Beit Habechirah - Chapter 2

As emphasized by the various events mentioned in this and the following halachot.
The location of the Altar within the Temple Courtyard is discussed in Chapter 5, Halachot 12-16.

In this context, we can understand the Rambam’s choice of words, when describing the achievements of the Mashiach (Hilchot Melachim 11:1): “He will build the Sanctuary in its place.” There, he does not state “its precise location,” for although the Messianic Temple in its entirety will also be built on Mt. Moriah, certain aspects of it will not correspond exactly to the previous Temples. Nevertheless, even then, the Altar in particular will be positioned in precisely the same location as before.

Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer relates that the altar which Abraham constructed on Mt. Moriah had twelve stones. Later, when Jacob journeyed to Charan (Genesis, ch. 28), he slept on Mt Moriah and “took from the stones of the place and put them at his head.” The stones he collected were the twelve used by Abraham. God fused them all into a single stone and the unified rock was embedded in the very foundation of the earth. That stone was referred to as Even HaShtiah, (see also Chapter 4, Halachab 1) “the foundation stone.” It was located in the Holy of Holies.
Thus, Abraham’s altar was apparently not built on the site of the altar to be built by his descendants, but rather, at the ultimate location of the Holy of Holies. However, this difficulty can be resolved. Jacob “took from the stones,” and moved them from their original place, the Altar’s future site, to a different location, that of the Holy of Holies.

Though David was not allowed to build the Temple, he purchased the site, constructed an altar, and offered sacrifices there.
Zevachim 62a relates that David used prophetic vision in choosing the site of the altar. According to one opinion, he saw the Heavenly Altar on which the angel Michael offers sacrifices. According to a second view, he saw the ashes of Isaac.

The commentaries explain that this phrase refers to the Gentiles. Even they recognized the holiness of the Altar’s site.
The fact that the Gentiles were aware that the site of the Altar is holy is Halachically relevant. The pagans living in Eretz Yisrael before its conquest by the Jewish people were so idolatrous that our Sages declared: “Wherever you see a lofty mountain... or a leafy tree, know that idols were worshipped there.” Since the Temple Mount was also a high mountain, surely it would have been considered an appropriate place for pagan rites.
However, since the holiness of the Altar’s site was universally accepted, even the Gentiles did not profane its sanctity with idol worship.

David and Solomon did not build the same Altar. Rather, David chose the site as the future location of the Temple, and constructed an Altar and offered sacrifices. Later, when Solomon built the Temple, he erected a new Altar at the same site.

See Genesis 8:20.

See ibid. 4:3-5.

The Rambam entitled this collection of Halachot, Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, the Laws of God’s Chosen House, implying that God did not select Mount Moriah as the Temple site because of its inherent holiness, but because of His own choice and desire. That choice was clearly expressed in the previous Halachah which states: “the place of the Altar is extremely exact... as it is said: ‘This is the altar for the burnt offerings of Israel.’”
As such, it can be explained that the Rambam does not recount the various historical events mentioned in this Halachah just to bring further proof of the holiness of the Altar’s site. That is unnecessary. Rather, he wanted to demonstrate that many righteous men were aware of the uniqueness of the Altar’s site through prophetic vision, and for this reason, they made efforts to offer their sacrifices there.
Why does the Rambam relate all these historical events? As he clearly states in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, his goal is not to summarize the Talmud’s teachings regarding a particular subject, but to describe how to carry out the various mitzvot. These historical facts do not seem to facilitate his objective.
The need for these additions may be explained by comparison to the Rambam’s decisions regarding the right to the monarchy. In that context, the Rambam writes that although God chose David and his descendants as kings and endowed them with the monarchy forever, there was a Halachic legitimacy to the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel (the ten tribes). Since the first king, Jereboam, was appointed by a prophet, his regal power must be recognized (Hilchot Melachim 1:7,8).
It could be inferred that a similar ruling might apply in regard to the altar: i.e. the Altar on Mount Moriah would remain holy forever, however, another altar of similar status could also be established. In order to eliminate that presumption, the Rambam presents a number of examples, illustrating that throughout the generations, from the time of Adam, the prophets had tried to bring sacrifices on this site alone. These efforts clearly imply that there is not, nor will there be, another place with a similar degree of holiness (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 19, p.140-7).

