Rejection #2 (of R. Zeira - Rav Sharbiya): (Indeed, the four Amos include the Yesod and Sovev.) Mishnah #1 is like R. Yosi ha'Galili;

(Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): We must put the Kiyor (fountain from which the Kohanim wash) "Bein Ohel Mo'ed u'Vein ha'Mizbe'ach." However, the Mizbe'ach must be "Sham Pesach Mishkan Ohel Mo'ed" (verse 29 - Rashi; Shitah Mekubetzes - "Lifnei Pesach Mishkan Ohel Mo'ed", verse 6). The Kiyor cannot be in front of the opening (lest it separate between the opening and the Mizbe'ach)!

Therefore, the Kiyor is between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach, a bit south of the Mizbe'ach.

Question: Where does R. Yosi ha'Glili hold that the Mizbe'ach was? (If the Mizbe'ach extended further south than Pesach ha'Heichal, we could put the Kiyor between the Mizbe'ach and the wall of the Heichal, and it would not face the opening. We would ideally fulfill "Bein Ohel Mo'ed u'Vein ha'Mizbe'ach." What forced him to say that it was south of the Mizbe'ach?)

If the Mizbe'ach is entirely in Darom, we could put the Kiyor south of Pesach ha'Heichal, between the Heichal and the Mizbe'ach (even if it is even with Pesach ha'Ulam)!

Even if the Ulam has Kedushas Heichal (so the Kiyor may not face Pesach ha'Ulam), the Kiyor could be placed south of the opening of the Ulam, (Shitah Mekubetzes - between the Heichal and the Mizbe'ach, even with) between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach!

Likewise, if the Mizbe'ach is centered, 11 Amos of the Mizbe'ach extend south of the Pesach ha'Heichal. The Kiyor could be placed there, between the Heichal and the Mizbe'ach!

Even if the Ulam has Kedushas Heichal, six Amos of the Mizbe'ach extend south of the Pesach ha'Ulam. The Kiyor could be placed there, (Shitah Mekubetzes - even with) between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach!

Answer: He holds that the Mizbe'ach is entirely in Tzafon. (Therefore, the Kiyor must be south of the Mizbe'ach, so it will face the opening.)

Question: We should put the Kiyor (between the Mizbe'ach and the wall of the Heichal,) north of the opening of the Heichal!

Answer: He holds that the Ulam has Kedushas Heichal. The Kiyor would separate between the opening of the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach.

Question: We should put the Kiyor north of the opening of the Ulam!

Answer: "Tzafonah" - the north of the Azarah must be empty of Kelim (except for those needed for Shechitah).

Question: Who is the Tana that argues with R. Yosi ha'Galili (and R. Yehudah), and says that the Mizbe'ach is entirely in Darom?

Answer: It is R. Eliezer ben Yakov;

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): "Tzafonah" - the north must be empty of everything. Even the Mizbe'ach may not be there.

(Rav): If Korbanos were slaughtered and then the Mizbe'ach became dented (Birkas ha'Zevach; Panim Me'iros - they were slaughtered when the Mizbe'ach was dented), they are Pesulim (even if the Mizbe'ach was later fixed);

A verse teaches this, but I do not remember it.

(R. Shimon bar Rebbi): Korbanos slaughtered (before; Panim Me'iros - when) the Mizbe'ach became (was) dented are Pesulim - "v'Zovachta Alav Es Olosecha v'Es Shelamecha";

Question: Must Korbanos be slaughtered on the Mizbe'ach?!

Answer: It means that (they must be slaughtered for the sake of putting their blood and Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach, and) the Mizbe'ach must be complete.

Rav Kahana: Surely, this is the verse that Rav forgot!

(R. Yochanan): Even if a Korban was slaughtered after the Mizbe'ach was fixed, it is Pasul (if it was Kodesh when the Mizbe'ach was broken).

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: R. Yochanan holds that Ba'alei Chayim Nidchim (if a living animal become disqualified (from being offered), it is permanently Pasul). Rav holds that Ba'alei Chayim are not Nidchim.

Question (against Rav - Beraisa): Anything that was Kodesh before the Mizbe'ach was built, it is Pasul after the Mizbe'ach is built.

Objection: If it was Kodesh before the Mizbe'ach was built, it was Dachuy me'Ikarah (from the beginning! Rashi - we never resolved whether such Dichuy takes effect. This Beraisa should have concluded the argument! Tosfos - all agree that such Dichuy does not take effect, for people can fix it, i.e. they can build the Mizbe'ach!)

Correction: Rather, anything Kodesh before the Mizbe'ach was destroyed (by Nebuchadnetzar), was Pasul after the Mizbe'ach was rebuilt (in the days of Ezra).

Objection: (There were 70 years in between.) Even if the animal lived, it is Pasul due to age!

Correction: Rather, anything Kodesh before the Mizbe'ach was dented (i.e. disqualified) is Pasul after the Mizbe'ach is fixed.

Answer: In any case, we must alter the text of the Beraisa. Rav can correct it to say 'any Korban slaughtered before (or when) the Mizbe'ach was dented is Pasul after the Mizbe'ach is fixed.'

