Question: According to the opinion (above, 58b) that the entire Mizbe'ach was in the south, the copper Mizbe'ach is astounding. According to the opinion that its height was 10 Amos, we find at the most 20 Amos [of ramp] for nine Amos (the top of the Mizbe'ach without the Keranos)!

The Chatzer in front of the Mishkan was 50 Amos. Half the Chatzer was 25 Amos, and five Amos was the place of the Mizbe'ach. [Only] 20 Amos remain until the south wall [of the Chatzer. Even] if the ramp [was 20 Amos and] reached to the wall, we find for each Amah [of ascent] only two Amos, a Tefach and one and a third fingers;

Note: It seems that the Mizbe'ach was five Amos wide without the Sovev and Yesod. The Ma'arachah was one Amah (62a), and in each direction there was one Amah for the Keranos, and one for the walkway of the Kohanim.

[Such a steep ascent] is considered walking with difficulty, like is proven in Shabbos (100a) and Eruvin (58b), that an incline that ascends 10 Tefachim amidst [a horizontal distance of] four Amos [i.e. is considered a wall, and if a mound surrounded by such inclines] is Reshus ha'Yachid! (And that is even less steep - there for each Amah of ascent there are more than two Amos and 2 Tefachim!)

And according to the opinion (R. Yehudah, 59b) that the Mizbe'ach was 10 Amos wide, there remained for the ramp only 15 Amos until the wall (for each Amah of ascent there is only one Amah and four Tefachim)!

Answer: Perhaps R. Yosi, who said above (59b) that the Mizbe'ach was 10 Amos tall and five Amos wide, says according to what he taught elsewhere that the entire Mizbe'ach was in the north, and it was so far in the north that 32 Amos remained for the ramp [in the south].

Question: However, if so, no part of the Mizbe'ach was in front of Pesach ha'Mishkan if the Mizbe'ach was distanced more than 28 Amos [from the south]! Presumably, the Mishkan was like the Beis ha'Mikdash, that coals taken for [Ketores] of Yom Kipur must be Lifnei Hash-m!

Note: Tosfos means that no part of the Ma'arachah was in front. Pesach ha'Mishkan extended from 20 until 30 Amos from the south. If the Mizbe'ach was 28 Amos from the south, and the Keranos and walkway occupied two Amos, the Ma'arachah began after 30 Amos from the south.

Answer (cont.): And according to R. Yehudah who says [that the Mizbe'ach was] 10 wide, we can say that he holds that it was three Amos tall and no more, like a Beraisa says above (59b. If the ramp was as steep as in Bayis Sheni, even if it went to the top of the Keranos, its length would be a third of 32, which is less than 11. Even if the entire Mizbe'ach were in the south, the Ma'arachah could be in front of Pesach ha'Mishkan.)

Version #1: This is Rashi's text. The calculation is correct for nine Amos of Mizbe'ach.

Version #2: The text of Rashi's Rebbeyim (brought in Shitah Mekubetzes) is three and a half Amos and half a Tefach and one and a third fingers in Zachruso (the thick part of the thumb).

Explanation (Rashi): According to this calculation, the end of the ramp was not even with the top of the Mizbe'ach, rather, lower than it a quarter Amah, for according to the calculation of nine Amos of height, the ramp has more than 32 Amos.

Rejection: This is wrong. The height (of the Mizbe'ach above the top of the ramp) was only Mashehu less than a fifth of an Amah.

Question (Rashi): The Torah said "do not ascend on my Mizbe'ach on steps"!

Answer (R. Nasan mi'Dudya): In Menachos (97b) we say that the Amah of Yesod was tall an Amah of five [Tefachim, and not six. Therefore, the top of the Mizbe'ach was a sixth of an Amah less than nine. A sixth is Mashehu less than a fifth.]

Question: According to Rashi, it turns out that the top of the ramp was [nine full Amos of six Tefachim, i.e.] higher than the top of the Mizbe'ach!

