Question #2: It is more difficult in Eruvin (2b). It asks both according to Rabanan and R. Yehudah, they should learn from Pesach Sha'ar ha'Chatzer;

Rashi explained two versions there. He explained in the second version that it asks that a width of 20 should be considered a Pesach (opening), and answers that it is called Pesach Sha'ar ha'Chatzer, but it is not called Pesach Stam;

Alternatively, 15 is written regarding the height. [We ask that] it is written that the height is five, [and answer that five] is from the top of the Mizbe'ach and above. Rashi explained there that this is like R. Yosi in our Sugya.

Question #1: This is astounding! We cannot say that 15 Amos is written regarding the height, rather, the width, like I explained!

Question #2: If we ask from the width there, it should have said "but the Mishnah teaches that [if the opening of the Mavuy is] wider than 10 Amos, he must diminish it. We should learn from Pesach Sha'ar ha'Chatzer", for until now we discussed the height!

Question #3: According to R. Yehudah, why did [the Makshan] need to ask from Pesach ha'Chatzer? He should have asked from Pesach ha'Ulam, which was the topic (we said that he learns from it that the height of the Korah may exceed 20 Amos)!

Question #4: What was the question from Pesach ha'Chatzer? A Mishnah teaches that if [the opening] has Tzuras ha'Pesach, one need not diminish it [even if it is more than 10], and Pesach ha'Chatzer had Tzuras ha'Pesach, for there are pillars on both sides and beams on top of them from which the curtains hang!

Answer #1 (to Question #4): However, this is not difficult, for we discuss according to Rav, and he taught in our Mishnah that one must diminish [the width] even if it has Tzuras ha'Pesach, like it says there (3b).

Support: For this reason, when it asks afterwards [there] "does R. Yehudah learn from Pesach ha'Ulam? A Mishnah teaches...", it does not answer that Pesach ha'Ulam is different, for it had Tzuras ha'Pesach. Since we discuss according to Rav, we did not answer so.

Answer #2: Sha'ar ha'Chatzer did not have Tzuras ha'Pesach, for the beams were on clasps fixed in the pillars from the outside, and we say there (11a) that Tzuras ha'Pesach made from the side does nothing.

Explanation #2 (Tosfos' Rebbi): [The Makshan] asks from the height there. It should not be considered an opening more than five Amos. Presumably, we should rather learn from Pesach ha'Chatzer than from Pesach ha'Heichal;

Source: You are forced to say that Pesach Ohel Mo'ed is not properly called Pesach. It is a Chidush, for it did not have walls to the side. It was totally breached in front of it;

Therefore, Pesach ha'Heichal, which was in place of [Pesach Ohel Mo'ed], perhaps [also] it is not properly called Pesach.

Explanation #2 (cont.): After this, the text says "alternatively, the Kela'im, 15 Amos was their height. It is written (about Masach Sha'ar ha'Chatzer - Shmos 38:18) "v'Komah b'Rochav Chamesh Amos" (it was five Amos) above the top of the Kela'im. That answer is like R. Yosi here (who says that the Mizbe'ach was 10 tall).

Assertion: The text does not say "15 Amos was the height", and also it does not say 'El ha'Katef", for it does not refer to 15 written in the verse. That is established only regarding the width;

Rather, it is a Perush. I.e. the Kela'im were 15 tall lest people see the Avodah in [the Kohen's] hand. This is like R. Yosi, who says that the Mizbe'ach was 10 Amos tall.

Explanation #2 (cont.): It is written about the Kela'im (Shmos 28:17) "v'Komah Chamesh Amos" surely is from the top of the Mizbe'ach and above. The verse "v'Komah b'Rochav Chamesh Amos" is brought to prove that the height of an opening was 20 is written about Masach at the end of Vayakhel (38:18);

[The Gemara] explains that it discusses from the top of the Kela'im and above. The Kela'im were high around the Chatzer in the north, south and west, and also in the east;

Just like the Kela'im were 15 wide to the right hand of the opening [of Ohel Mo'ed], and similarly to the left of the opening, so they were 15 Amos tall;

Regarding Masach ha'Pesach it is written "Esrim Amos Orech v'Komah v'Rochav Chamesh Amos Le'umas Kal'ei he'Chatzer", i.e. the entire 20 Amos width of the Masach was five Amos higher than the rest of the curtains of the Chatzer;

It turns out that the Masach was 20 Amos tall. This is the height of the opening.

Observation: The latter answer is only according to Rabanan. We cannot establish it like R. Yehudah.

Implied question: There, we were answering for Rabanan and for R. Yehudah!

