Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Can kodshim kalim be eaten when there is no altar? Abaye proved from a braita of Rabbi Yishmael that they cannot be eaten. Rabbi Yirmia raised a difficulty against Abaye from a contradiction between braitot, resolving it in a way that one would conclude that kodshim kalim could be eaten even without an altar. However, Ravina provides an alternative resolution to the contradiction, and the Gemara brings another.
Rav Huna says in the name of Rav that the altar in the Tabernacle of Shilo was made of stone. However, a difficulty is raised against this from a braita that explains that the fire of Moshe’s copper altar continued until the time of Shlomo. They resolve it by saying that Rav Huna held by a different tannaitic opinion. Alternatively, one can explain that the fire could have still been on Moshe’s altar, even though they were using the stone altar. If so, what was the fire used for? The Gemara suggests two possible answers.
A Mishna is brought which says that the altar in the time of the Second Temple was expanded to be larger than the one in the First Temple, from 28×28 cubits to 32×32. Why? Rav Yosef suggests it was expanded as they needed more space. Ravin explained it based on a Mishna in Middot that described the addition of the shitin, two holes that were added for the libations.
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Zevachim 61
הָא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, הָא רַבָּנַן.
This first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who derives that meat of a firstborn offering, which is an offering of lesser sanctity, cannot be consumed if the altar is damaged or absent, based upon the halakha pertaining to the blood of the firstborn. That second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Sages, who disagree with Rabbi Yishmael.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים; וּמַאי בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת – קוֹדֶם שֶׁיַּעֲמִידוּ לְוִיִּם אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן,
And if you wish, say there is a different resolution of the two baraitot: Both this baraita and that baraita are referring to offerings of the most sacred order. And what does the second baraita mean when it says the food may be consumed in two locations? It is referring to when the Israelites arrive at a new camp, before the Levites erect the Tabernacle,
וּלְאַחַר שֶׁיְּפָרְקוּ הַלְוִיִּם אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן.
and, when they are leaving the camp, after the Levites dismantle the Tabernacle but before they remove the altar. Since the altar has not yet been moved, it is still permitted to consume the sacrificial food.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִיפְּסִיל לְהוּ בְּיוֹצֵא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara continues: It was necessary to state this halakha lest you say that once the partitions surrounding the courtyard have been taken down, the sacrificial food has been disqualified because it is considered to have left the courtyard of the Tabernacle. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that the food is permitted for consumption as long as the altar remains in place.
וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי! אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנָסַע אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּסַע, אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד הוּא.
The Gemara challenges: And say it is indeed so, that the sacrificial food should be disqualified because it is no longer within the partitions surrounding the courtyard. The Gemara explains: The verse states: “Then the Tent of Meeting shall travel” (Numbers 2:17). This verse indicates that even though it traveled it is still considered the Tent of Meeting. Therefore, the sacrificial food is not considered to have left its designated area.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁל שִׁילֹה – שֶׁל אֲבָנִים הָיָה. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲבָנִים״ ״אֲבָנִים״ ״אֲבָנִים״ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים? אֶחָד שֶׁל שִׁילֹה, וְאֶחָד שֶׁל נוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן, וּבֵית עוֹלָמִים.
§ The Gemara raises another discussion concerning the altar: Rav Huna says that Rav says: The altar in Shiloh was fashioned of stones, unlike the portable altar constructed in the time of Moses, which was fashioned from copper. This is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Why must the verses state that the altar must be fashioned from stones (Exodus 20:22), and state again that the altar must be fashioned from stones (Deuteronomy 27:5), and mention yet again the word stones (Deuteronomy 27:6), with regard to the altar, for a total of three times? These allude to three different stone altars: One in Shiloh, and one in Nov and Gibeon, and one in the Eternal House, i.e., the Temple.
מֵתִיב רַב אַחָא בַּר אַמֵּי: אֵשׁ שֶׁיָּרְדָה מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם בִּימֵי מֹשֶׁה – לֹא נִסְתַּלְּקָה מֵעַל מִזְבַּח הַנְּחוֹשֶׁת אֶלָּא בִּימֵי שְׁלֹמֹה, וְאֵשׁ שֶׁיָּרְדָה בִּימֵי שְׁלֹמֹה – לֹא נִסְתַּלְּקָה עַד שֶׁבָּא מְנַשֶּׁה וְסִילְּקָהּ. וְאִם אִיתָא, מֵעִיקָּרָא הוּא דְּאִיסְתַּלַּק לֵיהּ!
