Previous daf

1)

(a) Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan two She'eilos regarding the Mishnah in Keilim ('ha'Shulchan ve'ha'Dulbeki'). One of them is whether the overlaying needs to be of a permanent nature or not.
What is the other?

(b) What was Rebbi Yochanan's reply?

(c) So the Kashya remains why the Shulchan was not Tamei under all circumstances.
How do we attempt to answer the Kashya by focusing on the material from which it was made?

(d) Resh Lakish does indeed draw such a distinction.
What does he say (in connection with the Mishnah in Keilim) about 'K'lei Achsalgus' and 'K'lei Masmes'?

(a) Why in spite of Resh Lakish, can we not accept this answer?

(b) We ultimately answer the Kashya, based on the Pasuk in Yechezkel "ha'Mizbe'ach Eitz, Shalosh Amos Gavohah ... "? What is the Pasuk actually referring to?

(c) What do Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar learn from the fact that the Pasuk begins with Mizbe'ach and ends with Shulchan?

(d) What does this mean (see Tosfos)?

(a) The Pasuk in Terumah lists the accessories of the Shulchan.
How does Rav Ketina translate ...

1. ... "Ke'arosav"?
2. ... "Kaposav"?

(b) If "Kesosav" are the S'nifin, what are "Menakiyosav"?

(c) What does "Asher Yisach Bahein" (with reference to the Kanim) mean?

(a) On what grounds does Rava, quoting our Mishnah ('Lo Netilasan ... Dochos es ha'Shabbos'), query Rav Ketina's translation of "Menakiyosav"?

(b) He retracts however, based on Rebbi Akiva's principle (also cited there).
Which principle? How does that dispense with the problem?

(c) For how long did the Lechem ha'Panim actually remain without the Kanim?

(d) What does the Beraisa (quoted by Rava) say that the Kohanim did on Motza'ei Shabbos?

(a) If, according to the Tana, each of the four middle loaves were 'covered' by three Kanim, why did the fifth one require only two?

(b) What does the Beraisa say about ...

1. ... the top Chalah?
2. ... the bottom one?

(a) In a Mishnah in Keilim, Rebbi Meir states that all the measurements (except for ... ) in the Beis-Hamikdash were 'Benoniyos'.
What does he mean by that?

(b) Which is the only Keili that was measured by an Amah of five Tefachim?

(c) Which three accessories of the Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes fell into the same category? What did they all have in common with the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav?

(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the measurements of the Keilim were measured by Amos of five Tefachim (as we have already learned).
In which area then, does he concede to Rebbi Meir (that the measurements were made in Amos of six Tefachim)?

(e) What does he incorporate in 'Amas ha'Binyan?

7)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan explains that both Tana'im derive their opinions from the same Pasuk in Yechezkel.
What does thes Pasuk mean when it writes "ve'Eileh Midos ha'Mizbe'ach be'Amos Amah Amah va'Tefach"? To which Mizbe'ach does it refer?

(b) "ve'Zeh Gav ha'Mizbe'ach", with which the Pasuk concludes, is speaking about the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav.
What is the Pasuk referring to when it writes ...

1. ... "ve'Cheik ha'Amah"?
2. ... "ve'Amah Rochav"?
3. ... "u'Gevulah el Sefasah Saviv Zeres ha'Echad"?

(c) What does the last statement mean? What is a Zeres?

(d) Rebbi Meir extrapolates from "*ve'Zeh* Cheik ha'Amah ... " 'Zehu be'Amah bas Chamishah, Ha Kol Amos ha'Keilim be'Amah bas Shishah'. How does Rebbi Yehudah Darshen the Pasuk?

(a) We initially try to amalgamate the first two Pesukim "ve'Cheik ha'Amah ... ve'Amah Rochav".
What would the Pasuk then mean?

(b) How many Amos were there from ...

1. ... the ground until the Sovev?
2. ... the Sovev until the top of the Keranos?

(c) Bearing in mind the fact that we currently understand the lower 'half' of the Mizbe'ach to have comprised Amos of five Tefachim, and the upper 'half', Amos of six, what would have been the Mizbe'ach's total height?

(d) How many Tefachim would there then have been between the Sovev and the half-way mark? What marked the half-way mark?

(a) The Beraisa describes the Avodah of the Olas ha'Of.
Where did the Kohen perform it?

(b) What did he do after the Melikah?

(c) Which is the lowest point on the wall of the Mizbe'ach at which the Tana permits the Mitzuy to be performed?

(d) What is the problem with this?

(a) This forces us to retract from our previous explanation.
How do we now explain "ve'Cheik ha'Amah" and "ve'Amah Rochav"? How were the walls of the Mizbe'ach in between the two measured?

(b) How many Tefachim did the Mizbe'ach, in fact measure? At what height was the Chut ha'Sikra?

(c) And what was the real distance from the Sovev to the Chut ha'Sikra?

(a) According to what we just learned, how will we establish the five-Tefachim Amah of the Yesod, the Sovev and the Keranos?

(b) The Mishnah in Midos describes the shape of the Mizbe'ach. If it measured thirty-two Amos square at its base, what did it measure from above ...

1. ... the Yesod?
2. ... the Sovev?

(c) What is the problem according to the current explanation, that the Amah ...

1. ... of the Yesod consisted of five Tefachim?
2. ... of the Sovev did too?

(d) How do we attempt to answer both Kashyos?

(a) And what problem remains according to the continuation of the Mishnah, which gives the ...

1. ... distance between two adjacent Keranos as twenty-six Amos?
2. ... measurement of the Makom ha'Ma'arachah Mizbe'ach as twenty-four square Amos (i.e. from the inner edge of the Hiluch ha'Kohanim)?

(b) What was the width of the Makom Hiluch ha'Kohanim?

(c) How do we try to answer the first Kashya?

(a) We reject the same answer with regard to the second Kashya however, from a Pasuk in Yechezkel.
What would the measurement of the Ariel have been had the Navi written "ve'ha'Ariel Sh'teim-Esrei Orech ... Ravu'a"? What was "Ariel"?

(b) What were its measurements now that he adds the words "al Arba'as Reva'av"?

(c) Why can we not ...

1. ... still answer 'Lo Dak'?
2. ... answer that when the Pasuk gives the dimensions of the Mizbe'ach as thirty-two by thirty-two Amos, it is combining Amos of six Tefachim and five Tefachim?

(a) If the Azarah was a hundred and thirty-five Amos wide (from north to south), how long was it (from east to west [starting from the Ezras Yisrael])?

(b) The length of the Ezras Yisrael was eleven Amos.
How long was the Ezras Kohanim?

(c) The Mizbe'ach was thirty-two Amos, and 'Achorei Beis-ha'Kapores' eleven. What was the length of ...

1. ... 'Bein ha'Ulam ve'la'Mizbe'ach'?
2. ... the Heichal?

(d) We therefore conclude that "Cheik ha'Amah" refers to the height of the Yesod.
How many Tefachim did the width of the Yesod consist of?

(a) To which dimension of the ...

1. ... Sovev does "ve'Amah Rochav" pertain?
2. ... Keranos does "u'Gevulah el Sefasah Saviv" pertain?

(b) How do we know that the distinction between that we just drew between the Yesod and the Sovev is correct?

(c)How do we now answer the Kashya why the Tana gives the measurements between two adjacent Keranos as twenty-six Amos, and not more?

(d) Now that all the Amos except for those of the Yesod and the Keren consisted of six Tefachim, what was the height of ...

1. ... Mizbe'ach?
2. ... the Sovev?

(e) How many Tefachim now divided the Sovev from the Chut ha'Sikra?

Next daf