In the mishna Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Yehuda debate whether kodshai kodashim can be slaughtered on the whole altar or only on the northern half. Rabbi Yochana derived from here that Rabbi Yosi holds that the altar must have been fully on the northern side of the azara. Rabbi Zeira questions this. He then tries to derive from a mishna that Rabib Yossi holds this way but his proof is rejected.
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Ruth and David Kahan in honor of Dr. Jody Dushay and Prof. Paul Gompers. “In gratitude for the ongoing and incredibly gracious hospitality!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Ruth and David Kahan in honor of Dr. Jody Dushay and Prof. Paul Gompers. “In gratitude for the ongoing and incredibly gracious hospitality!”
Zevachim 58
מַתְנִי׳ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כְּאִילּוּ נִשְׁחֲטוּ בַּצָּפוֹן. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מֵחֲצִי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְלַדָּרוֹם – כַּדָּרוֹם, מֵחֲצִי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְלַצָּפוֹן – כַּצָּפוֹן.
MISHNA: It was taught in the previous chapter that offerings of the most sacred order are to be slaughtered in the northern section of the Temple courtyard. With regard to offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered atop the altar, Rabbi Yosei says: Their status is as though they were slaughtered in the north, and the offerings are therefore valid. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The status of the area from the halfway point of the altar and to the south is like that of the south, and offerings of the most sacred order slaughtered in that area are therefore disqualified. The status of the area from the halfway point of the altar and to the north is like that of the north.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אוֹמֵר הָיָה ר׳ יוֹסֵי, כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בְּצָפוֹן קָאֵי. וּמַאי ״כְּאִילּוּ״? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא בָּעֵינַן ״עַל יָרֵךְ״ – וְלֵיכָּא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
GEMARA: Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Yosei used to say: The entire altar stands in the north section of the Temple courtyard. The Gemara asks: And what is the meaning of Rabbi Yosei’s statement that if one slaughtered offerings of the most sacred order atop the altar it is as though they were slaughtered in the north, which indicates that they were not actually slaughtered in the north? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei said this lest you say that we require that the offering be slaughtered “on the side of the altar northward” (Leviticus 1:11), i.e., on the ground beside the altar, and that requirement is not fulfilled when it is slaughtered on top of the altar. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei teaches us that the offering is still valid.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַב אַסִּי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּחֶצְיוֹ בְּצָפוֹן וְחֶצְיוֹ בַּדָּרוֹם?!
Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: Rabbi Yoḥanan apparently understands that the reason Rabbi Yosei holds that an offering of the most sacred order slaughtered on the altar is valid is because the entire altar is in the northern section of the Temple courtyard. If that is so, shall one also say that according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, half of the altar was situated in the north of the Temple courtyard and half of it was situated in the south?
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי; וְהָא אַתְּ הוּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוֹדֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאִם שְׁחָטָן כְּנֶגְדָּן בַּקַּרְקַע – פְּסוּלָה!
And if you would say that indeed that is so, wasn’t it you who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, concedes that if one slaughtered offerings of the most sacred order on the ground opposite the northern half of the altar, the offering is disqualified? Accordingly, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, apparently maintains that the altar is not located in the north at all.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – שְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ: ״וְזָבַחְתָּ עָלָיו אֶת עֹלֹתֶיךָ וְאֶת שְׁלָמֶיךָ״ –
Rav Asi said to Rabbi Zeira: Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement with regard to Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is an independent statement rather than an inference from the mishna. And with regard to the dispute in the mishna, this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Both of them derived their opinions from one verse: “An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall slaughter upon it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings” (Exodus 20:21).
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: כּוּלּוֹ לְעוֹלָה וְכוּלּוֹ לִשְׁלָמִים. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: חֶצְיוֹ לְעוֹלָה וְחֶצְיוֹ לִשְׁלָמִים;
Rabbi Yosei maintains that the verse teaches that all of it, i.e., the entire altar, is fit for slaughtering a burnt offering, and all of it is also fit for slaughtering a peace offering. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, maintains that the verse teaches that half of it is fit for slaughtering a burnt offering and half of it is fit for slaughtering a peace offering.
דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כּוּלּוֹ לְעוֹלָה כָּשֵׁר, הַשְׁתָּא כּוּלּוֹ לְעוֹלָה – כָּשֵׁר, כּוּלּוֹ לִשְׁלָמִים מִיבַּעְיָא?!
The Gemara explains the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: As if it enters your mind that all of it is fit for slaughtering a burnt offering, now that all of it is fit for slaughtering a burnt offering, which must be slaughtered in the northern section of the Temple courtyard (see 53b), is it necessary to teach that it is also fit for slaughtering a peace offering, which may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple courtyard (see 55a)? The verse therefore must be understood as teaching that half the altar is fit for slaughtering burnt offerings and half is fit for slaughtering peace offerings.
וְאִידָּךְ – אִיצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: עוֹלָה הוּא דִּדְחִיק לֵיהּ מָקוֹם; אֲבָל שְׁלָמִים, דְּלָא דְּחִיק לֵיהּ מָקוֹם – אֵימָא לָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei, respond to this reasoning? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the verse to mention peace offerings. Otherwise, it could enter your mind to say that the verse allows one to slaughter only a burnt offering atop the altar, as the location where it may be slaughtered on the ground is narrow. But with regard to peace offerings, whose location for slaughter on the ground is not narrow, say that no, one may not slaughter them atop the altar. Therefore, the verse teaches us that peace offerings as well may be slaughtered atop the altar.
