1) TOSFOS DH Klei Achsalgos
úåñôåú ã"ä ëìé àëñìâåñ
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is the name of a place.)
ùí î÷åí ãáôø÷ ãí çèàú (æáçéí ãó öã.) îééúé ìä âáé òåøåú
(a) Explanation: This is the name of a place, for in Zevachim (94a) it is brought regarding hides.
2) TOSFOS DH She'ani Shulchan d'Rachmana Karyei Etz
úåñôåú ã"ä ùàðé ùåìçï ãøçîðà ÷øééä òõ
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the argument about whether or not the Mizbechos are Tahor.)
úéîä ãáñåó çåîø á÷åãù (çâéâä ãó ëå:) úðï ëì äëìéí ùäéå áî÷ãù èòåðéï èáéìä çåõ îîæáç äæäá åäîæáç äðçåùú îôðé ùäï ë÷ø÷ò ãáøé øáé
(a) Question #1: In Chagigah (26b), a Mishnah teaches that all Kelim that were in the Mikdash need to be immersed, except for the gold Mizbe'ach and the copper Mizbe'ach, because they are like land. R. Eliezer says so;
àìéòæø åçëîéí àåîøéí îôðé ùäï îöåôéï åîôøù áâîøà åçëîéí îèîàéï îôðé ùäï îöåôéï
1. Chachamim say "because they are plated." And the Gemara explains that Chachamim are Metamei because they are plated.
åäùúà îä áëê äà øçîðà ÷øééä ðîé ìîæáç òõ ãëúéá (åäîæáç) [ðøàä ùö"ì äîæáç] òõ ùìù àîåú
2. Summation of question: Why does it matter [that it is plated]? The Torah called also the Mizbe'ach "Etz", for it says "veha'Mizbe'ach Etz Shalosh Amos"!
åòåã ÷ùä ãäëà îùîò ãöéôåé ìà áèì âáé ùåìçï åãåìá÷é äéëà ãìà ùééø ëìåí
(b) Question #2: Here it connotes that the plating is not Batel to a table or Dulbaki (small table) when he did not leave over anything (unplated);
åìàéãê ìéùðà ÷àîø äúí ãçëîéí ìãáøé øáé àìéòæø ÷àîøé ìéä îàé ãòúéê ãîèäøú ìäå îèòí ÷ø÷ò åìà îèòí òõ îùåí ãîöåôéï îáèì áèéì öéôåééï âáééäå åéù ìê ìèäø îèòí òõ
1. And according to the other version there, that Chachamim addressed R. Eliezer according to his opinion "why are you Metaher because it is land, and not due to wood (it is a Pashut Kli Etz? Is it) because it is plated? The plating is Batel to them! [Rather,] you should be Metaher because it is a Kli Etz!
åé''ì ãäà ãëúéá äîæáç òõ ìàå àîæáç ÷àé àìà ëãîúøâí éåðúï ôúåøà ãì÷áì îãáçà
(c) Answer (to Question #1): "Ha'Mizbe'ach Etz" does not refer to the Mizbe'ach, rather, like Targum Yonason says, it is the Shulchan that is facing the Mizbe'ach.
åàéãê ìéùðà ñáø ãàôéìå ìà ÷àé [ö"ì àìà - öàï ÷ãùéí] àùåìçï î''î îãàô÷éä ìùåìçï áìùåï îæáç ùîò îéðä ãîæáç ðîé áèì öéôåéå ëöéôåé äùåìçï
(d) Answer #1 (to Question #2): The other version holds that even if it refers only to the Shulchan, in any case since it called the Shulchan "Mizbe'ach", this teaches that also the Mizbe'ach, its plating is Batel, just like the plating of the Shulchan is Batel.
àé ðîé äééðå èòîà ãáèì öéôåé âáééäå ëãîôøù äúí èòîà ãîúðéúéï ãìà áòé èáéìä îæáç äðçùú ãëúéá îæáç àãîä
(e) Answer #2 (to Question #2): Alternatively, the reason why the plating is Batel to them is like it explains there the reason for the Mishnah why the copper Mizbe'ach does not need Tevilah, because it is written "Mizbe'ach Adamah." (Yashar v'Tov - it is called by the name of the inside, and not of the plating);
îæáç äæäá ãëúéá äîðåøä åäîæáçåú îãàéú÷éù îæáçåú æå ìæå
1. Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav [is Tahor] because it is written "ha'Menorah veha'Mizbechos" - the Mizbechos are equated to each other.
3) TOSFOS DH ha'Mizbe'ach Etz Shalosh Amos
úåñôåú ã"ä äîæáç òõ ùìù àîåú
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that it was not three Amos.)
àéï ùéòåø æä ìà ìîæáç åìà ìùåìçï
(a) Implied question: This is not the Shi'ur of the Mizbe'ach, and not of the Shulchan! (The previous Tosfos brought from Targum Yonason that this verse refers to the Shulchan.)
åùîà æä äéä âåáäï ùì ñðéôéï
(b) Answer: Perhaps this was the height of the Snifim (above the Shulchan).
4) TOSFOS DH Shulchano Mechaper Alav
úåñôåú ã"ä ùìçðå îëôø òìéå
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that it atones through hospitality done on it.)
ãâãåìä ìâéîà (ñðäãøéï ãó ëâ:)
(a) Explanation: This is because giving food [to guests] is a great [Mitzvah].
5) TOSFOS DH l'Archo Shel Shulchan (pertains to Mishnah, 96a)
úåñôåú ã"ä ìàåøëå ùì ùåìçï (ùééê ìîùðä áãó öå.)
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he left them on the floor.)
òì äøöôä äéä (îðéçå) [ðøàä ùö"ì îðéçï] ìàåøê äùåìçï ãòì äùåìçï ìà äéä î÷åí ôðåé (ìîãåã) [ö"ì ìîãú - úåñôåú é"è, øù"ù] ä÷ðéí ìàåøëï
(a) Explanation: He leaves [the poles] on the floor, to the length of the Shulchan, for there was no empty place on the Shulchan for the size of the poles along their length.
6) TOSFOS DH Kashosav Elu Snifim
úåñôåú ã"ä ÷ùåúéå àìå ñðéôéï
(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks how R. Yosi expounds this.)
ìø' éåñé ÷ùä îä éãøåù ëãôøéùéú ìòéì (ãó öå: åùí ã''ä ìà)
(a) Question: According to R. Yosi it is difficult what he expounds [from this], like I explained above (96b DH Lo).
7) TOSFOS DH Lo Sidur ha'Kanim v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä ìà ñéãåø ä÷ðéí ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is a Shevus forbidden in the Mikdash.)
åàó òì âá ãàéï ùáåú áî÷ãù
(a) Implied question: There is no Shevus in the Mikdash (needs of the Avodah override Isurim mid'Rabanan)!
äàé èìèåì ìàå îùåí ùáåú äåà àìà îùåí ãîéçæé ëáåðä åñåúø ëê ôéøù á÷åðèøñ
(b) Answer #1: This Tiltul (moving the poles) is not [forbidden] due to Shevus. Rather, it is because it looks like building and destroying. So Rashi explained. (Rashash - it is a more stringent Shevus, and it is forbidden even in the Mikdash.)
åìà îùîò ëï áøéù ëì äëìéí (ùáú ãó ÷ëâ: åùí) ãàîø ÷ðéí ÷åãí äúøú ëìéí ðùðå îùîò ãìéëà àìà àéñåø [ö"ì èìèåì - éùø åèåá] áòìîà
(c) Objection: It connotes unlike this in Shabbos (123b). It says that Kanim (the Isur to arrange them on Shabbos) was taught before Kelim were permitted. (In the days of Nechemyah, Chachamim forbade moving almost all Kelim. Later, they permitted most.) This implies that it is a mere Isur of Tiltul!
åàùëçï ðîé ùáåú ãàñøå áî÷ãù ëâåï öéø äòìéåï ùîà éú÷ò (ðâø) [ö"ì åðâø - ãôåñ åéðéöéä] äîåðç áô' áúøà ãòéøåáéï (ãó ÷á. åùí)
(d) Answer #2: We find Shevus that they forbade in the Mikdash, e.g. upper hinge-pin [of a door, or a window of a Kli - if it came out, one may not return it on Shabbos, lest he bang it in], and a bolt resting [on the ground. One may not lock with it.]
8) TOSFOS DH Tanan Hasam R. Meir Omer v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä úðï äúí ø' îàéø àåîø ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos tells where this Mishnah is.)
îùðä äéà áîñëú ëìéí ôø÷ ëì [ëìé] áòìé áúéí
(a) Reference: This is a Mishnah in Kelim (17:10).
