Zevachim 58

Sugya Map

• Issue: The halachic validity of slaughtering kodshei kodashim (offerings of the most sacred order) on the Mizbeach (Altar), given the requirement for them to be slaughtered in the Tzafon (northern section of the Temple courtyard).
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Does the Altar itself possess the halachic status of Tzafon for kodshei kodashim?
  • What is the precise physical location of the Mizbeach within the Azara (Temple courtyard) according to various Tannaim?
  • How do general pesukim (e.g., from Parshat Mishpatim) interact with specific pesukim regarding korbanot?
  • The fundamental requirement for the Mizbeach to be "מחובר לאדמה" (attached to the earth).
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishna: Zevachim 58a [https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_58a.1]
  • Gemara: Zevachim 58a [https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_58a.2]
  • Baraita: "מזבח אדמה תעשה לי" (Exodus 20:21) [https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.20.21]
  • Baraita: Rabbi Yosei's principle regarding internal/external Altar items [https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_58a.14]
  • Mishna Tamid 2:5 [https://www.sefaria.org/Tamid.2.5]
  • Tanakh: Leviticus 1:11 ("על ירך המזבח צפונה") [https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus.1.11], Leviticus 4:7 ("אל יסוד מזבח העולה") [https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus.4.7], Leviticus 16:12 ("מחתת קטרת מלאה גחלי אש") [https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus.16.12].

Text Snapshot

The core Mishna on Zevachim 58a presents a dispute:

"קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כְּאִילּוּ נִשְׁחֲטוּ בַּצָּפוֹן." "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." "רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מֵחֶצְי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּלְדָרוֹם – כְּדָרוֹם, מֵחֶצְי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּלְצָפוֹן – כְּצָפוֹן." "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."

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance

• "כאילו נשחטו בצפון": R. Yosei's use of "כאילו" (as if) is pivotal. It implies that the Altar is not actually the Tzafon in its inherent geographic sense, but halachically functions as such for slaughtering kodshei kodashim. This nuance drives the Gemara's initial kushya and Rashi's analysis.
• "מחצי המזבח ולדרום – כדרום, מחצי המזבח ולצפון – כצפון": R. Yosei b'R. Yehuda's division of the Altar implies a more literal, physical orientation, or at least a halachic division based on its alignment, which the Gemara later traces to the pesukim of Olah and Shlamim.

Readings

Rashi: Deriving Validity from "זבחת עליו"

Rashi, ever the pashkan, immediately clarifies the Mishna's statement by anticipating the Gemara's discussion. On the phrase "כאילו נשחטו בצפון" (as though they were slaughtered in the north), Rashi states: "בגמ' יליף טעמא" (In the Gemara, the reason is derived)¹. This signals that the Mishna's assertion isn't obvious but requires scriptural backing.

The Gemara, indeed, first asks why R. Yosei says "כאילו" if the Altar is considered Tzafon. Rav Asi, in the name of R. Yochanan, initially presents R. Yosei's view as "כל המזבח כולו עומד בצפון" (the entire altar stands in the north)². The "כאילו" is then explained as a minhaga or l'chatchila concern – "lest you say we require '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"³. Thus, R. Yosei teaches us that b'dieved, it's valid.

However, the Gemara's deeper analysis, prompted by R. Zeira, reveals Rav Asi's final understanding from R. Yochanan: both R. Yosei and R. Yosei b'R. Yehuda derive their opinions from the pasuk "מזבח אדמה תעשה לי וזבחת עליו את עולותיך ואת שלמיך" (An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall slaughter upon it your burnt offerings and your your peace offerings) (Exodus 20:21)⁴. Rashi clarifies that this pasuk is the source for the Altar's halachic status.

Rashi's Chiddush: Rashi highlights that the pasuk "וזבחת עליו" (and you shall slaughter upon it) is the primary mid'Oraita source for the validity of slaughtering on the Altar, essentially creating an exception to the general Tzafon requirement. The Altar, by virtue of this pasuk, is itself a valid place for shechita of kodshei kodashim. R. Yosei understands "כלו" (all of it) refers to the entire Altar being fit for Olah (which requires Tzafon) and Shlamim (which does not)⁵. R. Yosei b'R. Yehuda, however, interprets the pasuk as dividing the Altar – half for Olah and half for Shlamim – implying a halachic distinction rather than a simple geographic one⁶. This means the derasha from "וזבחת עליו" is not merely about b'dieved validity but defines the Altar's fundamental halachic use.

