Previous daf

1)

(a) The Ma'arachah Sheni'ah shel Ketores (the second arrangement of wood on the Mizbe'ach), which was for the Ketores, was placed on the south-western corner, four Amos north of the Keren.

(b) They took coals from it twice a day - to place on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav for the Ketores.

(c)

1. The Ma'arachah Gedolah on which all the regular Korbanos were burnt, preceded the Ma'arachah Sheni'ah shel Ketores.
2. The Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei Eitzim followed it.

(d) Clearing the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores and cleaning and preparing the Menorah still had to precede the Tamid.

(a) After the Hatavas Sh'tei Neros came the Ketores (according to Aba Shaul), followed by the bringing of the limbs on to the Mizbe'ach.

(b) Then came the Minchah (that accompanied the Tamid) and the Chavitei Kohen Gadol.

(c) The last Avodah pertaining to the Tamid shel Shachar - was the bringing of the Nesachim which were poured into the small bowl next to the south- western Keren.

(a) The last two Avodos were 1. the placing of the two Bazichei Levonah on the Shulchan; 2. the bringing of the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Hiktir *Aleha* Chelvei ha'Shelamim" - that all the Korbanos mast be brought after the Korban Tamid shel *Shachar* (to which "Aleha" refers), and not after the Tamid shel Bein *ha'Arbayim*. In other words, the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim has to be the last Korban of the day.

(a) The Ma'arachah Gedolah takes precedence over the Ma'arachah Sheni'ah shel Ketores - because its Kaparah is more common than that of the latter.

(b) We might have thought that the Ma'arachah Sheni'ah shel Ketores takes precedence over the Ma'arachah Gedolah - because its fire *was* taken inside the Heichal - whereas that of the Ma'arachah Gedolah was *not*.

(c) We counter that argument - by pointing out that if, for some reason, there was no fire on the *second* Ma'arachah, then they would take from the *first*.

(d) We learn from the Pasuk "u'Vi'er *Aleha* Eitzim" - that one needs to arrange two pieces of wood on *it*, and not on another Ma'arachah (which must have already been lit) - i.e. the Ma'arachah shel Ketores. So we see that the Ma'arachah Sheni'ah shel Ketores precedes the Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei Eitzim. "Aleha" is indeed needed for itself. However, the word "Aleha" appears twice.

(a) The Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei Eitzim and to the clearing of the ashes from the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores - because it is Machshir (it prepares ... for service) as opposed to clearing of the ashes, which is an Avodas Siluk (removal).

(b) The Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei Eitzim is Machshir the Korban (since it goes on the Ma'arachah).

(c) It nevertheless precedes the clearing of the ashes of the Mizbe'ach *ha'Ketores* - because a Machshir is a Machshir, whichever Mizbe'ach it is for.

(d) Rav Ashi answers the Kashya (using the same Sevara that we presented above in 4c.) - by pointing out that, if there was no fire on the Ma'arachah Sheni'ah shel Ketores, they would take from the Ma'arachah Gedolah (in which case, it was indeed a Machshir for the Ketores).

7)

(a) The Shulchan was placed in the middle of the Heichal on the north, two and a half Amos from the northern wall; the Menorah was exactly opposite it on the south side of the Heichal, also two and a half Amos from the southern wall. The Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores was in the middle, but drawn slightly towards the west.

(b) The Mizbe'ach was deliberately drawn out of line of the Shulchan and the Menorah, in keeping with the Pasuk in Terumah "Nochach ha'Shulchan" (with regard to the Menorah).

(c) The two and a half Amos ...

1. ... between the Shulchan and the wall served the purpose of allowing the two Kohanim who would place the two rows of Lechem ha'Panim every Shabbos to walk there abreast, before arranging them on the table simultaneously.
2. ... between the Menorah and the wall - was only in order to conform with the Shulchan.

(d) We learn from Resh Lakish's principle (not to pass over Mitzvos) - that the shel Yad must precede the shel Rosh (See also Tosfos DH 'Avurei Dar'a').

(a) We add one of the two "ba'Boker" written by the Sh'nei Gizrei Eitzim ...

1. ... on to Hatavas Chamesh Neros giving it *three* "ba'Boker" as against the *two* of the Dam ha'Tamid (see 2.)?
2. ... to the Dam ha'Tamid (giving it *two* "ba'Boker" against the *two* of the Hatavas Sh'tei Neros), in which case, the Dam ha'Tamid takes precedence - because it is Mechaper.

(b) According to Rav Papa's Kashya, the order would be Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, Dam ha'Tamid, Hatavas Chamesh Neros and Hatavas Sh'tei Neros. But that is not acceptable - because we need a break in between the Hatavas Chamesh Neros and Hatavas Sh'tei Neros.

(c) According to Resh Lakish, the reason for breaking up the preparation of the Menorah into two - is in order to cause excitement in the Azarah twice. This can be achieved even without performing another Avodah between them. But according to Rebbi Yochanan, who learns the break between them from the Pasuk "ba'Boker" ba'Boker" ('Chalkehu li'Sh'nei Bekarim'), Rav Papa's suggestion would be a problem.

(d) Neither is it possible to move the Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi to *after* the Dam ha'Tamid, and to place *it* in between the two Hatavos - because of 'Ein Ma'avirin al ha'Mitzvos' (in which case, the Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi must come before the Hatavos ha'Neros). (See also Maharsha on Rashi).

10)

(a) The Hatavos Chamesh Neros precede the Hatavas Sh'tei Neros, and not vice-versa - because having begun with the Hatavas Neros, it is logical to go ahead and prepare the majority of the lamps.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "be'Hetivo es *ha'Neros* Yaktirenah - that at least two lamps must be left for the second Hatavah (otherwise, we would prepare first six lamps and leave only one for the second Hatavah).

(a) According to Abaye in the name of Aba Shaul, the Ketores precedes the bringing up of the limbs on to the Mizbe'ach - because by the former, the Torah writes *twice* "ba'Boker", whereas by the bringing up of the limbs on to the Mizbe'ach, it only writes it *once*.

(b) The Beraisa learn from "*ha*'Olah" that bringing the limbs on to the Mizbe'ach precedes the Minchah - because "*ha*'Olah" teaches that the Tamid is brought up first (before any other Korban, and before the Minchah).

(c) The Minchah precedes the Chavitin - because the Torah writes in Emor "Olah u'Minchah" from which we learn that the Minchas ha'Tamid follows the Olah with nothing (such as the Minchas Chavitin) in between; the Chavitin precede the Nesech - because the Chavitin too, is a Minchah, and logically, one Minchah follows the other; And the Nesech precedes the Musaf - because the Torah writes (ibid) "Zevach u'Nesachim", to teach us that the Nesech follows the Zevach with no Korban in between.