Zevachim 62b

״בְּנֵי קְטוּרָה״. בְּנֵי אֲחָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן הָווּ יָתְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, פָּתַח וְאָמַר: ״וַיּוֹסֶף אַבְרָהָם וַיִּקַּח אִשָּׁה וּשְׁמָהּ יוֹחָנִי״. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: ״קְטוּרָה״ כְּתִיב! קָרֵי (עֲלֵיהֶם) [עֲלַיְהוּ] ״בְּנֵי קְטוּרָה״.

“The children of Keturah” (Genesis 25:4). Although Keturah’s children were children of Abraham, they were not of the same caliber as Isaac. Similarly, Rav Yosef was saying that his other students were not of the caliber of Abaye. Having mentioned this term, the Gemara relates: The sons of Rabbi Tarfon’s sister were sitting silently before Rabbi Tarfon. In an attempt to encourage them to say something, he began and said: The verse states: And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Yoḥani. They said to Rabbi Tarfon: It is written: “Keturah” (Genesis 25:1), not Yoḥani. Rabbi Tarfon read, i.e., said, about them the phrase “the children of Keturah” as they were able to contribute only this small piece of information.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי בַּר הוּנָא אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא: גְּזִירִין שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה – אוֹרְכָּן אַמָּה, וְרוֹחְבָּן אַמָּה, וְעוֹבְיָין כְּמַחַק גּוֹדֶשׁ סְאָה.

§ Abaye bar Huna says that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya says: With regard to the logs that Moses prepared for the mitzva of burning wood upon the altar, their length was a cubit and their width was a cubit, and their thickness was like that of a leveler, a kind of flat stick used to remove the excess grain heaped on top of a container that holds one se’a .

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: בְּאַמָּה גְּדוּמָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, וְלָאו הַיְינוּ דְּתַנְיָא: ״עַל הָעֵצִים אֲשֶׁר עַל הָאֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ עֵצִים יוֹצְאִין מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּלוּם?!

Rabbi Yirmeya says: The length and width of the logs mentioned were measured with a shortened cubit. Rav Yosef said: Is this not as it is taught in a baraita : The verse states: “Upon the wood that is on the fire that is upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:8). The seemingly superfluous phrase “that is upon the altar” teaches that the wood should not extend at all beyond the area of the altar designated for the arrangement of wood. Since this area was one square cubit, the logs were exactly one cubit as well.

תְּנַן הָתָם: כֶּבֶשׁ הָיָה לִדְרוֹמָהּ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – אוֹרֶךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁתַּיִם, עַל רוֹחַב שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְשָׁחַט אוֹתוֹ עַל יֶרֶךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ צָפוֹנָה״ – שֶׁיְּהֵא יָרֵךְ בְּצָפוֹן, וּפָנָיו בַּדָּרוֹם.

§ The Gemara discusses the ramp of the altar: We learned in a mishna there ( Middot 36a): There was a ramp that was located on the south side of the altar, whose size was a length of thirty-two cubits by a width of sixteen cubits. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, i.e., from where is it derived that the ramp is on the south side of the altar? Rav Huna said: The verse states: “And he shall slaughter it on the side [ yerekh ] of the altar northward” (Leviticus 1:11), which teaches that the altar’s thigh [ yarekh ] should be located in the north, and its face, i.e., the front of the altar where the priests ascend to it, should be in the south. The verse likens the positioning of the altar to a person who is lying down flat, in which case if his legs are to the north, his face is to the south.

אֵימָא: יָרֵךְ בַּצָּפוֹן וּפָנָיו בַּצָּפוֹן! אָמַר רָבָא: רָמֵי גַּבְרָא אַאַפֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַדְּרַבָּה – תָּרֵיץ וְאוֹתֵיב גַּבְרָא!

The Gemara asks: Why not say that its thigh should be in the north and its face should also be in the north? Perhaps the verse is referring to a person sitting with both his face and feet in the north. Rava said in response: Place the man on his face, i.e., the analogy is to a man who is lying down. Abaye said to him: On the contrary, sit the man straight up so that his face and his legs are facing the same direction.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״רָבוּעַ״ כְּתִיב. וְהָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ דִּמְרַבַּע רַבּוֹעֵי! מִי כְּתִיב ״מְרוּבָּע״?! וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, מִי כְּתִיב ״רָבוּץ״?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״רָבוּעַ״ כְּתִיב – דְּמַשְׁמַע הָכִי וּמַשְׁמַע הָכִי.

