Zevachim 59

Sugya Map

This sugya in Zevachim 59a navigates several intricate halachic and aggadic discussions concerning the Temple's physical layout and the kashrut of korbanot.

• Issue 1: Placement of the Kiyor (Basin) in the Temple.
  • Nafka Mina(s): Understanding the precise layout of the Mikdash; the meaning of "צפונה" (northward) as a halachic boundary.
  • Primary Sources: Exodus 40:29 ("מזבח העולה שם פתח משכן אהל מועד"); Leviticus 1:11 ("ושחט אתו על ירך המזבח צפונה לפני ה'").
• Issue 2: Mizbeach She'Nifgam (A Damaged Altar).
  • Nafka Mina(s): Whether korbanot slaughtered on a damaged mizbeach are pasul; whether live korbanot become permanently nidchin (deferred) if the mizbeach is damaged.
  • Primary Sources: Exodus 20:21 ("מזבח אדמה תעשה לי וזבחת עליו את עולותיך ואת שלמיך"); baraita regarding קדשים שקדמו לפגימת המזבח.
• Issue 3: Dimensions of the Mizbeach (Moshe's vs. Shlomo's).
  • Nafka Mina(s): Reconciling conflicting psukim regarding the altar's size; the use of gemarot shavim (verbal analogies) and middos (halachic measurements).
  • Primary Sources: I Kings 8:64 ("כי מזבח הנחשת אשר לפני ה' קטן מהכיל"); Exodus 27:1 ("חמש אמות אורך וחמש אמות רוחב...שלש אמות קמתו"); Ezekiel 43:16 ("והאריאל שנים עשר ארך בשנים עשר רחב רבוע אל ארבעת רבעיו"); Exodus 30:2 ("אמה ארכו ואמה רחבו רבוע יהיה...אמתים קמתו").

Text Snapshot

The sugya opens with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili's derivation regarding the Kiyor's placement:

"מזבח העלה שם פתח משכן אהל מועד" (שמות מ, כט) – מזבח בפתח אהל מועד, ולא כיור בפתח אהל מועד. היכן היה נותנו? בין האולם ולמזבח, משוך קימעא כלפי הדרום. Zevachim 59a This establishes that only the Mizbeach stood directly at the entrance to the Ohel Moed (Tabernacle), not the Kiyor. The Kiyor was placed "between the Ulam (Entrance Hall) and the Mizbeach, extended slightly towards the south." The dikduk of "משוך קימעא" (extended slightly) is central to the Gemara's subsequent analysis regarding the Mizbeach's position.

Later, the Gemara introduces Rav's ruling on a damaged altar:

אמר רב: מזבח שנפגם — כל הקדשים שנשחטו שם פסולין. מקרא הוא בידינו ושכחנוהו. Zevachim 59a Rav states that any korbanot slaughtered on a damaged Mizbeach are pasul. The source for this is later identified as Exodus 20:21: "וזבחת עליו את עולותיך ואת שלמיך," which is darshened as "כשהוא שלם ולא חסר" (when it is complete, not when it is lacking/damaged). The leshon "וכי עליו אתה זובח?" (And do you slaughter on it?) highlights the non-literal interpretation of alav (on it) to mean b'ginav (because of it).

The sugya then pivots to the debate between Rav and R' Yochanan:

רבי יוחנן אומר: הן וגם הן פסולין. מאי בינייהו? רב סבר חיים אינם נדחים, ורבי יוחנן סבר חיים נדחים. Zevachim 59a Rav holds that only shechitah (slaughtering) performed on a damaged altar is pasul; chayim (live animals) are not permanently nidchin. R' Yochanan holds that chayim are permanently nidchin if the Mizbeach is damaged.

Readings

Rashi: The Kiyor's Southern Placement

Rashi elucidates Rabbi Yosei HaGelili's rationale for placing the Kiyor "משוך קימעא כלפי הדרום" (extended slightly towards the south). The Gemara initially struggles to understand why, even if the Mizbeach is entirely in the north, the Kiyor cannot simply be placed north of the Heichal's entrance but still between the Ulam and the Mizbeach. Rashi clarifies the underlying assumption of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili:

היכן היה נתון משוך קימעא - מזוית המזבח ולדרום נמצא שאינו כנגד המזבח כלל אלא כבין אהל מועד ולמזבח: Rashi on Zevachim 59a s.v. "היכן היה נתון משוך קימעא" Rashi explains that "משוך קימעא" means specifically to the south of the altar's corner. This is crucial because Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that "כוליה מזבח בצפון קאי" (the entire altar stands in the north section). If the Mizbeach itself is entirely in the north, then any placement of the Kiyor north of the Heichal entrance, and still between the Ulam and the Mizbeach, would inevitably place it "כנגד המזבח" (opposite the altar) or even in the northern section per se.

Rashi's chiddush here is articulating the precise spatial reasoning. The Gemara asks: "And even if you stand it anywhere from where the wall of the Sanctuary begins and northward, it would actually be located in between the Entrance Hall and the altar." Rashi's explanation implies that for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the phrase "בין האולם ולמזבח" must also be interpreted spatially in a way that doesn't contradict the midrash of "צפונה פנוי מכלים" (the north must be vacant of all vessels). If the Mizbeach is entirely in the north, and the north must be empty, then the Kiyor must be in the south, even if it seems counter-intuitive to place it farther from the Heichal to be "between" it and the Mizbeach. This confirms the Gemara's eventual conclusion that "כוליה מזבח בצפון קאי" for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Tosafot: Reconciling "עליו"

The Gemara derives the halacha of Mizbeach she'nifgam from "וזבחת עליו את עולותיך ואת שלמיך" (Exodus 20:21), interpreting "עליו" (on it) as "בגינו" (because of it) and "כשהוא שלם ולא חסר" (when it is complete, not lacking). The Gemara asks rhetorically: "וכי עליו אתה זובח?" (And do you slaughter on it?), implying that shechitah is not performed directly on the altar. Tosafot addresses the potential contradiction with other derashot where "עליו" is taken literally:

וכי עליו אתה זובח - אע"ג דלעיל דרשינן עליו ממש הכא דייק משום דוזבחת עליו משמע שמצוה לזבוח עליו וכן לקמן (זבחים דף ס.) גבי ואכלוה מצות אצל המזבח משמע שמצוה אלא כשהוא שלם ולא כשהוא חסר: Tosafot on Zevachim 59a s.v. "וכי עליו אתה זובח" Tosafot acknowledges that in other contexts, "עליו" might be interpreted literally. However, here, the context of "וזבחת עליו" is specifically about the condition of the Mizbeach enabling the shechitah. The chiddush of Tosafot is that the derasha "כשהוא שלם ולא חסר" doesn't necessarily negate all literal interpretations of "עליו" elsewhere. Rather, the pasuk "וזבחת עליו" implies that the act of shechitah is dependent on the Mizbeach's integrity. The phrasing "מצוה לזבוח עליו" (it is a mitzvah to slaughter on account of it) clarifies that the Mizbeach is the hechsher mitzvah (the means through which the mitzvah is performed) even if the physical act of shechitah occurs l'tzidav (beside it). The Gemara's question "וכי עליו אתה זובח?" itself signals that a non-literal interpretation is intended for this specific halacha. This allows for a flexible hermeneutic, where the meaning of a preposition like "עליו" is dictated by the specific halachic context and the rhetorical force of the Gemara's question.

Friction

The Kiyor's Elusive Placement

The Gemara repeatedly raises a significant kushya against Rabbi Yosei HaGelili's placement of the Kiyor. If Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the entire Mizbeach is in the north, why does he insist on placing the Kiyor "משוך קימעא כלפי הדרום" (extended slightly towards the south)?

