Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav ruled that in the event that the Mizbe'ach became chipped - any Korbanos that are subsequently Shechted in the Azarah become Pasul.

(b) He commented - that although he had had a source for this Halachah, he had forgotten it.

(c) When Rav Kahana arrived in Eretz Yisrael, he found Rebbi Shimon be'Rebbi who, citing Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi, commented - that since the Korbanos were not Shechted on the Mizbe'ach, the Pasuk "Ve'zavachta Alav es Olosecha ve'es Shelamecha" must be coming to teach us that Korbanos can only be Shechted as long as the Mizbe'ach is complete, but not when it is broken.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan carries this Halachah still further. When he says 'Echad Zeh ve'Echad Zeh Pesulin' - he means that any animals that were already sanctified prior to the Mizbe'ach becoming chipped, also become Pasul, even if they are Shechted only afterwards.

(b) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether we say 'Ba'alei-Chayim Nidachim' (live animals are subject to 'Dichuy' [being rejected - Rebbi Yochanan]), or not (Rav).

(c) The problem with the Beraisa, which invalidates any Kodshim that preceded the building of the second Beis-Hamikdash is - that it will pose a Kashya even on those who hold 'Dichuy Me'ikara Lo Havi Dichuy' (something that is initially unfit [at the time when it is sanctified] for Kedushah becomes rejected, its rejection is permanent).

(d) So we change the text from 'ad she'Lo Nivneh ha'Mizbe'ach' to 'ad she'Lo Neheras ha'Mizbe'ach'. The problem with this is - that the Tana is then referring to the Mizbe'ach that was torn down by Nevuchadnetzar and rebuilt when they returned from Galus Bavel, seventy years later. But assuming that any Korbanos were still alive then, they would be Pasul (because old age is considered a Mum in the realm of Korbanos).

(a) So we amend the text once more to 'ad she'Lo Nifgam ha'Mizbe'ach' - posing a Kashya on Rav, who holds 'Ba'alei Chayim Einan Nidachin'.

(b) So to accommodate Rav, we amend the first phrase in the Beraisa, changing 'Kol ha'Kodshim she'Hayu Sham ... ' to 'Kol ha'Kodshim she'Nishchatu Sham ... '.

(c) Rav Gidal Amar Rav rules that even if the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores has been removed - one may nevertheless sacrifice the Ketores on the floor of the Heichal.

(d) This poses a Kashya on Rav's ruling regarding Mizbe'ach she'Nifgam' in that - assuming that the same Din extends to the Mizbe'ach ha'Olah, why did Rav himself then invalidate Korbanos that are Shechted after the Mizbe'ach becomes chipped.

(a) We answer the Kashya on Rav with a statement by Rava, who says 'Modeh Hayah Rebbi Yehudah be'Damim', by which he means - that Rebbi Yehudah concedes that even if the Shechitah of Korbanos does not require the Mizbe'ach, the Zerikas ha'Dam does (as we shall see later).

(b) Likewise, Rav will confine his latter ruling to the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores, seeing as, even assuming that the Shechitah of Korbanos would be Kasher without the Mizbe'ach, what would the Kohen then do with the blood?

5)

(a) Shlomoh Hamelech brought - one thousand Olos on the copper Mizbe'ach of Moshe when it served as the Bamah in Giv'on?

(b) Later, he brought - 22,000 bulls and 120,000 sheep to inaugurate the Beis Hamikdash, after his new stone Mizbe'ach came into use.

(c) If, as Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa explains, the Pasuk in Melachim is literal ...

1. ... "ba'Yom ha'Hu Kidesh Hamelech es Toch ha'Chatzer" means - that Shlomoh Hamelech actually sanctified the floor of the Chatzer to burn Korbanos, because ...
2. ... "ki Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes Asher Lifnei Hashem Katan me'Hachil'' - the stone Mizbe'ach that he had built (and which replaced the copper Mizbe'ach of Moshe) was too small to contain the vast amount of sacrifices that he brought on that day.