Rav Aḥa bar Ami raises an objection based on a baraita: The fire that descended from Heaven upon the altar in the days of Moses (see Leviticus 9:24) departed from atop the copper altar only in the days of Solomon, when he replaced the copper altar with a stone altar, and the fire that descended upon the altar in the days of Solomon did not depart until Manasseh came and removed it by destroying the altar. And if it is so that the altar in Shiloh was fashioned of stones, it emerges that the fire departed the copper altar earlier, when the stone altar in Shiloh replaced the copper altar of Moses, many years before King Solomon.
הוּא דְּאָמַר – כְּרַבִּי נָתָן; דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁל שִׁילֹה – שֶׁל נְחוֹשֶׁת הָיָה, חָלוּל וּמָלֵא אֲבָנִים.
The Gemara explains: Rav Huna stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: The altar in Shiloh was fashioned of copper; it was hollow and full of stones.
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: מַאי לֹא נִסְתַּלְּקָה – לֹא נִסְתַּלְּקָה לְבַטָּלָה. מַאי הִיא? רַבָּנַן אָמְרִי: שְׁבִיבָא הֲוָה מְשַׁדְּרָא. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: אוּשְׁפִּיזָא הֲוָה נָקֵט, וְזִימְנִין הָכָא וְזִימְנִין הָכָא.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says there is an alternative answer: What is the meaning of the statement in the baraita that the fire did not depart until the days of Solomon? It means that it did not depart in a manner in which it was nullified; it was still somewhat present in Shiloh on the copper altar, which stood together with the stone altar. The Gemara asks: What is it, i.e., what does it mean that the fire did not depart in a manner in which it was nullified? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis say: The fire on the copper altar would emit sparks toward the stone altar when the priests would sacrifice offerings on the stone altar. Rav Pappa says: The fire was as a guest; sometimes it was here, on the copper altar, and sometimes it was there, on the stone altar.
תְּנַן הָתָם: וּכְשֶׁעָלוּ בְּנֵי הַגּוֹלָה – הוֹסִיפוּ עָלָיו אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מִן הַדָּרוֹם וְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מִן הַמַּעֲרָב, כְּמִין גַּמָּא. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא סָפַק.
§ The Gemara continues discussing the altar: We learned in a mishna there (Middot 35b): The altar in the First Temple was twenty-eight by twenty-eight cubits. When the members of the exile ascended to Jerusalem in the beginning of the Second Temple period, they added four cubits to it on the south and four cubits on the west sides of the altar, like the shape of the Greek letter gamma, i.e., the additions made a right angle. As a result, the altar in the Second Temple was thirty-two by thirty-two cubits. The Gemara asks: What was the reason for this expansion? Rav Yosef said: Because the size of the altar from the First Temple was not sufficient.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הַשְׁתָּא מִקְדָּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״יְהוּדָה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל רַבִּים כַּחוֹל אֲשֶׁר עַל שְׂפַת הַיָּם״ – סְפֵק; מִקְדָּשׁ שֵׁנִי, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״כׇּל הַקָּהָל כְּאֶחָד אַרְבַּע רִבּוֹא״ – לֹא סָפֵק?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם אֵשׁ שֶׁל שָׁמַיִם מְסַיַּיעְתָּן, הָכָא אֵין אֵשׁ שֶׁל שָׁמַיִם מְסַיַּיעְתָּן.
Abaye said to him: Now, if in the First Temple era, about which it is written: “Judah and Israel were many as the sand that is by the sea” (I Kings 4:20), the altar was sufficient, how could it be that in the Second Temple era, about which it is written: “The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and sixty” (Ezra 2:64), the altar was not sufficient? Rav Yosef said to Abaye: There, in the First Temple, a heavenly fire would assist them and consume the offerings. Here, in the Second Temple, there was no heavenly fire that would assist them. Therefore, they needed a larger area in which to burn the offerings.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא: שִׁיתִין הוֹסִיפוּ. מֵעִיקָּרָא סְבוּר: ״מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה״ – שֶׁהוּא אָטוּם בָּאֲדָמָה.
When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he reported that which Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi says in the name of Bar Kappara with regard to the expansion of the altar: They expanded the altar to extend over the underground cavities into which the libations flowed. Initially, in the First Temple era, they held that when the verse states: “An altar of earth you shall make for Me” (Exodus 20:21), it means that it should be completely filled with earth.