This statement is somewhat problematic. Though the Rambam’s statements have a basis in the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 14:8), according to Sanhedrin 38b, Adam appears to have been created in the Garden of Eden, a considerable distance from this location. Generally, when a conflict arises between sources, the decision is based upon the Babylonian Talmud. Hence, one might ask why the Rambam favored the other sources in this case.

Its dimensions differed from the altar built by King Solomon in the First Temple. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4, the fundamental design of the Second Temple resembled that of Solomon’s Temple. However, certain aspects were altered to conform with Ezekiel’s vision of the Messianic Temple. The dimensions and design of the altar are mentioned in Ezekiel 43:13-17 and were followed by the exiles when they returned to Jerusalem.

As explained in Halachah 17, the Altar is acceptable even if its dimensions are not exact. Nevertheless, as an initial preference, an attempt must be made to conform exactly to the plan mentioned below.

Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

For, as mentioned in Halachah 1, the Altar’s site must be precise.

Note the previous halachah.

The Rambarh’s statements are taken from Zevachim 62a. However, the terminology in that source regarding Malachi’s testimony is different. According to the Talmud, the prophet stated that “all the sacrifices may be offered, even though the Temple was not [built];” and the Rambam adds the phrase “on that Altar.”
Later commentaries have explained the significance of that addition, based on the following episode. In the Middle Ages, the Sage, Rabbi Chayim (according to other sources, Rabbi Yechiel) of Paris made Aliyah and settled in Jerusalem. He wanted to offer sacrifices on the Temple Mount. In analyzing this account, the Chatam Sofer (Yoreh De’ah, Responsum 336) explained that this must have referred to the Pascal sacrifice, which could be offered in a state of ritual impurity and yet, did not have to be purchased with communal funds.
Among the reasons the commentaries have given why such a sacrifice could not be offered is that we are lacking an altar with its proper size and dimensions. In contrast, the exiles who returned from Babylon were allowed to offer sacrifices on the altar built according to the prophets’ directives.

See Ezekiel 43:13 and commentaries.

See Zevachim 59b, which records a dispute among the Sages concerning the height of Moses’ (and hence, all subsequent) Altar(s).
Among the proofs brought for the opinion accepted by the Rambam are the following:
a) an analogy drawn between the sacrificial altar and the incense altar. Just as the latter’s height was twice its length, so, too, the height of the sacrificial altar (10 cubits) was twice its length (5 cubits).
b) The height of Moses’ Altar had to equal that of the Sanctuary that accompanied the Jews in the desert, which was 10 cubits high.

This measurement refers to the dimensions of the Altar’s base and not to its upper surface, as explained in the following halachah.

Keilim 17:10 relates that a cubit used in building was generally six handbreadths long. In contrast, the cubit used to measure utensils was five handbreadths long. An exception to this principle was made in regard to the Altar.

A handbreadth is the width of the four fingers of the hand when they are closed loosely. There is a debate among the Rabbis regarding the equivalent of this amount in modern measurements. Some authorities consider a handbreadth as 8 centimeters and others, as large as 9.6 centimeters.

Including its horns.

I.e., two cubits were five handbreadths long, while the remaining eight were six handbreadths long, as explained in the following halachot.

The Rambam actually included a diagram in his text of the Mishneh Torah. The accompanying diagram is based on the Rambam’s original.
This entire halachah is based on the Rambam’s interpretation of Ezekiel’s vision. Rashi interprets that prophecy differently, and many Rabbinic opinions follow his view. See the Kessef Mishneh and other commentaries.
The Dimensions of the Altar
A-The Base; 1 cubit(5 handbreadths) high; 1 cubit(5 handbreadths) wide
B-The Surrounding Ledge; 5 cubits (30 handbreadths) high; 1 cubit (5 handbreadths) wide
C-The Place for the Horns; 3 cubits(18 handbreodths) high, 1 cubit (6 handbreadths) wide
D-The Place for the Priests to Walk; on the same level, 1 cubit (6 handbreadths) wide
E-The Surface on which the Sacrifices were Offered; on the same level, an area of 28 cubits (6 handbreadths each) and 4 handbreadths by 28 cubits (6 handbreadths each) and 4 handbreadths
F-The Place for the Homs; 1 cubit (5 handbreadths) high; 1 cubit (6 handbreadths) wide

In this instance, five handbreadths were considered as a cubit.

As mentioned above, the Altar was 32 cubits long and 32 cubits wide. Each cubit was six handbreadths long. When the five handbreadths of the base were subtracted from each side, the following equation determines the remaining length and width: 32 cubits minus 10 (i.e., 5 on either side) handbreadths, equals 30 cubits and two handbreadths.

This name was chosen because, in contrast to the base, the ledge surrounded the altar on all four sides (Tifferet Yisrael).
This figure is reached when 10 handbreadths (5 on either side) are subtracted from 30 cubits and 2 handbreadths.

This figure is reached when 10 handbreadths (5 on either side) are subtracted from 30 cubits and 2 handbreadths.

In this case, the cubits contained six handbreadths. Each of the horns was a cubit long and a cubit wide. The space in between them was left hollow, thus, reducing both the length and the width of the upper surface of the altar by two cubits.

Here too, the cubit had six handbreadths, thus reducing both the length and the width of the upper surface of the altar by two cubits.

I.e., the upper surface of the altar.

The Ra’avad explains that the Altar’s horns were slanted inward, thus, consuming an additional four handbreadths of space and reducing the surface to exactly 24 cubits. It must be noted that both Rashi and Tosefot (Sukkah 45a) concur with the Rambam’s opinion that the horns stood directly perpendicular to the Altar.

The horns were a cubit high when using the measure of five handbreadths to the cubit.

Zevachim 54b derives this concept as follows: The prophet Zechariah declared: “And they shall be filled like bowls, like the comers of the Altar.” Thus, that vision implies that the horns located on the Altar’s comers can serve as receptacles.

The height of the altar can be summarized as follows:
a) the base – 1 cubit – 5 handbreadths
b) the surrounding ledge – 5 cubits – 30 handbreadths
c) the Altar's surface – 3 cubits – 18 handbreadths
d) the horns – 1 cubit – 5 handbreadths, a total of 58 handbreadths. Thus half of its height was 29 handbreadths. The surrounding ledge was 30 cubits high and the base, five. Thirty plus five minus six equals 29.

The altar in the Sanctuary in the desert had a copper net screen which served this function. See Exodus 27:4-5 and Zevachim 53a.

The blood of a fowl brought as a burnt offering had to be cast on the upper portion of the Altar (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 6:20).

The blood of a bird brought as a sin offering was sprinkled on the lower portion of the Altar (ibid. 7:6). Similarly, the blood of animals brought as burnt, guilt, or peace offerings was sprinkled in the same place (ibid. 5:6).

As mentioned above, the Altar's horns were 1 cubit high. Thus, one cubit may be subtracted from the ten cubit height mentioned previously. Since the Altar's base measured five handbreadths and not six, an additional handbreadth is subtracted, leaving the figure mentioned in this Halachah.

Zevachim 53b explains that although a major portion of the Temple Mount was in Judah’s inheritance, the Altar was to be positioned in the tribal inheritance of Benjamin. (Note the Targum on Genesis 49:27.)
A small stretch of land extended out of the inheritance of Judah into that of Benjamin, and occupied a portion of the space that should have been taken by the Altar’s base. That space was left empty to insure that the entire structure of the Altar was in the inheritance of Benjamin. Note the commentary to Chapter 7, Halachah 14.

The side to one’s right as one faced the Holy of Holies.

The side of the Altar closest to the Temple building.

Thus the Altar's base only extended one cubit on each of its southern and eastern sides.
This interpretation of the Rambam’s text is based on the diagrams accompanying his commentary on the Mishnah published by Rav Kapach. Rashi’s commentary (Zevachim, loc. cit.) expresses the same concept. See the accompanying diagram.
The Altar’s Base
A - The Projection of 1 cubit at the Southwest Comer of the Altar
B -The Two Shittin (See Halachah 11)
C - The Main Body of the Base
D - The Surrounding Ledge
E - The Projection of 1 cubit at the Northeast Corner of the Altar
F - The Southeast Portion of the Altar where the Base was locking

The blood from the sacrifices was either poured on the south or the west side of the Altar, depending on the nature of the offering. These holes were positioned in the southwest comer to facilitate drainage. (See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Middot 3:2.)

