Zevachim 59 - THE LOCATION OF THE
1) THE LOCATION OF THE "MIZBE'ACH" (cont.)
(a) Rejection #2 (of R. Zeira - Rav Sharbiya): (Indeed, the four Amos include the Yesod and Sovev;) Mishnah #1 is like R. Yosi ha'Galili.
1. (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): We must put the Kiyor "Bein Ohel Mo'ed u'Vein ha'Mizbe'ach" - but the Mizbe'ach must be "Sham Pesach Mishkan Ohel Mo'ed" (verse 29 - Rashi; Shitah Mekubetzes - "Lifnei Pesach Mishkan Ohel Mo'ed", verse 6), the Kiyor cannot be in front of the opening (it would separate between the opening and the Mizbe'ach)!
i. Therefore, the Kiyor is between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach, a bit south of the Mizbe'ach.
(b) Question: What is R. Yosi ha'Galili's opinion regarding the location of the Mizbe'ach?
1. If it is entirely in Darom, the Kiyor could be placed south of the opening of the Heichal, between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach!
i. Even if the Ulam has Kedushas Heichal, the Kiyor could be placed south of the opening of the Ulam, between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach!
2. The same applies if the Mizbe'ach is centered, 11 (or six) Amos of the Mizbe'ach extend south of the opening of the Heichal (or Ulam), the Kiyor could be placed there, between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach!
(c) Answer: He holds that the Mizbe'ach is entirely in Tzafon (therefore, the Kiyor must be south of the Mizbe'ach, so it will not separate).
(d) Question: Why not put the Kiyor north of the opening of the Heichal?
(e) Answer: He holds that the Ulam has Kedushas Heichal, the Kiyor would separate between the opening of the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach.
(f) Question: Why not put the Kiyor north of the opening of the Ulam?
(g) Answer: "Tzafonah" - the north of the Azarah must be empty of vessels (except for those needed for slaughter).
(h) Question: Who is the Tana that argues with R. Yosi ha'Galili (and R. Yehudah), and says that the Mizbe'ach is entirely in Darom?
(i) Answer: It is R. Eliezer ben Yakov.
1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): "Tzafonah" - the north must be empty of everything, even the Mizbe'ach may not be there.
2) IF THE "MIZBE'ACH" BECAME DISQUALIFIED
(a) (Rav): If Korbanos were slaughtered and then the Mizbe'ach became dented (Birkas ha'Zevach; Panim Me'iros - they were slaughtered when the Mizbe'ach was dented), they are Pesulim (even if the Mizbe'ach was later fixed);
1. A verse teaches this, I do not remember it.
(b) (R. Shimon bar Rebbi): Korbanos slaughtered (before; Panim Me'iros - when) the Mizbe'ach became (was) dented are Pesulim - " V'Zovachta Alav Es Olosecha v'Es Shelamecha";
1. Question: *Must* Korbanos be slaughtered *on* the Mizbe'ach?!
2. Answer: It means, (they must be slaughtered for the sake of putting their blood and Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach and) the Mizbe'ach must be complete.
(c) (Rav Kahana): Surely, this is the verse that Rav forgot!
(d) (R. Yochanan): Even if a Korban was slaughtered after the Mizbe'ach was fixed, it is Pasul (if it was Kodesh when the Mizbe'ach was broken).
(e) Question: What do they argue about?
(f) Answer: R. Yochanan holds that Ba'alei Chayim Nidchim (if a living animal become disqualified (from being offered), it is permanently Pasul), Rav holds that Ba'alei Chayim are not Nidchim.
(g) Question (against Rav - Beraisa): Anything that was Kodesh before the Mizbe'ach was built, it is Pasul after the Mizbe'ach is built.
1. Objection: If it was Kodesh before the Mizbe'ach was built, it was Dachuy me'Ikarah (from the beginning; Rashi - we never resolved whether or not such Dichuy takes effect - this Beraisa should have concluded the argument!; Tosfos - all agree that such Dichuy does not take effect, because people can fix it (by building the Mizbe'ach)!)
2. Correction: Rather, anything Kodesh before the Mizbe'ach was destroyed (by Nebuchadnetzar), was Pasul after the Mizbe'ach was rebuilt (in the days of Ezra).
3. Objection: (There were 70 years in between -) even if the animal lived, it is Pasul on account of age!
4. Correction: Rather, anything Kodesh before the Mizbe'ach was dented (i.e. disqualified) is Pasul after the Mizbe'ach is fixed.
(h) Answer: In any case, we must alter the text of the Beraisa - Rav can correct it to say 'Any Korban slaughtered before (or when) the Mizbe'ach was dented is Pasul after the Mizbe'ach is fixed.'
(i) Question: Rav Gidal cited Rav to say that if the Mizbe'ach was uprooted from its place (which disqualifies it), we may offer Ketores in its place! (Above (a), Rav disqualified Korbanos on account of a dent in the Mizbe'ach.)
(j) Answer: We can answer similar to Rava's teaching:
1. (Rava): R. Yehudah (says that the floor of the Azarah has Kedushas Mizbe'ach in many respects, but he) admits regarding blood (that it must be thrown on the Mizbe'ach, not on the floor).
2. Similarly, Rav admits that animal Korbanos are Kosher only if the Mizbe'ach is valid at the time.
3) MAY "KORBANOS" BE OFFERED ON THE FLOOR?
(a) Question: What was R. Yehudah's teaching?
(b) Answer (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "Ba'Yom ha'Hu Kidash ha'Melech Es Toch he'Chatzer...Ki Mizbach ha'Nechoshes Katon me'Hachil" - the simple understanding is correct (since Shlomo's Mizbach Avanim (in place of Moshe's Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes) was too small for all the Korbanos of the day of Chanukas Beis ha'Mikdash, Shlomo was Mekadesh the floor).
(c) R. Yosi: Surely, Shlomo's Mizbe'ach was big enough for the Korbanos!
1. "Elef Olos Ya'aleh Shlomo Al ha'Mizbe'ach ha'Hu" (he would offer 1000 Olos in a day on Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes, which had only one square Amah for the fire);
2. In the Beis ha'Mikdash, "Va'Yizbach Shlomo Es Zevach ha'Shelamim...Bakar Esrim u'Shnayim Elef...";
i. Shlomo's Mizbe'ach (had 400 times as much area for the fire, it) sufficed to burn the Eimurim of all these Korbanos!
3. Question: If so, why does it say "Katon me'Hachil"?
4. Answer: This is a polite way of saying why Moshe's Mizbe'ach was replaced.
(d) Question: How can R. Yehudah answer R. Yosi?
(e) Answer: R. Yehudah expounds that Moshe's Mizbe'ach was larger than what the verse says explicitly:
1. (Beraisa - R. Yosi): "Chamesh Amos Orech v'Chamesh Amos Rochav" - the simple understanding is correct (Moshe's Mizbe'ach was five Amos by five Amos);
2. R. Yehudah: It says here "Ravu'a", like it says in Yechezkeil's prophecy (of the Mizbe'ach of Bayis Sheni);
i. Just as there the measure given is from the center (the area for the fire extends 12 Amos outwards in all four directions) also here.
3. Question: How do we know that Yechezkeil gives the measure from the center?
4. Answer: "Veha'Ari'el Shteim Esreh (Orech...)" - in each (of the four) directions (out from the center).
5. Suggestion: Perhaps its length and width are each 12!
6. Rejection "El Arba'as Reva'av" teaches that this is in each (of the four) directions.
(f) R. Yosi says that the Gezerah Shavah teaches about the height of Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes.
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "V'Shalosh Amos Komaso" - the simple understanding is correct (it was three Amos tall).
2. R. Yosi: It says here "Ravu'a", like it says regarding Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav;
i. Just as there the height (two Amos) was twice the length, also here (it was 10 Amos tall, twice the length).
3. R. Yehudah: But the curtains surrounding Chatzer ha'Mishkan were only five Amos tall - if the Mizbe'ach was taller, people could see the Avodah from the outside (and this is unreasonable)!
4. Version #1 (Rashi) R. Yosi: It says "V'Es Kal'ei he'Chatzer v'Es Masach Pesach Sha'ar he'Chatzer Asher Al ha'Mishkan v'Al ha'Mizbe'ach" - just as the Mishkan (was 10 Amos tall, and) must be surrounded by curtains (i.e. those around Chatzer ha'Mishkan) (at least) 10 Amos tall, also the Mizbe'ach;
i. It also says "Kela'im Chamesh Esre Amah El ha'Kasef" (they were 15 Amos tall).
ii. Question: But another verse says "V'Komah Chamesh Amos"!
iii. Answer: That verse teaches that they are five Amos taller than the Mizbe'ach.