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 week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true baal chesed, who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition. He was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Rav Yosef offers two additional explanations for why the altar in the Second Temple was constructed larger than the altar in the First Temple.
When the Second Temple was built, how did they determine the correct location for the altar? Three explanations are brought.
Which components of the altar are essential for carrying out sacrificial rites?
The ramp of the altar was positioned on its southern side, measuring sixteen cubits in width and thirty-two cubits in length. Rav Huna cites a source to confirm that the ramp was indeed located in the south. A braita presents an alternative source from a statement by Rabbi Yehuda.
There was a space between the altar and the ramp – the origin and function of this gap are clarified.
If the ramp was thirty-two cubits long and the altar itself also measured thirty-two cubits in length, how does this align with the Mishna in Midot 5:2, which states that the total length was sixty-two cubits?
Today’s daily daf tools:
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 week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true baal chesed, who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition. He was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Zevachim 62
וְלֹא עַל גַּבֵּי מְחִילּוֹת.
and one may not build it on top of tunnels.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, לָאו הַיְינוּ דְּתַנְיָא: ״וַיָּכִינוּ אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ עַל מְכוֹנָתוֹ״ – שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לְסוֹף מִדּוֹתָיו? וְהָכְתִיב: ״הַכֹּל בִּכְתָב מִיַּד ה׳ עָלַי הִשְׂכִּיל״!
The Gemara relates that after reconsidering the reason for the expansion of the altar, Rav Yosef said: Is this not as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And they set the altar upon its bases” (Ezra 3:3), which teaches that in the Second Temple the size of the altar reached its full measure, i.e., that it was the ideal size, whereas in the First Temple it was not the ideal size? The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written with regard to the instructions David gave Solomon about how to build the Temple: “All this in writing, as the Lord has made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern” (I Chronicles 28:19), indicating that the design of the First Temple was dictated by God?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: קְרָא אַשְׁכַּח וּדְרַשׁ – ״וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִיד: זֶה הוּא בֵּית ה׳ הָאֱלֹהִים, וְזֶה מִּזְבֵּחַ לְעֹלָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל״ – כִּי בַּיִת; מָה בַּיִת שִׁשִּׁים אַמָּה, אַף מִזְבֵּחַ שִׁשִּׁים אַמָּה.
Rather, Rav Yosef said: The size of the altar in the First Temple was ideal, but in the Second Temple era there was a need to expand the altar, and they found a verse and interpreted it as follows. The verse states: “Then David said: This is the House of the Lord God, and this is the altar of burnt offering for Israel” (I Chronicles 22:1). The verse juxtaposes the House, i.e., the Temple, with the altar, which indicates that the altar is like the Temple: Just as the House was sixty cubits (see I Kings 6:2), so too, the altar may be extended up to a length of sixty cubits.
בִּשְׁלָמָא בַּיִת – מִינַּכְרָא צוּרָתוֹ; אֶלָּא מִזְבֵּחַ – מְנָא יָדְעִי?
§ The Gemara discusses the construction of the altar in the Second Temple. The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the location of the House, its shape was discernable from the vestiges of its foundations; but how did they know the proper location of the altar?
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: רָאוּ מִזְבֵּחַ בָּנוּי, וּמִיכָאֵל הַשַּׂר הַגָּדוֹל עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב עָלָיו. וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא אָמַר: אֶפְרוֹ שֶׁל יִצְחָק רָאוּ, שֶׁמּוּנָּח בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם. וְרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: מִכׇּל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ הֵרִיחוּ רֵיחַ קְטֹרֶת, מִשָּׁם הֵרִיחוּ רֵיחַ אֵבָרִים.
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Elazar says: They saw a vision of the altar already built and Michael the archangel standing and sacrificing offerings upon it. And Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa says: They saw a vision of the ashes of Isaac that were placed in that location. And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: From the entire House they smelled the scent of incense, yet from there, the location of the altar, they smelled a scent of burned animal limbs.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁלֹשָׁה נְבִיאִים עָלוּ עִמָּהֶם מִן הַגּוֹלָה – אֶחָד שֶׁהֵעִיד לָהֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְאֶחָד שֶׁהֵעִיד לָהֶם עַל מְקוֹם הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְאֶחָד שֶׁהֵעִיד לָהֶם שֶׁמַּקְרִיבִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּיִת.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Three prophets ascended with them from the exile: One who testified to them about the size and shape of the altar, and one who testified to them about the proper location of the altar, and one who testified to them that one sacrifices offerings even if there is no Temple, provided that there is a proper altar.
בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה נְבִיאִים עָלוּ עִמָּהֶן מִן הַגּוֹלָה – אֶחָד שֶׁהֵעִיד לָהֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְעַל מְקוֹם הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְאֶחָד שֶׁהֵעִיד לָהֶם שֶׁמַּקְרִיבִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּיִת, וְאֶחָד שֶׁהֵעִיד לָהֶם עַל הַתּוֹרָה – שֶׁתִּכָּתֵב אַשּׁוּרִית.
It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Three prophets ascended with the Jewish people from the exile: One who testified to them about the size and shape of the altar and about the proper location of the altar, and one who testified to them that one sacrifices offerings even if there is no Temple, and one who testified to them about the Torah and instructed that it be written in Assyrian script [Ashurit] rather than the ancient Hebrew script used in the times of Moses.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: קֶרֶן וְכֶבֶשׁ וִיסוֹד וְרִיבּוּעַ – מְעַכְּבִין. מִדַּת אׇרְכּוֹ וּמִדַּת רׇחְבּוֹ וּמִדַּת קוֹמָתוֹ – אֵין מְעַכְּבִין. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״; כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – לְעַכֵּב.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The corner built at each point where the edges of the altar meet, the ramp upon which the priests ascended the altar, the base of the altar, and the requirement that the altar must be exactly square, are all indispensable in order for the altar to be fit for use. But the measurement of its length, and the measurement of its width, and the measurement of its height are not indispensable. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Huna says: In reference to each of these characteristics the verse states the term “the altar,” and there is a principle that wherever the term “the altar” is stated, it serves to indicate that the halakhic detail mentioned is indispensable.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, כִּיּוֹר לְרַבִּי וְסוֹבֵב לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – הָכִי נָמֵי דִּמְעַכֵּב?! דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנָתַתָּה אֹתָהּ תַּחַת כַּרְכֹּב הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִלְּמָטָּה״, וְתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ כַּרְכּוֹב? רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: זֶה כִּיּוּר, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: זֶה הַסּוֹבֵב!
The Gemara asks: If that is so, then the engraving [kiyyur] that was on the altar according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, or the surrounding ledge of the altar according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, should also be indispensable, as it is written: “And you shall put it under the karkov of the altar beneath” (Exodus 27:5). And it is taught in a baraita: What is the karkov? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This is the engraving on the altar. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: This is the surrounding ledge.
אִין; דְּתַנְיָא: אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם נִפְגְּמָה קֶרֶן מִזְבֵּחַ, וְהֵבִיאוּ בּוּל שֶׁל מֶלַח וּסְתָמוּהוּ; וְלֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּשֵׁר לַעֲבוֹדָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יֵרָאֶה מִזְבֵּחַ פָּגוּם. שֶׁכׇּל מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קֶרֶן וְכֶבֶשׁ וִיסוֹד וְרִיבּוּעַ – פָּסוּל. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף הַסּוֹבֵב.
The Gemara answers: Yes, the karkov is also indispensable, as it is taught in a baraita: On that day when etrogim were pelted at a Sadducee priest who poured the water libation of Sukkot on his feet rather than on the altar (see Sukka 48b), the corner of the altar was damaged as a result of the pelting and the ensuing chaos. They brought a fistful of salt and sealed the damaged section. They did this not because it rendered the altar fit for the Temple service, but in deference to the altar, so that the altar would not be seen in its damaged state. The reason the altar is disqualified is because any altar that does not have a corner, a ramp, and a base, and any altar that is not square, is disqualified. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even the surrounding ledge is indispensable.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ כַּרְכּוֹב? בֵּין קֶרֶן לְקֶרֶן, מְקוֹם הִילּוּךְ רַגְלֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים אַמָּה. אַטּוּ (הכהנים) [כֹּהֲנִים] בֵּין קֶרֶן לְקֶרֶן הֲווֹ אָזְלִי?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: וּמְקוֹם הִילּוּךְ רַגְלֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים – אַמָּה.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: What is the karkov of the altar? It is the area between one corner and the next corner, which is the cubit-wide place on top of the altar where the priests would walk. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the priests would walk between one corner and the next corner? The Gemara answers: Rather, say: The karkov is the cubit-wide area between one corner and the other, and there was an additional cubit that was the place where the priests would walk.
וְהָכְתִיב: ״תַּחַת כַּרְכֻּבּוֹ מִלְּמַטָּה עַד חֶצְיוֹ״! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: תְּרֵי הֲווֹ; חַד לְנוֹי, וְחַד לְכֹהֲנִים דְּלָא נִשְׁתַּרְקוּ.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And he made for the altar a grating of network of brass, under the karkov beneath, reaching halfway up” (Exodus 38:4), which indicates that the karkov was on the side of the altar and not on top of it? The Gemara answers: Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: There were two entities called karkov. One was a slight protrusion above the midway point of the altar for aesthetic purposes, and one was an indentation on top of the altar for the benefit of the priests, to ensure that they would not slip off the top of the altar.
מִדַּת אׇרְכּוֹ וּמִדַּת רׇחְבּוֹ וּמִדַּת קוֹמָתוֹ – אֵין מְעַכְּבִין. אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי: וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִפְחָתֶנּוּ מִמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אַמָּה. מַחֲכוּ עֲלֵיהּ: ״חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת אֹרֶךְ וְחָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת רֹחַב רָבוּעַ יִהְיֶה הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״!
It was taught in a baraita cited above that the measurement of the altar’s length, and the measurement of its width, and the measurement of its height are not indispensable. Rabbi Mani says: This is the halakha provided that one does not decrease its size so that it is smaller than the altar constructed by Moses. The Gemara asks: And how large was the altar constructed by Moses? Rav Yosef says: One cubit. Those in the study hall mocked Rav Yosef, as it is written explicitly: “Five cubits long and five cubits wide; the altar shall be square” (Exodus 27:1).
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: דִּלְמָא מְקוֹם מַעֲרָכָה קָאָמַר מָר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָר דְּגַבְרָא רַבָּה הוּא, יָדַע מַאי קָאָמֵינָא. קָרֵי עֲלַיְיהוּ
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Perhaps the Master is speaking about the area of the arrangement of wood? Since the corners took up one cubit on each side and there was an additional cubit on each side for the priests to walk, only one cubit was left for the arrangement of wood. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: The Master, i.e., Abaye, who is a great man, knows what I mean to say. Rav Yosef read, i.e., applied, the following verse to those who mocked him:
״בְּנֵי קְטוּרָה״. בְּנֵי אֲחָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן הָווּ יָתְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, פָּתַח וְאָמַר: ״וַיּוֹסֶף אַבְרָהָם וַיִּקַּח אִשָּׁה וּשְׁמָהּ יוֹחָנִי״. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: ״קְטוּרָה״ כְּתִיב! קָרֵי (עֲלֵיהֶם) [עֲלַיְהוּ] ״בְּנֵי קְטוּרָה״.
“The children of Keturah” (Genesis 25:4). Although Keturah’s children were children of Abraham, they were not of the same caliber as Isaac. Similarly, Rav Yosef was saying that his other students were not of the caliber of Abaye. Having mentioned this term, the Gemara relates: The sons of Rabbi Tarfon’s sister were sitting silently before Rabbi Tarfon. In an attempt to encourage them to say something, he began and said: The verse states: And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Yoḥani. They said to Rabbi Tarfon: It is written: “Keturah” (Genesis 25:1), not Yoḥani. Rabbi Tarfon read, i.e., said, about them the phrase “the children of Keturah” as they were able to contribute only this small piece of information.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי בַּר הוּנָא אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא: גְּזִירִין שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה – אוֹרְכָּן אַמָּה, וְרוֹחְבָּן אַמָּה, וְעוֹבְיָין כְּמַחַק גּוֹדֶשׁ סְאָה.
§ Abaye bar Huna says that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya says: With regard to the logs that Moses prepared for the mitzva of burning wood upon the altar, their length was a cubit and their width was a cubit, and their thickness was like that of a leveler, a kind of flat stick used to remove the excess grain heaped on top of a container that holds one se’a.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: בְּאַמָּה גְּדוּמָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, וְלָאו הַיְינוּ דְּתַנְיָא: ״עַל הָעֵצִים אֲשֶׁר עַל הָאֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ עֵצִים יוֹצְאִין מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּלוּם?!
Rabbi Yirmeya says: The length and width of the logs mentioned were measured with a shortened cubit. Rav Yosef said: Is this not as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Upon the wood that is on the fire that is upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:8). The seemingly superfluous phrase “that is upon the altar” teaches that the wood should not extend at all beyond the area of the altar designated for the arrangement of wood. Since this area was one square cubit, the logs were exactly one cubit as well.
תְּנַן הָתָם: כֶּבֶשׁ הָיָה לִדְרוֹמָהּ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – אוֹרֶךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁתַּיִם, עַל רוֹחַב שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְשָׁחַט אוֹתוֹ עַל יֶרֶךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ צָפוֹנָה״ – שֶׁיְּהֵא יָרֵךְ בְּצָפוֹן, וּפָנָיו בַּדָּרוֹם.
§ The Gemara discusses the ramp of the altar: We learned in a mishna there (Middot 36a): There was a ramp that was located on the south side of the altar, whose size was a length of thirty-two cubits by a width of sixteen cubits. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, i.e., from where is it derived that the ramp is on the south side of the altar? Rav Huna said: The verse states: “And he shall slaughter it on the side [yerekh] of the altar northward” (Leviticus 1:11), which teaches that the altar’s thigh [yarekh] should be located in the north, and its face, i.e., the front of the altar where the priests ascend to it, should be in the south. The verse likens the positioning of the altar to a person who is lying down flat, in which case if his legs are to the north, his face is to the south.
אֵימָא: יָרֵךְ בַּצָּפוֹן וּפָנָיו בַּצָּפוֹן! אָמַר רָבָא: רָמֵי גַּבְרָא אַאַפֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַדְּרַבָּה – תָּרֵיץ וְאוֹתֵיב גַּבְרָא!
The Gemara asks: Why not say that its thigh should be in the north and its face should also be in the north? Perhaps the verse is referring to a person sitting with both his face and feet in the north. Rava said in response: Place the man on his face, i.e., the analogy is to a man who is lying down. Abaye said to him: On the contrary, sit the man straight up so that his face and his legs are facing the same direction.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״רָבוּעַ״ כְּתִיב. וְהָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ דִּמְרַבַּע רַבּוֹעֵי! מִי כְּתִיב ״מְרוּבָּע״?! וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, מִי כְּתִיב ״רָבוּץ״?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״רָבוּעַ״ כְּתִיב – דְּמַשְׁמַע הָכִי וּמַשְׁמַע הָכִי.
Rava said back to him: It is written in a verse that the altar must be “square [ravua]” (Exodus 27:1), which indicates lying down or crouching, as it is similar to the term ravutz, meaning crouching. Abaye challenges Rava: But this word is necessary to teach that the altar must be square. Rava responds: Is it written in the verse that the altar must be square [merubba]? The verse specifically uses the form ravua in order to allude to the word ravutz, crouching. Abaye counters: According to your reasoning, is it written in the verse that the altar must be ravutz? Rava answers: It is written in the verse that the altar must be ravua, which is a term that indicates this, i.e., that the altar must be square, and indicates that, i.e., that its positioning is comparable to that of a person who is lying down.
וְתַנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא – דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וּמַעֲלֹתֵהוּ פְּנוֹת קָדִים״ – כׇּל פִּינּוֹת שֶׁאַתָּה פּוֹנֶה, לֹא יְהוּ אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין לַמִּזְרָח.
The Gemara adds: And another tanna cites the source for the ramp’s positioning from here, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The verse states with regard to the future altar: “And its steps shall look [penot] toward the east” (Ezekiel 43:17), which indicates that all the turns [pinot] that you turn should be only to the right and you should turn to the east. Only if the ramp is in the south can one turn to the right and be facing eastward.
וְאֵימָא שְׂמֹאל לַמִּזְרָח! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ; דְּתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר (יְחִזְקִיָּה) [יְחֶזְקֵאל]: יָם שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה – ״עֹמֵד עַל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר בָּקָר; שְׁלֹשָׁה פֹנִים צָפוֹנָה, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה פֹנִים יָמָּה, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה פֹּנִים נֶגְבָּה, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה פֹּנִים מִזְרָחָה״ – כׇּל פִּינּוֹת שֶׁאַתָּה פּוֹנֶה, לֹא יְהוּ אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין לַמִּזְרָח.