That name was derived from the word shotet meaning "flow." The blood from the Altar flowed away through these holes.

And also the wine and water libations (see Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:7).

The drainage canal passed through the entire Temple courtyard and was used when the priests wanted to clean the courtyard floor. They would plug the drain, flooding the entire courtyard with water, and then unplug the drain and let the water flow out through the canal.

Because of the large amount of blood that would flow into that river, its water was sold as fertilizer (Commentary of the Rosh to Middot, ibid.).

The ring facilitated the lifting of the marble block.

Lest the blood coagulate and cause them to become clogged.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 17.

I.e., on one’s left when facing the Holy of Holies.

The ramp was not built as a right triangle. Rather, the wall on the right side was slanted slightly, so that the ramp would cover the base and the surrounding ledge, which together protruded two cubits beyond the edge of the Altar itself.
The phrase “its length” does not refer to the length of the ramp’s surface, (the hypotenuse of the triangle), but the space it occupied on the ground, as well as the two additional cubits with which it overlapped the base and the surrounding ledge. The actual length of the ramp’s surface was slightly longer.
The Position of the Ramp
A- The Ramp
B - The Projection of 1 cubit at the Southwest Corner of the Altar’s Base
C - The Surrounding ledge
D - The Altar’s Horns
E - The Surface on which the Sacrifices were Offered

Larger than the hair’s breadth mentioned in the following halachah.

The wood piles upon which the Altar’s fire were to be kindled were arranged on the south side of the Altar, so that the priests would be able to ascend the ramp and place the sacrificial limbs directly on those pyres. However, the ramp did not reach the edge of the Altar. The priests were thus prevented from placing the limbs directly on the fire and were required to toss them.
Zevachim 62b explains the necessity to toss the limbs, as follows: The Torah draws an analogy between the flesh of an offering and its blood, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:27): “You shall sacrifice your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood.” The blood must be tossed on the Altar, as it is written (Leviticus 1:5): “And they shall toss the blood on the Altar.” Hence, the limbs must also reach the pyre in that fashion. See also Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 6:4.

As mentioned in Halachah 7, the cubit measurement for the base had only five handbreadths. Thus, the Altar’s - and consequently, the ramp’s - height was eight and five-sixths cubits, when calculated in cubits of six handbreadths.
The Rambam’s phrasing at the beginning of the halachah, “[covering] one cubit of the base and one cubit of the surrounding ledge” requires clarification, because the base itself did not run under the ramp. However, the space for it was left vacant.
See the accompanying diagram for a depiction of the concepts mentioned in this halachah.
The Altar
A - The Small Romp Leading to the Shittin
B - The Altar’s Romp
C - The Small Romp Leading lo the Surrounding Ledge
D - The Altar’s Horns
E - The Space or the Priests to Walk
F - The Rivuvah
G - The Surrounding Ledge
H - The Scarlet Bond
I - The Altar’s Base
J - The Shittin

This small ramp was placed on the west side of the altar, the side closest to the Temple building. After the blood of the sin offerings were sprinkled as required, the rest of the blood was poured on the west side of the Altar’s base. This ramp allowed the priests to reach that position.

The ramp leading to the surrounding ledge was on the east side of the Altar. When the priests circled the Altar to sprinkle the blood of the sin offering on the Altar’s horns, they ascended using this ramp.
The above follows the opinion expressed by Rashi (Zevachim, loc. cit.). Some other authorities maintain that both smaller ramps were situated on the west side of the Altar. Though the Rambam does not state his opinion explicitly, from his description of the sacrificial proceedings (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot: 6:20, 7:10), it appears that he accepts the first opinion.

The aperture was placed there because sin-offerings were offered on the southwest corner of the Altar (Rashi, Pesachim 34a).
It appears that this aperture was located on the wall of the ramp, and not on its upper surface (Tifferet Yisrael).

Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura explains that this word means “hollow place.”
The Ra’avad explains that there were two openings: one called the aperture, and the second, the Rivuvah. His opinion is not accepted by most authorities, as explained in the Kessef Mishneh.

Generally, a sin-offering that is disqualified for use must be removed from the Altar and burned immediately. However, if there are no severe factors to invalidate the sacrifice, it would appear disrespectful to dispose of the sacrifice in that manner. Rather, the sacrifice is left overnight - an act which obligates a sacrifice to be removed and burnt - and disposed of the next morning (Rashi, loc. cit..).
A woman who gave birth was obligated to bring a bird as a sin offering. Hence, it was a very common sacrifice. The Rivuvah was constructed to store the birds which had become disqualified. It thus prevented confusion between those birds which were disqualified, and those which were fit to be sacrificed (Tifferet Yisrael).

The communal sacrifices were brought directly from the slaughtering area to the top of the Altar by a number of priests. Thus, there was no need to set aside a place for the limbs to be placed. However, sometimes private sacrifices were offered by only one priest, who could not possibly carry all the limbs at one time. This table was useful on such occasions.
Though generally an effort was made to use precious metals in the Temple, this table was made of marble. The sages feared that a metal table would conduct heat and cause the sacrificial meat to spoil. Marble is better for this purpose, since it is a very poor conductor of heat. See Shekalim 6:4, and Tamid 31b.

In the sanctuary of the desert, the Altar was a hollow structure filled with earth (Exodus 27:8, Mechilta). However, such a structure was not acceptable for the Temple.

See Chapter 1, Halachot 14-16.

As mentioned in the following halachah, the Altar must be entirely square, yet we were forbidden to cut or file it to size. Wooden molds were employed in order to create such a shape.

Zevachim 54a describes the Altar’s construction in detail: First, a mold 32 cubits by 32 cubits, and one cubit high, was brought to create the base. The mixture of stones, lime, pitch, and molten lead was poured into it. Then, the mold for the second level, the surrounding ledge, was placed down. This mold was 30 cubits by 30 cubits and five cubits high. After the mixture was poured into it, the mold for the Altar’s upper surface was brought. That mold, 28 cubits by 28 cubits, was three cubits high. Once it was filled, four molds, each a cubit by a cubit and one cubit high, were placed in each comer for the horns.
The measures mentioned above were all rounded off. As mentioned in Halachot 6-7, additional handbreadths must be added or subtracted for all these measures.

See Halachah 10.

For the horns must be hollow, as mentioned in Halachah 8.

Regarding these four elements, the Torah uses the expression hamizbeiach, the Altar, implying that the Altar can only be called an Altar if it possesses these elements. If even one is lacking, the Altar is incomplete (Rashi, Zevachim, 62a):
With regard to the horns, it is written (Leviticus 4:18): “the horns of the Altar.”
With regard to the base, it is written (ibid.:34): “to the base of the Altar.”
With regard to the ramp, it is written (ibid. 6:7): “to the face of the Altar.” This phrase refers to the ramp, for it faces the Altar and allows access to it.
With regard to the Altar’s square shape, it is written (Exodus 27:1): “The Altar shall be square.”

See Halachah 3.

See Halachah 5.

In Chapter 1, Halachah, the Rambam writes: “Any stone which is damaged to the extent that a nail will become caught in it [when passing over it], as is the case regarding a slaughtering knife, is disqualified for [use in the] Altar or the ramp, as it is written (Deuteronomy 27:6): ‘You shall build the Altar of the Lord with whole stones.’”
The Kessef Mishneh explains that since the Torah requires whole stones to be used for the Altar, even the slightest damage renders them unfit for use. In contrast, the Torah does not make such a specification regarding the Altar itself. Hence, as long as the damage is not extensive, the Altar is not disqualified.

Chullin 18a records a debate on this subject, between Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and Rabbi Blazer ben Yaakov. Rabbi Shimon mentions the measure quoted by the Rambam, while Rabbi Blazer maintains that even smaller damage, the size of an olive, can render the Altar unfit for use. Though generally, halachah is usually decided according to Rabbi Blazer’s opinion, the Rambam chose that of Rabbi Shimon.

As mentioned above, the Altar is rendered unfit if there is the slightest damage to its stones.