Zevachim 61b — the Talmud in English

And

also

after the Levites dismantled the Tabernacle

—that is, they dismantled the boards and the curtains of the courtyard, while the altar was still standing in its place—the most sacred offerings could be eaten. The beraita teaches us that they could be eaten even though the Levites had dismantled the boards.

Lest you say that they became unfit

the most sacred offerings when they dismantled the boards

due to the prohibition against leaving

since the place where they may be eaten is only in the courtyard of the Tabernacle, and when they left that place they became unfit due to the prohibition against leaving,

it teaches us

that there is no such disqualification due to leaving in this case.

And say that this is indeed so

that they should become unfit due to the prohibition against leaving in such a case.

The verse states: “And the Tent of Meeting shall journey,”

and from here we derive that they do not become unfit due to leaving, for

even when the Tent of Meeting has journeyed

48. Rav Ḥisda said that Rav said: The altar of Shiloh was made of stones.

It was taught

likewise:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: What is the meaning of the repeated mention of “stones

stones

stones”

in the verses concerning the construction of the altar

three times?

It is to teach you that there were three stone altars:

one of

the Tabernacle

of Shiloh, one of Nob and Gibeon, and

one that was in the

permanent House 49.

Rav Aḥadboi bar Ami raised an objection:

It was taught:

The fire that descended from Heaven in the days of Moses did not depart

even during the journeys

from the copper altar until the days of Solomon,

when Solomon made a stone altar and the fire departed to it.

And the fire that descended in the days of Solomon

upon the stone altar

did not depart until Manasseh came and removed it

(as explained in the Gemara, Sanhedrin 103b).

And if it is so

that there was a stone altar in Shiloh, as Rav says, this is difficult:

at the outset,

before Solomon built it,

it had departed

from the copper altar to the stone altar in Shiloh!?

And we answer: Rav Huna said that Rav

stated his opinion in accordance with Rabbi Natan. As it was taught: Rabbi Natan says: The altar of Shiloh was a hollow copper altar, filled with stones

And if so, we have found a tanna who says that the altar of Shiloh was made of stones, in accordance with Rav’s statement. Indeed, the preceding beraita proves that there was a copper altar in Shiloh, but Rabbi Natan disagrees with this .

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What is the meaning of “did not depart”

that the beraita says, implying that the fire remained on the altar until the days of Solomon? It means that

it did not depart entirely

and was not completely extinguished.

What was the situation? The Sages say: A spark would be sent forth

Sparks of heavenly fire would emerge at the time of the offering from Moses’ altar, which was situated in Shiloh, to the stone altar upon which they were offering.

Rav Pappa said: It held an inn

The entire fire would leap from place to place, like a traveler jumping from here to there; so too, the fire

at times

was

here

upon the copper altar,

and at times

was

here

upon the stone altar.

We learned there

in tractate Middot: At first, Solomon’s stone altar was twenty-eight cubits by twenty-eight cubits. From those twenty-eight cubits, one cubit was deducted on each side for the place of the יסוד, one cubit on each side for the place of the סובב, one cubit on each side for the place of the corners, and one cubit on each side for the area where the priests walked. The area of the pyre was therefore twenty cubits by twenty cubits.

And when the exiles ascended

and built the Second Temple,

they enlarged it

the altar

by four cubits on the south and four cubits on the west, in the form of a gamma

like the Greek letter gamma, in this manner. The altar as a whole was then thirty-two cubits by thirty-two cubits, and the area of the pyre was twenty-four cubits by twenty-four cubits.

And we explain:

What is the reason

that they needed to enlarge the dimensions of the altar?

Rav Yosef said: Because it was insufficient

the area of the pyre for all the offerings.

Abaye said to him:

How can you say that the area was insufficient for the offerings?

Now, in the First Temple, concerning which it is written, “Judah and Israel were many, like the sand by the sea,” was it sufficient

for them,

while in the Second Temple, concerning which it is written, “The entire congregation together numbered forty thousand,”

and no more,

it was not sufficient

for them?

He said to him

Rav Yosef said to Abaye:

There

in the First Temple, the area of the pyre was sufficient for them because

the heavenly fire assisted them

and the offerings were consumed quickly upon the altar. But

here

in the Second Temple,

the heavenly fire did not assist them; therefore, they needed to enlarge the area of the pyre .

и поэтому им пришлось расширить место костра.

When Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi

explained that the reason the exiles enlarged the altar was

the shittin,

the pits for the libations.

They enlarged it—

that is, because

at first,

in the days of Solomon, they

held

that the meaning of the verse

“an altar of earth”

was

that it

the altar

would be solid earth

and not hollow. The pit for the libations was beside the altar and not beneath it, so that the requirement of an “altar of earth” would be fulfilled, and the libations would trickle along the floor into the pit beside the altar.

And ultimately,

in the days of the Second Temple, when the exiles ascended, they

held

that

drinking is like eating: The pouring of the libations is like the burning of the fats. Just as eating requires that the food be consumed on the altar, meaning upon the fire, so too, drinking the libations requires that they be absorbed into the altar. Therefore, they enlarged the altar’s structure so that the pit made in the days of Solomon would be within the area of the altar, and they made holes at the top of the altar leading to the pit, so that the libations would descend there.

: возлияние вина подобно сжиганию жертвенных частей. Подобно тому как пища должна быть съедена жертвенником, то есть огнем, так и возлияние должно впитаться в жертвенник. Поэтому при строительстве жертвенника его увеличили, чтобы яма, сделанная во дни Шломо, оказалась внутри площади жертвенника; в верхней части жертвенника проделали отверстия, ведущие к яме, чтобы возлияния стекали туда.

And what

is the meaning of

“an altar of earth”

according to their interpretation? Not that it must be hollow; rather, we derive

that it

the altar

must be attached to the earth, and they may not build it on top of arches ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page position")

or on top of cavities,

but only on the earth. The pit of the altar is not considered an arch, since it serves the altar. So wrote Tosafot.