Rava said back to him: It is written in a verse that the altar must be “square [ ravua ]” (Exodus 27:1), which indicates lying down or crouching, as it is similar to the term ravutz , meaning crouching. Abaye challenges Rava: But this word is necessary to teach that the altar must be square. Rava responds: Is it written in the verse that the altar must be square [ merubba ]? The verse specifically uses the form ravua in order to allude to the word ravutz , crouching. Abaye counters: According to your reasoning, is it written in the verse that the altar must be ravutz ? Rava answers: It is written in the verse that the altar must be ravua , which is a term that indicates this, i.e., that the altar must be square, and indicates that, i.e., that its positioning is comparable to that of a person who is lying down.

וְתַנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא – דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וּמַעֲלֹתֵהוּ פְּנוֹת קָדִים״ – כׇּל פִּינּוֹת שֶׁאַתָּה פּוֹנֶה, לֹא יְהוּ אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין לַמִּזְרָח.

The Gemara adds: And another tanna cites the source for the ramp’s positioning from here, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The verse states with regard to the future altar: “And its steps shall look [ penot ] toward the east” (Ezekiel 43:17), which indicates that all the turns [ pinot ] that you turn should be only to the right and you should turn to the east. Only if the ramp is in the south can one turn to the right and be facing eastward.

וְאֵימָא שְׂמֹאל לַמִּזְרָח! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ; דְּתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר (יְחִזְקִיָּה) [יְחֶזְקֵאל]: יָם שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה – ״עֹמֵד עַל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר בָּקָר; שְׁלֹשָׁה פֹנִים צָפוֹנָה, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה פֹנִים יָמָּה, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה פֹּנִים נֶגְבָּה, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה פֹּנִים מִזְרָחָה״ – כׇּל פִּינּוֹת שֶׁאַתָּה פּוֹנֶה, לֹא יְהוּ אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין לַמִּזְרָח.

The Gemara challenges: The verse indicates only that after a person turns he is facing eastward. Why not say that the ramp was located in the north and the priest turns left and faces eastward? The Gemara answers: This possibility should not enter your mind, as Rami bar Yeḥizkiya teaches: A verse describes the sea, i.e., the Basin, that Solomon built, in the following terms: “It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward [ ponim ] the north, and three looking toward [ ponim ] the west, and three looking toward [ ponim ] the south, and three looking toward [ ponim ] the east” (II Chronicles 4:4). From the order of the directions in which the verse lists the groups of oxen under the Basin, it can be derived that all the turns that you turn should be only to the right and to the east.

הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ! אִם כֵּן, ״פֹּנִים״ ״פֹּנִים״ לְמָה לִי?

The Gemara challenges: That verse is necessary to teach its own information describing the Basin. The Gemara explains: If so, why do I need the verse to repeat the term ponim , ponim ? It must be in order to teach how one turns while performing the sacrificial rite upon the altar, which, in turn, teaches the location of the ramp.

שָׁאַל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹסֵי בֶּן לָקוֹנְיָא אֶת רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי, אֲוִיר יֵשׁ בֵּין כֶּבֶשׁ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ? אָמַר לוֹ: וְאַתָּה – אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן?! וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״ – מָה דָּם בִּזְרִיקָה, אַף בָּשָׂר בִּזְרִיקָה!

§ Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei ben Lakonya asked Rabbi Yosei: Is it so that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai used to say that there is airspace, i.e., a gap, between the ramp and the altar? Rabbi Yosei said to him: And you, don’t you say so as well? But isn’t it already stated: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27)? The verse juxtaposes the flesh of the burnt offering with its blood to teach that just as the blood is presented upon the altar via tossing while the priest stands on the ground next to the altar (see Leviticus 1:5), so too, the flesh of the burnt offering is presented via tossing. In order to fulfill this requirement, the priest stands on the ramp and tosses the flesh over the gap between the ramp and the altar, so that it lands on the arrangement of wood.

