Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah rules that if Kodshei Kodshim are Shechted on top of the Mizbe'ach, it is as if they have been Shechted in the north. According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebi Yehudah - the northern half of the Mize'ach is considered Tzafon, and the southern half, Darom.

(b) Rebbi Zeira asked Rav Asi that if Rebbi Yossi considers the entire Mizbe'ach to have been on the north of the Azarah, why he then say '*ke'Ilu* Nishchatu ba'Tzafon'. Rav Asi replied - that the Tana is teaching us that although the Shechitah did not take place "al Yerech ha'Mizbe'ach" (beside the Mizbe'ach), it is as if it did.

(a) From the above, we can infer, that according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - the Mizbe'ach stood half in the northern section of the Azarah and half in the south.

(b) The problem with this is a statement that Rav Asi himself quoting Rebbi Yochanan, who in turn quoted Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, ruled - that if Kodshei Kodshim that are Shechted in the equivalent spot to the one he refers to in the Mishnah, only on the ground - the Korban is Pasul ...

(c) ... because according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - the entire Mizbe'ach stood in the south of the Azarah.

(a) The problem is - that the theory linking the Machlokes Tana'im to the location of the Mizbe'ach which we assumed until now, has now been disproven, since, according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, the Mizbe'ach stood in the south of the Azarah, yet he considers the northern half of the Mizbe'ach Tzafon.

(b) Consequently, Rav Asi, citing Rebbi Yochanan, ascribes the Machlokes Tana'im to different interpretations of the same Pasuk. According to Rebbi Yossi, the Pasuk "Ve'zavachta Alav es Olosecha ve'es Shelamecha" - teaches us that one is permitted to Shecht both the Olah and the Shelamim anywhere on the Mizbe'ach; whereas, according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, it designates the northern half the Mizbe'ach for the Olah, and the southern half for the Shelamim, in the way that we explained.

(c) What prompts Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah to explain the Pasuk this way is the fact that, if "es Olosecha" came to permit Shechting Olos anywhere on the Mizbe'ach - then we would not require a Pasuk to permit Shelamim (which we learn from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' as we learned in the previous Perek.

(d) Rebbi Yossi will argue however - that if not for "ve'es Shelamecha", we would have considered Shechting on the Mizbe'ach a special disensation pertaining to Olos exclusively, for which there might be a shortage of space, since they can only be Shechted on the north, whereas Shelamim, which can be Shechted anywhere in the Azarah, do not need it.

(a) We quoted Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan who stated that Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah concedes that if Kodshei Kodshim that are Shechted in the equivalent spot to the one he refers to in the Mishnah, only on the ground, the Korban is Pasul. He cannot be referring to ...

1. ... the Amah Yesod or the Amah Sovev - because that is considered on the Mizbe'ach, and not on the ground.
2. ... east or west of the Mizbe'ach - because that would negate Rav Asi's proof that, according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, the Mizbe'ach is situated in the south of the Azarah, because even if it was completely in the north, the Shechitah would be Pasul, seeing as in his opinion, the Shechitah must take place due north or south of the Mizbe'ach (and not to either side).

(b) Nor can Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah be referring to tunnels that run under the Mizbe'ach, because of a Beraisa, where the Tana Darshens from the Pasuk "Mizbach Adamah Ta'aseh Li" - that the Mizbe'ach must be firmly attached to the ground, and not stand on tunnels or archways.

(c) We finally conclude that when Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah says that if the Korban is Shechted on the equivalent spot to the one he refers to in the Mishnah, only on the ground, the Korban is Pasul, he means - that if they reduced the size of the Mizbe'ach, omitting half the north side, that space will be disqualified from bringing both Olos and Shelamim.

(a) Rebbi Zeira searches for a Mishnah that will corroborate Rebbi Yochanan's statement - that the entire Mizbe'ah was situated entirely on the north.

(b) To that end, he cites a Mishnah in Tamid which discusses the arrangements of wood on the Mizbe'ach. The Tana describes how the Kohen would pick good-quality fig-tree wood for the second Ma'arachah. which was used to supply coal for the Ketores on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.

(c) The Kohen would take the wood (fig-tree wood to atone for the sin of Adam ha'Rishon, according to those who hold that this was the tree from which he ate).

(d) The second Ma'arachah was arranged four Amos to the north of the south-western Keren.

6)

(a) The Kohen placed sufficient wood to produce an estimated five Sa'ah of coals during the week - but enough to produce eight Sa'ah of coals on Shabbos, because that is also where they burned the two bowls of Levonah from the Lechem ha'Panim.

(b) The specifications listed by the Beraisa tally wth the opinion of Rebbi Yossi. When, giving a Si'man for things (which will be explained immediately) that are taken 'inside to a place outside' or vice-versa, he says 'Eino Nosen Ela be'Samuch she'Ein Lifenim', he means - that they placed these things on the closest possible spot to the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.

(c) Things that are taken ...

1. ... 'inside to place outside' cannot refer to the pouring of the Sheyarei ha'Dam of the Chata'os ha'Penimiyos - because the Torah specifically writes with regard to it "el Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah *Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed*", implying from the spot that is closest to the Heichal.
2. ... 'outside to place inside' not refer to the coals of Yom Kipur that were taken from on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon ("me'al ha'Mizbe'ach Asher Lifnei Hashem") for the Ketores that was taken into the Kodesh Kodshim - since the Torah explicitly writes there "Ve'lakach M'lo ha'Machtah Gachalei-Eish me'al Mizbe'ach *mi'Lifnei Hashem*", which implies from the closest spot to the entrance of the Heichal.