Answer: The first answer applies [even] to R. Yehudah. We answer that [Pesach Sha'ar ha'Chatzer] is not called Stam Pesach.

Support: That answer is unlike R. Yosi here. Rather, it is like R. Yehudah who argues with him. (Likewise, the second answer is not according to everyone.)

Assertion: Here in our Sugya, the text says "just like the Mishkan is 10 Amos, also the Mizbe'ach is 10 Amos. The Kela'im were 15";

The text does not say "and it says", and also the text does not say "El ha'Katef", for we do not bring a verse;

In the Beraisa of Meleches ha'Mishkan, the text does not say at all "Kela'im 15" in R. Yosi's opinion. It is a mere Perush. I.e. the Kela'im were 15 Amos tall, lest the Kohen be seen with Avodah in his hand. Why is it written "five Amos"? This is above the top of the Mizbe'ach.

Explanation #3 (R. Tam, in Sefer ha'Yashar): The question is against Shmuel (who says there that if Shelamim was slaughtered before the gate of the Heichal was opened, it is Pasul). What is his source that "u'Shachto Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" refers to Pesach ha'Heichal?

Rebuttal: One cannot say so at all, like is proven from several verses in Parshas Pekudei and in other places (that Pesach Ohel Mo'ed refers to Pesach ha'Heichal).

Question #1 (against Explanation #2): Rabbeinu said that [the Makshan] asks from the height of five Amos. What was the answer "it is called Pesach Sha'ar. It is not called Stam Pesach"? Since it is called Sha'ar, all the more so it is called Pesach, for Pesach is smaller than a Sha'ar!

Question #2: We should learn from Pesach ha'Azarah, which is called Pesach (in Yechezkel 41), and its height was 20!

Question: In Shabbos (55a), we say "va'Ya'amdu Etzel Mizbach ha'Nechoshes" - was there a copper Mizbe'ach [in the Beis ha'Mikdash?! It answers that] Hash-m told them "start where they sing Shirah in front of Me with copper instruments."

Why doesn't it answer like here (it means Shlomo's stone Mizbe'ach, which was in place of Moshe's copper Mizbe'ach)?

Answer: There, there was no reason to mention the copper Mizbe'ach at all.

Question: What was the Havah Amina? Keren, a ramp, a Yesod, and squareness are Me'akev (62a)!

Question: Why doesn't he learn [from Shirei Menachos] from the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah"?

Question #1: Kodshei Kodoshim themselves we should learn from Ma'aser! (Why did we need a Gezeirah Shavah?)

Suggestion: You cannot learn from Ma'aser, because it requires Viduy and Kesef Tzurah (minted coins to redeem it).

Rejection: Bechor is Yochi'ach (these do not apply to it, and it requires an intact Mizbe'ach).

Question #2: The verse he brings that equates Ma'aser to Bechor, it says also Chatas and Asham! (If so, which Kodshei Kodoshim do we learn from the Gezeirah Shavah? Olah is never eaten!)

Note: Even if "Shirei Menachos" includes Lechem ha'Panim, the Omer and Shtei ha'Lechem, the Gezeirah Shavah is needed for Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, the remains of Log Shemen of Metzora, and Chatas ha'Of (we cannot learn it from "Bekarchem v'Tzonchem", which teaches Chata'os and Ashamos)! This requires investigation.

Citation (Beraisa in Sifri Parshas Re'eh): "[V'Haveisem Shamah...] Bekarchem v'Tzonchem" - these are Chata'os and Ashamos.

Also in the verse "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha", we expound in Makos (17a) "Bekarcha v'Tzonecha" - these are Chata'os and Ashamos.

Explanation: [We ask why] Bechor is more obvious [to the Tana] than Ma'aser;

Possibility #1: He holds that [Kedushas Beis ha'Mikdash] was permanent, like Kedushas Eretz Yisrael, and he asks whether or not this is called "Lifnei Hash-m".

Rejection: [If so], also Bechor should be offered and eaten, for the one who holds that the Kedushah was permanent, he holds that we may offer even without a Beis ha'Mikdash, like it says in Megilah (10a)!

Possibility #2: He holds that Kedushas ha'Bayis was Batel [after the Churban], and he asks about Ma'aser, because it does not need a Bayis. He asks whether it may be eaten in Yerushalayim, for this is called "Lifnei Hash-m", or not.

Rejection: [If so], he should ask also about Bechor when it is like Ma'aser, i.e. in such a case that it does not need a Bayis, for the blood and Eimurim were already offered, and the meat is intact. May it be eaten?

Explanation (cont.): He concludes that [the Tana] holds that the Kedushah was not permanent. Bechor is obvious to him because its meat is equated to its blood. One may eat its meat only at a time proper for Zerikas Dam, but not when [the Bayis] was destroyed. This is Rashi's text and Perush.

