. In
that case - ten Amos were in line with the entrance of the Heichal, and
eleven Amos protruded on either side.
(b) Assuming that the Ulam ...
1. ... did not possess the Kedushah of the Heichal, they should then have
arranged the Ma'arachah Sheniyah eleven Amos from the edge of the Mizbe'ach,
in order for it to in line with the Heichal and ...
(c) The reason the Beraisa says four Amos from the edge of the Mizbe'ach and
not six is - because the Tana is reckoning from the Keren, and not from the
Yesod (as we pointed out earlier).
2. ... six Amos away if it did (as we explained according to Rebbi Yossi).
(a) We ask why we do we not then establish the Mishnah in Tamid like Rebbi
Yossi - to refute Rebbi Zeira's proof that Rebbi Yossi holds 'Kol
ha'Mizbe'ach be'Tzafon Ka'i'?
(b) Nevertheless, we do not do so - because Rebbi Yehudah specifically holds
'Mizbe'ach be'Emtza Ka'i'.
(c) True, we established it like Rebbi Yossi anyway, based on his Si'man
'Kol ha'Nital bi'Fenim ... ', but the truth of the matter is - that Rebbi
Yossi is merely stating clearly what everybody holds, and there is no reason
to establish Rebbi Yossi as the author more than anybody else.
(a) Rav Sheravya establishes the Mishnah in Tamid like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili,
who learns from the Pasuk "ve'es Mizbach ha'Olah Sam Pesach Mishkan Ohel
Mo'ed" - that nothing may interrupt between the Mizbe'ach and the entrance
to the Heichal.
(b) In light of that, he explains the Pasuk "Ve'nasata es ha'Kiyor bein Ohel
Mo'ed u'vein ha'Mizbe'ach" - to mean that they placed the Kiyor in the space
between the two, but drawn slightly to the south.
(c) According to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, the Mizbe'ach must have been
situated - entirely in the north (because had it been placed either entirely
in the south, or exactly in the middle, there would have been anything in
between five Amos south of the entrance of the Ulam to eleven Amos south of
the entrance of the Heichal (as we explained earlier) in which to place the
Kiyor, without breaking the space between the Mizbe'ach and the entrance to
the Heichal (or Ulam).
(d) Nor were they permitted to place the Kiyor beside the Mizbe'ach, north
of the entrance to ...
1. ... the Heichal - because then it would still interrupt between the
Mizbe'ach and the Ulam (which extended five Amos further north than the
Heichal (as we learned earlier).
2. ... the Ulam - because the Torah writes in Vayikra (in connection with
the Shechitah of the Olas Tamid) "Tzafonah Lifnei Hashem", indicating that
the space north of the Mizbe'ach must be left empty.
(a) The Tana who argues with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili is Rebbi Eliezer ben
Ya'akov, who Darshens the Pasuk "Tzafonah" - to mean that nothing, not even
the Mizbe'ach, may be placed in the north ...
(b) ... in which case, the Mizbe'ach must have been situated entirely in the
(c) According to Rav Sheravya, we measure the four Amos mentioned in the
Mishnah in Tamid - from the Yesod, and not from the Keren, as we were forced
to do, when we established the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah.