Zevachim 61

Sugya Map

• Issue: Permissibility of consuming sacrificial meat when the Tabernacle/Temple structure is in flux or incomplete. Specifically, when the altar is present but the Tabernacle is being erected or dismantled, or when the altar itself has been enlarged.
• Nafka Mina:
  • Determining the precise spatial and temporal boundaries for the sanctity of sacrificial offerings, particularly kodshei kodashim (most sacred offerings).
  • Understanding the continuity of the Mishkan and Mikdash even during periods of transition or alteration.
  • The nature of hefsek (interruption) and its effect on the sanctity of offerings.
  • The role of heavenly fire in the efficacy of the altar.
• Primary Sources:
  • Zevachim 61a-61b
  • Exodus 20:22, 20:21
  • Deuteronomy 27:5, 27:6
  • Numbers 2:17, 10:21
  • Leviticus 3:2, 9:24
  • I Kings 4:20
  • Ezra 2:64
  • Mishna Middot 3:4
  • Beraita cited in Zevachim 61a (regarding Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov)
  • Beraita cited in Zevachim 61a (regarding Rabbi Natan)
  • Gemara Yoma 59a, 62b
  • Gemara Tamid 30a
  • Gemara Me'ilah 2b

Text Snapshot

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.

• Nuance: The phrase "This first baraita" (הא ברייתא קמא) and "That second baraita" (הא ברייתא בתרא) clearly demarcates two distinct Tannaitic statements being presented. The core issue is derived from the halakha of blood, indicating a principle of kal v'chomer (a fortiori reasoning). Rabbi Yishmael's position ties the consumption of the meat of a terumah or orlah (lesser sanctity) to the altar's integrity, by analogy with the blood of a firstborn (which is kodashim kalim). The Sages disagree, implying a different understanding of the analogy or the underlying principle.

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, 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.

• Nuance: The Gemara offers a sheyoshiv (a solution that reconciles seemingly contradictory sources) by reinterpreting the scope of both baraitot. The phrase "And if you wish, say" (ואיבעית אימא) signals this interpretive move. The critical element here is "in two locations" (ושני מקומות), which is understood not as two different geographical sites, but two distinct temporal phases within the process of moving the Tabernacle. The crucial factor for permissibility is the continued presence of the altar.

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.

• Nuance: The Gemara anticipates a potential kushya (objection) based on the concept of spatial sanctity. The partitions (kl'ei haḥatzer) define the courtyard's boundaries. Its dismantling might seem to signify the offerings leaving the sacred space. The Gemara's resolution emphasizes the altar's primacy in maintaining the space's sanctity, even after the partitions are down.

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.

• Nuance: This is a direct textual proof. The verse's language implies continuity of designation ("the Tent of Meeting") even during transit ("shall travel"). This legitimizes the halakha that the space retains its sanctity for certain purposes even when the physical structure is in motion.

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.

• Nuance: This introduces a new thread concerning the Mishkan's continuity and the nature of altars. Rav Huna, citing Rav, asserts that the Shiloh altar was stone. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov uses a drasha (exegetical method) based on the triple mention of "stones" to identify three distinct stone altars, including Shiloh. This implies a significant permanence for the Shiloh altar, contrasting with the mobile copper altar of the wilderness.

Readings

Rabbi Yishmael vs. The Sages on Meat Consumption During Tabernacle Transit (61a:1)

The initial sugya grapples with the permissibility of consuming kodashim (sacred offerings) when the Mishkan is being moved. Two baraitot are presented, and the Gemara first explains them according to Rabbi Yishmael and the chachamim.

