## Zevachim Daf 59a

###### Zevachim 59a:1
[Zevachim 59a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:1)

מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה וְגוֹ׳״ – מִזְבֵּחַ בְּפֶתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, וְלֹא כִּיּוֹר בְּפֶתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. הֵיכָן הָיָה נוֹתְנוֹ? בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ, מָשׁוּךְ קִימְעָא כְּלַפֵּי הַדָּרוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**the altar of the burnt offering** he set at the entrance to the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting.” (Exodus 40:29), indicating that no object was allowed to be located between the altar and the Tent of Meeting, whose parallel, in the Temple, was the Sanctuary. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derives from these verses that only the **altar** stood **at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, but** the **Basin** did **not** stand **at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. Where would** they **place** the Basin? It was placed **between the Entrance Hall and the altar, extended slightly toward the south.** Therefore, although the Basin was closer to the Sanctuary than the altar was, it did not actually stand between the altar and the Sanctuary.


###### Zevachim 59a:2
[Zevachim 59a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:2)

מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בְּדָרוֹם קָאֵי – נוֹקְמֵיהּ מִכּוֹתֶל הֵיכָל וְלַדָּרוֹם, בֵּין אוּלָם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara seeks to clarify: **What does** Rabbi Yosei HaGelili **hold? If he holds** that **the entire altar stands in the south** section of the Temple courtyard, **let him stand** the Basin anywhere **from** where **the wall of** the **Sanctuary** begins **and southward,** so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary but it is **between** the **Entrance Hall and the altar.** This would allow for the optimal fulfillment of both verses (Exodus 40:29; Leviticus 4:7), as the Basin would be located between the altar and the Sanctuary without interposing between the altar and the entrance to the Sanctuary.


###### Zevachim 59a:3
[Zevachim 59a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:3)

וְאִי נָמֵי קָסָבַר קְדוּשַּׁת הֵיכָל וְאוּלָם חֲדָא הִיא – נוֹקְמֵיהּ מִכּוֹתֶל אוּלָם וְלַדָּרוֹם, בְּבֵין אוּלָם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And even if he holds** that **the** level of **sanctity of** the **Sanctuary and** the **Entrance Hall is the same,** in which case the Basin could not be located opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall as this too would be considered a violation of the second verse, **let him stand** the Basin anywhere **from** where **the wall of** the **Entrance Hall** begins **and southward,** so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall but is **in between** the **Entrance Hall and the altar.** From the fact that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili did not say that, it is clear he held that the altar was not located in the southern section of the Temple courtyard.


###### Zevachim 59a:4
[Zevachim 59a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:4)

אִי נָמֵי קָסָבַר חֶצְיוֹ בַּצָּפוֹן וְחֶצְיוֹ בַּדָּרוֹם – נוֹקְמֵיהּ מִכּוֹתֶל הֵיכָל וְלַדָּרוֹם, בֵּין אוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** if Rabbi Yosei HaGelili **holds** that **half of** the altar was located **in the north** section of the Temple courtyard **and half of it** was located **in the south, let him stand** the Basin anywhere **from** where **the wall of** the **Sanctuary** begins **and southward,** so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary but **between** the **Entrance Hall and the altar.** Since the entrance to the Sanctuary was five cubits wide and stood in the middle of the courtyard, and the altar was thirty-two cubits long, there would have been eleven cubits to both the north and the south of the entrance to the Sanctuary where the Basin could be placed in order to be located between the altar and the Sanctuary without interposing between the altar and the entrance to the Sanctuary.


###### Zevachim 59a:5
[Zevachim 59a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:5)

וְאִי נָמֵי קָסָבַר קְדוּשַּׁת הָאוּלָם וְהֵיכָל חֲדָא הִיא – נוֹקְמֵיהּ מִכּוֹתֶל אוּלָם וְלַדָּרוֹם, בֵּין אוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ! אֶלָּא לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בַּצָּפוֹן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And even if** Rabbi Yosei HaGelili **holds** that **the** level of **sanctity of** the **Entrance Hall and** that of the **Sanctuary is the same,** in which case the Basin could not be located opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall because this too would be considered a violation of the second verse, **let him stand** the Basin anywhere **from** where **the wall of** the **Entrance Hall** begins **and southward,** so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall but **in between** the **Entrance Hall and the altar.** Why does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili require that the Basin be placed south of the altar? The Gemara concludes: **Rather, is it not due to** the fact **that** Rabbi Yosei HaGelili **holds** that **the entire altar** stood **in the north** section of the Temple courtyard?


###### Zevachim 59a:6
[Zevachim 59a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:6)

כִּי נָמֵי מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ מִכּוֹתֶל הֵיכָל וְלַצָּפוֹן – הָוֵה לֵיהּ בֵּין אוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Even if this is the case, why does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili require that the Basin be located to the south of the altar so that it is not actually in between the altar and the Sanctuary? **Even if you stand it** anywhere **from** where **the wall of** the **Sanctuary** begins **and northward,** it would not interpose between the altar and the entrance to the Sanctuary but **it would** actually **be** located in **between** the **Entrance Hall and the altar.**


###### Zevachim 59a:7
[Zevachim 59a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:7)

וְנוֹקְמַהּ מִכּוֹתֶל אוּלָם וְלַצָּפוֹן, בְּבֵין אוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** even if Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the sanctity of the Entrance Hall is equal to that of the Sanctuary, and that the Basin cannot interpose between the altar and the entrance to the Entrance Hall, **stand** the Basin anywhere **from** where **the wall of** the **Entrance Hall** begins **and northward,** so that it is not opposite the entrance to the Entrance Hall but it is located **in between** the **Entrance Hall and the altar.**


###### Zevachim 59a:8
[Zevachim 59a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:8)

אָמַר קְרָא: ״צָפוֹנָה״ – שֶׁיְּהֵא צָפוֹן פָּנוּי מִכֵּלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: That suggestion is technically not feasible, as **the verse states:** “And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar **northward [*tzafona*]”** (Leviticus 1:11). This verse indicates **that the north** section of the Temple courtyard must **be vacant of** all **vessels,** including the Basin. This concludes the Gemara’s explanation of Rav Sherevya’s assertion that the mishna in *Tamid*, which holds that the altar was located in the northern part of the Temple courtyard, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.


###### Zevachim 59a:9
[Zevachim 59a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:9)

מַאן תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: ״צָפוֹנָה״ – שֶׁיְּהֵא צָפוֹן פָּנוּי מִכְּלוּם, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Who is the *tanna* who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili?** The Gemara answers: **It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:** The verse states: **“Northward** before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:11). This indicates **that the north** section of the Temple courtyard must **be vacant of everything, and even of the altar.** Therefore, he maintains that the entire altar stood in the southern section of the Temple courtyard.


###### Zevachim 59a:10
[Zevachim 59a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:10)

אָמַר רַב: מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנִּפְגַּם – כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ שָׁם פְּסוּלִין. מִקְרָא הוּא בְּיָדֵינוּ, וּשְׁכַחְנוּהוּ. כִּי סְלֵיק רַב כָּהֲנָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי דְּקָאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מִנַּיִן לַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנִּפְגַּם – שֶׁכׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ שָׁם פְּסוּלִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav says:** In a case of **an altar that was damaged, all sacrificial** animals **that were slaughtered there** are **disqualified.** Rav continues: **We have a verse** as the source for this *halakha* **but we have forgotten** which one **it** is. **When Rav Kahana,** Rav’s disciple, **ascended** from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, **he found Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **saying in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei: From where** is it derived that in the case of **an altar that was damaged, that all sacrificial** animals **that were slaughtered there** are **disqualified?**


###### Zevachim 59a:11
[Zevachim 59a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:11)

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְזָבַחְתָּ עָלָיו אֶת עֹלֹתֶיךָ וְאֶת שְׁלָמֶיךָ״ – וְכִי עָלָיו אַתָּה זוֹבֵחַ?! אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהוּא שָׁלֵם, וְלֹא כְּשֶׁהוּא חָסֵר. אָמַר: הַיְינוּ קְרָא דְּאִישְׁתְּמִיט לֵיהּ לְרַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is derived from a verse, **as it is stated** in the verse with regard to the altar: “An altar of earth you shall make for Me, **and you shall slaughter upon it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings [*shelamekha*]”** (Exodus 20:21). **Is it** true that **you slaughter** sacrificial animals **on** the altar itself? They are slaughtered on the ground near the altar. No, **rather,** the verse indicates that one is able to slaughter the sacrificial animals on account of the altar, i.e., **when** the altar **is complete [*shalem*], but not when it is lacking,** i.e., damaged. Rav Kahana **said: This is the verse that eluded Rav.**


###### Zevachim 59a:12
[Zevachim 59a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:12)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה פְּסוּלִין. בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? רַב סָבַר: בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים אֵינָן נִדְחִים, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר: בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִידְחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Both this** one **and that** one are **disqualified,** i.e., all animals that were designated as offerings when the altar was in a damaged state are disqualified, even if they were not yet slaughtered. The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** issue do Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan **disagree?** The Gemara answers: **Rav holds** that **living** animals **are not** permanently **deferred, and Rabbi Yoḥanan holds** that **living** animals are permanently **deferred.** If the altar is damaged and it is therefore impossible to sacrifice offerings, Rav holds that only offerings that were already slaughtered become permanently deferred, whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that even those that were not yet slaughtered become permanently deferred.


###### Zevachim 59a:13
[Zevachim 59a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:13)

מֵיתִיבִי: כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁהָיוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִבְנָה הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִבְנָה הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – פְּסוּלִין. נִבְנָה?! דְּחוּיִין מֵעִיקָּרָא נִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rav’s opinion, based on a *baraita*: In the case of **all sacrificial** animals **that were** consecrated **before the altar was built, and then the altar was** subsequently **built,** the animals are **disqualified.** The Gemara assumes that this *baraita* is referring to animals that were consecrated before the building of the altar in the Second Temple. The Gemara responds: In a case where the animals were consecrated before the altar **was built,** the animals are considered **initially deferred,** i.e., deferred from the time they were initially consecrated. In this case all agree they are not permanently deferred and they can be sacrificed when the altar is built.


###### Zevachim 59a:14
[Zevachim 59a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:14)

אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁלֹּא נֶהֱרַס הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. נֶהֱרַס?! הָא אִיזְּקוּן לְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** explain the *baraita* as follows: If the animals were consecrated **before the altar was destroyed** in the First Temple, and then the altar was destroyed and rebuilt, the animals are still disqualified. The Gemara questions this reading: Can the *baraita* be referring to a case where the altar was **destroyed** in the First Temple? **Didn’t** the animals **become** too **old** for sacrifice by the time the altar was constructed in the Second Temple?


###### Zevachim 59a:15
[Zevachim 59a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:15)

אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִפְגַּם הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִפְגַּם הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – פְּסוּלִין. וְלָא תָּרוֹצֵי קָא מְתָרְצַתְּ? אֵימָא: שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara emends the *baraita* yet again: **Rather,** the *baraita* is referring to a case where one consecrated the animals **before the altar was damaged, and subsequently the altar was damaged.** The *halakha* is that the animals are **disqualified.** It seems from this *baraita* that even sacrificial animals that were not yet slaughtered when the altar became damaged are nevertheless permanently disqualified, in contrast to the opinion of Rav. The Gemara rejects this proof: **But did you not** already have to **emend** the text of the *baraita*? Emend it differently and **say that** the case is where the animals **were slaughtered** before the altar became damaged. Accordingly, there is no proof from this *baraita* with regard to the deferral of living animals.


###### Zevachim 59a:16
[Zevachim 59a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:16)

וְהָאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר – מַקְטִירִין קְטֹרֶת בִּמְקוֹמוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav said that sacrificial animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard when the altar was in a damaged state are disqualified. The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t Rav Giddel say** that **Rav says:** In a case **where** the golden **altar became uprooted** from its location in the Sanctuary, **one may burn** the **incense in its place?** Apparently, it is not essential to have the altar in order to sacrifice offerings.


###### Zevachim 59a:17
[Zevachim 59a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:17)

כִּדְאָמַר רָבָא: מוֹדֶה הָיָה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּדָמִים; הָכָא נָמֵי – מוֹדֶה רַב בְּדָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is **like that which Rava says** (60a): Although Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the entire Temple courtyard is fit for burning the sacrificial portions of offerings, **Rabbi Yehuda would concede with regard to** the presenting of the **blood** that it must be performed specifically on the altar. **Here too,** the Gemara says, **Rav concedes with regard to** the **blood** that an altar is required. Consequently, if consecrated offerings were slaughtered when the altar was in a damaged state, since the blood may not be presented, the offering is disqualified.


###### Zevachim 59a:18
[Zevachim 59a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:18)

מַאי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה? דְּתַנְיָא: ״בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא קִידַּשׁ הַמֶּלֶךְ תּוֹךְ הֶחָצֵר וְגוֹ׳, כִּי מִזְבֵּחַ (שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה) קָטָן מֵהָכִיל״ – דְּבָרִים כִּכְתָבָן. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Having briefly mentioned Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, the Gemara asks: **What** is the context of the statement of **Rabbi Yehuda?** The Gemara answers: **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to the inauguration of the Temple in the time of King Solomon: **“On that day the king sanctified the middle of the court** that was before the House of the Lord; as there he offered the burnt offering, and the meal offering, and the fat of the peace offerings; **because the copper altar that was before the Lord was too small to receive** the burnt offering, and the meal offering, and the fat of the peace offerings” (I Kings 8:64). **The matters** in the verse **are** to be understood **as they** are **written,** i.e., that the altar in the Temple was too small to receive all of the offerings that Solomon sacrificed, and Solomon therefore sanctified the Temple courtyard so that it, too, could function as an altar; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Zevachim 59a:19
[Zevachim 59a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/59a:19)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei said to him:**