Question (Ri of Orlins): [The Tana] should have taught us first that a Lechi or Korah is Machshir a Mavuy, and [then] if he put it above 20, he lowers it!

Answer (Ri of Orlins): The Tana prefers to begin in this expression, just like at the beginning of the [first] Mishnah of Sukah.

Support: Therefore, the Gemara properly asked why Sukah is different, that it taught "Pasul" (and did not teach the Tikun, i.e. how to fix the Pesul).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It is appropriate to teach an expression of Pasul, since this measure was given from the days of Moshe, even though for Torah laws it is also appropriate to teach the Tikun.

Question: The words "alternatively, also for Torah laws [the Tana] teaches the Tikun" is improper according to his Perush, for also according to the first version he could teach the Tikun for Torah laws! [The first version] said only that one could teach "Pasul"!

Explanation #2: Sukah is mid'Oraisa, so he taught "Pasul", for "he diminishes" connotes a mere stringency. People could come to err and say that it is only l'Chatchilah, but b'Di'eved it is fine;

However, Mavuy is mid'Rabanan; we need not be concerned [for such a mistake].

Implied question: It says in Shabbos (22a) that if one placed Ner Chanukah above 20 Amos, it is Pasul, like Sukah and Mavuy, even though Ner Chanukah is mid'Rabanan!

Answer #1: It says "Pasul" due to Sukah, which is mentioned after it.

Answer #2: There we could not teach "he lowers", for this would connote that while it is burning he lowers it, and this is not true;

Even according to the opinion that the Mitzvah is placing [Ner Chanukah], he must extinguish it and relight it [within 20], lest an onlooker say "he lit it for his needs", like we say there about one who lit inside and placed it outside.

Implied question: This is not a verse anywhere!

Answer (Ri): We find that it says "Ulam ha'Bayis", and another verse says "Pesach ha'Bayis", so it is as if Pesach Ulam ha'Bayis was written explicitly in one verse;

Rabanan say "if it wrote Pesach Ulam, we would agree like you said", i.e. [even] if Ulam ha'Bayis was not written anywhere (Maharsha).

Consequence: [Because Mishkan is called Mikdash, building] it does not override Shabbos, and one may not enter there with dust on his feet.

Inference: We learn Mishkan and Mikdash from each other.

Support: In Chulin (24a), regarding that blemishes disqualify Kohanim, and [50] years disqualify Leviyim, it says "perhaps this is even in Shilo and the Beis ha'Mikdash"!

Question: In Shevuos (16b), we require two verses! It says "it should write both times [Es] Mikdash [Hash-m Timei, or both times Es Mishkan Hash-m Timei]", and similarly in Sotah (16a) and Yoma (44a) and in several places!

Answer (R. Nesan'el): Here we do not need a verse, for the primary Drashah is only for the Mikdash, for there were no doors in the Mishkan;

In Chulin (we wanted to learn from the Mishkan to the Mikdash), for if there were no verse, it is logical that they would be Pasul even in Shilo, since it does not depend on the Kedushah of the Mishkan.

Question: We already know [that it is Pasul] because they were slaughtered before the morning Tamid, and we say "ha'Olah" - the first Olah, for also the morning Tamid requires the doors of the Heichal to be open!

Source (Pesachim 58b - Mishnah): They did not slaughter the [morning] Tamid until they heard the sound of the gate (the doors of the Heichal) that was opened.

Answer #1: The verse "ha'Olah" refers only to Haktarah (burning on the Mizbe'ach), but not to Shechitah (the Tamid must be burned first, but other Korbanos may be slaughtered first).

Answer #2: It is a Mitzvah [l'Chatchilah to slaughter the morning Tamid first], but it is not Me'akev, like it says explicitly in Menachos (49a).

Implied question: A Tosefta teaches that all Korbanos that preceded the morning Tamid or were after the afternoon Tamid are Pesulim!

Answer: That is mid'Rabanan.

