And Question: A Mishnah in Tamid (29a) says that they selected from there fig wood... In Zevachim (58a), we establish that Mishnah like R. Yosi.

How can we establish it like R. Yosi? The Seifa says that they lit two Ma'arachos, descended and came to Lishkas ha'Gazis.

Everywhere, R. Yosi says that there were three [Ma'arachos] there!

It is difficult to say that the Tana holds like R. Yosi regarding one matter (from where they took the coals), and argues with him about another (the number of Ma'arachos).

Answer: There was another [third] Ma'arachah to keep the fire going. The Tana counts only the two that resemble each other and we light them together, and we learn them from one verse.

Question (R. Elchanan): On the copper Mizbe'ach [in the Mishkan], the place of the Ma'arachah was only one Amah, like it says in Zevachim 62b;

Also, we say that the logs that Moshe made were an Amah long and an Amah wide. If so, where were all these Ma'arachos?

Answer: We must say that they were in the Amah [wide] path where the Kohanim walked, and they surrounded the big Ma'arachah with these Ma'arachos. (However, they were narrow, and did not block Kohanim from walking around - Si'ach Yitzchak.)

Question (Rashi): We can ask also according to him (R. Shimon), who establishes the verse to discuss lighting the Alyasa (thin chips);

Why do we need the word "Kohen" in the verse? Would you think that a Zar approaches the Mizbe'ach [to light it]?!

Answer (Rashi): We need this, for above (21b) we expound "v'Nasnu Bnei Aharon ha'Kohen Esh Al ha'Mizbe'ach" - even though fire descends from Shamayim, it is a Mitzvah for people to bring fire;

One might have thought that it is Kosher through a Zar. He can stand on the ground and throw human fire up.

Question (Tosfos): If so, what is R. Shimon's source that the verse teaches about lighting the Alyasa? Perhaps all of it teaches about a person bringing fire!

Answer: If so, the verse should have written 'v'Nasnu Bnei Aharon ha'Kohen Esh vArchu Etzim Al ha'Esh';

I would know that this refers to putting fire on the Mizbe'ach, for it says 'vArchu Etzim Al ha'Esh', for the Ma'arachah is on top of the Mizbe'ach;

Question: Why do we need "Al ha'Mizbe'ach"?

Answer: This is so we will expound "Esh Al ha'Mizbe'ach" to teach about lighting the Alyasa. We light it on the Mizbe'ach.

Question: R. Shimon holds that there was no Hava Amina that one could stand on the ground and use a bellows [to ignite the fire];

If so, there was no need for "Kohen" for putting mortal fire. We cannot say like Rashi said, that [one might have thought that] he stands on the ground and throws, for R. Shimon argues with this reasoning!

Answer: Regarding mortal fire, he holds that [one might have thought that] he stands on the ground and throws, since it is mortal [fire];

However, lighting the Alyasa, which is done on the Mizbe'ach, it is improper to do it using a bellows from afar.

Question: According to R. Yehudah, why do we need "veha'Esh Al ha'Mizbe'ach Tukad Bo" to teach about lighting the Alyasa, that it must be on the Mizbe'ach?

We already know this from "v'Nasnu Bnei Aharon ha'Kohen Esh Al ha'Mizbe'ach." R. Yehudah learns from there that lighting the Alyasa must be through a Kosher Kohen and Kli Shares (Bigdei Kehunah)!

Note: He must expound "Esh Al ha'Mizbe'ach" to be extra to teach about lighting the Alyasa. If so, he must expound also the simple meaning of Al ha'Mizbe'ach that it is on top of the Mizbe'ach. Why does he learn from a different verse, "veha'Esh Al ha'Mizbe'ach Tukad Bo"? (Si'ach Yitzchak)

Answer: Had it not written "veha'Esh Al ha'Mizbe'ach Tukad Bo", we would expound from "v'Nasnu [Bnei Aharon...] only putting mortal fire on the Mizbe'ach, and that it must be through a Kosher Kohen and Kli Shares. We would not expound lighting the Alyasa;

However, now that we learn from veha'Esh Al ha'Mizbe'ach Tukad Bo that lighting the Alyasa must be on top of the Mizbe'ach, we properly learn from v'Nasnu lighting the Alyasa and putting mortal fire on the Mizbe'ach, that they must be through a Kosher Kohen and Kli Shares;

Presumably, "Bnei Aharon", from which we learn a Kosher Kohen and Kli Shares, applies to all Mitzvos on the Mizbe'ach.

Implied question: Why can't he arrange them on the Yesod?

Answer #1: If so, it (a limb) would become disqualified through Linah if it descended;

However, the Sovev, which is above half [the height of] the Mizbe'ach, it is like the Mizbe'ach, and Linah does not take effect on top of the Mizbe'ach. The same applies to the ramp (Riva).

Answer #2: Also, perhaps it is forbidden to take it down from the Mizbe'ach. However, arranging it on the Sovev or ramp is not called taking them down.

Assumption: It seems that this refers to the verse written regarding Korach "Atah v'Aharon Ish Machtaso u'Snu Vahen Esh v'Simu Aleihen Ketores."

Question: If so, it should require a Ma'arachah by itself, just like we require a Ma'arachah for Ketores by itself. If so, they are too many Ma'arachos!

Answer #1: Since he did not need to take any coals for the Menorah, rather, merely to light the wicks, it is unreasonable that they would make a Ma'arachah for this. The Torah left it to Chachamim [to decide].

Answer #2: Since it says "Tamid", this shows that we light it from fire that is always burning, i.e. from the big Ma'arachah;

If we would make a Ma'arachah just for this, why must it always be burning?!

Question: If so, why do we need a verse for Ketores of the Heichal, that we take for it coals from Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon? We should learn from the Ketores of Lifnai v'Lifnim!

Answer #1: We need to teach that we make a Ma'arachah for it by itself;

If we would learn from here, one might have thought that on Yom Kipur, it suffices to have one Ma'arachah for Ketores of the Heichal and Lifnai v'Lifnim.

Answer #2: We could not learn from here, for Ketores of all [other] days is different;

Since it is burned it on the inner Mizbe'ach, [one might have thought that] we should similarly make for it a Ma'arachah on the inner Mizbe'ach. The verse teaches that this is not so.

Question (Ri): Why here, we say that Lifnei Hash-m is facing the opening [of the Ulam], and similarly regarding the Ner Ma'aravi [it means that close to the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim in the west - Menachos 98a]?

Regarding Tenufah (Menachos 61a), we say that Lifnei Hash-m is in the east!

Also regarding Shechitah it says Lifnei Hash-m, and we allow any place in the Azarah!

Answer (Ri): Regarding Shechitah Kodshim Kalim, it says Lifnei Hash-m to exclude outside;

Even though they may be eaten in the entire city, Shechitah must be Lifnei Hash-m, inside, in the east. The same applies to Tenufah;

However, regarding the Mizbe'ach and Menorah, why does it say Lifnei Hash-m, if not to teach [near] the west?!

Question (Ri ha'Bachur): Why is Tenufah in the east, and Shechitah is anywhere in the Azarah?

Answer (Ri ha'Bachur): Surely, Lifnei Hash-m is in the east, like the Sifri expounds regarding Tenufas Eil Nazir, which is Lifnei Hash-m in the east;

Wherever it says Lifnei Hash-m, it is in the east, until the Torah explicitly says otherwise;

It does not say Lifnei Hash-m regarding Shechitah of Kodshim Kalim, only regarding Semichah. Perhaps [indeed,] Semichah is in the east.

Even if you will say that it is not in the east, perhaps this is because we learn from a Kal va'Chomer from Shechitah, or from a Hekesh "v'Samach-v'Shachat";

Shechitah is anywhere [in the Azarah], like we learn in Zevachim 55a from verses to allow all directions.

Perhaps Semichah even of Olah is anywhere in the Azarah. Since it is a remnant of a Mitzvah (it is not Me'akev), we learn from a Kal va'Chomer from Shechitah of Shelamim;

The verse Lifnei Hash-m of Semichah excludes outside the Azarah.

Support: Toras Kohanim expounds "Lifnei Hash-m v'Samach" regarding Olah, [to teach] that even if he did Semichah outside, he repeats Semichah inside.

Implied question: It says "v'Shachat Es Ben ha'Bakar Lifnei Hash-m" regarding Olah. We should say that this obligates the east!

Answer: We cannot, for the verse says that it must be in the north. We expound that the bull must be Lifnei Hash-m, but the Shochet [need] not be Lifnei Hash-m (Zevachim 32a).

Regarding Par Kohen Mashi'ach and Par Helam Davar, we expound Lifnei Hash-m in Toras Kohanim to fix the place for them in the north. I.e. Lifnei Hash-m connotes the east, until a verse specifies [otherwise].

We expound it to mean the north, and not the east, for we find that other Kodshei Kodoshim require the north.

Implied question: In Zevachim (48b), we say "this is a Binyan Av (precedent) that all Chata'os require the north"! (Why must we expound from Lifnei Hash-m?)

Answer: Perhaps we need [Lifnei Hash-m] because it says regarding Par Kohen Mashi'ach "Ka'asher Yuram mi'Shor Zevach ha'Shelamim;

This is not needed to teach about burning the Eimurim, for this is explicitly written [regarding Par Kohen Mashi'ach]. Rather, one might have thought that the Hekesh to Shelamim teaches that all directions (the entire Azarah) are Kosher for Shechitah;

A Hekesh equates Par Helam Davar to Par Kohen Mashi'ach.

Implied question: [Regarding Kodshim] something learned from a Hekesh cannot teach through a Hekesh! (Why must it say Lifnei Hash-m regarding Par Helam Davar?)

Answer #1: This is a mere Giluy Milsa. Therefore, the Torah needed to return it to the category of other Chata'os to mandate the north.

Answer #2: One might have thought that since the Mitzvah is to burn them outside all three Machanos, they need not be slaughtered in the north. Lifnei Hash-m teaches that this is not so.

Continuation of the Ri's answer (b): Ner Ma'aravi is not difficult. When we say Lifnei Hash-m b'Mizrach, this excludes only north and south, but not opposite the Heichal or its walls, or standing in the east facing north or south.

Question: We cannot say so regarding coals, for the north and south of the Mizbe'ach are as opposite the Heichal and its walls just as much as the east of the Mizbe'ach. If so, what does Lifnei Hash-m exclude?

Suggestion: It teaches that the one who scoops coals may not stand in the east and face north or south.

Rejection: If it refers to the person, it should have said Lifnei Hash-m. Rather, it says mi'Lifnei Hash-m. This teaches that it refers to the coals;

If the coals are on the east side of the Mizbe'ach, why is this called Lifnei Hash-m more than north or south?

Answer: Rather, it refers to the west. It is as if the Torah specified, like it says in the Sifri.

Similarly, all the Neros are Lifnei Hash-m, both the person [who fixes and lights them and the Neros;

Rather, we must say that the Torah discusses a Ner in the Ma'arav.