(d) Rebbi Yossi disagrees. According to him, Shlomoh burned the bulls and the sheep - on the stone Mizbe'ach.

(a) Rebbi Yossi dispenses with Rebbi Yehudah's problem (concerning the vastly superior numbers of Korbanos that the Mizbe'ach had to contain - because, he argues, the Makom ha'Ma'arachah of Shlomoh's Mizbe'ach, which was twenty Amos by twenty Amos, was four hundred times that of Moshe (which was only one square Amah). Consequently, he was certain that there was sufficient room on the stone Mizbe'ach to burn the bulls and the sheep on one day.

(b) He attributes the fact that it was possible to burn a thousand Korbanos on one day on such a small Mizbe'ach (as that of Moshe) - to the fact they were consumed by a Heavenly Fire that descended each day.

(c) The Pasuk "ki Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes ... Katan me'Hachil", according to him - refers to Moshe's Mizbe'ach, which they disqualified simply due its small size (not because it was Pasul). Attributing it to the number of Korbanos that they brought on that day was just a nice way of putting it.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah argues with Rebbi Yossi - about the size of Moshe's Mizbe'ach. According to him, it was much larger than what we took it to be until now (as we shall now see). Consequently, the thousand Olos that Shlomoh burned on that day, was feasible (but only just [and not the result of the Heavenly fire that consumed them]), whereas Shlomoh's Mizbe'ach (which was therefore not that much larger than Moshe's, as we shall now see), would never have been able to contain the number of bulls and the sheep that they brought on the day that he inaugurated the Beis-Hamikdash.

(a) Rebbi Yossi learns the Pasuk "Chamesh Amos Orech ve'Chamesh Amos Rochav" literally, as we already explained. Based on the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ravu'a" (the next word in the Pasuk) from "Ravu'a" (in Yechezkel, in connection with the Mizbe'ach), Rebbi Yehudah explains- that the Mizbe'ach was five Amos in all directions from its center.

(b) After detracting four Amos for the Amoh of the Keranos and for the Kohanim to walk from the ten Amos (on each of the four sides), the size of the Makom ha'Ma'arachah was - six Amos by six Amos ...

(c) ... making Shlomoh's Mizbe'ach (of twenty by twenty) eleven times larger than that of Moshe (four hundred square Amos as opposed to thirty-six). In which case, based on the proportion to its size, they could have brought eleven thousand Korbanos on it (and no more).

(d) Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Ariel Sh'teim-Esrei Orech bi'Shteim-Esrei Rochav el Arba'as Reva'av" - that Shlomoh Hamelech's Mizbe'ach was not twelve by twelve Amos, but twenty-four by twenty-four.

(a) Rebbi Yossi learns the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ravu'a" "Ravu'a" from the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores - which is one Amah in length and two in height (twice its length). Likewise the Mizbe'ach ha'Olah, which is five Amos long, is ten Amos tall.

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, Moshe's Mizbe'ach was three Amos tall.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah asked Rebbi Yossi from the Pasuk "ve'Komah Chameish Amos" - which would mean that if, as the latter maintains, the Mizbe'ach was ten Amos tall, someone standing outside could see the Kohen performing the Avodah on the Mizbe'ach (which is not Tzeni'us [modest]).

(d) To answer the Kashya, Rebbi Yossi quoted two Pesukim. He learned from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'es Kal'ei he'Chatzer ... Asher al ha'Mishkan ve'al ha'Mizbe'ach" - that the Mizbe'ach, like the Mishkan, was ten Amos tall (though it is unclear why he needs a second Limud for this).
2. ... "Kela'im Chameish-Esrei Amah el ha'Kasef" - that the height of the Kela'im (curtains) was fifteen Amos.

(e) When the Pasuk in Vayakhel gives ...

1. ... their height as five Amos - it is referring to the height of the Kela'im that was in excess of the height of the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... the height of the Mizbe'ach as three Amos - it is referring to the top section of the Mizbe'ach above the Sovev (and not counting the Keranos).