In Exodus 27, God commands Moses to build an altar of acacia wood overlaid with copper for the Tabernacle. But in Exodus 20:21, God notes that it is possible for the Israelites to build an altar out of stones: “And if you make for Me an altar of stones, do not build it of hewn stones.” In fact, the Bible mentions that the altar can be made out of stone three separate times. How does this possibility make sense given that the original altar is made of wood and copper?
On today’s daf, we learn this:
Rav Huna says that Rav says: The altar in Shiloh was of stones, as it is taught: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Why do the verses state “stones” (Exodus 20:22), “stones” (Deuteronomy 27:5), “stones” (Deuteronomy 27:6) three times? One in Shiloh, and one in Nov and Gibeon, and one in the Eternal House.
According to this tradition, the three uses of the word “stone” point to three separate locations for altars made of stone. And that makes sense given that while the Tabernacle altar was meant to be moved, the other altars were built in permanent locations. Wood and copper are a lot lighter and so easier to carry than gigantic unhewn stones.
To understand the rabbis’ discussion of these three altars, we have to do a deep dive into how the Bible describes the altars and where they are established. According to Joshua 18:1, Joshua sets up the Tabernacle at Shiloh when he conquers the land. The rabbis read 1 Samuel 21, where David comes to a city of priests called Nob and is given consecrated bread, as a sign that at some point, the Tabernacle was moved to that city. 1 Chronicles 16 states that at some point, David left some priests at the Tabernacle in Gibeon to offer burnt offerings. Apparently, the rabbis combine these two data points to assume that one Tabernacle was built to serve both cities (and indeed, both were in the territory of Benjamin, so they weren’t that far from each other). Finally, we read that Solomon built the First Temple in Jerusalem.
This tradition is next challenged by a competing beraita.
Rav Aha bar Ami raises an objection: The fire that descended from Heaven in the days of Moses departed from atop the copper altar only in the days of Solomon, and the fire that descended in the days of Solomon did not depart until Manasseh came and removed it. And if it is so, it emerges that (the fire) departed earlier.
When the Tabernacle is dedicated, Leviticus 9:24 tells us: “Fire came forth from before God and consumed the burnt offering and the fat parts on the altar.” The fire always burning on the altar was thus first lit by God, who thus participates in the Israelites’ sacrifices. 2 Chronicles 7:1-2 echoes this story, telling us that when Solomon dedicated the Temple and built a new altar, “fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices.” 2 Chronicles 33:16 tells us that when the wicked king Manasseh repented, “He rebuilt the altar of the LORD and offered on it sacrifices of well-being and thanksgiving” — which suggests that he had previously destroyed it.
So Rav Aha bar Ami reasonably assumes that, rather than being replaced by a stone altar in Shiloh, the copper altar was in use until the days of Solomon, with sacrifices being offered on fires that were originally kindled by God. So was the altar at Shiloh made of stone or copper? The Talmud offers two potential answers. First, it attempts to merge both traditions by suggesting that the original light copper altar was modified with stone when established in Shiloh:
It is taught: Rabbi Natan says: The altar in Shiloh was of copper, hollow and full of stones.
The second answer merges both traditions in a different way:
Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak says: What is the meaning of “did not depart”? It did not depart to be nullified. What is it? The rabbis say: It would emit sparks. Rav Pappa says: The fire was as a guest; sometimes it was here (on the copper altar), and sometimes it was there.
According to this answer, even when the Israelites established the Tabernacle at Shiloh, they kept the bronze altar and set it near the new stone altar. This altar continues to hold the divine flame, which sometimes jumped over to the stone altar instead, just like a guest going house to house.
This discussion is fascinating for the holistic knowledge the Talmud assumes we all have of the Hebrew Bible. But it is also fascinating for how it models ideas of both continuity and change — continuity in the divine flame that stays alive and participates in Jewish life until it is renewed in a new location, and change in that new geographic and social realities lead to the construction of new altars of new materials. The rabbis’ careful reading of the Bible thus speaks to how they think about their own lives — and perhaps to how we can think about ours.
Read all of Zevachim 61 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on November 14, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