Rabbi Yishmael, as per the Gemara's explanation (and explicitly stated by Rashi and Steinsaltz), derives his ruling from an analogy with the blood of a firstborn offering (dam bechor). The blood of a firstborn, which is kodashim kalim, must be properly placed on the altar. If the altar is damaged or absent, the blood is invalid. Rabbi Yishmael extends this principle: if the blood is invalid, then the meat of that offering, even if kodashim kalim, becomes forbidden for consumption. Steinsaltz clarifies this: "Rabbi Yishmael... derives b'sar me'dam (meat from blood) that if there is no altar – the meat is disqualified for consumption."[^1] The first baraita reflects this stringent view.

The second baraita presents a more lenient view, attributed to the chachamim (the Sages). They disagree with Rabbi Yishmael. This disagreement is explicitly noted by Steinsaltz: "Rabbi Yishmael... the Sages... who dispute him."[^2]

The Gemara then offers a reconciliation (sheyoshiv) via the vay'ib't'ei ima (and if you wish, say) formulation. This interpretation posits that both baraitot refer specifically to kodshei kodashim (most sacred offerings). The leniency of the second baraita, allowing consumption "in two locations," is explained by Rashi as referring to the stages of dismantling and reassembling the Mishkan. Rashi elaborates: "And two locations – it does not mean after they traveled and the altar was removed, but one of them is when the Tabernacle is still erected according to its law. And one is after they dismantled the poles and the courtyard hangings, and the altar is still in its place, and before the Levites erect the Tabernacle."[^3] This allows consumption as long as the altar itself remains physically present, even if the surrounding structure is in process of movement. Tosafot discusses this extensively, noting that the phrase "before the Levites erect the Tabernacle" is not to be taken literally as preceding the altar's placement, but rather refers to the period after the main structure is down but before the altar is fully re-secured. Tosafot highlights the critical factor: "as long as the courtyard hangings and the altar are in their place."[^4]

The Nature and Continuity of the Altar (61a:2 - 61b:2)

The discussion shifts to the altar's physical composition and its historical continuity, particularly concerning the miraculous divine fire. Rav Huna, citing Rav, states that the altar in Shiloh was made of stones, unlike the copper altar of Moses' era. This is supported by a baraita attributed to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who uses the triple mention of "stones" in the Torah (Exodus 20:22, Deuteronomy 27:5, 27:6) to denote three distinct stone altars: one in Shiloh, one in Nob and Gibeon, and the permanent one in Jerusalem.[^5]

An objection (or at least a point of clarification) is raised by Rav Aḥa bar Ami. He cites a baraita stating that the divine fire that descended from Heaven (Leviticus 9:24) on Moses' copper altar only departed in the days of Solomon, when a stone altar replaced it. This seems to contradict the idea of a stone altar in Shiloh preceding Solomon. If Shiloh had a stone altar, the divine fire would have departed earlier, not waiting for Solomon.

The Gemara resolves this by explaining Rav Huna's statement in accordance with Rabbi Natan's view. Rabbi Natan states that the Shiloh altar was indeed copper, but it was "hollow and full of stones."[^6] This suggests a hybrid structure or a copper altar that incorporated stones. The Gemara further elaborates on the continuity of the divine fire. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak offers an alternative explanation for the fire not departing until Solomon's time: it means the fire was not "nullified" (lo niftachat).[^7] The Rabbis explain this as the fire emitting sparks towards the stone altar, and Rav Pappa describes it as being like a "guest," present at times on the copper altar and at times on the stone altar.[^8] This implies a spiritual continuity even with structural changes.

The Altar's Dimensions and the Loss of Heavenly Fire (61b:2-61b:6)

The final section of the sugya discusses the physical dimensions of the altar and the impact of losing the heavenly fire. A mishna in Middot states the First Temple altar was 28x28 cubits. During the Second Temple period, four cubits were added to the south and west, making it 32x32 cubits. Rav Yosef explains this expansion was "because the size of the altar from the First Temple was not sufficient."[^9]

Abaye challenges this: How could the First Temple altar be sufficient for a large population ("many as the sand") while the Second Temple altar, for a smaller population (Ezra 2:64), was insufficient? Rav Yosef's reply is crucial: "There, in the First Temple, a heavenly fire would assist them... Here, in the Second Temple, there was no heavenly fire that would assist them."[^10] This loss of divine assistance necessitated a larger physical space for burning the offerings.

