1) SLAUGHTER ON TOP OF THE “MIZBE’ACH”

(a) (Mishnah – R. Yosi): If Kodshei Kodoshim were slaughtered on top of the Mizbe’ach, they are (Kosher,) as if they were slaughtered in the Tzafon;
(b) R. Yosi b’Rebbi Yehudah says, the southern half of the Mizbe’ach is like Darom, the northern half is like Tzafon.
(c) (Gemara – Rav Asi citing R. Yochanan): R. Yosi holds that the entire Mitzvah is in Tzafon.
(d) Question: If so, why does it says that it is *as if* they were slaughtered in the Tzafon – they truly were slaughtered in the Tzafon!
(e) Answer: One might have thought that on top of the Mizbe’ach is invalid, it is not considered “Al Yerech ha’Mizbe’ach” – R. Yosi teaches that this is not so.
(f) Question (R. Zeira): If so, R. Yosi b’Rebbi Yehudah would say that half of the Mizbe’ach is in Tzafon!
1. Suggestion: Perhaps this is true!
2. Rejection: You (Rav Asi) yourself cited R. Yochanan to say that R. Yosi b’Rebbi Yehudah admits that Kodshei Kodoshim slaughtered in the place corresponding (to the north half of the Mizbe’ach) on the ground are Pesulim!
(g) Answer (Rav Asi): R. Yochanan said that both Tana’im expound the same verse:
1. “V’Zavachta Alav (on the Mizbe’ach) Es Olosecha v’Ee Shelamecha” – R. Yosi explains, the entire Mizbe’ach is valid for slaughtering Olaos and Shelamim;
2. R. Yosi b’Rebbi Yehudah explains, half the Mizbe’ach is valid (even) for Olah, half is valid (only) for Shelamim;
i. If all of it was valid for Olah, the verse should have taught only Olah, a Kal va’Chomer would teaches that it is valid for Shelamim!
ii. R. Yosi disagrees – one might have thought, the Torah is lenient to allow slaughtering Olah on the Mizbe’ach because the place to slaughter it below (Tzafon) is limited, but it is not lenient to allow Shelamim which can be slaughtered anywhere in the Azarah.
(h) (Rav Asi citing R. Yochanan): R. Yosi b’Rebbi Yehudah admits that Kodshei Kodoshim slaughtered in the corresponding place on the ground are Pesulim.
(i) Question (Rav Acha mi’Difti): What does it mean ‘the corresponding place on the ground’?
1. Suggestion: It means the Amah (thickness) of the Yesod or Sovev.
2. Rejection #1: They are parts of the Mizbe’ach itself!
3. Rejection #2: They are not on the ground!
4. Suggestion: Slaughter was in a tunnel dug under the Mizbe’ach.
5. Rejection:”Mizbach Adamah Ta’aseh Li” – it must be connected to the ground, do not build it over tunnels and arches.
(j) Answer (Ravina): It means, if the Mizbe’ach was later shortened, and he slaughtered on the ground where the Mizbe’ach used to be.
2) THE LOCATION OF THE “MIZBE’ACH”
(a) (R. Zeira): Surely, R. Yochanan derived his teaching (c) from a Mishnah!
1. (Mishnah #1): They would pick nice fig wood for the second Ma’arachah, from which coals were taken for the Ketores near the southwest corner of the Mizbe’ach, four Amos north of the corner.
2. They would take (by estimation) five Sa’im of coals, and on Shabbos, eight Sa’im;
i. That is where the frankincense of the Lechem ha’Panim was burned.
3. Question: Why were the coals taken from here?
4. Answer: The Mishnah is R. Yosi;
58b—————————————58b

5. (Beraisa – R. Yosi): Whatever is taken from inside to be put outside is put in the closest possible place; whatever is taken from outside to be put inside is taken from the closest possible place.
6. Question #1: ‘Whatever is taken from inside…’ – what does this refer to?
i. Suggestion: It refers to Shirayim (of inner Chata’os).
ii. Rejection: A verse explicitly teaches this – “El Yesod Mizbach ha’Olah Asher Pesach Ohel Mo’ed” (i.e. the western Yesod, which is closest)!
7. Question #2: ‘Whatever is taken from outside to be put inside’ – what does this refer to?
i. Suggestion: It refers to coals taken from the outer Mizbe’ach for the Ketores of Yom Kipur.
ii. Rejection: A verse explicitly teaches this – “V’Lakach Malei ha’Machtah…(mi’Lifne Hash-m, i.e. from the part closest to the Heichal)”!
8. Answer (to Question #1): The frankincense of the Lechem ha’Panim is taken from inside and put on the closest part of the Mizbe’ach – we learn from Shirayim;
9. Answer (to Question #2): Coals for the Ketores every day are taken from the part closest to the Heichal – we learn from the coals on Yom Kipur.
10. Question: What does the Tana hold regarding the location of the Mizbe’ach?
i. He cannot hold that it is entirely in Darom (the south half of the Azarah, the north side of the Mizbe’ach is in the middle of the Azarah), for then the Ma’arachah would have to be (at least) 27 Amos north of the corner (five Amos from the north end, in order that it will face the (end of) the opening of the Heichal, five Amos south of the middle)!
ii. Even if he holds that the Ulam has Kedushas Heichal, and it suffices to face the (end of) the opening of the Ulam (10 Amos south of the middle), the Ma’arachah would have to be 22 Amos north (of the corner).
iii. He cannot hold that the Mizbe’ach is (16 Amos further north than this, i.e. exactly) half in Darom, half in Tzafon, for then the Ma’arachah would have to be 11 Amos north;
iv. Even if the Ulam has Kedushas Heichal, the Ma’arachah would have to be six Amos north.
11. Answer: Rather, he holds that it is entirely in Tzafon – the Ma’arachah is as south as possible, after the four Amos occupied by the Yesod, Sovev, Keranos, and walkway of the Kohanim (each of these is one Amah);
i. It could not be even one more Amah to the north, for the opening of the Heichal extends only five Amos past the middle of the Azarah.
(b) Rejection #1 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): Mishnah #1 is like R. Yehudah (we cannot infer R. Yosi’s opinion from it).
1. (Beraisa – R. Yehudah): The Mizbe’ach is centered between Darom and Tzafon, 10 Amos face the opening of the Heichal, 11 Amos of the Mizbe’ach extend past this to Darom, and 11 towards Tzafon.
(c) Question: If so, he should require the Ma’arachah to be 11 Amos north (of the southern side of the Mizbe’ach), or six Amos (if the Ulam has Kedushas Heichal)!
(d) Answer: The latter is correct – he counts four Amos excluding the Yesod and Sovev, including them it is six Amos.
(e) Question: Rav Ada’s rejection applies even if the Mishnah is like R. Yosi, why did he establish it like R. Yehudah?
(f) Answer: R. Yehudah explicitly taught that the Mizbe’ach is centered.