(d) When Rebbi Yossi speaks of ...

1. ... 'Kol ha'Nital bi'Fenim Linasen ba'Chutz', he is in fact, referring to - the two bowls of Levonah.
2. ... 'Kol ha'Nital ba'Chutz Linasen bi'Fenim' - ... to the coals for the daily Ketores.

(e) We learn the latter Halachah - from the aforementioned Ketores of Yom Kipur.

(a) The width of ...

1. ... the Mizbe'ach was - thirty-two Amos at the Yesod (and twenty-eight Amos on top).
2. ... the entrance of the Heichal was - ten Amos.
3. ... the entrance of the Ulam was - twenty Amos.

(b) If Rebbi Yossi had held that 'Kuleih Mizbe'ach be'Darom Ka'i', for the Ma'arachah Sheniyah to be in line with the beginning of the entrance of ...

1. ... the Heichal - they would have had to arrange it twenty-seven Amos from the south-western Keren for it to be in line with the Ma'arachah Sheniyah ...
2. ... the Ulam, presuming the Ulam to have had the same Kedushah as the Heichal - it would have had to be twenty-two Amos away. Note, that all these measurements assume the Mizbe'ach to be thirty-two Amos wide, which it was, from the base, but from the top, it was only twenty-eight Amos (as we pointed out). And the Beraisa specifically states 'four Amos from the Keren', which was on top?

(c) And if Rebbi Yossi had held 'Chetzyo be'Tzafon ve'Chetzyo be'Darom', assuming that the Ulam ...

1. ... did not have the Kedushah of the Heichal, they would have had to arrange the Ma'arachah Sheniyah eleven Amos from the south-western Keren for it to be in line with the entrance of the Heichal, and ...
2. ... six Amos away from it, if it did.

(d) Despite the fact that Rebbi Yossi must therefore hold 'Kuleih Mizbe'ach be'Tzafon Ka'i', they could not arrange the Ma'arachah Sheniyah less than four Amos away from the south-western Keren - because the first four Amos of the Makom ha'Ma'arachah were taken up by the Amah of the Yesod, the Amah of the Sovev, the Amah of the Keren, and the Amah where the Kohanim walked, leaving one Amah still in line with the entrance of the Heichal for the Ma'arachah Sheniyah shel Ketores.

(a) Rav Ada bar Ahavah establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that the Mizbe'ach stood exactly in the middle of the Azarah. In that case - ten Amos were in line with the entrance of the Heichal, and eleven Amos protruded on either side.

(b) Assuming that the Ulam ...

1. ... did not possess the Kedushah of the Heichal, they should then have arranged the Ma'arachah Sheniyah eleven Amos from the edge of the Mizbe'ach, in order for it to in line with the Heichal and ...
2. ... six Amos away if it did (as we explained according to Rebbi Yossi).

(c) The reason the Beraisa says four Amos from the edge of the Mizbe'ach and not six is - because the Tana is reckoning from the Keren, and not from the Yesod (as we pointed out earlier).

(a) We ask why we do we not then establish the Mishnah in Tamid like Rebbi Yossi - to refute Rebbi Zeira's proof that Rebbi Yossi holds 'Kol ha'Mizbe'ach be'Tzafon Ka'i'?

(b) Nevertheless, we do not do so - because Rebbi Yehudah specifically holds 'Mizbe'ach be'Emtza Ka'i'.

(c) True, we established it like Rebbi Yossi anyway, based on his Si'man 'Kol ha'Nital bi'Fenim ... ', but the truth of the matter is - that Rebbi Yossi is merely stating clearly what everybody holds, and there is no reason to establish Rebbi Yossi as the author more than anybody else.

(a) Rav Sheravya establishes the Mishnah in Tamid like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who learns from the Pasuk "ve'es Mizbach ha'Olah Sam Pesach Mishkan Ohel Mo'ed" - that nothing may interrupt between the Mizbe'ach and the entrance to the Heichal.

(b) In light of that, he explains the Pasuk "Ve'nasata es ha'Kiyor bein Ohel Mo'ed u'vein ha'Mizbe'ach" - to mean that they placed the Kiyor in the space between the two, but drawn slightly to the south.

(c) According to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, the Mizbe'ach must have been situated - entirely in the north (because had it been placed either entirely in the south, or exactly in the middle, there would have been anything in between five Amos south of the entrance of the Ulam to eleven Amos south of the entrance of the Heichal (as we explained earlier) in which to place the Kiyor, without breaking the space between the Mizbe'ach and the entrance to the Heichal (or Ulam).

(d) Nor were they permitted to place the Kiyor beside the Mizbe'ach, north of the entrance to ...

1. ... the Heichal - because then it would still interrupt between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam (which extended five Amos further north than the Heichal (as we learned earlier).
2. ... the Ulam - because the Torah writes in Vayikra (in connection with the Shechitah of the Olas Tamid) "Tzafonah Lifnei Hashem", indicating that the space north of the Mizbe'ach must be left empty.

(a) The Tana who argues with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili is Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, who Darshens the Pasuk "Tzafonah" - to mean that nothing, not even the Mizbe'ach, may be placed in the north ...

(b) ... in which case, the Mizbe'ach must have been situated entirely in the south.

(c) According to Rav Sheravya, we measure the four Amos mentioned in the Mishnah in Tamid - from the Yesod, and not from the Keren, as we were forced to do, when we established the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah.