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 60
ZEVACHIM 60 (10 Av) - dedicated by Rabbi Kornfeld's mother to the memory of
her father, Reb Yisrael Shimon ben Shlomo ha'Levi Turkel. Isi Turkel loved
Torah and worked to support it with his last strength. He passed away 23
years ago, on 10 Av 5740.
1) MAY "KORBANOS" BE OFFERED ON THE FLOOR? (Cont.)
(a) Question: How can R. Yosi say that the Mizbe'ach was 10
Amos tall - it says "V'Shalosh Amos Komaso"!
2) WE CANNOT EAT "KODSHIM" WITHOUT A "MIZBE'ACH"
(b) Answer: (Excluding the Keranos) it was three Amos above
(c) R. Yehudah says that the Gezerah Shavah ("Ravu'a-
Ravu'a") only teaches about the length and width, not the
(d) Question: R. Yehudah said that surely the Mizbe'ach was
three Amos and not 10, for then people would be able to
see the Avodah from the outside - he himself holds that
the curtains around Chatzer ha'Mishkan were only five
Amos, people could see the Kohanim on top of the
Mizbe'ach (an average man is three Amos tall at the
(e) Answer: Indeed, people could see the Kohanim, but not the
Avodah (e.g. the blood or Eimurim in his hands).
(f) Question: According to R. Yehudah, we understand why it
says that Shlomo "Kidesh" (i.e. the floor, so Korbanos
could be burned on it);
1. According to R. Yosi why does it say "Kidesh"?
(g) Answer: He was Mekadesh the floor to which the Mizbe'ach
would be attached.
(h) Question: According to R. Yosi, we understand why it says
that Moshe's Mizbe'ach was "Katan" (too small for all the
1. According to R. Yehudah why is it called "Katan" -
also Shlomo's Mizbe'ach was not big enough!
(i) Answer: It means, the Mizbe'ach Shlomo made in place of
Moshe's was (also) too small.
(j) Question: What is the source of their argument?
(k) Answer: R. Yosi holds that we learn about a vessel
(Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes) from a vessel (Mizbe'ach
ha'Zahav), not from something attached (Shlomo's
1. R. Yehudah holds that we learn about something
outside (the Heichal, i.e. Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes)
from something outside (Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav), not
from something in the Heichal (Shlomo's Mizbe'ach).
(l) (Rava): R. Yehudah agrees that blood must be offered on
the Mizbe'ach, not on the floor.
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): They would gather a bucket
from the blood on the floor from all the Korbanos
(Pesach) and throw it on the Mizbe'ach, to Machshir
a Korban (in case its blood spilled).
(m) Rejection: Perhaps the blood must be put (on the
Mizbe'ach or floor) through a human action (not if it
2. If the floor was valid for blood, the Korban is
Kosher, there is no need to throw the blood on the
(n) Question: If so, we could collect and spill the blood
right there, there would be no need to put it on the
(o) Answer: Perhaps we put it on the Mizbe'ach, to do the
Mitzvah in the best way.
(a) (R. Elazar): If the Mizbe'ach became dented, we cannot
(rely on it to) eat the remains of Menachos - "V'Ichluha
Matzos Etzel ha'Mizbe'ach";
1. Question: They need not be eaten at the Mizbe'ach
(the entire Azarah is Kosher)!
(b) Question: This teaches about the remains of Menachos -
what is the source for other Kodshei Kodoshim?
2. Answer: Rather, this teaches that they must be eaten
when the Mizbe'ach is intact, not when it is
(c) Answer: We learn from a Gezerah Shavah "Kodesh-Kodoshim".
(d) Question: What is the source for Kodshim Kalim?
(e) Answer (Abaye): We expound like R. Yosi.
1. (Beraisa - R. Yosi citing R. Yishmael) Suggestion:
Perhaps nowadays (after the Churban) we may bring
Ma'aser Sheni to Yerushalayim and eat it there!
(f) Question: How does the Tana hold (concerning the Kedushah
i. Question: A Mah Matzinu refutes this! Bechor
and Ma'aser both must be brought to
Yerushalayim - just as Bechor may be eaten only
when the Mikdash stands, also Ma'aser.
2. Rejection: "Va'Haveisem
Shamah...(Masroseichem...u'Vchoros...)" - the verse
equates Ma'aser and Bechor - just as Bechor may be
eaten only when the Mikdash stands, also Ma'aser.
ii. Answer: We cannot learn from Bechor, its blood
and Chelev must be put on the Mizbe'ach.
iii. Question: Bikurim shows that this is not the
reason, no part of them goes on the Mizbe'ach,
they may be eaten only when the Mikdash stands!
iv. Answer: We cannot learn from Bikurim, they must
be placed on the ground in front of the
3. Question: Why couldn't we learn from the Tzad
ha'Shavah of Bechor and Bikurim?
4. Answer: We cannot learn from them, for both of them
are put (at least partially) on or in front of the
Mizbe'ach, this does not apply to Ma'aser.
1. If he holds that the Kedushah is permanent (i.e.
even after the Churban), also Bechor is permitted
today (for also the Kedushah of the Mikdash is
permanent; we could build the Mizbe'ach in its place
and offer Korbanos)!
(g) Answer (Ravina): He holds that the Kedushah was (our
text, Rashi - not) permanent; the case is, the Bechor's
blood was thrown before the Churban, and the meat is
intact after the Churban;
2. Version #1 (Rashi): If he holds that the Kedushah
was not permanent (it is Batul after the Churban),
he should be equally unsure about Bechor!
3. Version #2 (Tosfos): If he holds that the Kedushah
was not permanent, this also applies to Ma'aser! (It
is forbidden even in Yerushalayim; alternate texts -
it is permitted outside of Yerushalayim.) (End of
1. The meat is equated to the blood - just as the blood
requires a Mizbe'ach (to be offered), also the meat
(cannot be eaten without a Mizbe'ach);
(h) Question: Something learned from a Hekesh cannot teach
another law through a Hekesh!
2. We learn Ma'aser from Bechor.
(i) Answer #1: That only applies to Kodshim - Ma'aser of
produce is Chulin.
(j) Question: This is according to the opinion that it
depends on whether or not the matter being learned is
Kodshim or Chulin;
1. According to the opinion that it depends on the
source from which we learn, how can we answer?
(k) Answer: Blood and meat are like one (it is as if meat was
learned directly, without a Hekesh).
(l) R. Yirmeyah: Chachamim of Bavel (i.e. Abaye) err greatly!
1. (Beraisa #1): (In the Midbar,) when Benei Yisrael
moved to a new encampment, Kodshim became Pesulim,
Zavim were expelled from the boundaries of Shevet
Levi, and Metzora'im were expelled from Machane
Yisrael. (The latter law shows that the Kedushah of
the Machanos remains - presumably, Kodshim become
Pesulim because Kedushas ha'Mizbe'ach lapses when it
is being moved.)
2. Contradiction (Beraisa #2): Kodshim may be eaten in
two places (encampments).
3. Suggestion: Kodshei Kodoshim become Pesulim, Kodshim
Kalim do not even when Kedushas Mizbe'ach lapses)!