גּוּפָא – אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוֹדֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאִם שְׁחָטָן כְּנֶגְדָּן בַּקַּרְקַע – פְּסוּלוֹת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: מַאי כְּנֶגְדָּן בַּקַּרְקַע? אִילֵימָא אַמָּה יְסוֹד אַמָּה סוֹבֵב – הַאי גּוּפֵיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ הוּא! וְעוֹד, מַאי ״כְּנֶגְדָּן בַּקַּרְקַע״?
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, concedes that if one slaughtered offerings of the most sacred order on the ground opposite the northern half of the altar, the offering is disqualified. Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: What is the meaning of the phrase: On the ground opposite the northern half of the altar? If we say it means that the offering was sacrificed upon the cubit-wide base of the altar or upon the cubit-wide surrounding ledge of the altar, this itself is part of the altar. And furthermore, what is the meaning of the phrase: On the ground opposite the northern half of the altar? The base and ledge are not on the ground.
וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּעָבֵיד מְחִילּוֹת בַּקַּרְקַע וְשָׁחֵיט בְּהוּ – וְכִי הַאי גַּוְונָא מִי הָוֵי מִזְבֵּחַ?! וְהָתַנְיָא: ״מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה תַּעֲשֶׂה לִּי״ – שֶׁיְּהֵא מְחוּבָּר (מֵאֲדָמָה) [בַּאֲדָמָה]; שֶׁלֹּא יִבְנֶנּוּ לֹא עַל גַּבֵּי מְחִילּוֹת וְלֹא עַל גַּבֵּי כִּיפִּין.
And if you would say that the case is where one dug tunnels in the ground beneath the altar, and slaughtered the offerings in them, in a case like this would the altar itself be fit for use so that according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, one may slaughter the offerings of the most sacred order on the altar but not on the ground? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “An altar of earth you shall make for Me” (Exodus 20:21)? This verse indicates that the altar must be attached to the earth, so that one may not build it on top of tunnels nor on top of arches.
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּבַצְּרֵיהּ בַּצּוֹרֵי.
The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to have the phrase: On the ground opposite the northern half of the altar, in order to teach the halakha in a case where one minimized the dimensions of the altar and slaughtered the offerings on the ground where the northern half of the altar had previously stood.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אֶפְשָׁר אִיתָא לְהָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְלָא תְּנֵינָא לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתִין?!
§ The Gemara returns to discuss Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that according to Rabbi Yosei the entire altar was located in the northern section of the Temple courtyard. The Gemara had mentioned that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is an independent statement, not based on the mishna. Rabbi Zeira said: Is it possible that this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan is correct and we did not learn it in any mishna?
נְפַק, דַּק וְאַשְׁכַּח – דִּתְנַן: בֵּירְרוּ מִשָּׁם עֲצֵי תְאֵינָה יָפִים לְסַדֵּר מַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁל קְטֹרֶת; כְּנֶגֶד קֶרֶן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית, מָשׁוּךְ מִן הַקֶּרֶן כְּלַפֵּי צָפוֹן אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת; בְּאוֹמֶד חָמֵשׁ סְאִין גֶּחָלִים. וּבְשַׁבָּת – בְּאוֹמֶד שְׁמוֹנֶה סְאִין גֶּחָלִים, שֶׁשָּׁם הָיוּ נוֹתְנִין שְׁנֵי בְּזִיכֵי לְבוֹנָה שֶׁל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים.
Rabbi Zeira went out, examined the matter, and discovered a mishna that alludes to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, as we learned in a mishna (Tamid 2:5): The priests selected fine wood of a fig tree from the chamber of firewood, with which to lay out a second arrangement of wood on the altar so that coals from this arrangement could be used for burning the incense. This second arrangement was located opposite the southwest corner of the altar, distanced from the corner northward by four cubits. They would arrange enough wood which, when burned, would produce approximately five se’a of coals. And on Shabbat, there was enough wood to produce approximately eight se’a of coals, as they would place there the two bowls of frankincense of the shewbread.
וּמַאי סִימָנָא? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא,
The Gemara asks: And what is the significance of the mishna’s defining the precise location of the arrangement and the fact that this is where the frankincense is burned? The Gemara embarks on a lengthy discussion to answer this question: This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that this arrangement of wood and the burning of the frankincense must be in that precise location, as it is taught in a baraita:
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה סִימָן – כׇּל הַנִּיטָּל בִּפְנִים לִינָּתֵן בַּחוּץ, אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן אֶלָּא בְּסָמוּךְ שֶׁאֵין לִפְנִים;
Rabbi Yosei says: This is the principle of where sacrificial items are placed on the inner and outer altars: Any sacrificial item that is taken from the altar located inside the Sanctuary in order to be placed on the altar outside the Sanctuary, in the Temple courtyard, may be placed only on the area of that altar that is near the Sanctuary, so that there is no area closer to the inside of the Sanctuary. It must therefore be placed on the part of the external altar closest to the entrance to the Sanctuary.
