1)

(a)We refute the current suggestion by citing Resh Lakish, who asked Rebbi Yochanan (in connection with the Mishnah in Keilim 'ha'Shulchan ve'ha'Dulb'ki') whether or not, the overlaying needs to be of a permanent nature - and whether or not, the rim needs to be overlaid as well ...

(b)... to which Rebbi Yochanan replied that - the Mishnah speaks even if the nature of the overlaying is temporary, and even if the rim is not overlaid.

(c)So the Kashya remains why the Shulchan is not Tamei under all circumstances. We again try to answer the Kashya - by focusing on the fact that it was made out of acacia wood, which is precious (and therefore does not become nullified by the gold with which it is overlaid, as other materials do).

(d)Resh Lakish does indeed draw such a distinction - when he restricts the Mishnah in Keilim to 'K'lei Achsalgus' (a cheaper kind of wood), but precludes 'K'lei Masmeis' (one that is more expensive).

2)

(a)In spite of Resh Lakish however, we cannot accept this answer - because Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with him, establishing the Mishnah even by K'lei Masmeis.

(b)Ultimately, we answer the Kashya, based on the Pasuk in Yechezkel "ha'Mizbe'ach Eitz, Shalosh Amos Gavohah ... " - which, as we see from the conclusion ("Vayomer Elai, Zeh ha'Shulchan asher Lifnei Hash-m") is referring (not to the Mizbe'ach, but) to the Shulchan ...

(c)... from which we see that the Torah refers to the Mizbe'ach as being made of wood (in which case the gold cannot nullify it).

(d)Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar learn from the fact that the Pasuk begins with "Mizbe'ach" and ends with "Shulchan" that - nowadays, when there is no Mizbe'ach, one's table atones for one's sins in its place.

(e)This means that - having guests at one's table atones for our sins (as Tosfos explains) just as the Shulchan did.

3)

(a)The Pasuk in Terumah lists the accessories of the Shulchan. Rav Ketina translates ...

1. ... "Ke'arosav" as - the baking-molds.

2. ... "Kaposav" as - the Bazichin (the bowls that contain the Levonah).

(b)"Kesosav" he translates as the S'nifin (the boards), and "Menakiyosav" as - the Kanim (the half-canes).

(c)" ... asher Yusach bahen" therefore means that - they (the Kanim) covered the loaves.

4)

(a)Rava, quoting our Mishnah (Lo Netilasan ... Dochos es ha'Shabbos), queries Rav Ketina's translation of "Menakiyosav" in that - if, as the latter explains, the Kanim are actually Torah-ordained, then how can they be dispensed with on Shabbos?

(b)He retracts however, based on Rebbi's principle (also cited there) - that whatever can be performed before Shabbos (can be dispensed with on Shabbos) does not override Shabbos, in which case, the Kanim can comfortably be dispensed with, because the short time that the loaves are without them will not render them moldy.

(c)In fact, the Lechem ha'Panim remain without the Kanim - for approximately half a day (because it is in the early afternoon that last week's loaves are removed, and that this week's replace them.

(d)The Beraisa (quoted by Rava) describes how, on Motza'ei Shabbos - the Kohanim lift up one loaf at a time, and replace the Kanim.

5)

(a)According to the Tana, each of the four middle loaves are covered by three Kanim, whereas the fifth one requires only two - because the weight on it is minimal (though it is unclear why, according to Rashi, there is any weight at all, seeing as the Kanim themselves rest on the grooves in the S'nifin).

(b)The Beraisa states that ...

1. ... the top Chalah - requires no Kanim at all (though this is so obvious that the Beraisa only intimates it by omission).

2. ... the bottom Chalah - requires no Kanim either, because it rests on the Shulchan, which is cold (see also Shitah Mekubetzes 7).

6)

(a)In a Mishnah in Keilim, Rebbi Meir states that all the measurements (except for one) in the Beis-Hamikdash are Benoniyos - a six-Tefachim Amah (as will be explained later).

(b)The only Keili that is measured by an Amah of five Tefachim is - the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav.

