1) MAY “KORBANOS” BE OFFERED ON THE FLOOR? (Cont.)

(a) Question: How can R. Yosi say that the Mizbe’ach was 10 Amos tall – it says “V’Shalosh Amos Komaso”!
(b) Answer: (Excluding the Keranos) it was three Amos above the Sovev.
(c) R. Yehudah says that the Gezerah Shavah (“Ravu’a- Ravu’a”) only teaches about the length and width, not the height.
(d) Question: R. Yehudah said that surely the Mizbe’ach was three Amos and not 10, for then people would be able to see the Avodah from the outside – he himself holds that the curtains around Chatzer ha’Mishkan were only five Amos, people could see the Kohanim on top of the Mizbe’ach (an average man is three Amos tall at the shoulder)!
(e) Answer: Indeed, people could see the Kohanim, but not the Avodah (e.g. the blood or Eimurim in his hands).
(f) Question: According to R. Yehudah, we understand why it says that Shlomo “Kidesh” (i.e. the floor, so Korbanos could be burned on it);
1. According to R. Yosi why does it say “Kidesh”
(g) Answer: He was Mekadesh the floor to which the Mizbe’ach would be attached.
(h) Question: According to R. Yosi, we understand why it says that Moshe’s Mizbe’ach was “Katan” (too small for all the Korbanos);
1. According to R. Yehudah why is it called “Katan” – also Shlomo’s Mizbe’ach was not big enough!
(i) Answer: It means, the Mizbe’ach Shlomo made in place of Moshe’s was (also) too small.
(j) Question: What is the source of their argument?
(k) Answer: R. Yosi holds that we learn about a vessel (Mizbe’ach ha’Nechoshes) from a vessel (Mizbe’ach ha’Zahav), not from something attached (Shlomo’s Mizbe’ach);
1. R. Yehudah holds that we learn about something outside (the Heichal, i.e. Mizbe’ach ha’Nechoshes) from something outside (Mizbe’ach ha’Zahav), not from something in the Heichal (Shlomo’s Mizbe’ach).
(l) (Rava): R. Yehudah agrees that blood must be offered on the Mizbe’ach, not on the floor.
1. (Beraisa – R. Yehudah): They would gather a bucket from the blood on the floor from all the Korbanos (Pesach) and throw it on the Mizbe’ach, to Machshir a Korban (in case its blood spilled).
2. If the floor was valid for blood, the Korban is Kosher, there is no need to throw the blood on the Mizbe’ach!
(m) Rejection: Perhaps the blood must be put (on the Mizbe’ach or floor) through a human action (not if it spilled accidentally).
(n) Question: If so, we could collect and spill the blood right there, there would be no need to put it on the Mizbe’ach!
(o) Answer: Perhaps we put it on the Mizbe’ach, to do the Mitzvah in the best way.
2) WE CANNOT EAT “KODSHIM” WITHOUT A “MIZBE’ACH”
(a) (R. Elazar): If the Mizbe’ach became dented, we cannot (rely on it to) eat the remains of Menachos – “V’Ichluha Matzos Etzel ha’Mizbe’ach”;
1. Question: They need not be eaten at the Mizbe’ach (the entire Azarah is Kosher)!
2. Answer: Rather, this teaches that they must be eaten when the Mizbe’ach is intact, not when it is deficient.
(b) Question: This teaches about the remains of Menachos – what is the source for other Kodshei Kodoshim?
(c) Answer: We learn from a Gezerah Shavah “Kodesh-Kodoshim”.
(d) Question: What is the source for Kodshim Kalim?
(e) Answer (Abaye): We expound like R. Yosi.
1. (Beraisa – R. Yosi citing R. Yishmael) Suggestion: Perhaps nowadays (after the Churban) we may bring Ma’aser Sheni to Yerushalayim and eat it there!
60b—————————————60b

i. Question: A Mah Matzinu refutes this! Bechor and Ma’aser both must be brought to Yerushalayim – just as Bechor may be eaten only when the Mikdash stands, also Ma’aser.
ii. Answer: We cannot learn from Bechor, its blood and Chelev must be put on the Mizbe’ach.
iii. Question: Bikurim shows that this is not the reason, no part of them goes on the Mizbe’ach, they may be eaten only when the Mikdash stands!
iv. Answer: We cannot learn from Bikurim, they must be placed on the ground in front of the Mizbe’ach.
2. Rejection: “Va’Haveisem Shamah…(Masroseichem…u’Vchoros…)” – the verse equates Ma’aser and Bechor – just as Bechor may be eaten only when the Mikdash stands, also Ma’aser.
3. Question: Why couldn’t we learn from the Tzad ha’Shavah of Bechor and Bikurim?
4. Answer: We cannot learn from them, for both of them are put (at least partially) on or in front of the Mizbe’ach, this does not apply to Ma’aser.
(f) Question: How does the Tana hold (concerning the Kedushah of Yerushalayim)?
1. If he holds that the Kedushah is permanent (i.e. even after the Churban), also Bechor is permitted today (for also the Kedushah of the Mikdash is permanent; we could build the Mizbe’ach in its place and offer Korbanos)!
2. Version #1 (Rashi): If he holds that the Kedushah was not permanent (it is Batul after the Churban), he should be equally unsure about Bechor!
3. Version #2 (Tosfos): If he holds that the Kedushah was not permanent, this also applies to Ma’aser! (It is forbidden even in Yerushalayim; alternate texts – it is permitted outside of Yerushalayim.) (End of Version #2)
(g) Answer (Ravina): He holds that the Kedushah was (our text, Rashi – not) permanent; the case is, the Bechor’s blood was thrown before the Churban, and the meat is intact after the Churban;
1. The meat is equated to the blood – just as the blood requires a Mizbe’ach (to be offered), also the meat (cannot be eaten without a Mizbe’ach);
2. We learn Ma’aser from Bechor.
(h) Question: Something learned from a Hekesh cannot teach another law through a Hekesh!
(i) Answer #1: That only applies to Kodshim – Ma’aser of produce is Chulin.
(j) Question: This is according to the opinion that it depends on whether or not the matter being learned is Kodshim or Chulin;
1. According to the opinion that it depends on the source from which we learn, how can we answer?
(k) Answer: Blood and meat are like one (it is as if meat was learned directly, without a Hekesh).
(l) R. Yirmeyah: Chachamim of Bavel (i.e. Abaye) err greatly!
1. (Beraisa #1): (In the Midbar,) when Benei Yisrael moved to a new encampment, Kodshim became Pesulim, Zavim were expelled from the boundaries of Shevet Levi, and Metzora’im were expelled from Machane Yisrael. (The latter law shows that the Kedushah of the Machanos remains – presumably, Kodshim become Pesulim because Kedushas ha’Mizbe’ach lapses when it is being moved.)
2. Contradiction (Beraisa #2): Kodshim may be eaten in two places (encampments).
3. Suggestion: Kodshei Kodoshim become Pesulim, Kodshim Kalim do not even when Kedushas Mizbe’ach lapses)!