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