אפילו תימא כולה מזבח בצפון קאי, מי לא תנן: "מזוית המזבח ולצפון" – והא מצי למיתב ליה בין האולם ולמזבח, ולא צריך למשכו קימעא כלפי הדרום? Zevachim 59a (paraphrase of repeated Gemara question) The Gemara questions: Even if the altar is entirely in the north, why can't the Kiyor be placed somewhere north of the Heichal entrance, but still between the Ulam and the Mizbeach? This would avoid placing it directly opposite the Heichal entrance, yet still be closer to the Heichal than the Mizbeach, and not require the Kiyor to be so far south. The question is posed for both scenarios: where the Sanctuary entrance is the concern, and where the Ulam entrance (if its sanctity is equivalent) is the concern. The Gemara finds it hard to reconcile the need for a southern placement with the idea of being "between" Ulam and Mizbeach while the Mizbeach is in the north.

The terutz offered by the Gemara is that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derives from the pasuk "צפונה" (Leviticus 1:11) that:

"צפונה" — צפון פנוי מכלי שרת. Zevachim 59a This means the entire northern section of the Azara (courtyard) must be empty of all keilim (vessels). Therefore, even if a northern placement would technically be "between the Ulam and the Mizbeach" (spatially speaking), it would violate the derasha of tzefonah. This forces the Kiyor to be in the southern section, despite the apparent spatial paradox of being "between" the Ulam and the Mizbeach when placed significantly south of the Mizbeach. This terutz highlights the supremacy of derasha in determining halachic spatial requirements over simple geometric logic.

Rav's "חיים אינם נדחים"

A significant kushya arises against Rav's view that "חיים אינם נדחים" (live animals are not permanently deferred) when the Mizbeach is damaged. A baraita is brought to object:

כל הקדשים שקדמו לבנין המזבח, ואח"כ נבנה המזבח — פסולין. Zevachim 59a The baraita states that korbanot consecrated before the altar was built are pasul even after it's built. The Gemara initially struggles to interpret this baraita in a way that challenges Rav, as it keeps re-emending the scenario (e.g., "before the altar was destroyed," "before the altar was damaged"). The Gemara's final emendation is: "קדמו לפגימת המזבח, ואח"כ נפגם המזבח – פסולין." This seems to imply that even live animals (which were consecrated before the damage, but not yet slaughtered) are disqualified, contradicting Rav.

The terutz to this kushya is that since the baraita required so many emendations, we can simply emend it one more time to support Rav's view:

וכי לא תניא: "כל הקדשים שנשחטו שם" – וכי לא תניא: "כל הקדשים שנשחטו שם" – אלא שנשחטו שם. Zevachim 59a (paraphrase of Gemara's re-emendation) The Gemara suggests that since we've already had to emend the baraita multiple times, we can emend it to say that the animals were slaughtered (שנשחטו) before the altar became damaged, or that the baraita itself is referring to animals that were slaughtered, and not live animals. This effectively removes the baraita as a proof against Rav's position, leaving his view of "חיים אינם נדחים" intact. This method of repeated emendation, while seemingly aggressive, is a tool the Gemara uses to harmonize baraitot with established Amoraic opinions, preferring to adjust the baraita's wording rather than reject a Rav's halacha.

Intertext

R' Yochanan's Consistent Principle: Chayim Nidchin

Rabbi Yochanan's position that "חיים נדחים" (live animals are permanently deferred) if the altar is damaged is a consistent principle he holds. A striking parallel is found in Pesachim 83a, concerning a Korban Pesach slaughtered on Erev Pesach that falls on Shabbat.

רבי יוחנן אומר: פסח ששחטו בערב שבת פסול, וטעמו משום דחיים נדחים. Pesachim 83a (paraphrase) While the sugya in Pesachim deals with the timing of shechitah rather than a damaged altar, Rabbi Yochanan's underlying principle that a korban can become permanently deferred even in its live state is evident. If an animal is designated for a mitzvah but circumstances (like a damaged altar or an improper time for shechitah) render that mitzvah impossible at that moment, Rabbi Yochanan often rules that the animal is nidcheh permanently, effectively becoming pasul. This indicates a broader philosophy in Rabbi Yochanan's shiurim that the kedusha (sanctity) of a korban is intrinsically tied to its immediate potential for avodah. Sefaria Link: Pesachim 83a:17

The Euphemism of "ננס"