(c)The three accessories of the Mizbe'ach ha'Olah that fell into the same category are - the Keranos, the Soveiv and the Y'sod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Olah, all of which measure one Amah, like the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav which is one Amah square.

(d)According to Rebbi Yehudah, the measurements of the Keilim are made in Amos of five Tefachim (as we have already learned). However, he concedes to Rebbi Meir - that the measurements of the actual building are made in Amos of six Tefachim) ...

(e)... incorporating the walls of the Beis-Hamikdash as well as those of the Mizbe'ach ha'Olah.

7)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan explains that both Tana'im derive their opinions from the same Pasuk in Yechezkel. When the Pasuk writes "ve'Eileh Midos ha'Mizbe'ach be'Amos Amah, Amah va'Tefach" it means that - the Mizbe'ach ha'Olah is measured in Amos, each of which consists of an Amah which, plus a Tefach, makes up an Amah Beinonis of six Tefachim (in other words, Amos of five Tefachim).

(b)"ve'Zeh Gav ha'Mizbe'ach", with which the Pasuk concludes, is speaking about - the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav.

1. "ve'Cheik ha'Amah" refers - to the Y'sod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Olah ...

2. ... "ve'Amah Rochav" - to the Sovev ...

3. ... and "u'Gevulah el S'fasah Saviv Zeres ha'Echad" - to the Keranos.

(c)The last statement means that - from the center of the Keren it measured a Zeres (half an Amah) in all four directions.

(d)Rebbi Meir extrapolates from "*ve'Zeh* Cheik ha'Amah ... " 'Zehu be'Amah bas Chamishah, Ha Kol Amos ha'Keilim be'Amah bas Shishah' (that the Amos of all the Keilim are Amos of six Tefachim). Rebbi Yehudah Darshens - ka'Zeh Yih'yu Kol Amos ha'Keilim (that so shall be the Amos of all the Keilim).

8)

(a)Initially, we try to amalgamate the first two Pesukim "ve'Cheik ha'Amah ... ve'Amah Rochav". What the Pasuk will then mean is that - the Amos of the lower half of the Mizbe'ach from the Y'sod to the Soveiv will consist of five-Tefachim Amos.

(b)There are ...

1. ... six Amos from the ground to the Soveiv and ...

2. ... four Amos from the Soveiv to the top of the Keranos.

(c)Bearing in mind the fact that we currently understand the lower half of the Mizbe'ach to comprise Amos of five Tefachim, and the upper half, Amos of six - the Mizbe'ach's total height will then be fifty-four Tefachim (thirty, the lower half, and twenty-four, the upper half).

(d)Which means that - the Soveiv (thirty Tefachim from the ground) will be three Tefachim higher than the Chut ha'Sikra, which marks half-way (at twenty-seven Tefachim).

9)

(a)The Beraisa describes the Avodah of the Olas ha'Of, which the Kohen performs - whilst standing on the Soveiv.

(b)After the Melikah - he performs the Mitzuy (the cutting of the two large blood-vessels causing the blood to squirt on to the wall of the Mizbe'ach).

(c)The lowest point on the wall of the Mizbe'ach at which the Tana permits the Mitzuy to be performed is - one Amah below his feet.

(d)The problem with this is - that one Amah below his feet will be at least two Tefachim below the Chut ha'Sikra (when in fact, the Mitzuy of the Olas ha'Of must be performed on the upper half of the Mizbe'ach).

10)

(a)This forces us to retract from our previous explanation. Consequently, we explain "ve'Cheik ha'Amah" and "ve'Amah Rochav" independently (just the Y'sod and the Soveiv are measured in Amos comprising five Tefachim) ...

(b)...whereas the walls of the Mizbe'ach in between the two, comprise Amos of six Tefachim.

(c)In fact, the Mizbe'ach measures sixty Tefachim (thirty-six plus twenty-four); at the Chut ha'Sikra, thirty.

(d)And the real distance from the Soveiv to the Chut ha'Sikra is - six Tefachim.

11)

(a)According to what we just learned, the five-Tefachim Amah of the Y'sod, the Soveiv and the Keranos - refer, not to the height of the Mizbe'ach, but to the length and the breadth.

