Zevachim

and after the Levites dismantled the Tabernacle.1 You might argue that [in the latter case the flesh] became unfit through having gone out [of bounds].2 Therefore he informs us [otherwise]. Yet say that that is indeed so? — Scripture saith, Then the tent of meeting shall set forward:3 even when it has set forward4 it is ‘the tent of meeting.’5 R. Hisda6 said in Rab's name: The altar at Shiloh was of stones. For it was taught. R. Eleazar b. Jacob said: Why is ‘stones’ stated three times?7 One refers to that of Shiloh, another to that of Nob and Gibeon, and the third to that of the Eternal House.8 R. Aha b. Ammi raised an objection: The fire which descended from heaven in the days of Moses9 did not depart from the brazen altar until the days of Solomon.10 And the fire which descended in the days of Solomon11 did not depart until Manasseh came and removed it. Now if this is correct,12 it should have departed earlier?13 — He [R. Hisda in Rab's name] made his statement in accordance with R. Nathan. For it was taught, R. Nathan said: The altar at Shiloh was of brass; it was hollow, and filled with stones.14 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: What does ‘it did not depart’ mean? It did not depart [disappear] into nothingness.15 How was it? — The Rabbis said: It sent forth sparks. 16 R. Papa said: It took up its abode now here, now there. We learnt elsewhere: And when the Children of the Exile went up [to Eretz Israel],17 they added thereto18 four cubits on the south and four cubits on the west, like a [Greek] gamma.19 What is the reason? — Said R. Joseph: Because it [the first] was not sufficient. Said Abaye to him: If it was sufficient for the first Temple, when it is written, Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea [shore] in multitude;20 would it be insufficient for the second Temple. whereof it is written, The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand [etc.]?21 — There [in the first Temple] the heavenly fire assisted them;22 here [in the second Temple] it did not assist them. When Rabin came [from Palestine], he said in the name of R. Simeon b. Pazzi: They added the pits [to its structure].23 At first they had thought that an ‘altar of earth’ meant that it was to be closed in with earth.24 But subsequently they held that drinking must be like eating.25 and what does ‘an altar of earth’ mean? that it should be attached to the earth, not built on rocks standing, this phrase merely being used in contrast to the second half. Thus the two places are: (i) within the normal precincts of the Tabernacle (within the ‘hangings’ — v. p. 266, n. 6) whilst it stood; and (ii) likewise within the normal precincts, but after the Tabernacle had been dismantled. The altar, however, was still standing. gone out of bounds, and so disqualified. there shalt thou build . . . an altar of stones . . . Thou shalt build the altar of the Lord thy God of unhewn stones. Temple, this fire left the brazen altar and moved to the stone altar in the Temple. stones instead of earth. which was still in existence, for though it did move to the altar at Shiloh, some of it nevertheless remained on that of Moses. altar, which was there too, on to the stone altar. cubits. The addition would thus be a strip four cubits broad in triangular shape, like a Greek gamma thus: poured. But in the second Temple the altar was extended on the south and the west, so that the place of the pit was incorporated in it, and over against this extension on top of the altar they made holes for the libations to flow’ into the pit below. of the altar itself.