וְכׇל הַנִּיטָּל בַּחוּץ לִינָּתֵן לִפְנִים, אֵינוֹ נִיטָּל אֶלָּא בְּסָמוּךְ שֶׁאֵין לִפְנִים.
And any sacrificial item that is taken from the altar outside the Sanctuary, in the Temple courtyard, in order to be placed on the altar located inside the Sanctuary, may be taken only from the area of the external altar that is near the Sanctuary, so that there is no area closer to the inside of the Sanctuary, i.e., from the part of the external altar closest to the entrance to the Sanctuary.
כָּל הַנִּיטָּל בִּפְנִים לִינָּתֵן בַּחוּץ – מַאי נִיהוּ? אִילֵּימָא שִׁירַיִם, בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ: ״אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה אֲשֶׁר פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״!
The Gemara clarifies: With regard to the statement concerning any sacrificial item that is taken from the altar located inside the Sanctuary in order to be placed on the altar outside the Sanctuary, what are these items? If we say they are the remaining blood of the sin offerings whose blood is presented on the inner altar, there is no reason for Rabbi Yosei to formulate his principle, as it is explicitly written concerning them: “And all the remaining blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 4:7). This verse describes how the blood of the inner sin offerings that remained after the sprinkling was to be poured out on the base of the west side of the altar, which is the side closest to the entrance to the Sanctuary.
וְתוּ, כֹּל הַנִּיטָּל בַּחוּץ לִינָּתֵן בִּפְנִים – מַאי נִיהוּ? אִילֵּימָא גֶּחָלִים שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים, בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ: ״וְלָקַח מְלֹא הַמַּחְתָּה גַּחֲלֵי אֵשׁ וְגוֹ׳״!
And furthermore, with regard to the statement about any sacrificial item that is taken from the altar outside the Sanctuary, in the Temple courtyard, in order to be placed on the altar located inside the Sanctuary, what are these items? If we say these are the coals of the Yom Kippur service, which must be taken from the western side of the altar, it is explicitly written concerning them: “And he shall take a coal pan full of coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:12). The expression “before the Lord” is a reference to the western side of the altar, which is the side closest to the Sanctuary.
אֶלָּא כׇּל הַנִּיטָּל בִּפְנִים לִינָּתֵן בַּחוּץ – שְׁנֵי בְּזִיכֵי לְבוֹנָה שֶׁל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, דְּגָמְרִי מִשִּׁירַיִם.
The Gemara continues: Rather, Rabbi Yosei’s statement with regard to any sacrificial item that is taken from the altar located inside the Sanctuary in order to be placed on the altar outside the Sanctuary is referring to the two bowls of frankincense of the shewbread. According to Rabbi Yosei, they must be burned on the western side of the altar, as he derives this halakha from the location on the base of the altar where the remaining blood of the inner sin offerings is poured.
הַנִּיטָּל בַּחוּץ לִינָּתֵן בִּפְנִים – גֶּחָלִים דְּכֹל יוֹמָא וְיוֹמָא, דְּגָמְרָן מִגֶּחָלִים שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.
Rabbi Yosei’s next statement, that any sacrificial item that is taken from the altar outside the Sanctuary in order to be placed on the altar located inside the Sanctuary may be taken only from the area of the external altar that is near the Sanctuary, is referring to the coals that are taken from the external altar each and every day and placed on the inner altar in order to burn the incense. According to Rabbi Yosei these coals must be taken from the western side of the altar, as we derive this halakha from the location on the altar from where the coals of the Yom Kippur service must be taken.
וּמַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בְּדָרוֹם קָאֵי, עֶשְׂרִים וְשֶׁבַע בָּעֵי לְמֵיתֵי!
The Gemara discusses Rabbi Yosei’s opinion that the second arrangement of wood was placed four cubits north of the southwest corner of the altar: And what does Rabbi Yosei hold about the placement of the altar in the Temple courtyard? If he holds that the entire altar stands in the south side of the Temple courtyard, then only the five northernmost cubits of the altar are opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary. Accordingly, in order for the arrangement of wood to be opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary, one is required to move it twenty-seven cubits north of the southwest corner of the altar.
וְאִי נָמֵי קָסָבַר קְדוּשַּׁת הֵיכָל וְאוּלָם חֲדָא הִיא, עֶשְׂרִים וְתַרְתֵּי בָּעֵי מֵיתֵי!
The Gemara continues: And even if Rabbi Yosei holds that the level of sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall is the same, so that the arrangement of wood can be opposite the Entrance Hall, which is ten cubits wider than the Sanctuary, his opinion is still difficult. In order for the arrangement of wood to be opposite the Entrance Hall, one is required to move it twenty-two cubits north of the southwest corner of the altar.
וְאִי קָסָבַר חֶצְיוֹ בַּצָּפוֹן וְחֶצְיוֹ בַּדָּרוֹם, חַד סְרֵי בָּעֵי לְמֵיתֵי! וְאֶלָּא קָסָבַר קְדוּשַּׁת הֵיכָל וְאוּלָם חֲדָא מִילְּתָא הִיא? שֵׁית בָּעֵי לְמֵיתֵי!
