Zevachim 117

מזבח העולה וגו' מזבח בפתח אהל מועד ולא כיור בפתח אהל מועד היכן היה נותנו בין האולם ולמזבח משוך קימעא כלפי הדרום

the altar of burnt-offering [before the door of the tabernacle of the tent of meeting].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 6.');">¹</span> [it follows that] the alta was at the door of the tent of meeting, while the laver was not at the door of the tent of meeting.

מאי קסבר אי קסבר כוליה מזבח בדרום קאי נוקמיה מכותל היכל ולדרום בין אולם למזבח

Where then was it [the laver] placed? Between the ulam and the altar, slightly toward the south.

ואי נמי קסבר קדושת היכל ואולם חדא היא נוקמיה מכותל אולם ולדרום בבין אולם למזבח

Now what does he hold? If he holds that the whole altar stood in the south, let it be placed southward from the wall of the hekal, [for that would be] between the ulam and the altar?

אי נמי קסבר חציו בצפון וחציו בדרום נוקמיה מכותל היכל ולדרום בין אולם ולמזבח

And even if he holds that the sanctity of the ulam and that of the hekal are one, let it be placed southward from the wall of the ulam, [for that would still be as between the ulam and the altar? Or if he holds that half was in the north and half in the south, let it be place southward from the wall of the hekal, between the ulam and the altar?

ואי נמי קסבר קדושת האולם והיכל חדא היא נוקמיה מכותל אולם ולדרום בין אולם ולמזבח אלא לאו משום דקסבר כוליה מזבח בצפון

And even if he holds that the sanctity of the ulam and that of the hekal are one, let it be placed southward from the wall of the ulam, this being between the ulam and the altar? Hence it must surely be that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jose the Galilean.');">²</span>

כי נמי מוקמת לה מכותל היכל ולצפון ה"ל בין אולם ולמזבח

holds that the whole altar stood in the north. Then let it be placed between the altar and the hekal northward? - He holds that the sanctity of the hekal and ulam is identical.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Rashi. The reading varies in different texts, v. Sh. M.');">³</span>

ונוקמה מכותל אולם ולצפון בבין אולם ולמזבח

Then let it be placed northward from the wall of the ulam, when it would be between the ulam and the altar? - Scripture saith, northward, which means that the north must be free from vessels.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the laver is a vessel.');">⁴</span> Which Tanna disagrees with R'Jose the Galilean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that the whole of it was in the south.');">⁵</span>

אמר קרא צפונה שיהא צפון פנוי מכלים

- R'Eleazar B'Jacob. For it was taught: R'Eleazar B'Jacob said: 'Northward' [intimates] that the north must be free from everything, even from the altar:

מאן תנא דפליג עליה דר' יוסי הגלילי ר"א בן יעקב היא דתניא ר"א בן יעקב אומר צפונה שיהא צפון פנוי מכלום ואפילו מן המזבח

Rab said, If the altar was damaged, all sacrifices slaughtered there are unfit. We have a text to this effec but have forgotten it.

אמר רב מזבח שנפגם כל הקדשים שנשחטו שם פסולין מקרא הוא בידינו ושכחנוהו כי סליק מרב כהנא אשכחיה לר"ש ברבי דקאמר משום ר' ישמעאל בר' יוסי מנין למזבח שנפגם שכל הקדשים שנשחטו שם פסולין

When R'Kahana went up,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To Eretz Israel.');">⁶</span> he found R'Simeon B'Rabbi teaching in R'Ishmael B'R'Jose's name: How do we know that all the sacrifices slaughtered at a damaged altar are unfit?

שנאמר (שמות כ, כד) וזבחת עליו את עולותיך ואת שלמיך וכי עליו אתה זובח אלא כשהוא שלם ולא כשהוא חסר אמר היינו קרא דאישתמיט ליה לרב

Because it is said, And thou shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings and thy peace-offerings:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XX, 21.');">⁷</span> now, do you then sacrifice on it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not. The sacrifice was slaughtered at the side of the altar.');">⁸</span>

ורבי יוחנן אמר אחד זה ואחד זה פסולין במאי פליגי רב סבר בעלי חיים אינן נדחים ור' יוחנן סבר בעלי חיים נידחין

Rather, [it means:] when it is whole, and not when it is defective. Said he: That is the text which eluded Rab.

מיתיבי כל הקדשים שהיו עד שלא נבנה המזבח ואח"כ נבנה המזבח פסולין נבנה דחויין מעיקרא נינהו

But R'Johanan maintained: In both cases they are unfit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All animals in a state of consecration while the altar was damaged are unfit, whether slaughtered while it was actually damaged, or after it was repaired.');">⁹</span> Wherein do they disagree? - Rab holds: Live animals cannot be [permanently] rejected; while R'Johanan holds: Live animals can be [permanently] rejected.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 12a. When the altar became damaged these animals were rejected, since they could not be sacrificed then. The controversy is whether this rejection is permanent or not.');">¹⁰</span>

אלא עד שלא נהרס המזבח נהרס הא איזקון להו

An objection is raised. All the sacred animals which were before the altar was built,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The altar in the second Temple.');">¹¹</span>

אלא עד שלא נפגם המזבח ואחר כך נפגם המזבח פסולין ולא תרוצי קא מתרצת אימא שנשחטו

and then the altar was built, are unfit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if they were consecrated before the altar was actually built.');">¹²</span> [Now before] it was built, they were rejected ab initio?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the very moment that they were consecrated they were unfit, since there was as yet no altar, and in this case there is a view that the animals do not become permanently rejected, v. Kid. 7a.');">¹³</span>

והאמר רב גידל אמר רב מזבח שנעקר מקטירין קטרת במקומו

- [Say] rather: before it was razed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the animals consecrated before the altar in the first Temple was destroyed might not be offered when that in the second was built.');">¹⁴</span> '[Before] it was razed? ' But they [the animals] would be too old!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the time that that in the second was built.');">¹⁵</span>

כדאמר רבא מודה היה ר' יהודה בדמים הכא נמי מודה רב בדמים

Rather [it means] [the animals which were consecrated] before the altar was damaged, and then the altar was damaged, are unfit!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if slaughtered after it is repaired. This contradicts Rab who declares fit sacrifices offered after the altar had been repaired.');">¹⁶</span> - Now, did you not emend it?

מאי ר' יהודה דתניא (מלכים א ח, סד) ביום ההוא קידש המלך תוך החצר וגו' כי מזבח (שעשה משה) קטן מהכיל דברים ככתבן דברי רבי יהודה

Then read, which were slaughtered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since you must emend the text in any case, emend it to: all the animals which were slaughtered while the altar was damaged.');">¹⁷</span> But surely R'Giddal said in Rab's name: If the altar was removed [from its place], the incense was burnt on its [the altar's] site?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to the inner altar, and it is assumed that the same applies to the outer altar. When it is removed it is as damaged, and so Rab is self-contradictory.');">¹⁸</span>

א"ל רבי יוסי

- Even as Raba said, R'Judah agrees in respect of the blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sprinkling of the blood requires an altar.');">¹⁹</span> so here too. Rab agrees in respect of the blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His ruling applies only to incense, but he agrees that the blood must be sprinkled on a whole altar.');">²⁰</span> What [statement of] R'Judah [is referred to]? - It was taught: The same day did the king hallow the middle of the court that was before the house of the Lord. because the brazen altar that was before the Lord was too little to receive the burnt-offering, and the meal-offering and the fat of the peace-offerings:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Kings VIII, 64.');">²¹</span> this is meant literally:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the words are as written'. - I.e., Solomon sanctified the whole of the pavement to serve as an altar, to permit the burning of the limbs, etc., upon it.');">²²</span> these are the words of R'Judah. Said R'Jose to him: