As I understood it, the five-Tefach Amah was used according to Rebbi Meir for sections or objects that measured an actual Amah (i.e., a single, exact Amah). It was not used as a measuring standard, but rather it was used to define an "Amah".

Objects that were longer or broader than an Amah did not have to be defined as "an Amah-long object." Rather, they had to be measured. If a more extensive Amah was used to do the measuring, the measuring was still being done in Amah-measures. But if an object had to be an Amah wide or long - the Amah was not a measure, but a definition of the size of the object, and so it had to be an "exact" Amah-of-the-Mikdash (which, even according to Rebbi Meir, was 5 Tefachim).

This explains very neatly why the objects that were specified in the Pasuk were measured in a 5-Amah measure according to Rebbi Meir:

1. The Yesod - was exactly an Amah tall.

2. The Sovev - was exactly an Amah wide

3. The Keranos - were exactly 1x1x1 Amah

4. The Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav - was exactly 1x1 Amah wide

No other objects measured exactly an Amah.

Best regards,

Mordecai Kornfeld

Kollel Iyun Hadaf

According to Rebbi Meir, the "real" Amah that was used for measuring in the Mikdash was a 5-Tefach length. But in the Mikdash, we find that things were made "big." For that reason, whenever possible an inflated Amah of 6-Tefachim was used. (The verse does not call it an Amah, but rather "an-Amah-with-a-Tefach.") Objects that measured exactly an Amah could not be inflated, as mentioned earlier.

If you prefer, do not give them the same name. Instead of calling each of them "Amos," call one an Amah, and the other a 6-Tefach measure (or an inflated Amah) - as the Navi does.

Be well,

Mordecai Kornfeld

Kollel Iyun Hadaf

I am going to attempt to give some new input here. Apologies if I start again from the beginning.

1) One should realize that the Mizbe'ach was made up of several different parts. So even if we consider the Mizbe'ach as one Keli, if we bear in mind that it was built of different components it is easier to understand how different sizes of Amah were used for different parts of the Mizbe'ach.

2) We should also note that the Amah measurements for the Mizbe'ach are derived from a verse in Yechezkel, so this can be considered as a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, which does not have to conform with standard rules of building. However, having said that, I will try and show the logic behind the way these measurements work.

3) The verse is in Yechezkel 43:13. It states, "And these are the measurements of the Mizbe'ach in Amos: Amah, and Amah, and Tefach." The verse proceeds to describe the different parts of the Mizbe'ach.

4) The Vilna Gaon, cited in Eliyahu Rabah on the Mishnayos, Kelim 17:10, gives an interesting interpretation of this verse. The first part, "And these are the mesurements of the Mizbe'ach in Amos," is hinting that the measurements are in Amos, in the plural. In other words, there are two kinds of Amos. One of these measurements is "Amah" and the other is "Amah and Tefach." The Vilna Gaon explains that "Amah" refers to an Amah of 5 Tefachim. "Amah and Tefach" therefore is 5 + 1 = 6, i.e. an Amah of 6 Tefachim. This is how the two kinds of Amah are hinted at in Yechezkel.

5) The Rambam you are looking for is in Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 2:6. He writes that some of the ten Amos which comprised the height of the Mizbe'ach were Amos of 5 Tefachim, and some of the Amos were comprised of 6 Tefachim. The total height of the Mizbe'ach was 58 Tefachim. The Kesef Mishneh explains that since the height was 10 Amos, and since all the Amos used were comprised of 6 Tefachim with the exception of the Yesod and the Keranos (i.e. the base, and the square "horns" at the top of the Mizbe'ach), it follows that the total height was (6 X 10) - 2 = 58 (since both the Yesod and the Keranos were only 1 Amah high).

6) We can now understand better how different kinds of Amah were used for the same Keli, because an Amah of 5 Tefachim was used for two parts of the Mizbe'ach and an Amah of 6 Tefachim was used for all the other parts.

I hope to write more about this topic, b'Ezer Hashem, but I will close here for the moment.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

1) According to Rabbi Meir, the Gemara (Menachot top 97b) derives from a verse that some parts of the Mizbayach were constructed from an amah of 5 tefachim and some from an amah of 6 tefachim. This is a Gezerat Hakatuv for which we do not necessarily know the reason. However it should be pointed out that the mizbayach

was composed of several different parts (the base, the block ascending up till the middle of the mizbayach, the sovev in the middle of the mizbayach which

surrounded the mizbayach, the block above the sovev and the horns at the top of the mizbayach) so one could possibly consider each part of the mizbayach as a keli in its own right. If one looks at it this way one can say that different kinds of amah were not actually used for exactly the same keli.

2) It should also be noted that according to the opinion of R. Yehudah in Mishnayot Keilim 17:10, the amah used for the building parts of the Beit Hamikdash was of 6 tefachim, whilst the amah used for keilim was 5 tefachim. According to R. Yehudah one does not have an example of one keli for which different kinds of amah are applicable because according to R. Yehudah the amah used for keilim are always of 5 tefachim.

KOL TUV

D Bloom