The Gemara continues: And even if Rabbi Yosei holds that half of the altar was located in the north side of the Temple courtyard and half in the south, in order for the arrangement of wood to be opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary one is still required to move it eleven cubits to the north of the southwest corner of the altar. And if one suggests that, rather, he holds that the sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall is one matter, i.e., equal, one is still required to move the arrangement of wood six cubits from the southwest corner in order to be opposite the Entrance Hall.
אֶלָּא לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בְּצָפוֹן קָאֵי?
Rather, is it not that Rabbi Yosei’s opinion that the arrangement of wood was located four cubits from the altar’s southwest corner is due to the fact that he holds that the entire altar stands in the north side of the Temple courtyard? Accordingly, only the five southernmost cubits of the altar were opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary.
וְהָנֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – אַמָּה יְסוֹד, וְאַמָּה סוֹבֵב, וְאַמָּה מָקוֹם קְרָנוֹת, וְאַמָּה מְקוֹם רַגְלֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים; דְּכִי מְסַגּוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ טְפֵי – תּוּ לֵיכָּא פֶּתַח.
And of these four cubits from which the arrangement of wood was distanced from the southwest corner of the altar, one cubit was the base of the altar; and one cubit was the surrounding ledge of the altar; and one cubit was the place where the corners of the altar were located; and another cubit was the place of the feet of the priests, i.e., space for the priests to walk around the perimeter of the surface of the altar in order to perform the sacrificial rites. The arrangement of wood was located specifically in that location, as if one were to move it farther away from the southwest corner of the altar, it would no longer be opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary. This proves that according to Rabbi Yosei, the entire altar was located in the northern side of the Temple courtyard, as stated by Rabbi Yoḥanan.
אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִזְבֵּחַ מְמוּצָּע וְעוֹמֵד בְּאֶמְצַע הָעֲזָרָה; ושְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁתַּיִם אַמּוֹת הָיוּ לוֹ – עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת כְּנֶגֶד פִּתְחוֹ שֶׁל הֵיכָל, אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה מִיכָּן, וְאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה מִיכָּן; נִמְצָא מִזְבֵּחַ מְכוָּּון כְּנֶגֶד הֵיכָל.
The Gemara challenges this proof by suggesting an alternative explanation of the mishna in Tamid: Rav Adda bar Ahava said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The altar was centered and standing precisely in the middle of the Temple courtyard, and it was thirty-two cubits wide. Ten cubits were opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary, eleven cubits were to this side of the entrance to the Sanctuary, and eleven cubits were to that side of the entrance to the Sanctuary. It turns out that the length of the altar was aligned opposite the width of the Sanctuary, which itself was thirty-two cubits wide.
סוֹף סוֹף, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה חַד סְרֵי בָּעֵי לְמֵיתֵי; וְאִי קָסָבַר קְדוּשַּׁת הֵיכָל וְאוּלָם חֲדָא מִילְּתָא הִיא, שֵׁית בָּעֵי לְמֵיתֵי!
The Gemara asks: Ultimately, according to Rabbi Yehuda, one is still required to move the arrangement of wood eleven cubits from the southwest corner in order for it to be opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary. And even if he holds that the sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall is one matter, i.e., equal, one is still required to move the arrangement of wood six cubits in order to be opposite the Entrance Hall. Therefore, the mishna, which states that the arrangement of wood is four cubits north of the southwest corner, cannot be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
מִי סָבְרַתְּ הָנֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – בַּהֲדֵי אַמָּה יְסוֹד וְאַמָּה סוֹבֵב?! אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בַּר מֵאַמָּה יְסוֹד וְאַמָּה סוֹבֵב.
The Gemara responds: Do you hold that these four cubits include the cubit of the base of the altar and the cubit of the surrounding ledge of the altar? Actually, the four cubits are aside from the cubit of the base of the altar and the cubit of the surrounding ledge of the altar. Accordingly, the arrangement of wood was actually a total of six cubits from the southwest corner of the altar, and the mishna can be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
וְנוֹקְמַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וּבִמְמוּצָּע! מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה שְׁמַעְנָא לֵיהּ מְמוּצָּע בְּהֶדְיָא.
The Gemara asks why Rav Adda bar Ahava interpreted the mishna to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: But let him interpret it to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei and explain that the altar is located in the center of the Temple courtyard. The Gemara explains: Rav Adda bar Ahava interpreted the mishna to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda because we heard that Rabbi Yehuda explicitly said that the altar was positioned in the center of the Temple courtyard, whereas we did not hear that Rabbi Yosei maintains such an opinion.
וְרַב שֵׁרֵבְיָא אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָתַתָּ אֶת הַכִּיּוֹר בֵּין אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ וְגוֹמֵר, ״וְאֶת
And Rav Sherevya said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna in Tamid, which holds that the entire altar was located in the northern part of the Temple courtyard? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Since it is stated: “And you shall set the Basin between the Tent of Meeting and the altar” (Exodus 40:7), and another verse states: “And
Follow
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Din & Daf: The Role of the Mizbeach (altar) and the Identity of the Mikdash
10.30.2025 | ח׳ בחשון תשפ״ו
Zevahim 38: When Beit Hillel Turns Stringent and Beit Shammai Lenient
10.22.2025 | ל׳ בתשרי תשפ״ו
Zevahim 37: Different Interpretations: Meaning and Reading
10.21.2025 | כ״ט בתשרי תשפ״ו
Zevahim 37: Different Interpretations: Meaning and Reading
10.21.2025 | כ״ט בתשרי תשפ״ו
Din & Daf: Kodshei Kodashim vs. Kodashim Kalim – What’s the Difference?