אָמַר לוֹ: שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר, עוֹמֵד בְּצַד מַעֲרָכָה – וְזוֹרֵק.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei ben Lakonya said to him: If the verse simply teaches that the flesh must be tossed onto the arrangement of wood, it does not prove that there must be a gap between the ramp and the altar, as I say that the priest should stand next to the arrangement of wood and toss the flesh onto it.

אָמַר לוֹ: כְּשֶׁהוּא זוֹרֵק – לְמַעֲרָכָה דְּלוּקָה הוּא זוֹרֵק, אוֹ לְמַעֲרָכָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ דְּלוּקָה הוּא זוֹרֵק? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: לְמַעֲרָכָה דְּלוּקָה הוּא זוֹרֵק! הָתָם מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר.

Rabbi Yosei said to him: When he tosses the flesh, does he toss it onto a part of the arrangement of wood that is burning or does he toss it onto a part of the arrangement of wood that is not burning? You must say that he tosses it onto a part of the arrangement of wood that is burning. And there, according to your suggestion that the priest is standing next to the arrangement of wood, he would have to toss the flesh, because it is impossible to place the flesh directly into the fire without the priest getting burned. It would be unnecessary for the verse to teach that the priest tosses the flesh while standing next to the arrangement. Consequently, when the verse juxtaposed the blood with the flesh, it must be teaching that the flesh must be tossed over a gap between the ramp and the altar.

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: כִּי דָּם; מָה דָּם – אֲוִיר קַרְקַע מַפְסִיקוֹ, אַף בָּשָׂר – אֲוִיר קַרְקַע מַפְסִיקוֹ.

Rav Pappa says: The requirement that there be a gap between the ramp and the altar can be derived from this verse, because the juxtaposition teaches that the flesh is like blood in the manner in which it is tossed: Just as with regard to the blood there is space on the ground that interposes between the priest and the altar, so too with regard to the flesh, there is space on the ground that interposes between the priest and the altar, i.e., he stands on the ground next to the altar and tosses the flesh onto the altar.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׁים קְטַנִּים יוֹצְאִין מִן הַכֶּבֶשׁ, שֶׁבָּהֶן פּוֹנִים לַיְסוֹד וְלַסּוֹבֵב; וּמוּבְדָּלִין מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְלֹא נִימָא, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״סָבִיב״. וְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר: ״רָבוּעַ״.

§ The Gemara continues discussing the ramp: Rav Yehuda says: There were two small ramps protruding from the main ramp that led to the altar, on which the priests could turn to the base of the altar and to the surrounding ledge of the altar. They were separated from the altar by a hairbreadth, because it is stated: “Roundabout” (Leviticus 1:5), with regard to the altar. This indicates that nothing is attached to the entire perimeter of the altar. And Rabbi Abbahu says there is a different source, as it states: “Square” (Exodus 27:1), and if the ramps would be connected to the altar it would no longer be square.

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״סָבִיב״, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״רָבוּעַ״. דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״סָבִיב״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא דְּעָגֵיל מִעְגָּל; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״רָבוּעַ״. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״רָבוּעַ״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא דַּאֲרִיךְ וְקַטִּין; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״סָבִיב״.

The Gemara continues: And it was necessary for the verse to write: “Roundabout,” and it was necessary for the verse to write: “Square,” as, had the Merciful One written only: “Roundabout,” I would say that the altar can be circular. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote that the altar must be “square.” And had the Merciful One written only that the altar must be “square [ ravua ],” I would say that the word ravua simply means rectangular and the altar can be long and narrow. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote the term “roundabout,” which teaches that the altar must not have some sides that are longer than others.

תְּנַן הָתָם: הַכֶּבֶשׁ וְהַמִּזְבֵּחַ – שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁתַּיִם. הָנֵי שִׁיתִּין וְאַרְבְּעָה הָווּ! נִמְצָא פּוֹרֵחַ אַמָּה עַל יְסוֹד וְאַמָּה עַל סוֹבֵב.

§ We learned in a mishna elsewhere ( Middot 37b): The ramp and the altar together were sixty-two cubits long. The Gemara challenges: The dimensions of these are sixty-four cubits, as the altar and the ramp were each thirty-two cubits long ( Middot 36a). The Gemara explains: The thirty-two-cubit measurement of the ramp is explained by a baraita that states: It is found that the ramp of the altar overhung the base of the altar by one cubit and the surrounding ledge by one cubit, resulting in an aggregate length of thirty-two cubits.