Clarification: And the current one, with the notched Keren, is as if it the Keren was non-existent, which is why it is disqualified from the Avodah, since it is missing a Keren ...

Clarification (cont.): Since a notch renders the stones of the MIzbe'ach Pasul if the finger will get caught in it, as we larned in Chulin (Daf 18a & 18b).

Reason: Because the Torah writes (in Devarim, 27) "You shall build it with complete stones", as Rashi explains there.

Lime: And regarding the lime, Tana'im argue there - Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai says 'A Tefach'; Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, 'A k'Zayis'.

Reason: And the reason ie presumably because it is not considered a cube, each one according to his respective opinion, and the shape of a cube is crucial, as we learn there.

Question: Now regarding the Mizbe'ach it is in order, as the Torah writes (in Sh'mos 27) "The Mizbe'ach shall be a cube"; but from where do we know that the Keren contained lime?

Refuted Answer: Since even though Rashi explains here that 'Each Keren was a cubic stone measuring one Amah by one Amah and one Amah tall' ...

Refutation: That is not correct, since it was made by means of a frame, as the Gemara explains in 'Eizehu Mekoman' (Zevachim, Daf 54a).

Answer: Perhaps we learn the cubic shape of the Keren from the cubic shape of the Mizbe'ach.

Question: Why does the Gemara need to define the P'sul of the stones of the Mizbe'ach as notched? Why is not Pasul because the stone is Chaser (incomplete), since even if it would not be notched, it would not be considered "complete" ...

Source: As is evident in Perek Eizehu Mekoman (Ibid.) where - in connection with what the question 'What they did if the south-eastern corner did not have a Y'sod' the Gemara asks 'If they cut it, the Torah requires the use of "complete stones"?

Answer: What the Gemara there means to ask there is 'If they cut by breaking the stones, it is impossible to do so without making a notch, in which case they would not be "Sh'leimos" ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas if one came to file them down by smoothening them with a knife, there is a prohibition against "not using a metal implement on it".

Support: And this is also implied in Maseches Avodah-Zarah (Perek Rebbi Yishmael, Daf 52b), in connection with 'the stones of the Mizbe'ach which the Greeks abominated and the Chashmona'im hid',

Support (cont.): Where the Gemara asks 'What should one do? Break them up - the Torah writes "Avanim Sh'leimos"; 'Saw them, i.e. without making notches - it says "You shall not use metal implements on them'.

Question: Why could thy not do it using the Shamir (worm)? , seeing as they did have the Shamir in the second Beis-ha'Mikdash, as is evident in Maseches Sotah (Perek Eglah Arufah, Daf 48a) ...

Source: Where it states 'From the time that the early Nevi'im died, the Urim ve'Tumim was Bateil; from the time that the Beis-ha'Mikdash was destroyed, the Shamir was Bateil ...

Proof: And this refers to the second Beis-ha'Mikdash, because if it referred to the first one, it ought to have combined them and said 'When the Beis-ha'Mikdash was destroyed, the Urim ve'Tumin and the Shamir became Bateil' ...

Proof (cont.): Since 'from the time the early Nevi'im died' is synonymous with the destruction of the Beis-ha'Mikdash ...

Source: As the Beraisa states there 'When the Beis-ha'Mikdash was destroyed, the Urim ve'Tumim was Bateil - and that refers to the first Beis-ha'Mikdash, since (it is one of) five things (that) were missing during the second Beis-ha'Mikdash that were there during the first one, as the Gemara explains in Yoma (Daf 21b) ...

Conclusion: 'The Shamir was Bateil must therefore refer to after the second Bei-ha'Mikdash.

Precedent: Similarly, when Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says there that 'When the Beis-ha'Mikdash was destroyed the taste of fruit was taken away', he is presumably referring to after the destruction of the second Bei-ha'Mikdash, which was destroyed during his lifetime.

Proof: Since in the era of the second Beis-ha'Mikdash the fruit was blessed - during the days of Shimon ben Shetach, when the kernels of wheat grew to the size of the kidney of a large ox.

Proof #2 (for Shamir): Further proof that the Shamir existed in the time of the second Beis-ha'Mikdash is to be found in the story of Dama ben Nesinah, when the Gemara (in the first Perek of Kidushin, Daf 31a & in the second Perek of Avodah Zarah, Daf 23b & 24a) relates how the Chachmei Yisrael asked him for the stones of the Eifod - and the stones of the Eifod require the Shamir ...

Source: As Rebbi Nechemyah says in Perek Eglah Arufah (Sotah, Daf 48b), based on the Pasuk "be'Milu'osam" ...

