Zevachim 62

Sugya Map

• Issue: What are the indispensable elements (ikkuvim) of the Mizbeach (Altar) for valid avodah, how are they derived, and how was its precise location determined in the Second Temple era?
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • The validity of korbanot offered on a Mizbeach lacking specific structural components.
  • The precise dimensions and layout of the Mizbeach and its auxiliary structures (kevesh, yesod, sovev/kiyur, karkov).
  • The halakhic methodology for determining Mikdash details in the absence of direct prophecy.
  • The halakha of pinot (turns) in the Mikdash and their directionality.
  • The requirement of "tossing" eivarim (limbs) onto the Mizbeach and its architectural implications.
• Primary Sources:
  • Tanakh: Ezra 3:3; I Chronicles 28:19, 22:1; I Kings 6:2; Exodus 27:1, 5; Exodus 38:4; Leviticus 1:5, 8, 11; Deuteronomy 12:27; Ezekiel 43:17; II Chronicles 4:4.
  • Mishnah: Middot 3:6, 3:7.
  • Baraitot cited throughout Zevachim 62a, including the one regarding the etrogim incident (Sukka 48b).

Text Snapshot

The sugya on Zevachim 62a delves into the intricate details of the Mizbeach construction and avodah. A pivotal baraita states:

"הקרן והכבש והיסוד והריבוע – מעכבין. מדות ארכו ומדות רחבו ומדות קומתו – אין מעכבין." (Zevachim 62a) This delineates the fundamental structural elements (keren, kevesh, yesod, ribu'a) as indispensable (me'akvim), while its precise dimensions are not, with the caveat from Rabbi Mani that it cannot be smaller than Moshe's Mizbeach. The Gemara then questions this, asking about the karkov: "אי הכי, אף כרכוב נמי ליעכב! דכתיב: 'ונתת אותו תחת כרכוב המזבח מלמטה' (שמות כז, ה). ותניא: איזהו כרכוב? רבי אומר: זה כיוור. רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר: זה סובב. אין, כרכוב נמי מעכב." (Zevachim 62a) The Gemara initially derives the ikkuv of these elements from the term "המזבח" in the pesukim: "רב הונא אמר: כל מקום שנאמר 'המזבח' – מעכב" (Zevachim 62a). This principle is then challenged and clarified regarding the karkov. The discussion on the karkov is further elucidated by Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak: "רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר: תרי כרכוב הוו. חד לנוי וחד לכהנים שלא יחליקו." (Zevachim 62a) This distinguishes between an aesthetic karkov and a functional one for the kohanim.

A dikduk nuance appears in the debate between Rava and Abaye regarding the ramp's position:

"כתיב 'רבוע' – דדמוי לרובץ. אביי אמר ליה: והא לכדרבוע הוא דאתא! אמר ליה: מי כתיב 'מרובע'? 'רבוע' כתיב – דמשמע הכי ומשמע הכי." (Zevachim 62a) Rava argues the term "רבוע" (square) implies "רובץ" (crouching/lying down) for the yarech analogy, while Abaye says it means "square." Rava highlights that the pasuk uses "רבוע" not "מרובע," suggesting a broader semantic range.

Readings

Rashi: Inferring Ikkuv and Contextualizing Events

Rashi, ever the master of peshat and concision, offers crucial insights into the sugya. On the baraita that lists the ikkuvim of the Mizbeach, and the subsequent kushya regarding the karkov, the Gemara concludes: "אין, כרכוב נמי מעכב" (Zevachim 62a). Rashi explains this affirmation by referencing the baraita that follows, which quotes Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda's view:

"אף הסובב — ומדרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה נשמע לרבי דכיור מעכב" (Rashi, Zevachim 62a s.v. אף הסובב). Rashi elucidates that since Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda, who identifies the karkov with the sovev (surrounding ledge), holds it to be indispensable, this implies that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who identifies the karkov with the kiyur (engraving), would also deem his definition of karkov indispensable. This is a classic limmud from a Tanna to another, suggesting a shared underlying principle even with differing definitions of the term itself. The core chiddush here is that the ikkuv of karkov (however defined) is accepted, not just its existence.

Furthermore, Rashi provides essential context for the baraita describing the damaged keren (corner) of the Mizbeach:

"אותו היום — שנסך כהן צדוקי מי החג על רגליו ורגמוהו כל העם כדאמרינן בסוכה (דף מח:)" (Rashi, Zevachim 62a s.v. אותו היום). This direct reference to Sukka 48b grounds the abstract halakhic discussion in a vivid historical event, illustrating the practical implications of a pasul Mizbeach and the people's zealous reaction to a perceived desecration. The chiddush is not just identifying the event, but showing how a historical detail underscores the gravity of the Mizbeach's integrity.

