It says in the mishna that the mizbeach hazahav was the mizbeach referred to in the passuk. however ibn ezra in the chumash comments on this passuk "ze mizbeach haola" which explanation is correct?
Thank you.
joerishty, Brooklyn ny
Shalom Rav,
When a Rishon says something that is at odds with a Mishnah (or a Gemara), which explanation is correct does not come into question. If there are Halachic ramifications, then one must try to understand what the Rishon meant. If there are no Halachic ramifications, it is not uncommon for the commentaries to offer alternative explanations that may not conform with the Mishnah or Gemara.
In this particular case, the verse cannot be understood in any way other than that of the Mishnah, as it is obvious that the verse is referring to the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav. Consequently, the Ibn Ezra is difficult to understand. I can only suggest that the words in the Ibn Ezra are a printing error and what he really wrote was "Zeh Mizbach ha'Zahav" (or "Zeh Mizbach ha'Zahav").
B'Virchas Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler