Zevachim 61
Share this shiur:
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.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
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.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
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.
Zevachim Daf 58-65 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
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 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 began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
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
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, 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
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, 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
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
Ontario, Canada
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
Minnesota, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
Los Angeles, 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