The sugya employs the term "ננס" (dwarf) as a euphemism for disqualification. Rabbi Yosei, in his debate with Rabbi Yehuda regarding Solomon's altar, reinterprets "כי מזבח הנחשת... קטן מהכיל" (because the copper altar... was too small to receive) (I Kings 8:64) as:

כבן אדם שאומר לחבירו: פלוני ננס, ואין לו חלק בעבודת המקדש. Zevachim 59a This is a rhetorical device where a physical attribute ("small") is used to imply a halachic status ("disqualified"). This use of "ננס" to denote psul (disqualification) is found elsewhere in rabbinic literature, though often in different contexts. For example, Kiddushin 70a famously describes Rabbi Yochanan as a "ננס" but then immediately clarifies his immense wisdom. While there it highlights a contrast between physical appearance and intellectual stature, here in Zevachim, it's a direct metaphor for halachic invalidity, indicating that the altar itself became unfit for use, rather than physically too small. This shows the rabbinic comfort with indirect, metaphorical language to convey halachic truths. Sefaria Link: Kiddushin 70a:11

Psak/Practice

Mizbeach She'Nifgam in Halacha

The practical halacha regarding a Mizbeach she'nifgam (damaged altar) generally aligns with Rav's opinion that "חיים אינם נדחים" (live animals are not permanently deferred). The Rambam rules that if the altar is damaged, shechitah performed on its account is pasul. However, he specifies that the korbanot themselves are not permanently disqualified if they were alive when the damage occurred, and can be brought once the altar is repaired.

מזבח שנפגם, כל הקדשים שנשחטו שם פסולין. אבל קדשים חיים, אם נפגם המזבח, אינם נדחים, וימתינו עד שיתוקן המזבח ויקריבום. Rambam, Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 1:15 This distinction is crucial: the pegam (damage) affects the kashrut of the avodah (service) performed at that moment, but not the intrinsic kedusha (sanctity) of the live animal, which can be offered later. This reflects a meta-psak heuristic that tends to minimize pesul where possible, especially for korbanot which represent significant kedusha and investment.

Layout of the Mikdash

While the specific debate between Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov regarding the Kiyor's placement and the Mizbeach's position is theoretical today, it establishes fundamental principles of hilchot Beit HaMikdash. The meticulous derivations from psukim regarding the precise locations of vessels and the sanctity of different areas underscore the idea that the Mikdash was not built according to human architectural preference, but according to divine instruction, often interpreted through complex derashot. These discussions lay the groundwork for later halachic codes that detail the Temple's structure, such as Masechet Middot and Rambam Hilchot Beit HaBechira. The phrase "צפון פנוי מכלים" (the north must be vacant of all vessels) is a concrete example of how derasha informs physical layout.

Takeaway

The sugya exemplifies the rigorous lomdus applied to every detail of Avodat HaMikdash, demonstrating how pesukim dictate both the physical layout and the halachic status of korbanot. The integrity of the Mizbeach is paramount, acting as the hechsher mitzvah for the korbanot, yet Chazal meticulously distinguish between the psul of an act and the permanent disqualification of a korban.

Citations

• Exodus 40:29: https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.40.29?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Leviticus 1:11: https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus.1.11?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Exodus 20:21: https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.20.21?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• I Kings 8:64: https://www.sefaria.org/I_Kings.8.64?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Exodus 27:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.27.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Ezekiel 43:16: https://www.sefaria.org/Ezekiel.43.16?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Exodus 30:2: https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.30.2?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Exodus 27:18: https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.27.18?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Zevachim 59a: https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim.59a?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Rashi on Zevachim 59a s.v. "היכן היה נתון משוך קימעא": https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Zevachim.59a.1.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Rashi on Zevachim 59a s.v. "ה"ג בת"כ ובמס' מדות": https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Zevachim.59a.1.2?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Tosafot on Zevachim 59a s.v. "וכי עליו אתה זובח": https://www.sefaria.org/Tosafot_on_Zevachim.59a.11.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Pesachim 83a: https://www.sefaria.org/Pesachim.83a?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Kiddushin 70a: https://www.sefaria.org/Kiddushin.70a?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 1:15: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Sacrificial_Provisions_1.15?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en