Implied question: The Mizbe'ach that Moshe made was a Kli, like it says "we learn a Kli from a Kli, and we do not learn from a Kli from Binyan"!

Answer: That refers to other Kelim. "Tzafonah" refers to the Mizbe'ach.

Implied question: In the north there were pillars, planks (on the pillars, from which hooks hung) and tables!

Answer: Presumably, the Torah said that it should be totally empty due to [enabling] Shechitah, and those are needs of Shechitah.

Explanation: [It must be empty] even from the Mizbe'ach.

Question: We must be meticulous in the Mishnah in Midos (3:6), lest it be difficult for R. Eliezer ben Yakov. Here he holds that the entire Mizbe'ach was in the south, and in Yoma (16a) we establish the Mishnah in Midos like R. Eliezer ben Yakov!

Implied question: Above (58a) we expounded [that you may slaughter] literally on it!

Answer: Here we infer because v'Zavachta Alav connotes that it is a Mitzvah to slaughter on it!

Support: Similarly below (60a) regarding "v'Ichluha Matzvos Etzel ha'Mizbe'ach" connotes that it is a Mitzvah [to eat at the Mizbe'ach! Rather, [this teaches that they must be eaten] when [the Mizbe'ach] is intact, but not when it is deficient.

Explanation: [We ask that this cannot be, for before the Mizbe'ach was built] they are Dichuy Me'ikara! Rather, it is before the Mizbe'ach was dented, and then it was dented. You needed to fix [the text of the Beraisa. Rav can correct it to say '... before the Mizbe'ach was dented'!]

Question #1: If so, it connotes that the first question was that they are Dichuy Me'ikara, and even according to R. Yochanan. What is the reason? R. Yochanan holds regarding an animal of two partners (Kidushin 7a) that Dichuy Me'ikara is Dichuy!

Question #2: He should ask from the Mishnah in Pesachim (97b) of one who separates a female for his Pesach. It says that Dichuy Me'ikara is Dichuy!

Answer: There, it is not b'Yado to fix, so it is considered Dichuy, like I explained above (12b);

However, here it is b'Yado to fix it. Therefore, it connotes to [the Makshan] that all agree that it is not Dichuy, just like Mechusar Zman of the Korban (it is not old enough to offer it) or the owner, e.g. a Yoledes or Metzora who separated his or her Korban before the time [to offer it];

Similarly, one who separates his Korban to offer it when the Beis ha'Mikdash will be built, this is like Mechusar Zman, and it is not considered Nidcheh.

Support: This is proven below (114a), that obligatory Korbanos that one was Makdish in Gilgal, regarding Shilo they were Mechusar Zman, and they were offered in Shilo. We do not say that they are Nidchim.

Question: Above (12a, R. Avahu) challenged Ben Beseira. How is Pesach [Kosher]? If he separated (was Makdish it) in the morning [of Erev Pesach], it is Dichuy Me'ikara, for it is not proper for Shelamim, since it is proper for Pesach at midday;

Why is this [a problem]? Since he can delay it until midday, why is it not Kosher, just like one who was Makdish a [mother] after Shechitah of its son [that day]. It is proper [to offer] tomorrow!

[This is also like] one who was Makdish Chovos [when the Mishkan was] in Gilgal. They are Kosher in Shilo! This is from R. Baruch.

Question #1: Still, since it is like Mechusar Zman when there is no Mizbe'ach, that we ask that this is Dichuy Me'ikara, why did R. Yochanan say below (107b) that one who offers nowadays is liable, for the first Kedushah was forever?

It is not proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, and a Mishnah below (112b) teaches that Oso v'Es Beno and Mechusar Zman, there is not even a Lav [for offering them] outside according to Rabanan. If so, according to R. Yochanan, why is one liable for them for Shechutei Chutz?

Strengthening of question #1: We say more than this in Yoma (63a), that Shelamim slaughtered outside before the doors [of the Heichal] were opened, he is exempt, for it was not proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, for an action was lacking (opening the door), and all the more so this (the Mizbe'ach needed to be fixed)!

Question #2: We said in Avodah Zarah (13b) that if one was Makdish, Macharim or Ma'arich nowadays, regarding an animal Te'aker, i.e. he locks the door in front of it and it dies by itself, like it says there;

Explanation #1: It asks "we should slaughter them!" Rashi explained that he is not liable for Shechutei Chutz, for we discuss Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, and one is not liable for them for Shechutei Chutz, like is proven below (113b) and in Yoma (63b).

Objection: If they are Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, what was the question "we should cut it into two halves!" and [Rava] answered that it looks like blemishing Kodshim?

Suggestion: There is an Isur to blemish a Tam animal even if it is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, like it says that one who is Makdish a Tam for Bedek ha'Bayis, it never leaves the Mizbe'ach (we sell it to one who will offer it).

Rejection: That is mid'Rabanan. It is a fine, like is proven in Menachos (101a). It says that because Tam animals are not common, they enacted that it be for the Mizbe'ach.

Explanation #2: Rather, it discusses [there] Kodshei Mizbe'ach. He is not liable for Shechutei Chutz because it is not proper for Pesach Ohel Mo'ed, or due to Dichuy, or due to Mechusar Zman.

Poor answer (to Question #2): The Sugya in Avodah Zarah is like the opinion that Bamos were permitted.

Rejection: The Stam Mishnah below (112b) says that there was no Heter [Bamos] after [the Mikdash was built in] Yerushalayim;

And in Megilah (10a) from this Mishnah [the Gemara] challenges R. Yitzchak, who said "I heard that we may offer in Beis Chonyo"! (We do not answer that he holds like the opinion that Bamos were permitted.)

Answer #1 (to both questions): R. Yochanan, who obligates below one who offers outside, discusses Ha'alah of Ketores, which is not Mechusar Ma'aseh, like it says in our Sugya "if the Mizbe'ach was dislocated, we may burn Ketores in its place."

Or, [R. Yochanan] discusses Ha'alah of a Minchah that had Kemitzah in a Kli Shares inside, for we may offer, even though [now] there is no Beis [ha'Mikdash]. Only Zevachim require a Mizbe'ach, like it is written v'Zavachta Alav.

Support: Now it is fine that R. Yochanan mentioned offering nowadays, and did not mention Shechitah nowadays.

Suggestion: Perhaps R. Yochanan [holds] like R. Yehudah, who permits Haktarah on the floor of the Azarah!

Rejection: It is unreasonable that R. Yehudah would permit when the Mizbe'ach is blemished. Rather, [he permits] only when the Mizbe'ach is Kosher.

Answer #2: Below, R. Yochanan discusses when the Mizbe'ach was built in its place, and he offered outside, since [the place] received permanent Kedushah.

Defense (of Rashi's Perush in Avodah Zarah): The Gemara in Avodah Zarah we can resolve according to Rashi. It asks about Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, that we should slaughter them or cut them in half, and answers that it looks like making a Mum. It is forbidden due to a decree, due to Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

Support: Also Rabbeinu ha'Kadosh explained that mid'Rabanan one may not make a Mum in them. This is a decree due to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, like it says in Chulin (135a) that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are forbidden to shear or work with them, due to Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

Question: Why do we exempt Shelamim slaughtered outside before the doors of the Heichal were opened (above, 55b)? Inside, in such a case Im Alah Lo Yered;

[This is difficult] according to what Rashi explained below (61a) regarding before Leviyim erected the Mishkan and after they dissembled the Mishkan, that only Shelamim requires that the doors be open, but other Kodshim do not...

Since other Kodshim are Kosher, if so also Shelamim, Im Alah Lo Yered, and one is liable outside, just like [a Korban] after Linah or Yotzei, or it was slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo. One is liable for it outside, since it is accepted (Im Alah Lo Yered) inside (below, 109a)!

Answer: There we discuss offering. Since the Shechitah was done inside properly, he is liable for Ha'alah, since it is accepted inside;

However, here that the Shechitah was not proper, no (he is exempt outside);

And even if you will say that Pesach and Chatas slaughtered outside Lo Lishmah, one is liable for them, [that is because] the animal is proper inside l'Chatchilah (i.e. it could have been slaughtered Lishmah);

However, these Kodshim are not proper inside l'Chatchilah.

Source: A Mishnah in Bechoros (41a) teaches an old animal among Mumim.

Implied question: It says in Bamidbar Rabah "you are all alive today" - this is a Kal v'Chomer from the bulls that the Nesi'im donated to carry the wagons. They lived until Shlomo offered them to Hash-m (almost 500 years later)!

Answer: That was a Hora'as Sha'ah (to permit offering old animals).

Question: What is [the Makshan's] source that [he offered them on] the copper Mizbe'ach? There were three Mizbechos, like it says below (61b). Perhaps [the Mizbe'ach] of Nov and of Giv'on was big!

Answer: He relies on the verse that writes explicitly about the copper Mizbe'ach that Betzalel made.

Question: Since there is a Hekesh, why do we need the Gezeirah Shavah "Ravu'a[- Ravu'a]"? (Tzon Kodoshim - we need the Hekesh to teach about the curtains around it, and the Gezeirah Shavah to teach about the height. Even though a Hekesh totally equates the matters, since the Torah said that the Mizbe'ach is three Amos tall, we would not expound otherwise if not for the Gezeirah Shavah - PF.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He holds that [15 Amos] is the height, and the same applies to the entire Chatzer.

Question #1 (R. Tam): How can he say that it refers to the height? It is explicitly proven from the verse that it discusses the width!

First it discusses the width of the eastern side 50 Amos, and afterwards it explains 15 Amos of Kela'im on the shoulder at the gate, and the second shoulder 15 Amos of Kela'im, and afterwards for the gate of the Chatzer a curtain 20 Amos [wide].