Tosafot: The L'chatchila/B'dieved Distinction

Tosafot, engaging with Rashi's initial explanation of "כאילו," pushes the question further: "ושמא הא דנקט דיעבד מדרבנן שלא תרביץ גללים" (Perhaps the reason it states b'dieved is due to a rabbinic decree, so that you do not cause dung to accumulate)⁷.

Tosafot's Chiddush: Tosafot introduces a distinction between the mid'Oraita validity and a drabanan preference. While mid'Oraita, one can slaughter on the Altar, l'chatchila (initially), it might be forbidden due to a concern about creating glalim (dung) on the sacred Altar, which would be disrespectful. This suggests that "כאילו" doesn't necessarily imply a lack of intrinsic northern status, but rather a preference to avoid certain actions on the Altar. Tosafot further buttresses this by referencing a Mishna in Zevachim 84b, "עולה שעלתה חיה לראש המזבח תרד" (An Olah that ascended alive to the top of the Altar must be taken down)⁸. The Gemara there (Zevachim 85b) questions this ruling, asking if it applies even if the animal is kosher for the Altar, implying a scenario where it's halachically fit but l'chatchila undesired for other reasons. This parallel supports the idea that even if slaughtering on the Altar is valid, there might be reasons to discourage it l'chatchila. Thus, the chiddush is that "כאילו" points to a drabanan prohibition for l'chatchila actions, even if mid'Oraita the act is valid.

Friction

The Strongest Kushya: Reconciling Altar Location and R. Yochanan's Statements

The sugya presents a profound friction in reconciling R. Yochanan's statements and the Tannaitic opinions regarding the Altar's placement and halachic status.

The Gemara initially quotes Rav Asi in the name of R. Yochanan: "רבי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כָּל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כּוּלּוֹ עוֹמֵד בַּצָּפוֹן" (Rabbi Yosei used to say: The entire altar stands in the north section of the Temple courtyard)⁹. This seems to provide a straightforward reason for R. Yosei's opinion in the Mishna that slaughtering on the Altar is valid.

However, R. Zeira immediately challenges this with a powerful kushya: "אִי הָכִי, לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נָמֵי, חֶצְיוֹ בַּצָּפוֹן וְחֶצְיוֹ בַּדָּרוֹם?" (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?)¹⁰. This is a logical inference from R. Yosei b'R. Yehuda's Mishnaic statement dividing the Altar.

The kushya intensifies: "וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָ אֲתוּן אֲמַרְתּוּן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מוֹדֶה שֶׁשָּׁחַט כְּנֶגְדָּן בַּקַּרְקַע – פָּסוּל?" (And if you would say that indeed that is so, wasn’t it you who said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan 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?)¹¹. This is the crux of the friction. If R. Yosei b'R. Yehuda believes half the Altar is Tzafon, why would he disqualify an offering slaughtered on the ground opposite that northern half? The very ground that should be Tzafon if the Altar's northern half is Tzafon? This implies that R. Yosei b'R. Yehuda doesn't view the Altar as being in the Tzafon at all, contradicting the logical inference from his Mishnaic statement. This creates a deep tension within R. Yochanan's attributed statements and the Tannaitic opinions.

The Best Terutz: Derivation from "זבחת עליו"

Rav Asi offers a brilliant terutz that resolves this fundamental tension by reframing the basis of the Mishnaic dispute: "לָא, הָא מִילְּתָא דְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אַמְרַהּ. וְהָא דְּפְלִיגִי בְּמַתְנִיתִין: הָא וְהָא מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ" (No, this statement of Rabbi Yochanan concerning 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 Yochanan says: Both of them derived their opinions from one verse)¹².

The terutz has two parts:

1. Independent Statement: R. Yochanan's statement that R. Yosei holds the entire Altar is in the north is not an explanation of the Mishna. It's an independent teaching about R. Yosei's view on the Altar's physical placement.
2. Derasha from "וזבחת עליו": The Mishnaic dispute between R. Yosei and R. Yosei b'R. Yehuda is not about the Altar's geographic location but about the interpretation of the pasuk "מזבח אדמה תעשה לי וזבחת עליו את עולותיך ואת שלמיך" (Exodus 20:21)¹³.
   • R. Yosei: "כּוּלּוֹ לְעוֹלָה וְכוּלּוֹ לִשְׁלָמִים" (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)¹⁴. The mention of Shlamim is necessary to teach that even Shlamim, whose ground location is not narrow, can be slaughtered on the Altar.
   • R. Yosei b'R. Yehuda: "חֶצְיוֹ לְעוֹלָה וְחֶצְיוֹ לִשְׁלָמִים" (half of it is fit for slaughtering a burnt offering and half of it is fit for slaughtering a peace offering)¹⁵. He argues that if the whole Altar was fit for Olah (which requires Tzafon), it would be redundant to say it's also fit for Shlamim (which can be anywhere). Therefore, the pasuk must be dividing the Altar's halachic function.

This terutz elegantly resolves the friction. The Mishnaic debate is about the halachic designation of the Altar based on a pasuk in Parshat Mishpatim, not its physical location. R. Yochanan's statement about R. Yosei's Altar being entirely in the north is then later proven by R. Zeira from the Mishna in Tamid (2:5), connecting the halachic derivation to a physical reality. The kushya about "כנגדן בקרקע" being pasul is then addressed by Rav Aha of Difti, suggesting a case of "דבצריה בצורי" (where one minimized the dimensions of the altar)¹⁶, implying that the ground where the Altar stood would lose its Altar-derived kedusha.

Intertext

"על ירך המזבח צפונה" vs. "וזבחת עליו"

The fundamental tension in our sugya is the apparent contradiction between two pesukim. On the one hand, Leviticus 1:11 explicitly states concerning Olah: "וְשָׁחַט אֹתוֹ עַל יֶרֶךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ צָפֹנָה לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק" (And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord)¹⁷. This is the primary source for the requirement of Tzafon for kodshei kodashim, implying that the shechita must occur on the ground north of the Altar.

On the other hand, Exodus 20:21 states: "מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה תַּעֲשֶׂה לִּי וְזָבַחְתָּ עָלָיו אֶת עֹלֹתֶיךָ וְאֶת שְׁלָמֶיךָ" (An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall slaughter upon it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings)¹⁸. This pasuk, from Parshat Mishpatim, clearly permits (or even commands) slaughtering upon the Altar.

The Sifra, a halachic Midrash, grapples with "על ירך המזבח צפונה" by emphasizing its specific location: "צפונה, לא אמרתי אלא בצפון" (Northward, I only said [it applies] in the north)¹⁹. This reinforces the idea that only the northern ground is valid. The Gemara in Zevachim 53b explicitly states this, deriving from "ירך" (side/thigh) that the shechita must be on the ground, not on the Altar itself.

The sugya on Zevachim 58a resolves this by positing that "וזבחת עליו" is a specific derasha that creates an exception for the Altar. The Altar itself, by virtue of this pasuk, is rendered a kosher place for shechita of kodshei kodashim, effectively being treated "כאילו נשחטו בצפון" (as if slaughtered in the north). The debate between R. Yosei and R. Yosei b'R. Yehuda then becomes about the scope of this exception – whether it applies to the entire Altar or only to its northern half. This demonstrates a classic halachic methodology: a general rule (Leviticus 1:11) can be modified or excepted by a more specific, albeit earlier, command (Exodus 20:21).

"מזבח אדמה תעשה לי" and the Altar's Foundation

Another critical intertextual connection is the baraita derived from "מזבח אדמה תעשה לי" (Exodus 20:21), which is cited later in the sugya: "שֶׁיְּהֵא מְחוּבָּר מֵאֲדָמָה, שֶׁלֹּא יִבְנֶנּוּ לֹא עַל גַּבֵּי מְחִילוֹת וְלֹא עַל גַּבֵּי כִּיפִין" (that it must be attached to the earth, so that one may not build it on top of tunnels nor on top of arches)²⁰.

This baraita establishes a fundamental halachic principle regarding the construction of the Mizbeach: it must be solidly grounded and connected to the natural earth. Rashi explains "כיפין" as "אולמים ארקמלו"ט" (arched vaults)²¹. This requirement ensures the Altar's stability and perhaps its symbolic connection to the earth from which humanity was created, and to which sacrifices return. This principle becomes relevant when the Gemara attempts to define "כנגדן בקרקע" (on the ground opposite them), ruling out interpretations involving tunnels beneath the Altar, as such an Altar would be invalid ab initio. This shows how the sugya seamlessly weaves together halachot of korbanot with fundamental laws of the Beit HaMikdash construction.