וּלְבַסּוֹף סְבוּר: שְׁתִיָּה כַּאֲכִילָה, וּמַאי ״מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה״ – שֶׁהוּא מְחוּבָּר בַּאֲדָמָה; שֶׁלֹּא יִבְנֶנּוּ לֹא עַל גַּבֵּי כִּיפִּים
But ultimately, in the Second Temple era, they maintained that the altar’s drinking is like its eating, i.e., just as the offerings are burned upon the altar, so too, the libations must be poured onto the altar itself and not down its side. Consequently, they expanded the altar to cover the underground cavities, and created holes in the altar so that the libations could be poured on top of the altar and flow into the underground cavities. And according to this, what is the meaning of the phrase “an altar of earth”? It teaches that the altar must be attached to the earth, so that one may not build it on top of arches
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Zevahim 61: The Fire Never Left the Altar – Unless It Did?
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
Minnesota, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
Bronx, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Oceanside NY, United States
Zevachim 61
הָא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, הָא רַבָּנַן.
This first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who derives that meat of a firstborn offering, which is an offering of lesser sanctity, cannot be consumed if the altar is damaged or absent, based upon the halakha pertaining to the blood of the firstborn. That second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Sages, who disagree with Rabbi Yishmael.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים; וּמַאי בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת – קוֹדֶם שֶׁיַּעֲמִידוּ לְוִיִּם אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן,
And if you wish, say there is a different resolution of the two baraitot: Both this baraita and that baraita are referring to offerings of the most sacred order. And what does the second baraita mean when it says the food may be consumed in two locations? It is referring to when the Israelites arrive at a new camp, before the Levites erect the Tabernacle,
וּלְאַחַר שֶׁיְּפָרְקוּ הַלְוִיִּם אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן.
and, when they are leaving the camp, after the Levites dismantle the Tabernacle but before they remove the altar. Since the altar has not yet been moved, it is still permitted to consume the sacrificial food.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִיפְּסִיל לְהוּ בְּיוֹצֵא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara continues: It was necessary to state this halakha lest you say that once the partitions surrounding the courtyard have been taken down, the sacrificial food has been disqualified because it is considered to have left the courtyard of the Tabernacle. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that the food is permitted for consumption as long as the altar remains in place.
וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי! אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנָסַע אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּסַע, אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד הוּא.
The Gemara challenges: And say it is indeed so, that the sacrificial food should be disqualified because it is no longer within the partitions surrounding the courtyard. The Gemara explains: The verse states: “Then the Tent of Meeting shall travel” (Numbers 2:17). This verse indicates that even though it traveled it is still considered the Tent of Meeting. Therefore, the sacrificial food is not considered to have left its designated area.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁל שִׁילֹה – שֶׁל אֲבָנִים הָיָה. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲבָנִים״ ״אֲבָנִים״ ״אֲבָנִים״ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים? אֶחָד שֶׁל שִׁילֹה, וְאֶחָד שֶׁל נוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן, וּבֵית עוֹלָמִים.
§ The Gemara raises another discussion concerning the altar: Rav Huna says that Rav says: The altar in Shiloh was fashioned of stones, unlike the portable altar constructed in the time of Moses, which was fashioned from copper. This is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Why must the verses state that the altar must be fashioned from stones (Exodus 20:22), and state again that the altar must be fashioned from stones (Deuteronomy 27:5), and mention yet again the word stones (Deuteronomy 27:6), with regard to the altar, for a total of three times? These allude to three different stone altars: One in Shiloh, and one in Nov and Gibeon, and one in the Eternal House, i.e., the Temple.
מֵתִיב רַב אַחָא בַּר אַמֵּי: אֵשׁ שֶׁיָּרְדָה מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם בִּימֵי מֹשֶׁה – לֹא נִסְתַּלְּקָה מֵעַל מִזְבַּח הַנְּחוֹשֶׁת אֶלָּא בִּימֵי שְׁלֹמֹה, וְאֵשׁ שֶׁיָּרְדָה בִּימֵי שְׁלֹמֹה – לֹא נִסְתַּלְּקָה עַד שֶׁבָּא מְנַשֶּׁה וְסִילְּקָהּ. וְאִם אִיתָא, מֵעִיקָּרָא הוּא דְּאִיסְתַּלַּק לֵיהּ!
Rav Aḥa bar Ami raises an objection based on a baraita: The fire that descended from Heaven upon the altar in the days of Moses (see Leviticus 9:24) departed from atop the copper altar only in the days of Solomon, when he replaced the copper altar with a stone altar, and the fire that descended upon the altar in the days of Solomon did not depart until Manasseh came and removed it by destroying the altar. And if it is so that the altar in Shiloh was fashioned of stones, it emerges that the fire departed the copper altar earlier, when the stone altar in Shiloh replaced the copper altar of Moses, many years before King Solomon.