Source (cont.): And even Rebbi Yehudah, who argues with him and says that the Shamir was used to build the Beis-ha'Mikdah, concedes that they also used it for the stones of the Eifod, as is evident in Perek Mi she'Achzo (Gitin, Daf 68a & 68b) in connection with 'the Beis-ha'Mikdash that Sh'lomoh built' ...

Proof : Where, in reply to the question how to build it, the Gemara replies 'There is the Shamir that Moshe brought for the stones of the Eifod' ... and that can only go like Rebbi Yehudah ...

Proof (cont.): Because, according to Rebbi Nehemyah, the Shamir was not used for the Beis-ha'Mikdash.

Proof #2 (concl.): And the story with Dama ben Nesinah took place in the second Beis-ha'Mikdash, as the Gemara says there 'In the following year, a Parah Adumah was born in his herd ...

Proof: And there were only seven 'Cows' altogether: the first, the one that Moshe made, the second, that Ezra made (after the second Beis-ha'Mikdash was built), as the Mishnah states in Maseches Parah (3:5) ...

Question (concl.): (The question therefore remains) - Since they had the Shamir in the time of the second Beis-ha'Mikdash, why did the Chashmona'im hide the stones.

Answer: The Shamir does not make them Sh'leimos (i.e. make a clean cut), in a way that the finger-nail does not get caught in it.

Question: In that case, how did they build the Mizbe'ach?

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that they prepared it outside and brought it inside afterwards ...

Refutation: Since even in that way it is forbidden by the Mizbe'ach ...

Source: As we learned in a Beraisa at the end of Parshas Vayishma Yisro - "Lo Sivneh es'hen Gazis", 'It (the Mizbe'ach) you may not build with hewn stones, but you may use hewn stones to build the Heichal and the Kodesh Kodshim' ...

Source (cont.): Then how do we establish the Pasuk "Hammers and axes were not heard in the House whilst it was being built"? In the House it was not heard' ...

Refutation (cont.): So we see that regarding the Mizbe'ach, even outside it was not heard.

Support: And so Rabeinu Eliyahu ha'Zakein in his Azharah (Piyut) of 'Emes Yehegeh Chiki' - 'The stones of the Mizbe'ach both inside and outside, so they hid them and put them away' - i.e. the Greeks abominated them and they (the Chashmona'im) hid them.

Answer #1: On could differentiate between before the stones were sanctified (when it was permitted) and after they were sanctified (when it was prohibited) ...

Answer #2: But it is not necessary to say this - since it implies in Perek Eizehu Makoman (Zevachim, Daf 54a & 54b) that they built it with smooth stones, such as those that one finds (in 'the brook?) by the sand of the seashore.

Question: The Kashya remains however, that in connection with the Beis-ha'Mikdash, the Pasuk in Melachim 1 (6:7) writes " ... complete quarried stones yet according to Rebbi Yehudah, they used the Shamir for the Beis-ha'Mikdash? (See Mesores ha'Shas)

Clarification: This Tana and Rebbi Yochanan hold that they were created during the six days of the Creation ...

Clarification: (cont.): The other Tana however, who Darshens "ve'Gam Yekev Chatzav" does not conform to that, since he learns from the Pasuk that the Mizbe'ach and the Shitin were man-made.

Clarification: (concl.): And the text in his statement reads 'and on it David dug'.

Question: Rebbi Yochanan however, contradicts himself in that here he maintains that, based on his interpretation of "Ma'aseh Y'dei Aman" - 'The work of the craftsmanship of Hash-m, he holds they were created during the six days of the Creation ...

Question (cont.): Whereas later in Perek ha'Chalil (Daf 53a) he relates how, 'On the day that David dug the Shitin, the depth floated to the top'.

Answer: Presumably, it is a Machlokes Amora'im as to what Rebbi Yochanan holds.

Text #1: This is the text cited in all the versions, and it is the text of Rashi.

Text #2: The text in the Tosefta however, reads "Vayiven Migdal be'Socho" - 'refers to the Heichal'; "ve'Gam Yekev Chatzav bo" - 'to the Mizbe'ach' ...

Clarification: Which it calls 'Yekev', because wine which is produced in the wine-press, is poured on it ...

Text #2 (cont.): And it includes the Shitin from the superfluous word "Gam".

Source: It is a Mishnah in Perek V'lad Chatas (Me'ilah, Daf 11a) ...

Source (cont.): The Gemara there cites various texts that are not cited here.

Authentic Text: The text here however, is the authentic one.