Explanation #1: This is said in astonishment, for below (64b) we say that it was done on the southeast corner. If there was no Yesod, he does Melikah in the air and the blood falls to the ground and it is wasted!

Question: It falls on the Sovev, for [Olas ha'Of] is done above!

Answer: It was taught there that if he did it below his feet, even one Amah [below], it is Kosher. It is essential only that it is above Chut ha'Sikra. Rashi explained like this.

Assertion: It seems that in this Beraisa it did not say "he poured Shirei ha'Dam on the Yesod", since Rashi inferred only from this that the blood is wasted.

Question: If so, [the Gemara] should have asked from our Mishnah (64b), which teaches "he came to the southeast corner. He did Melikah on its head", and in most Seforim the text says here "he poured Shirei ha'Dam on the Yesod"!

Answer #1 (R. Chaim): Surely the text says so, and due to this [the Gemara] asks that surely the corner where he does Melikah he pours Shirei ha'Dam to the Yesod, since it did not teach that he went to the southwest corner, where there was a Yesod, to pour the Shirayim.

Support: Below (64a) it says that they did [Melikah] in [the southeast corner] because it is close to Beis ha'Deshen, and he can throw from there the crop and feathers;

If he needed to go to another corner to pour Shirayim, what did he gain [by doing Melikah at the southeast corner], since he needed to return? (He could do Melikah at the place where he pours Shirayim, and then go to the southeast corner!)

Implied suggestion: After throwing the crop and feathers, he went to pour Shirayim.

Rejection: (First he pressed the bird against the Mizbe'ach and squeezed out almost all the blood.) If he delayed so long, the [last drops of] blood would finish (there would be no Shirayim to pour. Surely, the time needed just to throw the crop and feathers does not add much to the time to walk to another corner [about 30 Amos, i.e. about 15 seconds]. Rather, it is a big delay to remove the crop, feathers and attached innards. L'Chatchilah he must be precise to remove all of them, but nothing else!)

Conclusion: Rather, you are forced to say that in its place [of Melikah], he poured to the Yesod. Therefore, it asks if you will say that there was no Yesod, does he do Melikah in the air?!

It answers that so they stipulated, that the airspace belonged to Binyamin, and a protrusion was built there, and on that protrusion he poured Shirayim.

Question: If it is considered a Yesod, also for other blood is should be considered a Yesod!

Answer: It is considered a Yesod only for blood put above Chut ha'Sikra;

However, for blood put below, if you will be Machshir that corner, sometimes they will come to put under the protrusion, and it turns out that he puts under the Yesod;

However, upper blood is always above the protrusion.

Question: If so, how do we exclude here Olah that it is not on the four corners like Chatas, because it requires Yesod? [The protrusion] is considered a Yesod for upper blood!

Answer #2 (to Question (e) - R. Tam): The text does not say "he was Shofech (poured) Shirei ha'Dam to the Yesod", for "Shofech" connotes from a Kli, since it did not teach "he squeezes to the Yesod", like it taught regarding Chatas ha'Of.

Support: Also, the Mishnah below (64b) taught sdm regarding Chatas ha'Of, and did not teach it regarding Olas ha'Of. This implies that it has no Shirayim.

Implied question: Above (36a, 51a) we include Shirayim for all Korbanos!

Answer: That is except for Olas ha'Of. (Shitah Mekubetzes - the verse discusses Zevachim (animals). Since its Mitzvah was done, why do we care if its blood falls to the ground afterwards and is wasted? Also all blood, after they are poured on the Yesod, go to waste afterwards!

Question: Also, when it answers that they stipulated so about the airspace, and Rashi explained that he made like a protrusion on the Mizbe'ach to receive blood, the Gemara should have explained this!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): [The Gemara] asked about Melikah itself, which must be on top of the Mizbe'ach, like Haktarah, like it says below;

If he does it in the airspace of Yehudah, this is Chulin regarding Kedushah of the Mizbe'ach!

[The Gemara] answers that the airspace was of Binyamin, and the airspace had Kedushas Mizbe'ach;

Even though Haktarah in the airspace is impossible, we are concerned only that it has Kedushas Mizbe'ach.

Limitation: However, according to the opinion that we may not make a Ma'arachah on the Sovev, it seems that also Melikah does not help there, even though it has Kedushas Mizbe'ach;

Here we discuss according to the opinion that we may make a Ma'arachah on the Sovev.

Explanation: Even though below it was not square, above, in place of the Ma'arachah, it was square.

Question: The wording of a Beraisa is difficult for Rav, for a Beraisa in Yoma (12a) taught that a strip went out from Yehudah's portion and entered Binyamin's portion, and the Mizbe'ach was built on it. This connotes that some of the structure [of the Mizbe'ach was built on the strip!

Explanation: This is like Mefulamin (moist) fish, in Beitzah (24b).

Question: Initially they should make a frame of these dimensions! (Why did they make a bigger frame, and then need to cut it (in the Havah Amina) or fill part (in the conclusion)?)

