Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

June 13, 2018 | ืœืณ ื‘ืกื™ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.ย 

Zevachim 61

Can kodshim kalim be eaten when there is no altar? An alternative opinion is brought. Was the altar in the mishkan in Shilo made of stone? Different opinions are brought. A mishna is brought which says that the altar in the time of the seconbd temple was larger than the first temple. Why?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ


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.


ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื”ื ื•ื”ื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืžืื™ ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืžืงื•ืžื•ืช ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื™ืขืžื™ื“ื• ืœื•ื™ื ืืช ื”ืžืฉื›ืŸ


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,


ื•ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื™ืคืจืงื• ื”ืœื•ื™ื ืืช ื”ืžืฉื›ืŸ


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.


ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืื™ืคืกื™ืœ ืœื”ื• ื‘ื™ื•ืฆื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


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.


ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื ืกืข ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื ืกืข ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื”ื•ื


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: โ€œThen the Tent of Meeting shall travelโ€ (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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืฉืœ ืฉื™ืœื” ืฉืœ ืื‘ื ื™ื ื”ื™ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื‘ื ื™ื ืื‘ื ื™ื ืื‘ื ื™ื ืฉืœืฉ ืคืขืžื™ื ืื—ื“ ืฉืœ ืฉื™ืœื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉืœ ื ื•ื‘ ื•ื’ื‘ืขื•ืŸ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืขื•ืœืžื™ื


ยง 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.


ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืืžื™ ืืฉ ืฉื™ืจื“ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืžืฉื” ืœื ื ืกืชืœืงื” ืžืขืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื ื—ื•ืฉืช ืืœื ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืฉืœืžื” ื•ืืฉ ืฉื™ืจื“ื” ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืฉืœืžื” ืœื ื ืกืชืœืงื” ืขื“ ืฉื‘ื ืžื ืฉื” ื•ืกื™ืœืงื” ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ืกืชืœืง ืœื™ื”


Rav Aแธฅa 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.


ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืฉืœ ืฉื™ืœื” ืฉืœ ื ื—ื•ืฉืช ื”ื™ื” ื—ืœื•ืœ ื•ืžืœื ืื‘ื ื™ื


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.


ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืืžืจ ืžืื™ ืœื ื ืกืชืœืงื” ืœื ื ืกืชืœืงื” ืœื‘ื˜ืœื” ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ืฉื‘ื™ื‘ื ื”ื•ื” ืžืฉื“ืจื ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืื•ืฉืคื™ื–ื ื”ื•ื” ื ืงื˜ ื•ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื•ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื


Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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 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.


ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ื•ื›ืฉืขืœื• ื‘ื ื™ ื”ื’ื•ืœื” ื”ื•ืกื™ืคื• ืขืœื™ื• ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืจื•ื ื•ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ืžืขืจื‘ ื›ืžื™ืŸ ื’ืžื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืกืคืง


ยง 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.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ืžืงื“ืฉ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืจื‘ื™ื ื›ื—ื•ืœ ืืฉืจ ืขืœ ืฉืคืช ื”ื™ื ืกืคืง ืžืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื›ืœ ื”ืงื”ืœ ื›ืื—ื“ ืืจื‘ืข ืจื‘ื•ื ืœื ืกืคืง ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืชื ืืฉ ืฉืœ ืฉืžื™ื ืžืกื™ื™ืขืชืŸ ื”ื›ื ืื™ืŸ ืืฉ ืฉืœ ืฉืžื™ื ืžืกื™ื™ืขืชืŸ


Abaye said to him: Now, if in the First Temple era, about which it is written: โ€œJudah and Israel were many as the sand that is by the seaโ€ (Iย Kings 4:20), the altar was sufficient, how could it be that in the Second Temple era, about which it is written: โ€œThe whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and sixtyโ€ (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.


ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืคื–ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื‘ืจ ืงืคืจื ืฉื™ืชื™ืŸ ื”ื•ืกื™ืคื• ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืกื‘ื•ืจ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื“ืžื” ืฉื”ื•ื ืื˜ื•ื ื‘ืื“ืžื”


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: โ€œAn altar of earth you shall make for Meโ€ (Exodus 20:21), it means that it should be completely filled with earth.


ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืกื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืชื™ื” ื›ืื›ื™ืœื” ื•ืžืื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื“ืžื” ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื—ื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ืื“ืžื” ืฉืœื ื™ื‘ื ื ื• ืœื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื›ื™ืคื™ื


But ultimately, in the Second Temple era, they maintained that the altarโ€™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 โ€œan altar of earthโ€? It teaches that the altar must be attached to the earth, so that one may not build it on top of arches


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.ย 

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 61

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 61

ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ


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.


ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื”ื ื•ื”ื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืžืื™ ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืžืงื•ืžื•ืช ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื™ืขืžื™ื“ื• ืœื•ื™ื ืืช ื”ืžืฉื›ืŸ


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,


ื•ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื™ืคืจืงื• ื”ืœื•ื™ื ืืช ื”ืžืฉื›ืŸ


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.


ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืื™ืคืกื™ืœ ืœื”ื• ื‘ื™ื•ืฆื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


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.


ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื ืกืข ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื ืกืข ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื”ื•ื


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: โ€œThen the Tent of Meeting shall travelโ€ (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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืฉืœ ืฉื™ืœื” ืฉืœ ืื‘ื ื™ื ื”ื™ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื‘ื ื™ื ืื‘ื ื™ื ืื‘ื ื™ื ืฉืœืฉ ืคืขืžื™ื ืื—ื“ ืฉืœ ืฉื™ืœื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉืœ ื ื•ื‘ ื•ื’ื‘ืขื•ืŸ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืขื•ืœืžื™ื


ยง 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.


ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืืžื™ ืืฉ ืฉื™ืจื“ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืžืฉื” ืœื ื ืกืชืœืงื” ืžืขืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื ื—ื•ืฉืช ืืœื ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืฉืœืžื” ื•ืืฉ ืฉื™ืจื“ื” ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืฉืœืžื” ืœื ื ืกืชืœืงื” ืขื“ ืฉื‘ื ืžื ืฉื” ื•ืกื™ืœืงื” ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ืกืชืœืง ืœื™ื”


Rav Aแธฅa 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.


ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืฉืœ ืฉื™ืœื” ืฉืœ ื ื—ื•ืฉืช ื”ื™ื” ื—ืœื•ืœ ื•ืžืœื ืื‘ื ื™ื


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.


ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืืžืจ ืžืื™ ืœื ื ืกืชืœืงื” ืœื ื ืกืชืœืงื” ืœื‘ื˜ืœื” ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ืฉื‘ื™ื‘ื ื”ื•ื” ืžืฉื“ืจื ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืื•ืฉืคื™ื–ื ื”ื•ื” ื ืงื˜ ื•ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื•ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื


Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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 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.


ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ื•ื›ืฉืขืœื• ื‘ื ื™ ื”ื’ื•ืœื” ื”ื•ืกื™ืคื• ืขืœื™ื• ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืจื•ื ื•ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ืžืขืจื‘ ื›ืžื™ืŸ ื’ืžื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืกืคืง


ยง 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.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ืžืงื“ืฉ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืจื‘ื™ื ื›ื—ื•ืœ ืืฉืจ ืขืœ ืฉืคืช ื”ื™ื ืกืคืง ืžืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื›ืœ ื”ืงื”ืœ ื›ืื—ื“ ืืจื‘ืข ืจื‘ื•ื ืœื ืกืคืง ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืชื ืืฉ ืฉืœ ืฉืžื™ื ืžืกื™ื™ืขืชืŸ ื”ื›ื ืื™ืŸ ืืฉ ืฉืœ ืฉืžื™ื ืžืกื™ื™ืขืชืŸ


Abaye said to him: Now, if in the First Temple era, about which it is written: โ€œJudah and Israel were many as the sand that is by the seaโ€ (Iย Kings 4:20), the altar was sufficient, how could it be that in the Second Temple era, about which it is written: โ€œThe whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and sixtyโ€ (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.


ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืคื–ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื‘ืจ ืงืคืจื ืฉื™ืชื™ืŸ ื”ื•ืกื™ืคื• ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืกื‘ื•ืจ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื“ืžื” ืฉื”ื•ื ืื˜ื•ื ื‘ืื“ืžื”


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: โ€œAn altar of earth you shall make for Meโ€ (Exodus 20:21), it means that it should be completely filled with earth.


ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืกื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืชื™ื” ื›ืื›ื™ืœื” ื•ืžืื™ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื“ืžื” ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื—ื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ืื“ืžื” ืฉืœื ื™ื‘ื ื ื• ืœื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื›ื™ืคื™ื


But ultimately, in the Second Temple era, they maintained that the altarโ€™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 โ€œan altar of earthโ€? It teaches that the altar must be attached to the earth, so that one may not build it on top of arches


Scroll To Top