(b)The Mishnah in Midos describes the shape of the Mizbe'ach. It measures thirty-two Amos square at its base, above ...

1. ... the Y'sod - thirty, and above ...

2. ... the Soveiv - twenty-eight.

(c)The problem, according to the current explanation, that the Amah ...

1. ... Y'sod comprises five Tefachim is that - the Tana should then have given the measurement of the Mizbe'ach at that point as thirty and two-fifths square Amos (and not just thirty).

2. ... Sovev does too is that - by the same token, the Tana should have given the measurement from above the Soveiv, not as twenty-eight Amos square, but twenty-eight and four fifths.

(d)We try to ascribe the apparent error to the fact that the Tana is not concerned with fractions of an Amah. Consequently - since in both cases, the excess is less than an Amah, he doesn't bother to mention it.

12)

(a)According to the continuation of the Mishnah however, which gives the ...

1. ... distance between two adjacent K'ranos as twenty-six Amos, the problem remains that - the Tana ought to have given the figure as twenty-seven, and by the same token ...

2. ... the measurement of the Makom ha'Ma'arachah (from the inner edge of the Hiluch ha'Kohanim) as twenty-four square Amos, should have been given as twenty-five.

(b)The width of the Makom Hiluch ha'Kohanim - is one Amah consisting of six Tefachim.

(c)We try to answer the first Kashyos - with Lo Dak (the Tana does not bother to give an accurate measurement).

13)

(a)We reject the same answer with regard to the second Kashyos however, Ariel another name for the Mizbe'ach) from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "ve'ha'Ariel Sh'teim-Esrei Orech ... Ravu'a". "Ariel" is - another name for the Mizbe'ach)

(b)Had the Navi written as we quoted - the measurement of the Ariel would have been twelve Amos by twelve Amos.

(c)Now that he adds the words "al Arba'as Reva'av" - they are twenty-four Amos by twenty-four Amos (twelve Amos in all four directions from the center).

(d)We can ...

1. ... no longer answer Lo Dak - because it is not feasible to say that about a Pasuk. Nor can ...

2. ... we answer that when the Pasuk gives the dimensions of the Mizbe'ach as thirty-two by thirty-two Amos, it is combining Amos of six Tefachim and five Tefachim - because then the Mishnah in Midos (that we are about to discuss) should have added an extra Amah on to the Azarah (in order to make up for the missing Amah of the Mizbe'ach), seeing as in terms of six Tefachim Amos, the Mizbe'ach really measured thirty-one Amos square.

14)

(a)The Azarah was a hundred and thirty-five Amos wide (from north to south), and, beginning from the Ezras Yisrael) - a hundred and eighty seven Amos long (from east to west).

(b)The Ezras Yisrael was eleven Amos long - and so was the Ezras Kohanim.

(c)The length of the Mizbe'ach was thirty-two Amos, and Achorei Beis-ha'Kapores eleven ...

1. ... Bein ha'Ulam ve'la'Mizbe'ach - twenty-two Amos, and ...

2. ... the Heichal - a hundred.

(d)We therefore conclude that "Cheik ha'Amah" refers to the height of the Y'sod. The width of the Y'sod - was six Tefachim.

15)

(a)The Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Amah Rochav" pertains - to the width of the Soveiv.

2. ... "u'Gevulah el Sefasah Saviv" - could pertain to either the width or the height.

(b)We know that the distinction that we just drew between the Y'sod and the Soveiv is correct - because of the Pasuk's switch in Lashon from "Cheik ha'Amah" to "ve'Amah Rochav" (which serve as the source for the two D'rashos).

(c)We now explain why the Tana gives the measurements between two adjacent Keranos as twenty-six Amos, and not more - because at most, it would measure twenty-six and four fifths Amos (in any event, less than twenty-seven).

(d)Now that all the Amos except for those of the Y'sod and the Keren consisted of six Tefachim, the height of ...

1. ... the Mizbe'ach was - fifty-eight Tefachim, and of ...

2. ... the Soveiv - thirty-five ...

(e)... and six Tefachim - now divided the Soveiv from the Chut ha'Sikra