Ravin reports Bar Kappara's explanation for the expansion, linking it to the "cavities" (she'im or shevi'in) into which libations flowed. Initially, "An altar of earth" (Exodus 20:21) was interpreted to mean the altar should be entirely filled with earth. However, in the Second Temple period, they understood the altar's "drinking is like its eating," meaning libations must be poured onto the altar itself. Thus, the altar was expanded to cover these cavities, and holes were made for the libations. The phrase "an altar of earth" is then reinterpreted to mean it must be "attached to the earth," not built on arches.[^11]

Friction

The primary friction point in this sugya lies in reconciling the apparent leniency regarding the consumption of kodashim during the Mishkan's transit with the fundamental principles of spatial sanctity and the defined boundaries of the Mishkan. Specifically, the Gemara posits that sacrificial food remains edible "before the Levites erect the Tabernacle, and... after the Levites dismantle the Tabernacle." This implies a period where the physical structure is in disarray or incomplete, yet the kedusha (sanctity) of the offering is maintained.

The strongest objection arises from the potential for hefsek (interruption) and the notion of "leaving" the courtyard. If the partitions are down, and the structure is being moved, one might argue that the sacred space has effectively been vacated, and any remaining sacrificial food should be considered disqualified. The Gemara addresses this by stating: "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."[^12]

The Gemara’s initial resolution is that the altar's continued presence suffices to maintain the sanctity for consumption. This is supported by the verse, "Then the Tent of Meeting shall travel" (Numbers 2:17), implying continuity of designation. However, a deeper friction emerges when considering the meticulous details of avoda (Temple service). Tosafot, in their extensive discussion, raises a significant challenge regarding the permissibility of shechita (slaughtering) before the Heichal's doors are opened, citing Yoma 62b and Tamid 30a. They note that the tamid offering could not be slaughtered until the great gate was heard to open, implying a rule that slaughtering cannot occur before the Mishkan's primary entrance is accessible. This rule, derived from shelamim (peace offerings) where it is explicitly stated "and they shall slaughter at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting" (Leviticus 3:2), seems to imply that offerings slaughtered before the Tabernacle is fully erected would be disqualified.

The friction is: if the altar is still in place but the Mishkan is not yet erected, how can offerings be considered to have been properly prepared or even consumed, given the halachic requirement for the Mishkan to be functional? Tosafot grapples with this: "And if it is so that they dismantled it before the dismantling of the Tabernacle... then the kodshei kodashim were disqualified by leaving [the sanctuary]. And we do not say 'the Tent of Meeting has traveled' in relation to the camp of the Shekhinah's dwelling."[^13] This highlights the tension between the physical presence of the altar and the complete, functioning Mishkan as the locus of sanctity.

The best terutz (answer) offered by the Gemara, and elaborated by Tosafot, is that the stated permissibility applies to a scenario where the entire structure has been dismantled, and then reassembled to the point where the altar is secured, but the Mishkan itself is not yet fully erected. The key is the process of movement. The Gemara, through Rashi and Tosafot, clarifies that "before the Levites erect the Tabernacle" means after the dismantling and before the re-erection, but critically, with the altar already in place. Rashi's explanation that the Levites (Gershonites and Merarites) erect the Tabernacle before the Kohathites bring the altar and place it indicates a sequence. The permissibility of consumption is then tied to the altar's positioning, even if the Mishkan's walls and roof are not yet up. Tosafot grapples with the apparent contradiction with Yoma regarding the tamid offering, ultimately suggesting that the explicit verse for shelamim might be specific, or that the halakha of shechita before the doors open is for a different context, or perhaps that the disqualification mentioned for shelamim is mid'rabbanan (rabbinic) in certain scenarios. However, the core idea remains: the altar's presence is the primary determinant for the permissibility of consuming the meat during these transitional phases, overriding concerns about the incomplete structure of the Mishkan itself.