Question: Rav Gidal cited Rav to say that if the Mizbe'ach was uprooted from its place (which disqualifies it), we may offer Ketores in its place! (Above (a), Rav disqualified Korbanos due to a dent in the Mizbe'ach.)

Answer: We can answer similar to Rava's teaching:

(Rava): R. Yehudah (says that the floor of the Azarah has Kedushas Mizbe'ach in many respects, but he) admits about blood. (It must be thrown on the Mizbe'ach, and not on the floor.)

Similarly, Rav admits that animal Korbanos are Kosher only if the Mizbe'ach is valid at the time.

Question: What was R. Yehudah's teaching?

Answer (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "Ba'Yom ha'Hu Kidash ha'Melech Es Toch he'Chatzer... Ki Mizbach ha'Nechoshes Katon me'Hachil" - the simple understanding is correct. (Since Shlomo's stone Mizbe'ach (in place of Moshe's copper Mizbe'ach) was too small for all the Korbanos of the day of Chanukas Beis ha'Mikdash, Shlomo was Mekadesh the floor.)

R. Yosi: Surely, Shlomo's Mizbe'ach was big enough for the Korbanos!

"Elef Olos Ya'aleh Shlomo Al ha'Mizbe'ach ha'Hu" (he would offer 1000 Olos in a day on Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes. The fire was only one square Amah, and it consumed 1000 entire animals);

In the Beis ha'Mikdash, "va'Yizbach Shlomo Es Zevach ha'Shelamim... Bakar Esrim u'Shnayim Elef...";

Shlomo's Mizbe'ach (had 400 square Amos for the fire. Surely it) sufficed to burn these Korbanos! (The next verse says that he made (burned) "Es ha'Olah v'Es ha'Minchah v'Es Chelvei ha'Shelamim", and the Mizbe’ach was too small for them. The verse taught only the number of Shelamim - 22,000 cattle and 120,000 Tzon! Ya'avetz – really, it includes also the Olos, like the next verse says.)

Question: If so, why does it say "Katon me'Hachil"?

Answer: This [does not refer to Shlomo's Mizbe’ach. Rather, it] is a polite way of saying why Moshe's Mizbe'ach was replaced. (Really, it was disqualified, for "Im Mizbach Avanim Ta'aseh Li" (Shemos 20:22) obligates a stone Mizbe’ach in the Beis ha’Mikdash, like the Ramban wrote there. Radak (Melachim I, 8:64) - Divrei ha'Yamim II, 7:7 explicitly says that Shlomo's Mizbach Avanim was too small! It is difficult to explain 'the Mizbe'ach that Shlomo made in place of Moshe's, for Moshe's was too small.')

Question: How can R. Yehudah answer R. Yosi?

Answer: R. Yehudah expounds that Moshe's Mizbe'ach was larger than what the verse says explicitly:

(Beraisa - R. Yosi): "Chamesh Amos Orech v'Chamesh Amos Rochav" - the simple understanding is correct. (Moshe's Mizbe'ach was five Amos by five Amos.)

R. Yehudah: It says here "Ravu'a", like it says in Yechezkeil's prophecy (of the Mizbe'ach of Bayis Sheni, or in the future. So Rashi explains here. In Yechezkel (43:14), he proves that Yechezkel discusses the future Mizbe’ach, for its Yesod is two Amos tall, unlike in Bayis Sheni! Indeed, that was different, but it seems that in all other ways, the Mizbe'ach of Bayis Sheni was like the future Mizbe’ach. - PF);

Just like there the measure given is from the center (the area for the fire extends 12 Amos outwards in all four directions) also here.

Question: How do we know that Yechezkeil gives the measure from the center?

Answer: "Veha'Ari'el Shteim Esreh (Orech...)" - in each (of the four) directions (out from the center).

Suggestion: Perhaps its length and width are each 12!

Rejection "El Arba'as Reva'av" teaches that this is in each (of the four) directions.

R. Yosi holds that the Gezerah Shavah teaches about the height of Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "V'Shalosh Amos Komaso" - the simple understanding is correct (it was three Amos tall).

R. Yosi: It says here "Ravu'a", like it says regarding Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav;

Just like there the height (two Amos) was twice the length, also here (it was 10 Amos tall, twice the length).

R. Yehudah: The curtains surrounding Chatzer ha'Mishkan were only five Amos tall. If the Mizbe'ach was taller, people could see the Avodah from the outside! (This is unreasonable.)

Version #1 (Rashi) R. Yosi: It says "v'Es Kal'ei he'Chatzer v'Es Masach Pesach Sha'ar he'Chatzer Asher Al ha'Mishkan v'Al ha'Mizbe'ach" - just like the Mishkan (was 10 Amos tall, and) must be surrounded by curtains (i.e. those around Chatzer ha'Mishkan) (at least) 10 Amos tall, also the Mizbe'ach;

It also says "Kela'im Chamesh Esre Amah El ha'Kasef" (they were 15 Amos tall. Tosfos' text does not learn this from a verse.)

Question: Another verse says "v'Komah Chamesh Amos"!

Answer: They are five Amos taller than the Mizbe'ach.