1) THE “SHULCHAN” IS NOT “MEKABEL TUM’AH” ON ACCOUNT OF THE GOLD

(a) Answer #2: Perhaps the Shulchan is not Batul to its covering, for it is made of cedar wood, which is important!
(b) Partial Rejection: Granted, this answers for Reish Lakish, who says that only vessels of cheap wood are Batul to their covering, but vessels of expensive wood are not Batul;
1. It does not answer for R. Yochanan, who says that even vessels of expensive wood are Batul!
(c) Answer #3: The Shulchan is an exception, for the Torah calls it a Kli Etz (in spite of its covering):
1. Question: “Ha’Mizbe’ach Etz…Zeh ha’Shulchan Asher Lifnei Hash-m” – first it calls it Mizbe’ach, then it calls it Shulchan!
2. Answer (R. Yochanan and R. Elazar): When the Mikdash stood, the Mizbe’ach is Mechaper for people; today, there is no Mikdash, a man’s table is Mechaper for him (he feeds the poor on it.)
2) ARRANGING THE POLES
(a) (Mishnah): There were four golden Snifin…
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer (Rav Katina): “V’Asisa Ke’arosav v’Chaposav u’Ksosav u’Menakiyosav” – Ka’arosav are the molds, Kaposav are the Bazichin, Kesosav are the Snifin, Menakiyosav are the poles;
1. “Asher Yusach Bahen” – the poles cover the bread.
(d) Question (Rava – Mishnah): Arrangement or removal of the poles is not Docheh Shabbos.
1. If the Torah commands about (arranging the bread on) poles, it should be Docheh Shabbos!
(e) Retraction (Rava): I erred – R. Akiva says (in this very Mishnah), the general rule is, only those things that cannot be done before Shabbos are Docheh Shabbos.
1. Since the poles need not be arranged on Shabbos, this is not Docheh Shabbos.
2. The reason the bread is on poles is so it will not get moldy – the bread can be arranged on Shabbos without poles, it will not get moldy in a half day (the poles can be inserted after Shabbos; likewise, if the poles are removed from the old bread before Shabbos, the bread will not get moldy before it is removed the next day.)
i. (Beraisa): On Erev Shabbos the poles are removed from the breads, they are left along the length of the Shulchan; on Motzei Shabbos, he lifts the ends of each loaf and puts the poles underneath.
3. Each of the four middle loaves requires three poles underneath it, the top loaf needs only two, since nothing is on top of it; the bottom loaf does not need any poles since it rests on the Shulchan.
3) THE “AMOS” OF THE “MIKDASH”
(a) (Mishnah – R. Meir): Wherever the Torah refers to Amos in the Mikdash, they are medium Amos, except for the Amos of the golden (inner) Mizbe’ach, and the corners, Sovev (walkway around the Mizbe’ach) and base of the outer Mizbe’ach;
(b) R. Yehudah says, all Amos of Binyan (things attached to the ground) are six Tefachim, all Amos of Kelim are five Tefachim.
(c) (R. Yochanan): Both of them expound the same verse, “V’Eleh Midos ha’Mizbe’ach…”
(d) (“Amah Amah v’Tofach” refers to a (five Tefachim) Amah that needs an additional Tefach to be a medium Amah, it applies to all of the following:)
97b—————————————97b

1. “V’Chek ha’Amah” – this is the base; “v’Amah Rochav” – this is the Sovev; “u’Gvulah El Sefasah Soviv Zeres ha’Echad” – these are the corners; “v’Zeh Gav ha’Mizbe’ach” – this is the inner Mizbe’ach.
2. R. Meir explains, only these Kelim are made according to a five Tefachim Amah, the Amah of all other Kelim is six Tefachim;
3. R. Yehudah explains, all Kelim are made according to a five Tefachim Amah, like these.
(e) Question: (We are thinking that all Amos from the base until the Sovev are of five Tefachim.) What does it mean “V’Chek ha’Amah v’Amah Rochav”
(f) Answer #1: From Chek ha’Amah (the base) until v’Amah Rochav (the Sovev), the Amos are of five Tefachim.
(g) Question: How tall is the Mizbe’ach?
(h) Answer: It is 10 Amos; six of the Amos (from the base until the Sovev) are of five Tefachim, the other four are of six Tefachim, in all the Mizbe’ach is 54 Tefachim.