10.21.2025 | כ״ט בתשרי תשפ״ו
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Roslyn Jaffe
Florida, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ruth Leah Kahan
Ra’anana, Israel
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Sheila Hauser
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Deborah Dickson
Ra’anana, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Sue Parker Gerson
Denver, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Miriam Eckstein-Koas
Huntington, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Rochel Cheifetz
Riverdale, NY, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
Zevachim 58
מַתְנִי׳ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כְּאִילּוּ נִשְׁחֲטוּ בַּצָּפוֹן. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מֵחֲצִי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְלַדָּרוֹם – כַּדָּרוֹם, מֵחֲצִי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְלַצָּפוֹן – כַּצָּפוֹן.
MISHNA: It was taught in the previous chapter that offerings of the most sacred order are to be slaughtered in the northern section of the Temple courtyard. With regard to offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered atop the altar, Rabbi Yosei says: Their status is as though they were slaughtered in the north, and the offerings are therefore valid. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The status of the area from the halfway point of the altar and to the south is like that of the south, and offerings of the most sacred order slaughtered in that area are therefore disqualified. The status of the area from the halfway point of the altar and to the north is like that of the north.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אוֹמֵר הָיָה ר׳ יוֹסֵי, כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בְּצָפוֹן קָאֵי. וּמַאי ״כְּאִילּוּ״? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא בָּעֵינַן ״עַל יָרֵךְ״ – וְלֵיכָּא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
GEMARA: Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Yosei used to say: The entire altar stands in the north section of the Temple courtyard. The Gemara asks: And what is the meaning of Rabbi Yosei’s statement that if one slaughtered offerings of the most sacred order atop the altar it is as though they were slaughtered in the north, which indicates that they were not actually slaughtered in the north? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei said this lest you say that we require that the offering be slaughtered “on the side of the altar northward” (Leviticus 1:11), i.e., on the ground beside the altar, and that requirement is not fulfilled when it is slaughtered on top of the altar. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei teaches us that the offering is still valid.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַב אַסִּי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּחֶצְיוֹ בְּצָפוֹן וְחֶצְיוֹ בַּדָּרוֹם?!
Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: Rabbi Yoḥanan apparently understands that the reason Rabbi Yosei holds that an offering of the most sacred order slaughtered on the altar is valid is because the entire altar is in the northern section of the Temple courtyard. If that is so, shall one also say that according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, half of the altar was situated in the north of the Temple courtyard and half of it was situated in the south?
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי; וְהָא אַתְּ הוּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוֹדֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאִם שְׁחָטָן כְּנֶגְדָּן בַּקַּרְקַע – פְּסוּלָה!
And if you would say that indeed that is so, wasn’t it you who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, concedes that if one slaughtered offerings of the most sacred order on the ground opposite the northern half of the altar, the offering is disqualified? Accordingly, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, apparently maintains that the altar is not located in the north at all.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – שְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ: ״וְזָבַחְתָּ עָלָיו אֶת עֹלֹתֶיךָ וְאֶת שְׁלָמֶיךָ״ –
Rav Asi said to Rabbi Zeira: Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement with regard to Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is an independent statement rather than an inference from the mishna. And with regard to the dispute in the mishna, this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Both of them derived their opinions from one verse: “An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall slaughter upon it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings” (Exodus 20:21).
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: כּוּלּוֹ לְעוֹלָה וְכוּלּוֹ לִשְׁלָמִים. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: חֶצְיוֹ לְעוֹלָה וְחֶצְיוֹ לִשְׁלָמִים;
Rabbi Yosei maintains that the verse teaches that all of it, i.e., the entire altar, is fit for slaughtering a burnt offering, and all of it is also fit for slaughtering a peace offering. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, maintains that the verse teaches that half of it is fit for slaughtering a burnt offering and half of it is fit for slaughtering a peace offering.
דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כּוּלּוֹ לְעוֹלָה כָּשֵׁר, הַשְׁתָּא כּוּלּוֹ לְעוֹלָה – כָּשֵׁר, כּוּלּוֹ לִשְׁלָמִים מִיבַּעְיָא?!
The Gemara explains the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: As if it enters your mind that all of it is fit for slaughtering a burnt offering, now that all of it is fit for slaughtering a burnt offering, which must be slaughtered in the northern section of the Temple courtyard (see 53b), is it necessary to teach that it is also fit for slaughtering a peace offering, which may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple courtyard (see 55a)? The verse therefore must be understood as teaching that half the altar is fit for slaughtering burnt offerings and half is fit for slaughtering peace offerings.
וְאִידָּךְ – אִיצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: עוֹלָה הוּא דִּדְחִיק לֵיהּ מָקוֹם; אֲבָל שְׁלָמִים, דְּלָא דְּחִיק לֵיהּ מָקוֹם – אֵימָא לָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei, respond to this reasoning? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the verse to mention peace offerings. Otherwise, it could enter your mind to say that the verse allows one to slaughter only a burnt offering atop the altar, as the location where it may be slaughtered on the ground is narrow. But with regard to peace offerings, whose location for slaughter on the ground is not narrow, say that no, one may not slaughter them atop the altar. Therefore, the verse teaches us that peace offerings as well may be slaughtered atop the altar.
גּוּפָא – אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוֹדֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאִם שְׁחָטָן כְּנֶגְדָּן בַּקַּרְקַע – פְּסוּלוֹת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: מַאי כְּנֶגְדָּן בַּקַּרְקַע? אִילֵימָא אַמָּה יְסוֹד אַמָּה סוֹבֵב – הַאי גּוּפֵיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ הוּא! וְעוֹד, מַאי ״כְּנֶגְדָּן בַּקַּרְקַע״?
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, concedes that if one slaughtered offerings of the most sacred order on the ground opposite the northern half of the altar, the offering is disqualified. Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: What is the meaning of the phrase: On the ground opposite the northern half of the altar? If we say it means that the offering was sacrificed upon the cubit-wide base of the altar or upon the cubit-wide surrounding ledge of the altar, this itself is part of the altar. And furthermore, what is the meaning of the phrase: On the ground opposite the northern half of the altar? The base and ledge are not on the ground.
וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּעָבֵיד מְחִילּוֹת בַּקַּרְקַע וְשָׁחֵיט בְּהוּ – וְכִי הַאי גַּוְונָא מִי הָוֵי מִזְבֵּחַ?! וְהָתַנְיָא: ״מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה תַּעֲשֶׂה לִּי״ – שֶׁיְּהֵא מְחוּבָּר (מֵאֲדָמָה) [בַּאֲדָמָה]; שֶׁלֹּא יִבְנֶנּוּ לֹא עַל גַּבֵּי מְחִילּוֹת וְלֹא עַל גַּבֵּי כִּיפִּין.
And if you would say that the case is where one dug tunnels in the ground beneath the altar, and slaughtered the offerings in them, in a case like this would the altar itself be fit for use so that according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, one may slaughter the offerings of the most sacred order on the altar but not on the ground? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “An altar of earth you shall make for Me” (Exodus 20:21)? This verse indicates that the altar must be attached to the earth, so that one may not build it on top of tunnels nor on top of arches.
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּבַצְּרֵיהּ בַּצּוֹרֵי.
The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to have the phrase: On the ground opposite the northern half of the altar, in order to teach the halakha in a case where one minimized the dimensions of the altar and slaughtered the offerings on the ground where the northern half of the altar had previously stood.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אֶפְשָׁר אִיתָא לְהָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְלָא תְּנֵינָא לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתִין?!
§ The Gemara returns to discuss Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that according to Rabbi Yosei the entire altar was located in the northern section of the Temple courtyard. The Gemara had mentioned that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is an independent statement, not based on the mishna. Rabbi Zeira said: Is it possible that this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan is correct and we did not learn it in any mishna?
נְפַק, דַּק וְאַשְׁכַּח – דִּתְנַן: בֵּירְרוּ מִשָּׁם עֲצֵי תְאֵינָה יָפִים לְסַדֵּר מַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁל קְטֹרֶת; כְּנֶגֶד קֶרֶן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית, מָשׁוּךְ מִן הַקֶּרֶן כְּלַפֵּי צָפוֹן אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת; בְּאוֹמֶד חָמֵשׁ סְאִין גֶּחָלִים. וּבְשַׁבָּת – בְּאוֹמֶד שְׁמוֹנֶה סְאִין גֶּחָלִים, שֶׁשָּׁם הָיוּ נוֹתְנִין שְׁנֵי בְּזִיכֵי לְבוֹנָה שֶׁל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים.
Rabbi Zeira went out, examined the matter, and discovered a mishna that alludes to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, as we learned in a mishna (Tamid 2:5): The priests selected fine wood of a fig tree from the chamber of firewood, with which to lay out a second arrangement of wood on the altar so that coals from this arrangement could be used for burning the incense. This second arrangement was located opposite the southwest corner of the altar, distanced from the corner northward by four cubits. They would arrange enough wood which, when burned, would produce approximately five se’a of coals. And on Shabbat, there was enough wood to produce approximately eight se’a of coals, as they would place there the two bowls of frankincense of the shewbread.
וּמַאי סִימָנָא? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא,
The Gemara asks: And what is the significance of the mishna’s defining the precise location of the arrangement and the fact that this is where the frankincense is burned? The Gemara embarks on a lengthy discussion to answer this question: This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that this arrangement of wood and the burning of the frankincense must be in that precise location, as it is taught in a baraita:
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה סִימָן – כׇּל הַנִּיטָּל בִּפְנִים לִינָּתֵן בַּחוּץ, אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן אֶלָּא בְּסָמוּךְ שֶׁאֵין לִפְנִים;
Rabbi Yosei says: This is the principle of where sacrificial items are placed on the inner and outer altars: Any sacrificial item that is taken from the altar located inside the Sanctuary in order to be placed on the altar outside the Sanctuary, in the Temple courtyard, may be placed only on the area of that altar that is near the Sanctuary, so that there is no area closer to the inside of the Sanctuary. It must therefore be placed on the part of the external altar closest to the entrance to the Sanctuary.