Intertext

1. The Principle of Altar Presence: The idea that the altar's presence is paramount for the permissibility of consuming kodashim resonates with discussions concerning the altar in the wilderness versus the stationary altars. For instance, the Mishkan's portable altar was central to its function. Later, the altars at Shiloh, Nob, and Gibeon served as focal points before the permanent Temple. The Gemara's emphasis on the altar's position during the Mishkan's transit reinforces its role as the anchor of sanctity for kodashim. This is further echoed in the laws of Shechita and Zevach in Leviticus, where the Mishkan's entrance is often specified as the location for slaughtering shelamim, linking the act to the sanctified space defined by the Mishkan's presence.
2. Heavenly Fire and Divine Assistance: The discussion regarding the loss of the heavenly fire and its impact on the altar's sufficiency (61b) directly cross-references the narrative of the Mishkan's construction and the Temple periods. The initial descent of fire (Leviticus 9:24) signifies divine acceptance and the miraculous nature of the early service. Its eventual departure, as described by Rav Aḥa bar Ami, marks a shift from overt divine manifestation to reliance on human effort and structure. The explanation by Rav Yosef that the First Temple altar was sufficient due to heavenly fire, while the Second Temple altar required expansion due to its absence, connects the physical dimensions of the altar to the spiritual reality of divine presence. This also relates to the concept of shekhinah dwelling within the Mikdash, which was perceived to be diminished or absent in the Second Temple period, leading to different halakhot and experiences. The Mishnah in Middot (3:4) about the altar's expansion is a direct textual parallel to this discussion.

Psak/Practice

The halakha derived from this sugya is that consuming kodashim, particularly kodshei kodashim, during the process of dismantling or erecting the Mishkan is permitted as long as the altar remains in its place. This implies that the altar itself possesses a degree of independent sanctity that can maintain the permissibility of consuming the offerings, even if the surrounding Tabernacle structure is not fully assembled or is in the process of being disassembled.

The critical factor is the physical presence and stability of the altar. This principle would likely extend to the Mikdash context, although the details might differ. The halakha regarding the sufficiency of the altar in the Second Temple, due to the absence of heavenly fire, highlights a meta-heuristic: divine assistance can augment physical limitations, and its absence necessitates compensating with physical means.

The explanation of the fire being a "guest" or emitting sparks suggests that even when a divine manifestation appears to cease, there can be lingering effects or spiritual continuity that informs halakha. This encourages looking for subtle continuities rather than abrupt breaks in sacred tradition.

Takeaway

The altar serves as the linchpin of sacrificial sanctity, its presence sufficient to permit consumption of offerings even amidst the temporal flux of the Mishkan's movement. The loss of miraculous divine fire necessitated a larger physical altar, demonstrating that human effort can compensate for diminished heavenly assistance.

Citations

[^1]: Steinsaltz, Adin Even-Israel. "Steinsaltz on Zevachim 61a:1." Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_61a.1.10 [^2]: Steinsaltz, Adin Even-Israel. "Steinsaltz on Zevachim 61a:1." Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_61a.1.10 [^3]: Rashi. "Rashi on Zevachim 61a:2:2." Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_61a.2.2 [^4]: Tosafot. "Tosafot on Zevachim 61a:2:1." Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_61a.2.1 [^5]: Zevachim 61a. https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_61a [^6]: Zevachim 61a. https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_61a [^7]: Zevachim 61b. https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_61b [^8]: Zevachim 61b. https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_61b [^9]: Zevachim 61b. https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_61b [^10]: Zevachim 61b. https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_61b [^11]: Zevachim 61b. https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_61b [^12]: Zevachim 61a. https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_61a [^13]: Tosafot. "Tosafot on Zevachim 61a:2:1." Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim_61a.2.1