Explanation: Below (17a), we ask that above, in the Mishnah of Tamid, it is clear that it was in the northeast corner, for we list four chambers from Lishkas ha'Telaim in the northwest until Lishkas Lechem ha'Panim;

When you go around to the right [from the outside], it turns out that Lishkas Lechem ha'Panim (the last one) is in the northeast corner!

The Gemara answered this. (The Tana listed them going around to the left.)

Question: We should also ask that above, we say that the other two chambers were of seals and Beis ha'Mokad, and here we say that in one, Beis Chashmonai buried..., and in another, [Kohanim] descend to the Beis ha'Tevilah (where they immerse)!

Answer: There were many chambers and kinds of Kelim that were used for two or three things.

Implied question: Why didn't he answer that the Heichal had a platform below its opening that was half an Amah tall? (If so, the Heichal's opening began 20 full Amos above the floor of the eastern gate, even with the top of the opening of the eastern gate, so it could not be seen through the opening. If so, Rabanan could agree that the eastern gate was low, to enable the Kohen to see the opening of the Heichal.)

Answer #1: He had a tradition that there was no platform.

Answer #2: Even if you will say that there was, if so also the other gates had one. If so, there would still be half an Amah [at the top of the opening of the Heichal] through which the opening [of the Heichal] could be seen.

Explanation: The Mizbe'ach stood in front of the Heichal's opening, and its height blocked [what would have been visible through the opening of the eastern gate].

Similarly, we could have said that it is R. Shimon, who says in Zevachim (53a) that the entire Mizbe'ach in is in the north, and the ramp covers the opening.

Implied question: The ramp slopes down to the south! (Perhaps towards the south of the opening of the Heichal, the ramp was low, and one could into the opening above the ramp, through the opening in the eastern gate.)

Answer: One who is meticulous will understand that before the ramp descends two and a half Amos, its incline is not in line with the opening of the Heichal.

Note: the bottom of the ramp is 13 and a half Amos above the floor of the eastern gate. As long as the ramp is at least six and a half Amos tall, it blocks all 20 Amos of the opening of the eastern gate. The ramp's height is nine (in the middle of the Azarah between north and south), and after a length of 30 Amos [to the south] it reaches the ground. The height decreases two and a half Amos (to six and a half) after the corresponding fraction ((2.5)/9, which is more than a quarter) of its length. This exceeds seven Amos. This is not in front of the Pesach ha'Heichal, which is only 10 Amos wide, for only half of the 10 Amos are in the south.)

If so, we could establish the Mishnah like R. Shimon.

Implied question: [Why didn't the Gemara say that] the Mishnah could be like R. Yosi? In Zevachim, also he holds that the Mizbe'ach was in the middle.

Answer: Since we explicitly heard R. Yehudah [say that it is in the middle, we say that the Mishnah could be like him].

Support: We find like this in Zevachim (58b). Rav Ada bar Ahavah said that the Mishnah is R. Yehudah, who says that the Mizbe'ach is in the middle;

The Gemara asked that we could establish it to be like R. Yosi, and it (the Mizbe'ach) is in the middle!

The Gemara answered "since we explicitly heard R. Yehudah..."

Question: Rashi's Rebbeyim explained "it is R. Yehudah" refers to the Mishnah in Midos; (Note: On 17a (DH Ela), Rashi explains that it refers to the Mishnah in Midos, and then says "I explain differently, that it refers to the Mishnah in Tamid.")

This is difficult, for Rav Ada bar Ahavah himself established the Stam Mishnah of Tamid, which says that "they selected from there fig wood..." like R. Yehudah;

Rav Ada here established the Stam Mishnah of Midos like R. Yehudah. Above, we said that the Stam Mishnayos in Tamid argue with those in Midos. If so, we cannot say that both of them are like R. Yehudah!

Answer: In any case, he has a question from the Stam Mishnayos of Midos themselves, and from the Mizbe'ach! He asked "can you really establish it like R. Yehudah...?!"

Question: A Mishnah (Tamid 30b) says that Beis ha'Mitbechayim was to the north of the Mizbe'ach, and nearby were eight pillars... on which they hang [slaughtered Korbanos] and flay them on marble tables between the pillars;

Our Gemara connotes that there were four Amos between [the pillars and tables]!

Answer #1: Our Gemara discusses different tables. The tables in that Mishnah are between the pillars. They hang the animals from the pillars and flay them, and the animals are on the tables, so they will not drag on the floor;

The tables here are eight marble tables. We say in Tamid (31b) that they used to rinse the innards on them.

Question: In Tamid (31a), a Mishnah says that they rinse the innards bi'Me'utan (on a small table. Alternatively, with a Kli called Me'utan. Some texts say "three times, at least") on marble tables between the pillars. This implies that also these tables were between the pillars!

Answer: Ri bar Baruch's text there says "bi'Me'utah" of tables in Beis ha'Mitbechayim."

Answer #2: Even though they were four Amos away, they are called between the pillars;

Even though they were four Amos away, the animal did not drag on the ground, for the animal is big, and reaches to the tables;

This is like it says in Bereishis Rabah (65) that when they carried the lambs on camels, the [feet of] the lambs dragged on the floor. I found this in R. Baruch's Tosfos on Tamid.

Rashi's opinion: Rashi says that above the recession of the Sovev (a walkway around the Mizbe'ach six Amos above the ground) [and Yesod], a width of two Amos of Pesach ha'Heichal was exposed for a height of half an Amah. (This is why the Mishnah cannot be R. Yehudah.)

Implied question: Why didn't Rashi explain that right above the recession of the Yesod, [the width of] an Amah of Pesach ha'Heichal was exposed [for a height of five and a half Amos]?