Answer: We need not be concerned if according to Rashi the Amos of the ramp are according to the Amos of the Mizbe'ach. (Just like one Amah of the height was of five Tefachim, so were three (and a half...) Amos of the ramp.)

Implied question: Why can't we say a different reason here - the Tafel should not be greater than the Ikar (what is primary, like we say about Shelamim?! (The Azarah is valid for Shechitas Shelamim because it faces the Heichal. All the more so the Heichal should be Kosher for Shechitah!)

Answer: The Torah made Shelamim dependent on Pesach Ohel Mo'ed. If so, the verse made the opening secondary to the Ohel (Heichal). However, here (for Menachos, the Torah) did not mention the Ohel at all, only the Chatzer. (Vayikra 6:7-9 says that Minchah is brought Lifnei Hash-m... and it is eaten b'Chatzer Ohel Mo'ed.)

Question: Why do we need the reason of spoons [of Ketores, that their removal is like Kemitzah]? Why would we think to disqualify, according to what Rashi explained above (14a), that R. Shimon agrees about [Holachah of] inner Chata'os that it is Avodah that cannot be nullified, for it is improper to slaughter in the Heichal?

Inference: If not for this, he could slaughter in the Heichal, even though Chatas requires the north. (I.e. the Heichal is considered like the north.) If so, Kemitzah should be Kosher!

Answer: One might have thought to disqualify from what we expound "a place where a Zar's feet stand." One might have thought this comes to disqualify the Heichal, for a Zar may not stand there.

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes and others say that the following begins a new Dibur

Citation: One might have thought since Olah... even Minchah requires the north.

Explanation: This is why the verse comes, that from a place where a Zar's legs stand, to be Machshir any place where a may Zar stand, even in the south.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps he expounds the south, because a Zar may not stand in the north!

Rejection #1: Above (20a) it adds even the place where Yisraelim [often] walk (the 11 easternmost Amos of the Azarah), that [the north half of that area] is considered the north.

Rejection #2: Even according to the opinion that [the area considered] the north is far (at least 22 Amos from the east of the Azarah), it is unreasonable that a Zar is forbidden in the north opposite the Mizbe'ach. Rather, it is a mere stringency mid'Rabanan (that a Zar not go there).

Implied suggestion: This is lest he walk more than necessary.

Rejection: If so, also when he is at the southeast corner [he should go back down the way he came]!

Explanation: Rather, the reason here is because going back down the way he came is going to the right.

Question: We should have said that Minchah is called Chatas, but Chatas is not called Minchah, like we said above (7b) that Todah is count Shelamim, but Shelamim is not called Todah!

And in Menachos (80b) it says that bread (Lachmei Todah) is called Todah, but Todah is not called bread!

Answer: Surely, above [Todah and Shelamim] are not called one name regarding Lishmah, and in Menachos (Todah and bread) are not called one name regarding if money [was Hukdash for Todah, and some] was left over (one may not use it for bread);

However, here we expound a Hekesh. Minchah and Chatas are equated to each other. Surely we should properly equate them!

Rejection (Rashi): This text is mistaken. Chatas ha'Of does not require the north, like it says "a bird does not require the north" (above, 48b). [Also] a Minchah does not require the north!

Suggestion: Minchas Chotei is different than other Menachos, and we equate it to Chatas Behemah!

Rejection #1: If so, it should have been taught in our Mishnah (63a) "all Menachos, Kemitzah is done anywhere in the Azarah, except for Minchas Chotei"!

Rejection #2: Chatas ha'Of, which an Oni brings in place of Chatas Behemah, does not require the north, for it is done in the southwest corner. Is it possible that Minchas [Chotei], which is in place of Chatas ha'Of, requires the north?!

Conclusion: Rather, the text says differently. I do not know the correct text.

Explanation #1: It seems that [the text says] just like Chatas is Pasul Lo Lishmah, also Minchah is Pasul Lo Lishmah.

Support: We learn like this in Menachos. Until here is from Rashi.

