Implied question: Mid'Oraisa, one may slaughter l'Chatchilah [on top of the Mizbe'ach], like we expound from "v'Zavachta Alav"!

Answer: Perhaps it uses an expression b'Di'eved mid'Rabanan, lest [the Korban] excrete [on the Mizbe'ach].

Implied question: He holds that the entire Mizbe'ach is in the north, and it is Kosher for [Shechitas] Shelamim. Above (55a), why did we need a verse to be Machshir the north for Shelamim?

Answer: We could not learn from here. It is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv [to be Machshir] on the Mizbe'ach, just like R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah is Machshir the north half for Olah, even though the corresponding place on the ground is Pasul, for it is in the south!

Rather, it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv [to be Machshir] on the Mizbe'ach.

Inference: Our entire Sugya connotes that the coals for [burning the Ketores inside] on must be taken opposite the opening.

Assertion: We must say that this is l'Chatchilah, but b'Di'eved it is Kosher from this side [of the opening, i.e. north] or from this side (south), like it says in Yoma (45b-46a) that we need "me'Al ha'Mizbe'ach", and we need "mi'Lifnei Hash-m."

Question: What source would there be for Ikuv, that we need a verse there to be Machshir b'Di'eved? This is not something done in the white garments inside, so there is no Ikuv according to R. Yehudah!

Answer: We need a verse because a need of [Avodah] inside is like inside;

Source: This is like Ketores that one took a double handful of it before Shechitas ha'Par. It is not valid at all, even though Chukah is not written about it, for a need of inside is like inside.

Question: Here it connotes that only the west is called Lifnei Hash-m, and similarly regarding the western Ner, in Menachos (98b);

In Menachos (61a), we say that Lifnei Hash-m is in the east regarding Tenufah of the Log of oil of a Metzora and his Asham!

Also, Lifnei Hash-m is written about Shechitah, and it is permitted in the entire Azarah!

Answer: Shechitah and Tenufah of the Log and Asham, Lifnei Hash-m is written to exclude outside, for Tenufas Asham is in its lifetime;

However, regarding the coals it is written "me'Al ha'Mizbe'ach", and the Neros were in the Heichal. If so, why does it say "Lifnei Hash-m", if not because the west is required?

Question: In that Sugya in Menachos (61a), it challenges 'you said "Lifnei Hash-m" - in the west', i.e. regarding Hagashah of a Minchah below (63b) and in Menachos (19b);

It answers "this is only for Menachos, which are called Chatas, and Chatas requires Yesod, and the southeast corner did not have a Yesod. However, here [the east] is called Lifnei Hash-m;

Inference: If the Yesod were not required, we would be Machshir the southeast corner for Hagashah, even though it is written Lifnei Hash-m! If so, why does it say Lifnei Hash-m?

Answer (R. Baruch): Had it not written Lifnei Hash-m regarding Hagashas Minchah, even though it says about it "El Pnei ha'Mizbe'ach", which is the south, and it is equated to Chatas ha'Of for (requiring) the Yesod...

Still, I would have thought that on the south side, [anywhere] on the Amah of the Yesod, [even] far from the [south]west corner [is Kosher. Lifnei Hash-m obligates specifically on the edge of the corner].

Question: Without the Hekesh to Chatas for the Yesod (I would know that Hagashah is over a Yesod, for it must be at the southwest corner)!

I know that it is in the west, for it says Lifnei Hash-m to reveal the west, like regarding coals of Yom Kipur, and also it is written "Pnei ha'Mizbe'ach", which connotes the south, and so it is below (63b)! This is from R. Baruch.

Question: We cannot establish Seder Tamid like R. Yosi, for a Mishnah in Tamid (33a) says that he poured [the coals taken from the Mizbe'ach in a silver pan] into a gold pan, and a Kav of coals scattered;

According to R. Yosi, more (i.e. three Kavim) scattered, like the Mishnah in Yoma (43b) teaches "R. Yosi says, every day (except for Yom Kipur) he takes [coals] in [a pan that holds] a Se'ah (six Kavim) and spills them into a [gold pan of] three Kavim."

Answer: Granted, this (the amount that scattered) is unlike R. Yosi. This (the location of the Mizbe'ach) is properly like R. Yosi.

Distinction: This is unlike what we infer in Yoma (16b) "if you think that R. Yehudah taught Midos..." (Tzon Kodoshim - there it says that Stam Midos is R. Yehudah, i.e. he taught every Stam Mishnah. Therefore, we properly ask that one is unlike him. Here it says that one Mishnah is like R. Yosi, even though the other Mishnah is unlike him.)

Observation: The Gemara was unsure about this everywhere - above (14a), in Yoma (44b) and in Eruvin (2a).

Observation: He could have said that it is R. Eliezer, who says below (63b) that the entire Mizbe'ach was in the north.

Question: Here it implies that the one who does not hold that the entire Mizbe'ach was in the north, the Kiyor was between the Ohel Mo'ed and the Mizbe'ach;

In the Tosefta in Kelim (1:6), it says that [Kohanim] enter between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach without washing the hands and feet, and Chachamim forbid! (According to Chachamim, in order to wash, he must enter there before he washed!)

Answer: Perhaps [the one who does not hold that the entire Mizbe'ach was in the north] holds like R. Meir (the first Tana in the Tosefta), who permits entering.