וְכׇל הַנִּיטָּל בַּחוּץ לִינָּתֵן לִפְנִים, אֵינוֹ נִיטָּל אֶלָּא בְּסָמוּךְ שֶׁאֵין לִפְנִים.
And any sacrificial item that is taken from the altar outside the Sanctuary, in the Temple courtyard, in order to be placed on the altar located inside the Sanctuary, may be taken only from the area of the external altar that is near the Sanctuary, so that there is no area closer to the inside of the Sanctuary, i.e., from the part of the external altar closest to the entrance to the Sanctuary.
כָּל הַנִּיטָּל בִּפְנִים לִינָּתֵן בַּחוּץ – מַאי נִיהוּ? אִילֵּימָא שִׁירַיִם, בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ: ״אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה אֲשֶׁר פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״!
The Gemara clarifies: With regard to the statement concerning any sacrificial item that is taken from the altar located inside the Sanctuary in order to be placed on the altar outside the Sanctuary, what are these items? If we say they are the remaining blood of the sin offerings whose blood is presented on the inner altar, there is no reason for Rabbi Yosei to formulate his principle, as it is explicitly written concerning them: “And all the remaining blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 4:7). This verse describes how the blood of the inner sin offerings that remained after the sprinkling was to be poured out on the base of the west side of the altar, which is the side closest to the entrance to the Sanctuary.
וְתוּ, כֹּל הַנִּיטָּל בַּחוּץ לִינָּתֵן בִּפְנִים – מַאי נִיהוּ? אִילֵּימָא גֶּחָלִים שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים, בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ: ״וְלָקַח מְלֹא הַמַּחְתָּה גַּחֲלֵי אֵשׁ וְגוֹ׳״!
And furthermore, with regard to the statement about any sacrificial item that is taken from the altar outside the Sanctuary, in the Temple courtyard, in order to be placed on the altar located inside the Sanctuary, what are these items? If we say these are the coals of the Yom Kippur service, which must be taken from the western side of the altar, it is explicitly written concerning them: “And he shall take a coal pan full of coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:12). The expression “before the Lord” is a reference to the western side of the altar, which is the side closest to the Sanctuary.
אֶלָּא כׇּל הַנִּיטָּל בִּפְנִים לִינָּתֵן בַּחוּץ – שְׁנֵי בְּזִיכֵי לְבוֹנָה שֶׁל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, דְּגָמְרִי מִשִּׁירַיִם.
The Gemara continues: Rather, Rabbi Yosei’s statement with regard to any sacrificial item that is taken from the altar located inside the Sanctuary in order to be placed on the altar outside the Sanctuary is referring to the two bowls of frankincense of the shewbread. According to Rabbi Yosei, they must be burned on the western side of the altar, as he derives this halakha from the location on the base of the altar where the remaining blood of the inner sin offerings is poured.
הַנִּיטָּל בַּחוּץ לִינָּתֵן בִּפְנִים – גֶּחָלִים דְּכֹל יוֹמָא וְיוֹמָא, דְּגָמְרָן מִגֶּחָלִים שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.
Rabbi Yosei’s next statement, that any sacrificial item that is taken from the altar outside the Sanctuary in order to be placed on the altar located inside the Sanctuary may be taken only from the area of the external altar that is near the Sanctuary, is referring to the coals that are taken from the external altar each and every day and placed on the inner altar in order to burn the incense. According to Rabbi Yosei these coals must be taken from the western side of the altar, as we derive this halakha from the location on the altar from where the coals of the Yom Kippur service must be taken.
וּמַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בְּדָרוֹם קָאֵי, עֶשְׂרִים וְשֶׁבַע בָּעֵי לְמֵיתֵי!
The Gemara discusses Rabbi Yosei’s opinion that the second arrangement of wood was placed four cubits north of the southwest corner of the altar: And what does Rabbi Yosei hold about the placement of the altar in the Temple courtyard? If he holds that the entire altar stands in the south side of the Temple courtyard, then only the five northernmost cubits of the altar are opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary. Accordingly, in order for the arrangement of wood to be opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary, one is required to move it twenty-seven cubits north of the southwest corner of the altar.
וְאִי נָמֵי קָסָבַר קְדוּשַּׁת הֵיכָל וְאוּלָם חֲדָא הִיא, עֶשְׂרִים וְתַרְתֵּי בָּעֵי מֵיתֵי!
The Gemara continues: And even if Rabbi Yosei holds that the level of sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall is the same, so that the arrangement of wood can be opposite the Entrance Hall, which is ten cubits wider than the Sanctuary, his opinion is still difficult. In order for the arrangement of wood to be opposite the Entrance Hall, one is required to move it twenty-two cubits north of the southwest corner of the altar.
וְאִי קָסָבַר חֶצְיוֹ בַּצָּפוֹן וְחֶצְיוֹ בַּדָּרוֹם, חַד סְרֵי בָּעֵי לְמֵיתֵי! וְאֶלָּא קָסָבַר קְדוּשַּׁת הֵיכָל וְאוּלָם חֲדָא מִילְּתָא הִיא? שֵׁית בָּעֵי לְמֵיתֵי!