Question #1: Surely, initially we said in Menachos (4a) "granted, Minchas Chotei is called Chatas. However, Minchas Kena'os (of a Sotah), what is the source?";

However, in the conclusion, we say 'rather, Minchas Chotei and Minchas Kena'os are Pasul Lo Lishmah. What is the source of this? The reason for Chatas [to be Pasul Lo Lishmah] is because it says "Hi". Likewise, it says "Hi" (about these Menachos)!'

Question #2: The text of Seforim is difficult, for above (49b) it is proven that Chatas requires the north, like Olah, due to a Hekesh;

If so, how can we learn Minchah from Chatas? Does something learned from a Hekesh return to teach through a Hekesh (above, 49b)?!

Question #3: Just like Rashi asked that Minchah cannot be more stringent than Chatas ha'Of, which it comes in place of, and [Chatas ha'Of] does not require the north!

Answer (to Question #3): However, in Toras Kohanim we learn that Chatas ha'Of is Pasul Lo Lishmah from a verse, and we do not learn from Minchas Chotei, for which we learn from [Pesul Lo Lishmah] from another verse. (We do not say that no verse is needed for Chatas ha'Of, for Minchas Chotei, which is in place of it, cannot be more stringent than it!)

Rejection: One can reject this. (Mar'eh Kohen - in some cases, an Oni brings Chatas ha'Of, but the Torah did not allow Minchas Chotei for a very poor person. Therefore, we need a verse to teach about Chatas ha'Of in such cases.)

Assertion: The truth is, Minchah does not require the north. Rather, Hagashah is in the southwest corner, like it says below that Kemitzah does not require the north, and even for Minchas Chotei, like is proven in the Tosefta of Menachos (1:2);

Citation (Tosefta): Shechitah is stringent. It requires the north, but Kemitzah does not.

Suggestion: This refers to Minchas Nedavah, but Minchas Chotei requires the north!

Rejection: Even so, Shechitah is not totally more stringent, for also Shechitah does not require the north for Kodshim Kalim!

Disclaimer: We can say that the Klal (general rule, that Shechitah is more stringent) is for Kodshei Kodoshim, like Minchah. This is difficult.

Support (for assertion): Also, the Seifa teaches that Kemitzah is more stringent than Melikah, for Kemitzah is Docheh Shabbos and Tum'ah. [If Kemitzas Minchas Chotei required the north], it should teach that Kemitzah requires the north, but Melikah does not;

Even though there is Kemitzah that does not require the north, e.g. Minchas Nedavah, similarly that does not override Shabbos.

Rejection: We can reject this. Similarly, it does not discuss Minchas Chotei, for it is not Docheh Shabbos! Rather, it discusses Minchas ha'Omer and Minchas Tamid which are of the Tzibur, and surely they do not require the north (there is no source for them to require the north. Zivchei Efrayim asks that Kemitzah does not apply to Minchas [Nesachim of] ha'Tamid!)

Rather, Minchas Chotei requires the north, because it is equated to Chatas Behemah of an Ashir, for which [Minchas Chotei] comes in place of it. This is from R. Baruch

Explanation #2 (R. Chaim): The text says 'just like Chatas ha'Of requires Yesod, for it says "veha'Nish'ar b'Dam Yimatzei El Yesod ha'Mizbe'ach", also Minchah requires Hagashah opposite (by) the Yesod.'

Support: It is proven like this in Menachos (61a) regarding "these require Tenufah - the Log of oil of a Metzora and his Asham";

We say there 'but you said "Lifnei Hash-m" - in the west', i.e. in this Sugya, and answer that this is only for a Minchah, for a Minchah is called Chatas, and Chatas requires Yesod, and the southeast corner did not have a Yesod. However, here we call this "Lifnei Hash-m."

Assertion: You cannot say that it may be anywhere in the south, due to Yesod (the southern side has a Yesod only in the southwest corner), and you cannot say anywhere in the west, because it says "El Pnei ha'Mizbe'ach", which is the south;

In any case, we need "Lifnei Hash-m" lest we say that "El Pnei ha'Mizbe'ach" is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv [to be Machshir the entire southern side], even though [almost all of] it has no Yesod.