הוּא דְּאָמַר – כְּרַבִּי נָתָן; דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁל שִׁילֹה – שֶׁל נְחוֹשֶׁת הָיָה, חָלוּל וּמָלֵא אֲבָנִים.
The Gemara explains: Rav Huna stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: The altar in Shiloh was fashioned of copper; it was hollow and full of stones.
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: מַאי לֹא נִסְתַּלְּקָה – לֹא נִסְתַּלְּקָה לְבַטָּלָה. מַאי הִיא? רַבָּנַן אָמְרִי: שְׁבִיבָא הֲוָה מְשַׁדְּרָא. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: אוּשְׁפִּיזָא הֲוָה נָקֵט, וְזִימְנִין הָכָא וְזִימְנִין הָכָא.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says there is an alternative answer: What is the meaning of the statement in the baraita that the fire did not depart until the days of Solomon? It means that it did not depart in a manner in which it was nullified; it was still somewhat present in Shiloh on the copper altar, which stood together with the stone altar. The Gemara asks: What is it, i.e., what does it mean that the fire did not depart in a manner in which it was nullified? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis say: The fire on the copper altar would emit sparks toward the stone altar when the priests would sacrifice offerings on the stone altar. Rav Pappa says: The fire was as a guest; sometimes it was here, on the copper altar, and sometimes it was there, on the stone altar.
תְּנַן הָתָם: וּכְשֶׁעָלוּ בְּנֵי הַגּוֹלָה – הוֹסִיפוּ עָלָיו אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מִן הַדָּרוֹם וְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מִן הַמַּעֲרָב, כְּמִין גַּמָּא. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא סָפַק.
§ The Gemara continues discussing the altar: We learned in a mishna there (Middot 35b): The altar in the First Temple was twenty-eight by twenty-eight cubits. When the members of the exile ascended to Jerusalem in the beginning of the Second Temple period, they added four cubits to it on the south and four cubits on the west sides of the altar, like the shape of the Greek letter gamma, i.e., the additions made a right angle. As a result, the altar in the Second Temple was thirty-two by thirty-two cubits. The Gemara asks: What was the reason for this expansion? Rav Yosef said: Because the size of the altar from the First Temple was not sufficient.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הַשְׁתָּא מִקְדָּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״יְהוּדָה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל רַבִּים כַּחוֹל אֲשֶׁר עַל שְׂפַת הַיָּם״ – סְפֵק; מִקְדָּשׁ שֵׁנִי, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״כׇּל הַקָּהָל כְּאֶחָד אַרְבַּע רִבּוֹא״ – לֹא סָפֵק?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם אֵשׁ שֶׁל שָׁמַיִם מְסַיַּיעְתָּן, הָכָא אֵין אֵשׁ שֶׁל שָׁמַיִם מְסַיַּיעְתָּן.
Abaye said to him: Now, if in the First Temple era, about which it is written: “Judah and Israel were many as the sand that is by the sea” (I Kings 4:20), the altar was sufficient, how could it be that in the Second Temple era, about which it is written: “The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and sixty” (Ezra 2:64), the altar was not sufficient? Rav Yosef said to Abaye: There, in the First Temple, a heavenly fire would assist them and consume the offerings. Here, in the Second Temple, there was no heavenly fire that would assist them. Therefore, they needed a larger area in which to burn the offerings.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא: שִׁיתִין הוֹסִיפוּ. מֵעִיקָּרָא סְבוּר: ״מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה״ – שֶׁהוּא אָטוּם בָּאֲדָמָה.
When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he reported that which Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi says in the name of Bar Kappara with regard to the expansion of the altar: They expanded the altar to extend over the underground cavities into which the libations flowed. Initially, in the First Temple era, they held that when the verse states: “An altar of earth you shall make for Me” (Exodus 20:21), it means that it should be completely filled with earth.
וּלְבַסּוֹף סְבוּר: שְׁתִיָּה כַּאֲכִילָה, וּמַאי ״מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה״ – שֶׁהוּא מְחוּבָּר בַּאֲדָמָה; שֶׁלֹּא יִבְנֶנּוּ לֹא עַל גַּבֵּי כִּיפִּים
But ultimately, in the Second Temple era, they maintained that the altar’s drinking is like its eating, i.e., just as the offerings are burned upon the altar, so too, the libations must be poured onto the altar itself and not down its side. Consequently, they expanded the altar to cover the underground cavities, and created holes in the altar so that the libations could be poured on top of the altar and flow into the underground cavities. And according to this, what is the meaning of the phrase “an altar of earth”? It teaches that the altar must be attached to the earth, so that one may not build it on top of arches
