QUESTIONS: The Gemara addresses a contradiction between the Mishnah in Tamid (3:3) and the Mishnah in Midos (1:6). The Mishnah in Tamid says that the Lishkas ha'Tela'im was on the northwest side of the Beis ha'Moked, while the Mishnah in Midos says that it was on the southwest side. Rav Huna suggests that the Tana of the Mishnah in Midos is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, because he is the Tana of another Mishnah in Midos (2:5).

The Gemara cites additional support for Rav Huna's assertion that the Tana of the Mishnah in Midos is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov. It demonstrates that another Mishnah in Midos (2:4) is also based on his opinion. The Mishnah there says that the eastern gate to Har ha'Bayis was lower than the other walls, because the Kohen who stood on Har ha'Mishchah and burned the Parah Adumah there was required to have a view of the entranceway to the Heichal. If the wall on top of the eastern gate was as high as all of the others, the Kohen would not have been able to see the entranceway to the Heichal from his vantage point, because the ascents on Har ha'Bayis would have blocked the view through the eastern gate to the Heichal. The wall above the eastern gate was made lower than the other walls in order to enable the Kohen to see, above the gate (and not through its opening), the entranceway to the Heichal from where he stood.

The Mishnah's statement that it was not possible to see the Heichal's entranceway through the eastern gate is true only according to the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, who maintains (Midos 2:6) that there was an additional ascent in the Azarah which added an extra Amah to the height of the floor of the Azarah, and which thereby caused the wall to block the view of the Heichal via the eastern gate.

Rav Ada bar Ahavah attempts to refute the proof from there that the other Mishnayos in Midos express the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov. He offers an alternate explanation for why the Kohen could not see the entranceway to the Heichal from Har ha'Mishchah, even though there was no extra Amah of height to block his view. He suggests that the Mishnah in Midos (2:4) is in accordance with Rebbi Yehudah, who says that the Mizbe'ach stood in the center of the Azarah and thereby blocked the Kohen's view of the Heichal's entrance when he stood on Har ha'Mishchah and peered through the eastern gate.

The Gemara replies that this is not a valid explanation, because the Mishnah in Midos (5:1) implies that the Mizbe'ach was not in the middle of the Azarah, but it was to the south. Consequently, the Gemara's proof (that all the Mishnayos in Midos must be according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov since Midos 2:4 follows his view) remains valid.

RASHI (DH Ruba d'Mizbe'ach) explains that when the Gemara refutes Rav Ada bar Ahavah's assertion that the Tana of the Mishnah in Midos (2:4) could be Rebbi Yehudah, it not only refutes the suggestion that the Mizbe'ach was centered in the middle of the Azarah, but it also proves that the Mizbe'ach was so far to the southern side of the Azarah that it did not block the Kohen's [partial] view of the Heichal's entranceway when he peered from Har ha'Mishchah. Accordingly, there must have been some other object or ascent that blocked his view, but that is true only according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov. In other words, the Gemara proves not only that the Tana of the Mishnah in Midos (2:4) cannot be Rebbi Yehudah, but it is also proves that it cannot be any Tana other than Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov.

Rashi elaborates as follows:

Rashi first points out that when the Mishnah in Midos (5:1) accounts for what occupied the 135 Amos of the Azarah's width (see Chart), it leaves 25 Amos unaccounted for. Some of this 25-Amah width comprised the area of the Shulchanos and the Nanasim. The remaining Amos comprised the area between the southern wall of the Azarah and the ramp of the Mizbe'ach. Rashi asserts that since the Mishnah does not specify how many Amos were in each of those areas, we must assume that they were split evenly. However, 4 Amos must first be subtracted for the area of the Shulchanos (4 Amos is the minimum possible space that they occupied; see Rashash), which leaves 21 Amos to divide evenly between the Nanasim and the area south of the ramp. 10.5 Amos were between the southern wall and the ramp, and 10.5 comprised the area of the Shulchanos and Nanasim. Accordingly, the northern side of the Mizbe'ach reached 5 Amos past the center point of the Azarah's width. Therefore, the Kohen on Har ha'Mishchah was able to see a part of the Heichal's entranceway behind the Mizbe'ach by peering towards the northern side of the Mizbe'ach where the Mizbe'ach was recessed inwards two Amos, above the recession of the Yesod and the Sovev.

Rashi then questions this explanation. If the Mishnah in Midos does not specify how much space the Shulchanos occupied, then why should we assume that they occupied 4 Amos? Perhaps the Shulchanos were included in the space of the Nanasim and used up no additional space from the width of the Azarah! Accordingly, the unaccounted-for 25 Amos may be divided evenly, such that 12.5 (instead of 10.5) comprised the area between the southern wall and the ramp, and 12.5 comprised the area of the Nanasim. The northern side of the Mizbe'ach extended 7 Amos past the center point of the Azarah's width, such that the Mizbe'ach completely covered the entranceway to the Heichal (which extended only 5 Amos past the center point), even with the 2-Amah recession above the midpoint of the Mizbe'ach due to the Yesod and the Sovev. Thus, the Mishnah in Midos (2:4) does not need to follow the view of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, because even without an additional Amah-high ascent in the Azarah, the Heichal's entranceway was blocked from the Kohen's view by the Mizbe'ach.

