Explanation: The power (merit) of providing food is great, like it says in Sanhedrin (103b).

Implied question: In Zevachim (58a), we establish this verse "Mizbe'ach Adamah" regarding Mizbe'ach Avanim (in the Beis ha'Mikdash)!

Answer #1 (R. Elchanan): It refers to both of them.

Answer #2 (my Rebbi): Moshe's Mizbe'ach was in place of the stone Mizbe'ach of the Beis ha'Mikdash.

Support: We expound there (Zevachim 59a) "Ki Mizbach ha'Nechoshes Asher Lifnei Hash-m Katon me'Hachil", and we expound it to refer to the stone Mizbe'ach (of the Beis ha'Mikdash) in place of the copper Mizbe'ach!

Question: Why do we need "ha'Shulchan ha'Tahor", from which we infer that it could be Tamei? We should know this already due to the plating!

R. Eliezer would have said that even the Mizbechos are Mekabel Tum'ah, due to the plating, if not for the reason that they are like land, [even] according to Version #2, even though the Torah called them Etz! (Maharsha - above (Sof 26b), Tosfos said that the Mizbe'ach is not called Etz. In this Tosfos, he holds that it is called Etz.)

If so, also the Shulchan should be Tamei, even though it is called Etz, due to the plating!

In Version #1, Rabanan hold that it (the Mizbe'ach) can become Tamei, and the plating is not Batel to the wood! (If so, why do they need "ha'Shulchan ha'Tahor" to teach that the Shulchan receives Tum'ah? Also its plating should not be Batel to the wood!)

Answer (R. Elchanan): We need the verse "ha'Shulchan..." to teach also about the Mizbechos;

We know that it is Batel to the plating only because we learn from the Shulchan. Even though it is called Etz, the Torah taught that it is Mekabel Tum'ah due to the plating.

Note: This answers the question, i.e. for R. Eliezer, and for Rabanan in Version #1. Tosfos had not asked according to Rabanan in Version #2. We understood that they normally hold that the plating is Batel, and "ha'Shulchan..." taught that the Shulchan is different. However, based on the answer, now Rabanan in Version #2 are difficult. They should learn from the Shulchan that the plating is not Batel! Tosfos proceeds to answer for them.

Rabanan [in Version #2] say that the plating is Batel to them. They say that since the Torah needed an inclusion for the Shulchan [to receive Tum'ah]...

Implied question: From reasoning we should say that it is Tamei, due to the plating!

Answer: Rather, ["ha'Shulchan ha'Tahor"] teaches that even though it is plated, we need a verse to include that it receives Tum'ah. If not for the inclusion, the plating would be Batel;

If so, regarding the Mizbe'ach, for which there is no inclusion, the plating is Batel according to Version #2.

Explanation: The Aruch brings that the Targum Yerushalmi of "ha'Choled veha'Achbar" (Vayikra 11:29, the weasel (or mole) and mouse) is "Karkushta v'Salamandra." (Maharsham - Tosfos justifies Reish Lakish's proof from the Mizbe'ach. Do not say that they put Dam Salamandra on the gold, and therefore the fire did not consume the wood. It is a Tamei Sheretz, so we may use it for the Mizbe'ach!)

Assertion: This does not refer to Posh'ei Yisrael b'Gufan, for it says about them (Rosh Hashanah 17a) that Gehinom finishes, and they do not finish!

Rather, it refers to people who sinned a little. [They do not catch on fire,] because Avraham removes them from Gehinom, except for one who had relations with a Nochris. His foreskin stretches, and [Avraham] does not recognize him (he appears like a Nochri), like it says in Eruvin (19a).

Implied question: It says in Bava Metzi'a (58b) that all descend [to Gehinom] and come up, except for three!

Answer: That does not refer to Gehinom, rather, to another place. They descend to be judged;

Even those who are judged [and sentenced to Gehinom] ascend after 12 months. They are not judged for more than a full year.

Citation (Midrash Tanchuma): Moshe was astounded at this. How can it be that the wood will not burn?!

Hash-m told him 'this is My way with higher fire. Fire consumes fire and does not destroy [what is burning], like it says "the bush was not consumed."'