The Gemara continues: And even if Rabbi Yosei holds that half of the altar was located in the north side of the Temple courtyard and half in the south, in order for the arrangement of wood to be opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary one is still required to move it eleven cubits to the north of the southwest corner of the altar. And if one suggests that, rather, he holds that the sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall is one matter, i.e., equal, one is still required to move the arrangement of wood six cubits from the southwest corner in order to be opposite the Entrance Hall.
אֶלָּא לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בְּצָפוֹן קָאֵי?
Rather, is it not that Rabbi Yosei’s opinion that the arrangement of wood was located four cubits from the altar’s southwest corner is due to the fact that he holds that the entire altar stands in the north side of the Temple courtyard? Accordingly, only the five southernmost cubits of the altar were opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary.
וְהָנֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – אַמָּה יְסוֹד, וְאַמָּה סוֹבֵב, וְאַמָּה מָקוֹם קְרָנוֹת, וְאַמָּה מְקוֹם רַגְלֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים; דְּכִי מְסַגּוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ טְפֵי – תּוּ לֵיכָּא פֶּתַח.
And of these four cubits from which the arrangement of wood was distanced from the southwest corner of the altar, one cubit was the base of the altar; and one cubit was the surrounding ledge of the altar; and one cubit was the place where the corners of the altar were located; and another cubit was the place of the feet of the priests, i.e., space for the priests to walk around the perimeter of the surface of the altar in order to perform the sacrificial rites. The arrangement of wood was located specifically in that location, as if one were to move it farther away from the southwest corner of the altar, it would no longer be opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary. This proves that according to Rabbi Yosei, the entire altar was located in the northern side of the Temple courtyard, as stated by Rabbi Yoḥanan.
אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִזְבֵּחַ מְמוּצָּע וְעוֹמֵד בְּאֶמְצַע הָעֲזָרָה; ושְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁתַּיִם אַמּוֹת הָיוּ לוֹ – עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת כְּנֶגֶד פִּתְחוֹ שֶׁל הֵיכָל, אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה מִיכָּן, וְאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה מִיכָּן; נִמְצָא מִזְבֵּחַ מְכוָּּון כְּנֶגֶד הֵיכָל.
The Gemara challenges this proof by suggesting an alternative explanation of the mishna in Tamid: Rav Adda bar Ahava said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The altar was centered and standing precisely in the middle of the Temple courtyard, and it was thirty-two cubits wide. Ten cubits were opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary, eleven cubits were to this side of the entrance to the Sanctuary, and eleven cubits were to that side of the entrance to the Sanctuary. It turns out that the length of the altar was aligned opposite the width of the Sanctuary, which itself was thirty-two cubits wide.
סוֹף סוֹף, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה חַד סְרֵי בָּעֵי לְמֵיתֵי; וְאִי קָסָבַר קְדוּשַּׁת הֵיכָל וְאוּלָם חֲדָא מִילְּתָא הִיא, שֵׁית בָּעֵי לְמֵיתֵי!
The Gemara asks: Ultimately, according to Rabbi Yehuda, one is still required to move the arrangement of wood eleven cubits from the southwest corner in order for it to be opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary. And even if he holds that the sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall is one matter, i.e., equal, one is still required to move the arrangement of wood six cubits in order to be opposite the Entrance Hall. Therefore, the mishna, which states that the arrangement of wood is four cubits north of the southwest corner, cannot be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
מִי סָבְרַתְּ הָנֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – בַּהֲדֵי אַמָּה יְסוֹד וְאַמָּה סוֹבֵב?! אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בַּר מֵאַמָּה יְסוֹד וְאַמָּה סוֹבֵב.
The Gemara responds: Do you hold that these four cubits include the cubit of the base of the altar and the cubit of the surrounding ledge of the altar? Actually, the four cubits are aside from the cubit of the base of the altar and the cubit of the surrounding ledge of the altar. Accordingly, the arrangement of wood was actually a total of six cubits from the southwest corner of the altar, and the mishna can be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
וְנוֹקְמַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וּבִמְמוּצָּע! מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה שְׁמַעְנָא לֵיהּ מְמוּצָּע בְּהֶדְיָא.
The Gemara asks why Rav Adda bar Ahava interpreted the mishna to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: But let him interpret it to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei and explain that the altar is located in the center of the Temple courtyard. The Gemara explains: Rav Adda bar Ahava interpreted the mishna to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda because we heard that Rabbi Yehuda explicitly said that the altar was positioned in the center of the Temple courtyard, whereas we did not hear that Rabbi Yosei maintains such an opinion.
וְרַב שֵׁרֵבְיָא אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָתַתָּ אֶת הַכִּיּוֹר בֵּין אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ וְגוֹמֵר, ״וְאֶת
And Rav Sherevya said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna in Tamid, which holds that the entire altar was located in the northern part of the Temple courtyard? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Since it is stated: “And you shall set the Basin between the Tent of Meeting and the altar” (Exodus 40:7), and another verse states: “And
Follow