Finally, Rashi records the explanation of Rabeinu Yitzchak ben Yehudah ("Moreh Tzedek"; the word "Mori" in our edition of Rashi should be corrected to "Moreh"). He explains that since the Mishnah does not specify what occupied the remaining 25 Amos of the Azarah's width, we may assume that 12 (instead of 12.5) were between the southern wall and the ramp, and 13 (instead of 12.5) comprised the area of the Nanasim. Consequently, although the Mizbe'ach blocked almost all of the Kohen's view of the Heichal's entranceway, it left a small space of half an Amah in width through which the Kohen could see the Heichal's entranceway. It must be that the Tana of the Mishnah in Midos (2:4) indeed is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov (and the reason why the Kohen could not see the Heichal's entranceway from Har ha'Mishchah through the opening of the eastern gate was because of the additional one-Amah height of the floor of the Azarah).

There are a number of problems with Rashi's explanation.

(a) According to both Rashi and the Moreh Tzedek, when a given amount of space needs to be distributed to two places with no defined area (in this case, to the south of the ramp and to the area of the Nanasim), we divide that amount evenly. How, then, do they understand the very next line of the Gemara, "Shema Minah Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov Hi"? Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov says (in Zevachim 59a and Yoma 37a) that the Mizbe'ach was only in the southern part of the Azarah (that is, the northern side of the Mizbe'ach reached the center point of the Azarah but not beyond), and thus a full 5 Amos of space remained through which the Kohen could see the entranceway to the Heichal. However, the only way that the Mizbe'ach could have been completely in the south is if the 25 Amos are divided unevenly (Rashi 17a, DH Ela Lav)! Why does Rashi assume that the 25 Amos must be divided evenly, if that assumption means that the Mishnah cannot be according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov?

(b) Rashi comments that he is not satisfied with the first explanation because perhaps the space of the Shulchanos is included with that of the Nanasim. However, Rashi also rejects the Moreh Tzedek's explanation because it requires an uneven split of the extra Amos. Rashi concludes, "The best explanation, therefore, is the one that I explained [above]." To which explanation does he refer? He obviously does not refer to either of the two explanations that he rejected. The only other explanation that he mentioned (12.5 Amos of space to the south of the ramp of the Mizbe'ach), however, fails to accomplish the Gemara's objective. It does not prove that the Tana of the Mishnah in Midos is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, because according to that explanation the Mizbe'ach indeed blocked the Heichal's entranceway. To which explanation does Rashi refer when he says "the one that I explained"?

(c) Rashi later (17a, DH Ela Lav) writes that the Mizbe'ach reached 7 Amos to the north of the center of the Azarah's width. However, this is consistent with neither his own explanation here (that the Mizbe'ach reach only 5 Amos north of center) nor with that of the Moreh Tzedek (the Mizbe'ach reached 6.5 Amos north of center). The other explanation (12.5 Amos of space to the south of the ramp of the Mizbe'ach) indeed places the northern edge of the Mizbe'ach 7 Amos north of the center of the Azarah, but it does not accomplish the Gemara's objective of proving that the Mishnah in Midos is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov. Why, then, does Rashi later write that the Mizbe'ach reached 7 Amos to the north of the center of the Azarah? (MAHARSHA)

(a) The explanations that Rashi presents here understand that the Gemara does not attempt to prove that the Mishnah in Midos (5:1), which describes the layout of the Azarah, was taught by Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov. Rather, the Gemara merely disproves that the Mishnah there expresses Rebbi Yehudah's opinion about the position of the Mizbe'ach. Another Mishnah in Midos (2:4), which discusses the additional Amah ascent in the Azarah, does follow another opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov's, and it is to that Mishnah which the Gemara refers when it says that the Tana of the Mishnah is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov. With regard to the position of the Mizbe'ach, however, the Mishnah in Midos follows a third opinion, neither that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov nor that of Rebbi Yehudah. This third opinion places the northern edge of the Mizbe'ach 5 or 6.5 Amos north of the center of the Azarah. The Gemara's goal is merely to prove that the Mizbe'ach did not block the Heichal's entranceway. This answers the first question.

(b) Rashi himself prefers neither of the two explanations which he questions. Rather, he prefers the middle explanation, even though that explanation does not prove that the Mizbe'ach did not block the Heichal's entranceway.

Why does Rashi prefer that explanation, if it does not explain how the Kohen would have been able to view the Heichal's entranceway through the eastern gate? According to that explanation, the Mizbe'ach indeed blocked the Kohen's view of the Heichal's entranceway and thus he could not have seen it from Har ha'Mishchah! Rashi answers this question later (beginning of 17a) when he explains that the Tana of the Mishnah certainly cannot be Rebbi Yehudah, because Rebbi Yehudah maintains that the Mizbe'ach was in the center of the Azarah, and thus only 3.5 Amos would be left for the area of the Shulchanos and Nanasim, but they certainly occupied more space than that. Why, then, does the Gemara conclude that the Tana of the Mishnah is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov (who maintains that the Mizbe'ach was entirely in the south) and not a third Tana?

Rashi seems to understand the Gemara like TOSFOS (DH Ruba), who says that the Gemara accepts the possibility of only two opinions: the Mizbe'ach was either exactly in the center, or it was completely in the south. There is no opinion that says that the Mizbe'ach was between those two locations.

(c) This also answers the third question. Why does Rashi (17a) say that the Mizbe'ach was 7 Amos to the north of center? Rashi, who rejects the first explanation and that of the Moreh Tzedek, also retracts his assertion that the 25 extra Amos must be divided evenly. Therefore, the Tana of the Mishnah indeed is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, as explained above. However, Rashi notes that had we upheld the assertion that the extra Amos must be divided evenly, there would have been 12.5 Amos between the southern wall and the ramp, and the position of the Mizbe'ach would have been shifted to 7 Amos north of center.