(i) Half the height is 27 Tefachim; three Tefachim above this is the Sovev, for it is 24 Tefachim below the top.
(j) (Mishnah): The Chut ha’Sikra girds the Mizbe’ach in the middle, to distinguish between (the place for) upper and lower blood.
(k) Objection (Beraisa): To offer Olas ha’Of, the Kohen ascends the ramp, turns to the Sovev, and comes to the southeast corner;
1. Melikah is done Mul (in line with) the Oref, he fully cuts both Simanim, and presses the bird against the Mizbe’ach to squeeze out the blood;
2. If he squeezed out the blood even an Amah below his legs (which are on the Sovev), it is Kosher.
3. If the Sovev is only three Tefachim above the Chut ha’Sikra, the Beraisa is Machshir two (or three) Tefachim below the Chut ha’Sikra (but Dam Olas ha’Of must be above!)
(l) Answer #2: Rather, (all 10 Amos of the Mizbe’ach’s height are of six Tefachim, the verse refers to five-Tefachim Amos of the Mizbe’ach’s width -) Chek ha’Amah is the base (it juts out one Amah), Amah Rochav is the Sovev, Gevulah El Sefasah Soviv is the corners;
1. The Mizbe’ach is 10 Amos tall, each is six Tefachim. Half the height is 30 Tefachim; six Tefachim above this is the Sovev, for it is 24 Tefachim below the top.
2. (Beraisa): If he squeezed out the blood even an Amah below his legs, it is Kosher.
(m) Objection: We cannot say that all these Amos of the Mizbe’ach’s width are five Tefachim!
1. (Mishnah): The (base of the) Mizbe’ach was 32 Amos by 32 Amos; the base was one Amah tall, the Mizbe’ach was recessed one Amah (in each direction), the Mizbe’ach above the base was 30 Amos square;
2. Question #1: (The outer Mizbe’ach was 32 Amos of six Tefachim, for it is attached.) If the base juts out an Amah of only five Tefachim, the Mizbe’ach above the base was 30 Amos *and two Tefachim* square!
3. (Mishnah): Above the base, the Mizbe’ach rose five Amos until the Sovev, then it recessed one Amah, the Mizbe’ach above the Sovev was 28 Amos square;
4. Question #2: If (also) the Amah of the Sovev is five Tefachim, the Mizbe’ach above the Sovev was 28 Amos *and four Tefachim* square!
5. Suggestion (to answer both questions): Perhaps the Tana omits the extra Tefachim and only teaches the number of full Amos.
6. Rejection: This answer does not help for the next clause!
7. (Mishnah): Each corner was one Amah square, the Mizbe’ach within the corners was 26 Amos square;
8. Question #3: If all these Amos are of five Tefachim, the Mizbe’ach within the corners was 26 Amos and six Tefachim, i.e. 27 Amos square!
9. Answer: The Tana did not bother to give the precise number of Amos.
10. (Mishnah): The walkway on top of the Mizbe’ach (within the corners) was one Amah in each direction, the Ma’arachah was 24 Amos square.
11. Question #4: (Granted, the walkway was an Amah of six Tefachim – still,) the Ma’arachah was only 25 Amos square!
12. Suggestion: Here also, the Tana was not precise.
13. Rejection: We cannot say that the Navi was not precise!
i. Suggestion: “Veha’Ari’el (the Ma’arachah) Shteim Esreh Orech bi’Shteim Esreh Rochav Ravu’a El Arba’as Reva’av” – perhaps it is only 12 Amos square!
ii. Rejection: “El Arba’as Reva’av” teaches that it is 12 in each direction emanating from the center, i.e. 24 Amos square!
14. Suggestion: Perhaps six of the 32 Amos of the Mizbe’ach are of five Tefachim (in all, it is 31 Amos of six Tefachim!)
15. Rejection: If so, the calculation of the length of the Azarah is wrong!
16. (Mishnah): The Azarah was 187 Amos long by 135 Amos wide:
i. Its length, from east to west – 11 Amos where Yisraelim normally walk, 11 Amos where only Kohanim normally walk, 32 Amos for the Mizbe’ach, 22 Amos between the Mizbe’ach and the Ulam, 100 Amos for the Heichal (including the Ulam), 11 Amos in back of the Heichal, 187 Amos in all.