Tosafot: Defining "Tunnel" and its Exclusions

Tosafot, known for their incisive questions and deep analytical prowess, clarify a critical structural detail at the outset of the sugya. The Gemara states that the Mizbeach may not be built "על גבי מחילות" (on top of tunnels) (Zevachim 62a). Tosafot immediately address a potential ambiguity:

"ולא על גבי מחילות - בור של שיתין לא היה חשוב מחילה כיון דהוא צורך מזבח" (Tosafot, Zevachim 62a s.v. ולא על גבי מחילות). The chiddush here is a crucial distinction: while general tunnels would invalidate the Mizbeach, the Shitin (drainage pits beneath the Mizbeach for libations) are not considered mehilot in this context. This is because they are "צורך מזבח" (for the needs of the Mizbeach) itself, serving a vital function in its avodah. This introduces a principle: a structural element that is integral to the Mizbeach's function, even if it creates a "hollow" space, does not fall under the prohibition of mehilot. It showcases a sophisticated understanding of how halakhic prohibitions interact with functional necessities within the Mikdash.

Pnei Yehoshua: Reconciling the Two Karkovim

The Pnei Yehoshua (R. Yaakov Yehoshua Falk) grapples with the Gemara's conclusion of "תרי כרכוב הוו. חד לנוי וחד לכהנים שלא יחליקו" (Zevachim 62a). He explores the difficulty of reconciling two distinct karkovim when the pasuk "ונתת אותו תחת כרכוב המזבח מלמטה" (Ex. 27:5) seems to refer to a singular, specific element. His chiddush lies in distinguishing the source and nature of these two karkovim. The karkov described in the Torah (Exodus 27:5) as "תחת כרכוב המזבח מלמטה" is clearly the lower, aesthetic protrusion, as it's explicitly placed "beneath." This is the one whose ikkuv is debated between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (as kiyur) and Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda (as sovev). The second karkov, the indentation on top for the kohanim to prevent slipping, is not explicitly detailed in the Torah pasuk in the same manner. The Pnei Yehoshua implies that this second karkov is either a halakha l'Moshe miSinai or a rabbinic enactment based on practical necessity and mesorah, and it is also called karkov due to its similar function of demarcation or support, albeit on a different plane. The chiddush is thus that the Torah pasuk defines one karkov, while the term is also applied to another, functionally related element, highlighting the elasticity of Torah terminology when interpreted through Torah SheBe'al Peh. This allows for both the explicit pasuk and the practical necessity to be accommodated.

Friction

Kushya: The Enigmatic Karkov's Ikkuv

The sugya presents a tension regarding the ikkuv of the karkov. The initial baraita states that "הקרן והכבש והיסוד והריבוע – מעכבין" (Zevachim 62a), conspicuously omitting the karkov. Yet, the Gemara immediately challenges this omission: "אי הכי, אף כרכוב נמי ליעכב! דכתיב: 'ונתת אותו תחת כרכוב המזבח מלמטה'" (Zevachim 62a). The kushya is patent: if the karkov is indeed derived from a pasuk and is indispensable according to the principle of "כל מקום שנאמר 'המזבח' – מעכב" (Zevachim 62a), why is it absent from the initial list of me'akvim? This seems to suggest either a contradiction within the baraitot or a fundamental disagreement on the karkov's status.

Terutz: A Tannaic Evolution and Implicit Inclusion

The Gemara resolves this by stating: "אין, כרכוב נמי מעכב" (Zevachim 62a) – yes, the karkov is indeed indispensable. This resolution is then buttressed by a subsequent baraita that explicitly includes the sovev (which Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda identifies as the karkov) as me'akev: "רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר: אף הסובב מעכב" (Zevachim 62a). The terutz lies in understanding the progression of the sugya and the Tannaic opinions. The initial baraita listing keren, kevesh, yesod, ribu'a represents a Tanna Kama view. The Gemara, by asking "אי הכי, אף כרכוב נמי ליעכב!", is essentially pushing for a more comprehensive list of ikkuvim based on pesukim. The answer "אין, כרכוב נמי מעכב" signifies that this is the accepted halakha. The subsequent baraita quoting Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda serves to validate and reinforce this conclusion, providing an authoritative Tannaic voice for the ikkuv of the karkov/ sovev. Rashi (Zevachim 62a s.v. אף הסובב) further clarifies that from Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda's statement, we can infer that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who defines karkov as kiyur, would also hold it to be me'akev. Thus, the kushya is resolved not by denying the karkov's ikkuv, but by demonstrating that it is, in fact, an integral part of the Mizbeach's requirements, even if not listed in every baraita, and its inclusion reflects a developed halakhic understanding. The initial baraita is not rejected, but rather supplemented and clarified by later Tannaic views that the Gemara ultimately adopts.