Question: [The Gemara] should have asked 'the Torah said "Lo Sanif Aliehem Barzel"!'

Answer: The Gemara was concise here. It means like the Gemara deduces in Avodah Zarah (52b) regarding the stones of the Mizbe'ach that the Yevanim had desecrated;

Citation (52b): (Why was Genizah required?) They could have broken them (via Nochrim, to be Mevatel their Isur due to idolatry) the rocks! The Torah said [that we must build the Mizbe'ach with] "Avanim Shelemos" (complete rocks). They could smooth them out later (with a blade)! It is written "Lo Sanif Aleihem Barzel."

Question #1: They should [cut off the excess] through the Shamir (a worm that can melt stone). The Shamir was in Bayis Sheni, like is proven in Sotah (48a. The Beraisa discusses the dimensions of the Mizbe'ach in Bayis Sheni);

[It says there that] after the early Nevi'im died, the Urim v'Tumim was Batel (i.e. in Bayis Rishon). After Churban Beis ha'Mikdash, the Shamir was Batel. This was in Bayis Sheni;

If it is in Bayis Rishon, [the Tana] should have taught them together - after the early Nevi'im died, i.e. Churban ha'Bayis, like a Beraisa in the Gemara (Sotah 48b) teaches, after Churban Beis ha'Mikdash, the Urim v'Tumim was Batel. This refers to Churban Bayis Rishon;

Five things were lacking in Bayis Sheni that were in Bayis Rishon, like it says in Yoma (21b). The Shamir was Batel after Bayis Sheni.

Remark: Also what R. Shimon ben Gamliel said there, that after Churban Beis ha'Mikdash fruits lost their taste - presumably, this was [after] Bayis Sheni, which was destroyed in his days.

Proof: We find in Bayis Sheni that their Peros were blessed. In the days of Shimon ben Shetach, the wheat was like kidneys of a big ox (Ta'anis 23a).

Strengthening of question: We can prove that the Shamir was in Bayis Sheni from the episode with Dama ben Nesinah brought in Kidushin (31a) and Avodah Zarah (23b);

Chachmei Yisrael sought stones for the Efod, and stones for the Efod require the Shamir (to engrave letters on them), like R. Nechemyah said in Sotah (48b), since it says "b'Milu'osam" (nothing may be lacking);

Even R. Yehudah who argues with him and said "the Shamir, with which Shlomo built the Beis ha'Mikdash" (unlike R. Nechemyah, who said that they used iron to cut the rocks outside) agrees that the stones for the Efod require the Shamir, like is proven in Gitin (68a) regarding building the Beis ha'Mikdash, which Shlomo did;

[Shlomo] said how can we do (cut the rocks? Chachamim answered) there is the Shamir that Moshe brought for the stones for the Efod.

You are forced to say that R. Yehudah said so, for R. Nechemyah holds that the Shamir was not needed for the Mikdash.

The episode with [Dama] ben Nesinah was in Bayis Sheni, for it says there that the next year a Parah Adumah was born in his herd, and there were seven Paros Adumos - Moshe did the first, and Ezra did the second. (Even if Ezra saw Bayis Rishon, he was not the Kohen Gadol or even the Segan, so if a Parah Adumah was done then, it would not have been called on his name.)

Question #2: Similarly, it is difficult in Avodah Zarah (52b) why Beis Chashmonai put in Genizah the stones of the Mizbe'ach that the Yevanim had desecrated, since it is possible [to break them] through the Shamir!

Answer: The Shamir does not make them so perfectly smooth that a fingernail [going along them] would not get caught [in a crack];

In Chulin (18a), we say "what is the Shi'ur for a flaw in the Mizbe'ach [to disqualify it]? It is so that a fingernail would get caught in a crack."

Question: However, it is difficult, for it is written [also] about the Beis ha'Mikdash "Even Sheleimah Masa Nivneh", and R. Yehudah says that the Shamir was for the Beis ha'Mikdash! (If so, what it cuts should be smooth enough also for the Mizbe'ach! Chidushei Basra suggests that a small nick is more evident in the Mizbe'ach, for it is smaller.)

Implied question: [The Makshan] could have brought the Mishnah (Midos 3:2) which says that in the southwest corner there were two holes like two nostrils. Blood put on the southern Yesod descended through them and mixed with the Amah (a stream going through the Azarah), and goes out to Nachal Kidron!

Answer: He prefers to bring Rav Kahana's teaching, due to the verse (his source).

Explanation (Rashi): The holes were in the four Keranos, so Dam Chatas will fall in them and be absorbed.

Question: The Matanos [of Dam Chatas] were not put on top [of the Keranos], rather, on the edge, outside! (Shi'urei R. Meshulam David (Soloveitzik) - Rashi means that the holes were not on top of the Keranos, rather, on the faces facing out. He holds that blood put on the Keren itself need not be put on the edge, like it says above (53a).)