Above (58a DH Mashuch) I answered the difficulty that regarding coals of Yom Kipur, only the west is called Lifnei Hash-m. (L'Chatchilah the coals for burning the Ketores inside must be taken opposite Pesach ha'Heichal, but b'Di'eved it is Kosher from this side [of the opening, i.e. north] or from this side (south).)

Question: What is the source for other Menachos?

Suggestion: All Menachos are equated to Chatas and Asham in Parshas Tzav, and we learn from Shirei ha'Dam, which requires the Yesod.

Rejection #1: If so, we should know [also] Minchas Chotei from there! (Why did R. Yehoshua need to expound that Minchas Chotei is called Chatas, and vice-versa?)

Rejection #2: What is the source that we equate [all Menachos] to Shirayim? We should equate them to initial [Matanos of] blood, and not require the Yesod, just like Chatas [does not]!

Answer: It says "Lifnei Hash-m" about Minchas Chotei, and also in all Menachos it says Lifnei Hash-m. Just like this Lifnei Hash-m [of Minchas Chotei] is opposite (over) the Yesod, also this is opposite the Yesod. (Shitah Mekubetzes - Lifnei Hash-m is not written in the Parshah of Minchas Chotei. Rather, it is written regarding Minchas Nedavah, and from a Yitur it is considered as if it was written about Minchas Chotei.)

Remark: It is not a real Gezeirah Shavah, for something learned from a Hekesh, we asked (above, 49b) whether or not it returns to teach through a Gezeirah Shavah [and did not resolve this]. Rather, it is a mere Giluy Milsa.

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes says that the rest of this Tosfos is a comment.

Alternative text: R. Tam's text says "just like Chatas require the right [hand], also Minchah."

Possibility #1: This is unlike R. Shimon, who said above (25a) "[if he wants [to throw the Kometz on the Mizbe'ach with his hand, he must use his right hand]. If he wants [to put it] in a Kli, he may [throw it] with his left hand."

Possibility #2: It is even like R. Shimon, e.g. if he comes [to throw it] with his hand. It teaches that he must use his right hand, like Chatas. Until here is a comment.

Note: Tzon Kodoshim and R. Akiva Eiger ask that above, R. Shimon learns Kemitzah with the right hand from "Yad-Yad"! Matzpas Eisan says that R. Shimon holds that we take Kemitzah from Minchas Chotei of a Kohen, and it needs a different source, since its Shirayim are not eaten. Zivchei Efrayim says that Kemitzah corresponds to Shechitah. Since Shechitah is Kosher with the left hand, the Hekesh to Chatas cannot obligate the right hand for Kemitzah. Yad Binyamin brings from Chazos Kashos that from here, we would learn only if he comes to use his hand. Yad-Yad obligates the right hand even with a Kli.

Question: Why don't we learn Melikah from [Hagashah]?

Answer: Perhaps we learn [from Hagashah] only something (i.e. Haza'ah) that we find that it needs [to be done at] the Mizbe'ach, like [Hagashah of] a Mishnah. (Melikah need not be at the Mizbe'ach.) Also Rashi explained like this below.

Inference: You are forced to say that R. Eliezer expounds "just like Chatas requires the Yesod... [also Minchas Chotei]", for if not, what is his source for the southwest corner?! (Tzon Kodoshim - we find that the east is called Lifnei Hash-m regarding Tenufah.)

Question: If so, why does he need Lifnei Hash-m? He knows the south from El Pnei ha'Mizbe'ach, and he knows the west, for it requires the Yesod! (Above (58a DH Mashuch), Tosfos answered that one would have thought that anywhere on the Amah of the southwest Yesod is fine. Lifnei Hash-m obligates the edge. Here Tosfos asks according to R. Eliezer, who does not require the edge - Yad Binyamin.)