Answer #3: Here we need [the verse] to teach about if the gate was opened and later locked.

Explanation #1: He asks about the width, like Rashi explained. He could not ask about the height, since we find that [the openings of] the Heichal and Azarah were called "Pesach", and they were 20 Amos tall.

Support: If he asked about the height, the answer that Pesach Sha'ar ha'Chatzer is called Pesach is not an answer at all. All the more so [this is difficult], for we do not find anything called [Stam] Pesach more than five [Amos tall], for Sha'ar is greater than Pesach!

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rather, he asks about the width. We should learn from Sha'ar ha'Chatzer, which is 20 wide, like we bring from verses.

Implied question: (There was not an opening of 20.) There were three pillars standing in the width of the opening, like is proven from verses!

Answer: In any case, the air on this side and on this side is Mevatel (each pillar), like it says below (10b).

Explanation #1 (cont.): [The Gemara] answers that it is called Sha'ar, but it is not called Stam Pesach.

Implied question: In Parshas Bamidbar (3:26), we find that it is called also Pesach Stam!

Answer: We are not concerned for this, since in other places it is called Pesach Sha'ar.

Support: We find like this in Menachos (37a). It says "we find that the right [hand] is called Yad - "Ki Yashis Aviv Yad Yemino";

[It says that] the other [Tana] holds that the right [hand] is called 'Yad Yemin', but not Stam "Yad", even though it says "va'Yismoch Yad Aviv."

Note: We explain like Maharshal, that the following Dibur is really part of this Dibur. In it, Ritzva explains unlike Rashi.

Explanation #1 (cont.): It was 15 Amos tall, but there is no explicit Shi'ur for the width. It is possible that the opening was 10 wide, or less.

The text says afterwards "from the [top] edge of the Mizbe'ach and above." This is like R. Yosi in Zevachim (59b) who says that the Mizbe'ach is 10 Amos tall, i.e. twice its length, and the curtains around are 15 [Amos tall], lest the Kohen stand with Avodah in his hand and everyone will see him.

Implied question: It is written that the curtains were five Amos tall!

Answer: That is from the [top] edge of the Mizbe'ach and above."

Implied question: It is written about the Mizbe'ach "its height is three Amos"!

Answer: That is from the Sovev (a walkway for Kohanim six Amos above the ground, where the Mizbe'ach recesses an Amah in every direction) and above (excluding the Keranos, which were each a cubic Amah on the top corners)."

Explanation #1 (cont.): R. Yehudah argues there [and says] that the Mizbe'ach was three Amos tall, [simply] like it is written, and the curtains were five Amos tall.

Observation: The latter answer here is not according to R. Yehudah, rather, according to Rabanan, for according to R. Yehudah, the Torah wrote that the curtains are 15 Amos [regarding the width, but] not regarding the height.

Question: What was the question [that both Tana'im should learn from Pesach ha'Chatzer]? Pesach ha'Chatzer was different, for it had Tzuras ha'Pesach! The poles from which the curtains hung were on pegs on the pillars!

Answer #1: It says below (11a) that Tzuras ha'Pesach from the side has no effect. (The poles were not over the opening, rather, to the side.)

Answer #2: This is not difficult at all. We discuss according to Rav, and Rav taught [at the end of this Daf] that one must diminish [the opening] even if it has Tzuras ha'Pesach.

Support: This is why when we ask below "does R. Yehudah learn from Pesach ha'Ulam?! A Mishnah teaches..., and R. Yehudah does not argue", we did not answer that the Ulam was different, for it had Tzuras ha'Pesach. [We did not answer this] for we discuss according to Rav [who says that Tzuras ha'Pesach does not permit a larger opening].

Question: The verses prove that [15 Amos] is written about the width [of the curtains]!

Explanation #2 (Ritzva): It connotes to [the Tartzan] that [the Mishnah says] "what is wider than 10 Amos must be diminished" is even if the height [of the walls to the side] is only five. We should learn from Pesach ha'Chatzer, that even 20 wide is a Pesach!