The Gemara challenges: The verse indicates only that after a person turns he is facing eastward. Why not say that the ramp was located in the north and the priest turns left and faces eastward? The Gemara answers: This possibility should not enter your mind, as Rami bar Yeḥizkiya teaches: A verse describes the sea, i.e., the Basin, that Solomon built, in the following terms: “It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward [ponim] the north, and three looking toward [ponim] the west, and three looking toward [ponim] the south, and three looking toward [ponim] the east” (II Chronicles 4:4). From the order of the directions in which the verse lists the groups of oxen under the Basin, it can be derived that all the turns that you turn should be only to the right and to the east.
הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ! אִם כֵּן, ״פֹּנִים״ ״פֹּנִים״ לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara challenges: That verse is necessary to teach its own information describing the Basin. The Gemara explains: If so, why do I need the verse to repeat the term ponim, ponim? It must be in order to teach how one turns while performing the sacrificial rite upon the altar, which, in turn, teaches the location of the ramp.
שָׁאַל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹסֵי בֶּן לָקוֹנְיָא אֶת רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי, אֲוִיר יֵשׁ בֵּין כֶּבֶשׁ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ? אָמַר לוֹ: וְאַתָּה – אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן?! וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״ – מָה דָּם בִּזְרִיקָה, אַף בָּשָׂר בִּזְרִיקָה!
§ Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei ben Lakonya asked Rabbi Yosei: Is it so that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai used to say that there is airspace, i.e., a gap, between the ramp and the altar? Rabbi Yosei said to him: And you, don’t you say so as well? But isn’t it already stated: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27)? The verse juxtaposes the flesh of the burnt offering with its blood to teach that just as the blood is presented upon the altar via tossing while the priest stands on the ground next to the altar (see Leviticus 1:5), so too, the flesh of the burnt offering is presented via tossing. In order to fulfill this requirement, the priest stands on the ramp and tosses the flesh over the gap between the ramp and the altar, so that it lands on the arrangement of wood.
אָמַר לוֹ: שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר, עוֹמֵד בְּצַד מַעֲרָכָה – וְזוֹרֵק.
Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei ben Lakonya said to him: If the verse simply teaches that the flesh must be tossed onto the arrangement of wood, it does not prove that there must be a gap between the ramp and the altar, as I say that the priest should stand next to the arrangement of wood and toss the flesh onto it.
אָמַר לוֹ: כְּשֶׁהוּא זוֹרֵק – לְמַעֲרָכָה דְּלוּקָה הוּא זוֹרֵק, אוֹ לְמַעֲרָכָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ דְּלוּקָה הוּא זוֹרֵק? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: לְמַעֲרָכָה דְּלוּקָה הוּא זוֹרֵק! הָתָם מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר.
Rabbi Yosei said to him: When he tosses the flesh, does he toss it onto a part of the arrangement of wood that is burning or does he toss it onto a part of the arrangement of wood that is not burning? You must say that he tosses it onto a part of the arrangement of wood that is burning. And there, according to your suggestion that the priest is standing next to the arrangement of wood, he would have to toss the flesh, because it is impossible to place the flesh directly into the fire without the priest getting burned. It would be unnecessary for the verse to teach that the priest tosses the flesh while standing next to the arrangement. Consequently, when the verse juxtaposed the blood with the flesh, it must be teaching that the flesh must be tossed over a gap between the ramp and the altar.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: כִּי דָּם; מָה דָּם – אֲוִיר קַרְקַע מַפְסִיקוֹ, אַף בָּשָׂר – אֲוִיר קַרְקַע מַפְסִיקוֹ.
Rav Pappa says: The requirement that there be a gap between the ramp and the altar can be derived from this verse, because the juxtaposition teaches that the flesh is like blood in the manner in which it is tossed: Just as with regard to the blood there is space on the ground that interposes between the priest and the altar, so too with regard to the flesh, there is space on the ground that interposes between the priest and the altar, i.e., he stands on the ground next to the altar and tosses the flesh onto the altar.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׁים קְטַנִּים יוֹצְאִין מִן הַכֶּבֶשׁ, שֶׁבָּהֶן פּוֹנִים לַיְסוֹד וְלַסּוֹבֵב; וּמוּבְדָּלִין מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְלֹא נִימָא, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״סָבִיב״. וְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר: ״רָבוּעַ״.
§ The Gemara continues discussing the ramp: Rav Yehuda says: There were two small ramps protruding from the main ramp that led to the altar, on which the priests could turn to the base of the altar and to the surrounding ledge of the altar. They were separated from the altar by a hairbreadth, because it is stated: “Roundabout” (Leviticus 1:5), with regard to the altar. This indicates that nothing is attached to the entire perimeter of the altar. And Rabbi Abbahu says there is a different source, as it states: “Square” (Exodus 27:1), and if the ramps would be connected to the altar it would no longer be square.
וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״סָבִיב״, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״רָבוּעַ״. דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״סָבִיב״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא דְּעָגֵיל מִעְגָּל; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״רָבוּעַ״. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״רָבוּעַ״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא דַּאֲרִיךְ וְקַטִּין; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״סָבִיב״.
The Gemara continues: And it was necessary for the verse to write: “Roundabout,” and it was necessary for the verse to write: “Square,” as, had the Merciful One written only: “Roundabout,” I would say that the altar can be circular. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote that the altar must be “square.” And had the Merciful One written only that the altar must be “square [ravua],” I would say that the word ravua simply means rectangular and the altar can be long and narrow. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote the term “roundabout,” which teaches that the altar must not have some sides that are longer than others.
תְּנַן הָתָם: הַכֶּבֶשׁ וְהַמִּזְבֵּחַ – שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁתַּיִם. הָנֵי שִׁיתִּין וְאַרְבְּעָה הָווּ! נִמְצָא פּוֹרֵחַ אַמָּה עַל יְסוֹד וְאַמָּה עַל סוֹבֵב.