Psak/Practice

Halachic Ruling on Slaughtering on the Altar

The halacha generally follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that kodshei kodashim slaughtered on the Mizbeach are valid, as the Altar itself is considered a valid place for shechita. This is codified by the Rambam in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot: "אין שוחטין קדשי קדשים אלא בצפון... וכל המזבח כולו בצפון לענין שחיטה ודינו כצפון, לפיכך השוחט קדשי קדשים על גבי המזבח כשר" (One may only slaughter kodshei kodashim in the north... And the entire Altar is in the north regarding slaughtering, and its law is like the north, therefore one who slaughters kodshei kodashim on the Altar is valid)²². The Rambam adopts the view that the entire Altar is halachically considered Tzafon, consistent with R. Yosei's final understanding as elucidated by the Gemara.

Meta-Psak Heuristics: Derasha Over Geography

This sugya provides a powerful meta-psak heuristic: the primacy of derasha (scriptural interpretation) in defining halachic space and function, even over apparent geographic or logical considerations. While the Beit HaMikdash had specific spatial requirements (e.g., Tzafon for shechita), a direct pasuk like "וזבחת עליו" can create an exception or re-designate a space for a particular halacha. The debate in the Mishna is ultimately resolved not by mapping the Altar, but by interpreting the scope of this specific pasuk. This demonstrates that kedusha and halachic definition are often rooted in divine command and its textual exegesis, rather than purely empirical or geometric realities.

Takeaway

The sugya meticulously demonstrates how Chazal reconcile seemingly contradictory pesukim through precise derasha, establishing the Altar's unique halachic status as Tzafon for shechita. This highlights the sophisticated interplay between scriptural interpretation and the practical application of halacha in defining sacred space.

Citations

1. Rashi on Zevachim 58a:1:1, "מתני' קדשי קדשים" [https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Zevachim.58a.1.1]
2. Zevachim 58a:2, "רב אסי אמר ר' יוחנן" [https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_58a.2]
3. Zevachim 58a:3, "שמא תאמר" [https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_58a.3]
4. Zevachim 58a:5, "שניהם מקרא אחד דרשו" [https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_58a.5]
5. Zevachim 58a:6, "ר' יוסי סבר" [https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_58a.6]
6. Zevachim 58a:7, "ורבי יוסי ברבי יהודה סבר" [https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_58a.7]
7. Tosafot on Zevachim 58a:1:1, "מתני' קדשי קדשים ששחטן בראש המזבח" [https://www.sefaria.org/Tosafot_on_Zevachim.58a.1.1]
8. Rashash on Zevachim 58a:1:1, "תד"ה קדשי" [https://www.sefaria.org/Rashash_on_Zevachim.58a.1]
9. Zevachim 58a:2, "רב אסי אמר ר' יוחנן" [https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_58a.2]
10. Zevachim 58a:4, "אמר ליה ר' זירא לרב אסי" [https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_58a.4]
11. Zevachim 58a:4, "והא אתון אמרתון" [https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_58a.4]
12. Zevachim 58a:5, "אמר ליה" [https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_58a.5]
13. Exodus 20:21 [https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.20.21]
14. Zevachim 58a:6, "ר' יוסי סבר" [https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_58a.6]
15. Zevachim 58a:7, "ורבי יוסי ברבי יהודה סבר" [https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_58a.7]
16. Zevachim 58a:11, "לא צריכא דבצריה בצורי" [https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_58a.11]
17. Leviticus 1:11 [https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus.1.11]
18. Exodus 20:21 [https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.20.21]
19. Sifra, Vayikra, Parasha 2, Perek 4:10 [https://www.sefaria.org/Sifra%2C_Vayikra%2C_Parasha_2%2C_Perek_4.10]
20. Zevachim 58a:10, "והתניא" [https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_58a.10]
21. Rashi on Zevachim 58a:10:1, "כיפין" [https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Zevachim.58a.10.1]
22. Rambam, Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:10 [https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Sacrificial_Procedure.5.10]