Question: If he holds that the Kedushah was not permanent, how do we find Ma'aser Sheni mid'Oraisa, since Kedushas ha'Aretz was Batel?

Answer #1: If he holds that the Kedushah was not permanent, we establish it to discuss Ma'aser that grew while the Mikdash stood, like Rashi explained about Bechor whose blood and Eimurim were already offered, and the Bayis was destroyed and the meat is intact.

Answer #2: Even if he holds that the Kedushah was not permanent, this is only Kedushas ha'Bayis, but Kedushas ha'Aretz was not Batel, and there is an obligation [to separate] Terumos and Ma'aseros;

This is like we find that after Shilo was destroyed, Kedushas ha'Bayis was Batel, but Kedushas ha'Aretz was not Batel.

Question: Since the Kedushah was not permanent, and Bamos were permitted, [Ma'aser] is eaten in all cities of Yisrael, according to texts that say below (112b) when they came to Nov and Giv'on, Bamos were permitted, and Ma'aser was eaten in all cities of Yisrael!

Answer: According to that text we can establish here only regarding Ma'aser that grew while the Mikdash stood, and it needed to be brought to the place [to eat it, i.e. Yerushalayim]. It may not be eaten in all cities of Yisrael.

Question (against Explanation #1): What forced Ravina to say that the Kedushah was not permanent, and he argues with the entire Gemara? We hold that there is no Heter [Bamos] after Yerushalayim, like the Mishnah below (112b)!

He should say that really, he holds that the Kedushah was permanent. If blood of a Bechor was thrown and the Mizbe'ach was dented, its meat may not be eaten while the Mizbe'ach is dented!

Answer: We can say that the wording of the Beraisa was difficult for him. It teaches "just like Bechor is eaten only Bifnei ha'Bayis (while the Mikdash stands)", which connotes that an actual Bayis is required;

Question: If the Kedushah was permanent, why do we need a Bayis? We may offer even without a Bayis! Only a Mizbe'ach is needed, because the meat is equated to the blood.

Answer: However, really he could hold that the Kedushah was permanent. Since the blood was thrown and afterwards [the Bayis] was destroyed, one may not eat its meat, because its meat is equated to the blood. "Bifnei ha'Bayis" is [really] Bifnei Mizbe'ach, and not literally [Bifnei] ha'Bayis.

Question #1: What was the question "he should ask also about Bechor, and not only about Ma'aser"? Just the contrary, since the Kedushah was not permanent, obviously we do not apply "Lifnei Hash-m", for a Mechitzah [around Yerushalayim is needed] to eat mid'Oraisa!

Question #2: Obviously, a Bechor is disqualified due to Yotzei when the Bayis was destroyed and the Mechitzos fell, since the Kedushah was not permanent. Why do we need the Hekesh of meat and blood?

Suggestion: [It is needed for] when the Bayis was destroyed and the Mizbe'ach was destroyed, but the walls of Yerushalayim were intact, and its Kedushah was not Batel regarding Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheni.

Rejection: This is astounding to say so, for Yerushalayim received Kedushah only due to the Bayis. How is it possible that Kedushas ha'Bayis is Batel, and Kedushas Yerushalayim endures?!

Alternative text: Therefore, the text of Seforim [seems correct]. If he holds that the Kedushah was permanent, even Bechor also! If he holds that the Kedushah was not permanent, even Ma'aser also! Ravina said "really, he holds that the Kedushah was permanent..."

He asks as follows. Also Bechor we find without walls of Yerushalayim and without the wall of the Azarah, like Rashi explained, that we may offer even without a Beis ha'Mikdash. I.e. he will build a Mizbe'ach, throw the blood and eat the meat;

However, without a Mizbe'ach it is obvious to him that he cannot offer, like we said above (59a) that Rav agrees about blood even when the Bayis stands, and all the more so nowadays.

And if he holds that Kedushas ha'Bayis was not permanent to build a Mizbe'ach, and all the more so Kedushas Yerushalayim, but Kedushas ha'Aretz lasts to be obligated in Terumah and Ma'aser, e.g. in Nov and Giv'on, even Ma'aser should be obvious, for it has no Heter in Yerushalayim!

And the text does not say below (112b) that Ma'aser Sheni is eaten in all cities of Yisrael;

If the text says so, we must say that we ask as follows. Even Ma'aser Sheni, it should be obvious that one need not bring it up [to Yerushalayim]. Why did you say "one might have thought that one takes it up", which implies that he is unsure whether or not he must bring it up to Yerushalayim?