Intertext

I Chronicles 28:19: Divine Blueprint vs. Textual Derivation

The sugya opens with Rav Yosef's discussion regarding the Mizbeach in the First and Second Temples. He initially suggests that the First Temple Mizbeach was not ideal, while the Second Temple's was. The Gemara counters: "והא כתיב 'כל זאת בכתב מיד ה' עלי השכיל כל מלאכת התבנית'" (I Chronicles 28:19; Zevachim 62a). This verse, describing David's instructions to Solomon, explicitly states that the entire design (tavnit) of the First Temple, including the Mizbeach, was divinely dictated. This powerful pasuk establishes a paradigm of direct divine revelation for Mikdash construction. This stands in stark contrast to Rav Yosef's revised explanation for the Second Temple Mizbeach's expansion: "מצאו פסוק ודרשוהו" (Zevachim 62a). Here, the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah, lacking direct prophecy, utilized their exegetical skills to derive the altar's permissible expansion from "דוד אמר זה בית ה' האלקים וזה מזבח לעולה לישראל" (I Chronicles 22:1). This juxtaposition highlights two distinct modes of halakhic development concerning the Mikdash: nevuah (prophecy) for the First Temple, and derasha (textual interpretation) for the Second. This fundamental difference underscores the resilience and adaptability of Torah SheBe'al Peh in navigating eras of varying spiritual access.

Ezekiel 43:17 and II Chronicles 4:4: The Principle of Yemin

The determination of the kevesh's (ramp's) southern location is derived from "והרג אותו על ירך המזבח צפונה" (Leviticus 1:11), implying the yarech (thigh) is north, and thus the face (front, i.e., ramp) is south (Zevachim 62a). This leads to a further discussion on the direction of turns in the Mikdash. Rabbi Yehuda derives the principle "כל הפניות שאתה פונה לא יהו אלא לימין למזרח" (Zevachim 62a) from "ומעלותיו פנות קדים" (Ezekiel 43:17). This verse, describing the future Mizbeach, connects steps (ma'alot) with facing east (kadeem). The Gemara initially questions this, suggesting one could turn left to face east. However, it is resolved by Rami bar Yechizkiya, who cites the description of the Yam shel Shlomo (Solomon's Sea): "שלשה פונים צפונה ושלשה פונים ימה ושלשה פונים נגבה ושלשה פונים קדמה" (II Chronicles 4:4; Zevachim 62a). The specific order of directions in this verse, listing north, west, south, and east, implies a clockwise (right-hand) progression. The repetition of ponim (ponim, ponim) further suggests a general halakhic rule beyond the oxen themselves. This derasha from Tanakh establishes the universal principle of turning to the right (yemin) within the Mikdash precincts, a halakha that extends to hakafot (circumambulations) and other ritual movements, demonstrating a profound connection between seemingly disparate pesukim and a foundational halakhic tenet.

Psak/Practice

The sugya's detailed analysis of the Mizbeach's ikkuvim finds direct expression in halakha. Maimonides, in Hilchot Beit HaBechira, codifies these requirements:

"המזבח שיש בו קרנות וכבש ויסוד וריבוע, כשר. וכל מזבח שאין לו אחת מאלו ארבעה דברים, פסול ואין מקריבין עליו" (Rambam, Hilchot Beit HaBechira 2:10). The Rambam explicitly lists the keranot (corners), kevesh (ramp), yesod (base), and ribu'a (squareness) as indispensable, directly mirroring the baraita in our sugya. He further adds: "וכן אם חסר מן הכיור שסביבו, פסול" (Rambam, Hilchot Beit HaBechira 2:10). Here, the Rambam adopts the view that the kiyur (which he equates with karkov) is also me'akev, aligning with the Gemara's conclusion after the discussion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda. This demonstrates a clear psak that the karkov, in whatever form, is essential.

From a meta-psak heuristic, the sugya provides a vivid illustration of how Chazal navigated periods of diminished prophetic clarity. The concept of "מצאו פסוק ודרשוהו" (Zevachim 62a) for the Second Temple Mizbeach highlights the dynamic nature of Torah SheBe'al Peh. In the absence of direct divine blueprints, the Sages meticulously extrapolated halakha from existing pesukim through rigorous exegetical methods. This teaches us that halakhic development is not merely a static transmission but involves profound intellectual engagement with the Torah text to adapt and apply its eternal principles to evolving circumstances, always rooted in mesorah. The precise dikduk in the ravua/ravutz debate and the multi-layered meaning of karkov further underscore the depth of Chazal's linguistic and structural analysis.

Takeaway

This sugya brilliantly illuminates the architectural and ritual precision demanded for the Mizbeach, distinguishing between core structural ikkuvim and flexible dimensions, and showcasing the profound interplay of prophetic tradition, textual exegesis, and practical necessity in shaping halakha and ensuring the continuity of avodat Hashem.