9) TOSFOS DH b'Amos Amah Amah v'Tofach
úåñôåú ã"ä áàîåú àîä àîä åèåôç
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Amos of the Mizbe'ach will be smaller.)
ôéøåù îãú äîæáç éäéä áàåúï àîåú ùàîä áéðåðéú úçæé÷ îäï àîä åèôç:
(a) Explanation: The measure of the Mizbe'ach will be in those Amos, that an average Amah will be one Amah of them and a Tefach.
97b----------------------------------------97b
10) TOSFOS DH u'Gvulah El Sefasah Saviv Zeres ha'Echad
úåñôåú ã"ä åâáåìä àì ùôúä ñáéá æøú äàçã
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how based on this, the Keren is an Amah.)
æøú çöé äàîä åëùúîãåã îàîöò ä÷øï æøú ñáéá òã äùôä àéùúëç ãäåé àîä
(a) Explanation: Zeres is half an Amah. When you measure from the middle of the corner around [in each direction] it turns out that it is an Amah.
11) TOSFOS DH v'Tanan Chut Shel Sikra v'Chulei
úåñôåú ã"ä åúðï çåè ùì ñé÷øà ëå'
(SUMMARY: Tosfos tells where this Mishnah is.)
îùðä äéà áîñëú îãåú (ô''â î''à)
(a) Reference: This is a Mishnah in Midos (3:1).
12) TOSFOS DH El Cheik ha'Amah b'Govhah
úåñôåú ã"ä àì çé÷ äàîä áâåáää
(SUMMARY: Tosfos relates this to the calculation of the ramp.)
îëàï éù ì÷ééí âéøñú äñôøéí áæáçéí ô' ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí (ãó ñâ. åùí ã''ä çåõ) ãàîøéðï äúí ëì ëáùéí ùäéå áî÷ãù ùìù àîåú ìàîä çåõ îëáùå ùì îæáç ùäéä ùìù åîçöä åçöé èôç åàöáò åùìéù àöáò áæëøåú'
(a) Observation: Based on this we can sustain the text in Seforim in Zevachim (63a). We say there "all ramps in the Mikdash were three Amos [long] for each Amah [of elevation], except for the ramp of the Mizbe'ach, which [for each Amah of elevation, its length was] three and a half [Amos] and half a Tefach and one and a third fingers in Zachruso (the thick part of the thumb).
åîç÷ ùí á÷åðèøñ çöé èôç ãàæ äçùáåï îëååï ìè' àîåú ùì îæáç åìãáøé øáåúéå ùâåøñéï çöé èôç ôé' á÷åðèøñ ùí ãìàåúå çùáåï ìà äéä øàù äëáù ùåä ìøàù äîæáç àìà ðîåê îîðå øáéò àîä
1. There, Rashi deleted "half a Tefach", for then the calculation is correct for nine Amos of the Mizbe'ach (its height, without the Keranos). According to his Rebbeyim, whose text says half a Tefach, according to the calculation, the end of the ramp was not even with the top of the Mizbe'ach, rather, it was lower than it a quarter Amah.
åìà ã÷ á÷åðèøñ ãàéðå ðîåê àìà çåîù àîä çñø îùäå
2. Rejection: Rashi was not precise. [The top of the ramp] was below [the top of the Mizbe'ach] only a fifth of an Amah, less Mashehu.
åä÷ùä á÷åðèøñ ùäøé àîøä úåøä ìà úòìä áîòìåú òì îæáçé
(b) Question (Rashi there): The Torah said "do not ascend on my Mizbe'ach on steps"!
åúéøõ øáé ðúï [îãåãà] ãàîä ùì éñåã áàîä áú ä' ëãàñé÷ðà äëà
(c) Answer (R. Nasan mi'Duda): The Amah of Yesod was an Amah of five [Tefachim], like we conclude here.
åìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ÷ùä ãðîöà øàù äëáù âáåä îøàùå ùì îæáç
(d) 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!
åîéäå àéï ìçåù áæä
(e) Answer #1: We need not be concerned for this [excess of a Tefach].
àé ðîé ìâéøñú ä÷åðèøñ àîåú ùì ëáù ìôé äàîåú ùì îæáç
(f) Answer #2: According to Rashi's text, 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.)
åëâéøñúå âøéñ øáéðå çððàì áòéøåáéï áô' çìåï (ãó òå.):
(g) Support (for Rashi's text): R. Chananel's text in Eruvin (76a) is like Rashi's.