The Makshan did not hold that it is called Pesach Sha'ar [and not Stam Pesach], because it is so low. Also, in Parshas Bamidbar (3:26), it is called Pesach Stam!

Support: This is fine according to the text in all Seforim "just like there it is five tall and 20 wide."

Explanation #2 (cont.): [The Tartzan] answers that even so, it is called Pesach Sha'ar [and not Stam Pesach], since it is so wide.

Implied question: In Parshas Bamidbar, it is called Pesach Stam!

Answer: We are not concerned for this [since in other places it is called Pesach Sha'ar], like I explained above (towards the end of DH Bein).

Explanation #2 (cont.): Or, we can say that "the curtains were 15 Amos" refers to the height. I.e. the verse in Vayakhel (38:14), you are forced to say that it refers also to the height, for it says "Kela'im Chamesh Esre Amah El ha'Kasef", and [the next verse] says "vela'Kasef ha'Shenis mi'Zeh umi'Zeh l'Sha'ar he'Chatzer [Kela'im Chamesh Esre Amah]";

If the first verse were not written regular the height, [the next verse] would not need to write "mi'Zeh umi'Zeh l'Sha'ar he'Chatzer", since it already specified the [width] of one side! Rather, surely the first verse discusses the height.

Implied question: The first verse says "Amudeihem Sheloshah." This implies that it discusses the width! (Because they were 15 wide, three pillars were needed.)

Answer: It refers to the next verse (which teaches that the width was 15).

Proof: The Makshan brought the verse from Parshas Terumah (27:14) "va'Chamesh Esre Amah Kela'im", and the Tartzan brought the verse from Vayakhel "Kela'im Chamesh Esre Amah El ha'Kasef";

Also Rav Ashi, who arranged the Gemara, brought above [in the question] "vela'Kasef ha'Shenis mi'Zeh umi'Zeh" from Vayakhel, and did not bring the verse from Terumah, which is near the verse that [the Makshan] brought initially, i.e. "vela'Kasef ha'Shenis Chamesh Esre Amah Kela'im";

[Rav Ashi] brought [the verse from Vayakhel] because he answers through it (from this verse, it is proven that the previous verse discusses the height).

Conclusion: Now, surely because they were so tall, obviously it is called Sha'ar. Initially [the Makshan] asked only because he held that it is not called Sha'ar due to a height of five.

Inference: Really, he learns from Pesach Ulam, and he is Machshir up to a width of 20.

Question: Below (10a), it says that R. Yehudah is Machshir only up to 13 and a third! (Tosfos ha'Rosh concludes that the inference is not true. The Ritva says that the inference is true; Abaye disagrees with what it says below.)

Implied question: If he permits 50, he need not teach that he permits 40!

Answer: We can say that he permits 40 and 50 [and even more], like people say, like it connotes in Shabbos (126b).

Implied question: Also the Ohel Mo'ed (Mishkan), which had an opening 10 wide, did not have doors, and even so, it is called Pesach!

Answer #1: This is because it was only 10 tall.

Answer #2: You are forced to say that it is not proper that Ohel Mo'ed is called Pesach, for it is totally breached. There were not even partial walls on the sides.

Implied question: Why didn't we ask that doors should not help?

Answer: It is obvious that since it has doors, and they are locked, this is a full Mechitzah.

Implied question: Why didn't we ask that we should require Tzuras ha'Pesach?

Answer: [Since there were doors,] the Tzuras ha'Pesach was merely for beauty.

Distinction: However, this was a proper question, that Tzuras ha'Pesach should not help, for if it is called Pesach even when it is very big, through Tzuras ha'Pesach, they should have made [the Heichal] like the Ulam!

Implied question: Also the Beraisa learns from the Heichal!

Answer #1: We can say that [the Beraisa] argues with our Mishnah.

Answer #2: [The Beraisa] mentioned the Heichal for a mere Siman (it does not really learn from it), like we say below (3a).