§ We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Middot 37b): The ramp and the altar together were sixty-two cubits long. The Gemara challenges: The dimensions of these are sixty-four cubits, as the altar and the ramp were each thirty-two cubits long (Middot 36a). The Gemara explains: The thirty-two-cubit measurement of the ramp is explained by a baraita that states: It is found that the ramp of the altar overhung the base of the altar by one cubit and the surrounding ledge by one cubit, resulting in an aggregate length of thirty-two cubits.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Zevahim 62: The Ashes of Isaac, or Where to Build the Second Temple’s Altar
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 Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
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.
Ra’anana, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, 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.
Dover Heights, Australia
Oceanside NY, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
Berlin, Germany
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
Raanana, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
Zevachim 62
וְלֹא עַל גַּבֵּי מְחִילּוֹת.
and one may not build it on top of tunnels.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, לָאו הַיְינוּ דְּתַנְיָא: ״וַיָּכִינוּ אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ עַל מְכוֹנָתוֹ״ – שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לְסוֹף מִדּוֹתָיו? וְהָכְתִיב: ״הַכֹּל בִּכְתָב מִיַּד ה׳ עָלַי הִשְׂכִּיל״!
The Gemara relates that after reconsidering the reason for the expansion of the altar, Rav Yosef said: Is this not as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And they set the altar upon its bases” (Ezra 3:3), which teaches that in the Second Temple the size of the altar reached its full measure, i.e., that it was the ideal size, whereas in the First Temple it was not the ideal size? The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written with regard to the instructions David gave Solomon about how to build the Temple: “All this in writing, as the Lord has made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern” (I Chronicles 28:19), indicating that the design of the First Temple was dictated by God?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: קְרָא אַשְׁכַּח וּדְרַשׁ – ״וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִיד: זֶה הוּא בֵּית ה׳ הָאֱלֹהִים, וְזֶה מִּזְבֵּחַ לְעֹלָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל״ – כִּי בַּיִת; מָה בַּיִת שִׁשִּׁים אַמָּה, אַף מִזְבֵּחַ שִׁשִּׁים אַמָּה.
Rather, Rav Yosef said: The size of the altar in the First Temple was ideal, but in the Second Temple era there was a need to expand the altar, and they found a verse and interpreted it as follows. The verse states: “Then David said: This is the House of the Lord God, and this is the altar of burnt offering for Israel” (I Chronicles 22:1). The verse juxtaposes the House, i.e., the Temple, with the altar, which indicates that the altar is like the Temple: Just as the House was sixty cubits (see I Kings 6:2), so too, the altar may be extended up to a length of sixty cubits.
בִּשְׁלָמָא בַּיִת – מִינַּכְרָא צוּרָתוֹ; אֶלָּא מִזְבֵּחַ – מְנָא יָדְעִי?
§ The Gemara discusses the construction of the altar in the Second Temple. The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the location of the House, its shape was discernable from the vestiges of its foundations; but how did they know the proper location of the altar?
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: רָאוּ מִזְבֵּחַ בָּנוּי, וּמִיכָאֵל הַשַּׂר הַגָּדוֹל עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב עָלָיו. וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא אָמַר: אֶפְרוֹ שֶׁל יִצְחָק רָאוּ, שֶׁמּוּנָּח בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם. וְרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: מִכׇּל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ הֵרִיחוּ רֵיחַ קְטֹרֶת, מִשָּׁם הֵרִיחוּ רֵיחַ אֵבָרִים.
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Elazar says: They saw a vision of the altar already built and Michael the archangel standing and sacrificing offerings upon it. And Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa says: They saw a vision of the ashes of Isaac that were placed in that location. And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: From the entire House they smelled the scent of incense, yet from there, the location of the altar, they smelled a scent of burned animal limbs.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁלֹשָׁה נְבִיאִים עָלוּ עִמָּהֶם מִן הַגּוֹלָה – אֶחָד שֶׁהֵעִיד לָהֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְאֶחָד שֶׁהֵעִיד לָהֶם עַל מְקוֹם הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְאֶחָד שֶׁהֵעִיד לָהֶם שֶׁמַּקְרִיבִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּיִת.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Three prophets ascended with them from the exile: One who testified to them about the size and shape of the altar, and one who testified to them about the proper location of the altar, and one who testified to them that one sacrifices offerings even if there is no Temple, provided that there is a proper altar.
בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה נְבִיאִים עָלוּ עִמָּהֶן מִן הַגּוֹלָה – אֶחָד שֶׁהֵעִיד לָהֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְעַל מְקוֹם הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְאֶחָד שֶׁהֵעִיד לָהֶם שֶׁמַּקְרִיבִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּיִת, וְאֶחָד שֶׁהֵעִיד לָהֶם עַל הַתּוֹרָה – שֶׁתִּכָּתֵב אַשּׁוּרִית.
It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Three prophets ascended with the Jewish people from the exile: One who testified to them about the size and shape of the altar and about the proper location of the altar, and one who testified to them that one sacrifices offerings even if there is no Temple, and one who testified to them about the Torah and instructed that it be written in Assyrian script [Ashurit] rather than the ancient Hebrew script used in the times of Moses.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: קֶרֶן וְכֶבֶשׁ וִיסוֹד וְרִיבּוּעַ – מְעַכְּבִין. מִדַּת אׇרְכּוֹ וּמִדַּת רׇחְבּוֹ וּמִדַּת קוֹמָתוֹ – אֵין מְעַכְּבִין. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״; כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – לְעַכֵּב.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The corner built at each point where the edges of the altar meet, the ramp upon which the priests ascended the altar, the base of the altar, and the requirement that the altar must be exactly square, are all indispensable in order for the altar to be fit for use. But the measurement of its length, and the measurement of its width, and the measurement of its height are not indispensable. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Huna says: In reference to each of these characteristics the verse states the term “the altar,” and there is a principle that wherever the term “the altar” is stated, it serves to indicate that the halakhic detail mentioned is indispensable.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, כִּיּוֹר לְרַבִּי וְסוֹבֵב לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – הָכִי נָמֵי דִּמְעַכֵּב?! דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנָתַתָּה אֹתָהּ תַּחַת כַּרְכֹּב הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִלְּמָטָּה״, וְתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ כַּרְכּוֹב? רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: זֶה כִּיּוּר, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: זֶה הַסּוֹבֵב!
The Gemara asks: If that is so, then the engraving [kiyyur] that was on the altar according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, or the surrounding ledge of the altar according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, should also be indispensable, as it is written: “And you shall put it under the karkov of the altar beneath” (Exodus 27:5). And it is taught in a baraita: What is the karkov? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This is the engraving on the altar. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: This is the surrounding ledge.
אִין; דְּתַנְיָא: אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם נִפְגְּמָה קֶרֶן מִזְבֵּחַ, וְהֵבִיאוּ בּוּל שֶׁל מֶלַח וּסְתָמוּהוּ; וְלֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּשֵׁר לַעֲבוֹדָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יֵרָאֶה מִזְבֵּחַ פָּגוּם. שֶׁכׇּל מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קֶרֶן וְכֶבֶשׁ וִיסוֹד וְרִיבּוּעַ – פָּסוּל. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף הַסּוֹבֵב.
The Gemara answers: Yes, the karkov is also indispensable, as it is taught in a baraita: On that day when etrogim were pelted at a Sadducee priest who poured the water libation of Sukkot on his feet rather than on the altar (see Sukka 48b), the corner of the altar was damaged as a result of the pelting and the ensuing chaos. They brought a fistful of salt and sealed the damaged section. They did this not because it rendered the altar fit for the Temple service, but in deference to the altar, so that the altar would not be seen in its damaged state. The reason the altar is disqualified is because any altar that does not have a corner, a ramp, and a base, and any altar that is not square, is disqualified. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even the surrounding ledge is indispensable.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ כַּרְכּוֹב? בֵּין קֶרֶן לְקֶרֶן, מְקוֹם הִילּוּךְ רַגְלֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים אַמָּה. אַטּוּ (הכהנים) [כֹּהֲנִים] בֵּין קֶרֶן לְקֶרֶן הֲווֹ אָזְלִי?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: וּמְקוֹם הִילּוּךְ רַגְלֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים – אַמָּה.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: What is the karkov of the altar? It is the area between one corner and the next corner, which is the cubit-wide place on top of the altar where the priests would walk. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the priests would walk between one corner and the next corner? The Gemara answers: Rather, say: The karkov is the cubit-wide area between one corner and the other, and there was an additional cubit that was the place where the priests would walk.
וְהָכְתִיב: ״תַּחַת כַּרְכֻּבּוֹ מִלְּמַטָּה עַד חֶצְיוֹ״! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: תְּרֵי הֲווֹ; חַד לְנוֹי, וְחַד לְכֹהֲנִים דְּלָא נִשְׁתַּרְקוּ.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And he made for the altar a grating of network of brass, under the karkov beneath, reaching halfway up” (Exodus 38:4), which indicates that the karkov was on the side of the altar and not on top of it? The Gemara answers: Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: There were two entities called karkov. One was a slight protrusion above the midway point of the altar for aesthetic purposes, and one was an indentation on top of the altar for the benefit of the priests, to ensure that they would not slip off the top of the altar.
מִדַּת אׇרְכּוֹ וּמִדַּת רׇחְבּוֹ וּמִדַּת קוֹמָתוֹ – אֵין מְעַכְּבִין. אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי: וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִפְחָתֶנּוּ מִמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אַמָּה. מַחֲכוּ עֲלֵיהּ: ״חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת אֹרֶךְ וְחָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת רֹחַב רָבוּעַ יִהְיֶה הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״!
It was taught in a baraita cited above that the measurement of the altar’s length, and the measurement of its width, and the measurement of its height are not indispensable. Rabbi Mani says: This is the halakha provided that one does not decrease its size so that it is smaller than the altar constructed by Moses. The Gemara asks: And how large was the altar constructed by Moses? Rav Yosef says: One cubit. Those in the study hall mocked Rav Yosef, as it is written explicitly: “Five cubits long and five cubits wide; the altar shall be square” (Exodus 27:1).
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: דִּלְמָא מְקוֹם מַעֲרָכָה קָאָמַר מָר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָר דְּגַבְרָא רַבָּה הוּא, יָדַע מַאי קָאָמֵינָא. קָרֵי עֲלַיְיהוּ
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Perhaps the Master is speaking about the area of the arrangement of wood? Since the corners took up one cubit on each side and there was an additional cubit on each side for the priests to walk, only one cubit was left for the arrangement of wood. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: The Master, i.e., Abaye, who is a great man, knows what I mean to say. Rav Yosef read, i.e., applied, the following verse to those who mocked him:
״בְּנֵי קְטוּרָה״. בְּנֵי אֲחָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן הָווּ יָתְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, פָּתַח וְאָמַר: ״וַיּוֹסֶף אַבְרָהָם וַיִּקַּח אִשָּׁה וּשְׁמָהּ יוֹחָנִי״. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: ״קְטוּרָה״ כְּתִיב! קָרֵי (עֲלֵיהֶם) [עֲלַיְהוּ] ״בְּנֵי קְטוּרָה״.
“The children of Keturah” (Genesis 25:4). Although Keturah’s children were children of Abraham, they were not of the same caliber as Isaac. Similarly, Rav Yosef was saying that his other students were not of the caliber of Abaye. Having mentioned this term, the Gemara relates: The sons of Rabbi Tarfon’s sister were sitting silently before Rabbi Tarfon. In an attempt to encourage them to say something, he began and said: The verse states: And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Yoḥani. They said to Rabbi Tarfon: It is written: “Keturah” (Genesis 25:1), not Yoḥani. Rabbi Tarfon read, i.e., said, about them the phrase “the children of Keturah” as they were able to contribute only this small piece of information.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי בַּר הוּנָא אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא: גְּזִירִין שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה – אוֹרְכָּן אַמָּה, וְרוֹחְבָּן אַמָּה, וְעוֹבְיָין כְּמַחַק גּוֹדֶשׁ סְאָה.
§ Abaye bar Huna says that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya says: With regard to the logs that Moses prepared for the mitzva of burning wood upon the altar, their length was a cubit and their width was a cubit, and their thickness was like that of a leveler, a kind of flat stick used to remove the excess grain heaped on top of a container that holds one se’a.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: בְּאַמָּה גְּדוּמָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, וְלָאו הַיְינוּ דְּתַנְיָא: ״עַל הָעֵצִים אֲשֶׁר עַל הָאֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ עֵצִים יוֹצְאִין מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּלוּם?!
Rabbi Yirmeya says: The length and width of the logs mentioned were measured with a shortened cubit. Rav Yosef said: Is this not as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Upon the wood that is on the fire that is upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:8). The seemingly superfluous phrase “that is upon the altar” teaches that the wood should not extend at all beyond the area of the altar designated for the arrangement of wood. Since this area was one square cubit, the logs were exactly one cubit as well.
תְּנַן הָתָם: כֶּבֶשׁ הָיָה לִדְרוֹמָהּ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – אוֹרֶךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁתַּיִם, עַל רוֹחַב שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְשָׁחַט אוֹתוֹ עַל יֶרֶךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ צָפוֹנָה״ – שֶׁיְּהֵא יָרֵךְ בְּצָפוֹן, וּפָנָיו בַּדָּרוֹם.
§ The Gemara discusses the ramp of the altar: We learned in a mishna there (Middot 36a): There was a ramp that was located on the south side of the altar, whose size was a length of thirty-two cubits by a width of sixteen cubits. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, i.e., from where is it derived that the ramp is on the south side of the altar? Rav Huna said: The verse states: “And he shall slaughter it on the side [yerekh] of the altar northward” (Leviticus 1:11), which teaches that the altar’s thigh [yarekh] should be located in the north, and its face, i.e., the front of the altar where the priests ascend to it, should be in the south. The verse likens the positioning of the altar to a person who is lying down flat, in which case if his legs are to the north, his face is to the south.
אֵימָא: יָרֵךְ בַּצָּפוֹן וּפָנָיו בַּצָּפוֹן! אָמַר רָבָא: רָמֵי גַּבְרָא אַאַפֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַדְּרַבָּה – תָּרֵיץ וְאוֹתֵיב גַּבְרָא!
The Gemara asks: Why not say that its thigh should be in the north and its face should also be in the north? Perhaps the verse is referring to a person sitting with both his face and feet in the north. Rava said in response: Place the man on his face, i.e., the analogy is to a man who is lying down. Abaye said to him: On the contrary, sit the man straight up so that his face and his legs are facing the same direction.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״רָבוּעַ״ כְּתִיב. וְהָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ דִּמְרַבַּע רַבּוֹעֵי! מִי כְּתִיב ״מְרוּבָּע״?! וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, מִי כְּתִיב ״רָבוּץ״?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״רָבוּעַ״ כְּתִיב – דְּמַשְׁמַע הָכִי וּמַשְׁמַע הָכִי.
Rava said back to him: It is written in a verse that the altar must be “square [ravua]” (Exodus 27:1), which indicates lying down or crouching, as it is similar to the term ravutz, meaning crouching. Abaye challenges Rava: But this word is necessary to teach that the altar must be square. Rava responds: Is it written in the verse that the altar must be square [merubba]? The verse specifically uses the form ravua in order to allude to the word ravutz, crouching. Abaye counters: According to your reasoning, is it written in the verse that the altar must be ravutz? Rava answers: It is written in the verse that the altar must be ravua, which is a term that indicates this, i.e., that the altar must be square, and indicates that, i.e., that its positioning is comparable to that of a person who is lying down.
וְתַנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא – דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וּמַעֲלֹתֵהוּ פְּנוֹת קָדִים״ – כׇּל פִּינּוֹת שֶׁאַתָּה פּוֹנֶה, לֹא יְהוּ אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין לַמִּזְרָח.
The Gemara adds: And another tanna cites the source for the ramp’s positioning from here, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The verse states with regard to the future altar: “And its steps shall look [penot] toward the east” (Ezekiel 43:17), which indicates that all the turns [pinot] that you turn should be only to the right and you should turn to the east. Only if the ramp is in the south can one turn to the right and be facing eastward.
וְאֵימָא שְׂמֹאל לַמִּזְרָח! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ; דְּתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר (יְחִזְקִיָּה) [יְחֶזְקֵאל]: יָם שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה – ״עֹמֵד עַל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר בָּקָר; שְׁלֹשָׁה פֹנִים צָפוֹנָה, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה פֹנִים יָמָּה, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה פֹּנִים נֶגְבָּה, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה פֹּנִים מִזְרָחָה״ – כׇּל פִּינּוֹת שֶׁאַתָּה פּוֹנֶה, לֹא יְהוּ אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין לַמִּזְרָח.
The Gemara challenges: The verse indicates only that after a person turns he is facing eastward. Why not say that the ramp was located in the north and the priest turns left and faces eastward? The Gemara answers: This possibility should not enter your mind, as Rami bar Yeḥizkiya teaches: A verse describes the sea, i.e., the Basin, that Solomon built, in the following terms: “It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward [ponim] the north, and three looking toward [ponim] the west, and three looking toward [ponim] the south, and three looking toward [ponim] the east” (II Chronicles 4:4). From the order of the directions in which the verse lists the groups of oxen under the Basin, it can be derived that all the turns that you turn should be only to the right and to the east.
הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ! אִם כֵּן, ״פֹּנִים״ ״פֹּנִים״ לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara challenges: That verse is necessary to teach its own information describing the Basin. The Gemara explains: If so, why do I need the verse to repeat the term ponim, ponim? It must be in order to teach how one turns while performing the sacrificial rite upon the altar, which, in turn, teaches the location of the ramp.
שָׁאַל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹסֵי בֶּן לָקוֹנְיָא אֶת רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי, אֲוִיר יֵשׁ בֵּין כֶּבֶשׁ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ? אָמַר לוֹ: וְאַתָּה – אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן?! וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״ – מָה דָּם בִּזְרִיקָה, אַף בָּשָׂר בִּזְרִיקָה!
§ Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei ben Lakonya asked Rabbi Yosei: Is it so that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai used to say that there is airspace, i.e., a gap, between the ramp and the altar? Rabbi Yosei said to him: And you, don’t you say so as well? But isn’t it already stated: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27)? The verse juxtaposes the flesh of the burnt offering with its blood to teach that just as the blood is presented upon the altar via tossing while the priest stands on the ground next to the altar (see Leviticus 1:5), so too, the flesh of the burnt offering is presented via tossing. In order to fulfill this requirement, the priest stands on the ramp and tosses the flesh over the gap between the ramp and the altar, so that it lands on the arrangement of wood.
אָמַר לוֹ: שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר, עוֹמֵד בְּצַד מַעֲרָכָה – וְזוֹרֵק.
Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei ben Lakonya said to him: If the verse simply teaches that the flesh must be tossed onto the arrangement of wood, it does not prove that there must be a gap between the ramp and the altar, as I say that the priest should stand next to the arrangement of wood and toss the flesh onto it.
אָמַר לוֹ: כְּשֶׁהוּא זוֹרֵק – לְמַעֲרָכָה דְּלוּקָה הוּא זוֹרֵק, אוֹ לְמַעֲרָכָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ דְּלוּקָה הוּא זוֹרֵק? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: לְמַעֲרָכָה דְּלוּקָה הוּא זוֹרֵק! הָתָם מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר.
Rabbi Yosei said to him: When he tosses the flesh, does he toss it onto a part of the arrangement of wood that is burning or does he toss it onto a part of the arrangement of wood that is not burning? You must say that he tosses it onto a part of the arrangement of wood that is burning. And there, according to your suggestion that the priest is standing next to the arrangement of wood, he would have to toss the flesh, because it is impossible to place the flesh directly into the fire without the priest getting burned. It would be unnecessary for the verse to teach that the priest tosses the flesh while standing next to the arrangement. Consequently, when the verse juxtaposed the blood with the flesh, it must be teaching that the flesh must be tossed over a gap between the ramp and the altar.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: כִּי דָּם; מָה דָּם – אֲוִיר קַרְקַע מַפְסִיקוֹ, אַף בָּשָׂר – אֲוִיר קַרְקַע מַפְסִיקוֹ.
Rav Pappa says: The requirement that there be a gap between the ramp and the altar can be derived from this verse, because the juxtaposition teaches that the flesh is like blood in the manner in which it is tossed: Just as with regard to the blood there is space on the ground that interposes between the priest and the altar, so too with regard to the flesh, there is space on the ground that interposes between the priest and the altar, i.e., he stands on the ground next to the altar and tosses the flesh onto the altar.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׁים קְטַנִּים יוֹצְאִין מִן הַכֶּבֶשׁ, שֶׁבָּהֶן פּוֹנִים לַיְסוֹד וְלַסּוֹבֵב; וּמוּבְדָּלִין מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְלֹא נִימָא, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״סָבִיב״. וְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר: ״רָבוּעַ״.
§ The Gemara continues discussing the ramp: Rav Yehuda says: There were two small ramps protruding from the main ramp that led to the altar, on which the priests could turn to the base of the altar and to the surrounding ledge of the altar. They were separated from the altar by a hairbreadth, because it is stated: “Roundabout” (Leviticus 1:5), with regard to the altar. This indicates that nothing is attached to the entire perimeter of the altar. And Rabbi Abbahu says there is a different source, as it states: “Square” (Exodus 27:1), and if the ramps would be connected to the altar it would no longer be square.
וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״סָבִיב״, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״רָבוּעַ״. דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״סָבִיב״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא דְּעָגֵיל מִעְגָּל; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״רָבוּעַ״. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״רָבוּעַ״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא דַּאֲרִיךְ וְקַטִּין; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״סָבִיב״.
The Gemara continues: And it was necessary for the verse to write: “Roundabout,” and it was necessary for the verse to write: “Square,” as, had the Merciful One written only: “Roundabout,” I would say that the altar can be circular. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote that the altar must be “square.” And had the Merciful One written only that the altar must be “square [ravua],” I would say that the word ravua simply means rectangular and the altar can be long and narrow. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote the term “roundabout,” which teaches that the altar must not have some sides that are longer than others.
תְּנַן הָתָם: הַכֶּבֶשׁ וְהַמִּזְבֵּחַ – שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁתַּיִם. הָנֵי שִׁיתִּין וְאַרְבְּעָה הָווּ! נִמְצָא פּוֹרֵחַ אַמָּה עַל יְסוֹד וְאַמָּה עַל סוֹבֵב.
§ We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Middot 37b): The ramp and the altar together were sixty-two cubits long. The Gemara challenges: The dimensions of these are sixty-four cubits, as the altar and the ramp were each thirty-two cubits long (Middot 36a). The Gemara explains: The thirty-two-cubit measurement of the ramp is explained by a baraita that states: It is found that the ramp of the altar overhung the base of the altar by one cubit and the surrounding ledge by one cubit, resulting in an aggregate length of thirty-two cubits.
