The Third Beit HaMikdash · The Third Beit HaMikdash, Chapter 43
1
"וּמַעֲלֹתֵהוּ פְּנוֹת קָדִים" (יחזקאל מג, יז) פֵּרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י: וְכֶבֶשׁ שֶׁעוֹלִים בּוֹ הָיָה בַּדָּרוֹם, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הָעוֹלֶה בּוֹ פּוֹנֶהאשכן הדין שצריך לפנות למזרח וכו’ לְמִזְרָח. שֶׁכָּל הַפּוֹנוֹתבכ”ה בדפו”ר. ונראה כוונת רבינו, שחז”ל דרשו מפסוק זה, פנות לשון “פונה” (פונות = פניות), שצריך לפנות תמיד דרך ימין. שלכן היה הכבש בדרום שכשעולה בכבש פונה לקדים (למזרח). הָיוּ דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין, וּכְשֶׁאַתָּה נוֹתֵן הַכֶּבֶשׁ בַּדָּרוֹם, הָעוֹלֶה בּוֹ וּפוֹנֶה דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין פּוֹנֶה לַמִּזְרָח, ע"כ. וּדְבָרָיו הַלָּלוּ מְבֹאָרִין (בזבחים) בְּפֶרֶק קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים דַּף ס"ב(:ב).
“[One who ascends] its ramps would turn to the east.”1Yechezkel 43:17. On this verse, Rashi comments: “The ramp via which one would ascend [to the Altar] was in the south, so that one who ascends on it would be facing east. For whenever one would turn, he would turn to the right. When the ramp is placed to the south, one who ascends on it and turns to the right, would thus turn to the east.” His words are reflected by our Sages’ statements in Tractate Zevachim.2Zevachim 62b.
In Tractate Middos, the mishnah states:3Middos 3:3. “The ramp was positioned to the south of the Altar. It was 32 cubits long and 16 cubits wide from east to west.” The ramp was a slanted walkway, and was inclined at an angle. The kohanim used it to ascend to and descend from the Altar. The kohanim could not ascend to the Altar by steps, because of the prohibition,4Shmos 20:23. “Do not ascend My Altar with steps.” The ramp was 32 cubits long from the south to the north, i.e., this was the length of its incline,5I.e., the length of its incline as measured on the ground. The length of the ramp itself (i.e., the hypotenuse of the triangle) was slightly longer, a drop more than 33 cubits. for it extended a cubit over the foundation and a cubit over the sovev.6Zevachim 62b. On the ground, however, the ramp only extended 30 cubits.7I.e., the vertex of its angle was slightly obtuse. Thus, when the length and width of the Courtyard of the Beis HaMikdash is described in Tractate Middos, the mishnah states,8Middos 5:2. “The ramp and the Altar comprised 62 cubits,” i.e., the Altar took up 32, and the ramp took up 30 cubits, as explained.
3
וַאֲוִיר מְלֹא נִימָא בֵּינוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, כִּדְאַמָּרָן בְּפֶרֶק קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים (זבחים סב:). וְאָמְרִינַן נַמִּי הָתָם (סג.), דְּכֶבֶשׁ הַגָּדוֹלגבגמ’ (שם) ארמב”ח כל כבשי כבשים ג’ אמות לאמה חוץ מכבשו של מזבח וכו’, ובפרש”י שם וז”ל: כל כבשים גדולים וקטנים שהיו שם היה להן שיפוע שלש אמות לאמה גובה, חוץ מכבש הגדול של מזבח, שעולין בו במשא איברים כבדים, והוא חלק, היה צריך להיות משופע ביותר, לכך האריכוהו וכו’, עכ”ל. שֶׁל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מַגִּיעַ שִׁפּוּעוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה וְאֶצְבַּע וּשְׁלִישׁ אֶצְבַּע לְאַמָּה. שֶׁהֲרֵי לְט' אַמּוֹת שֶׁל גֹּבַהּ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ עוֹלֶה שִׁפּוּעוֹ ל"ב אַמָּה. צֵא וַחֲשֹׁב ט' פְּעָמִים ג' אַמּוֹת הֵן כ"ז וְט' פְּעָמִים חֲצִי אַמָּה הוּא ד' אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה, הֲרֵי ל"א וּמֶחֱצָה. חָסֵר לְךָ חֲצִי אַמָּה שֶׁהוּא ג' טְפָחִים שֶׁהֵן י"ב אֶצְבָּעוֹת, תֵּן לְט' אַמּוֹת ט' אֶצְבָּעוֹת, נִשְׁאָר לְךָ ג' אֶצְבָּעוֹת, עוֹלִים ט' שְׁלִישֵׁי אֶצְבַּע. הִנֵּה מְבֹאָר שֶׁלְּכָל אַמָּה מִגֹּבַהּ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, מַגִּיעַ שִׁפּוּעַ הַכֶּבֶשׁ ג' אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה וְאֶצְבַּע וּשְׁלִישׁוֹ.
There was a hairsbreadth of space between the ramp and the Altar, as stated in Tractate Zevachim. The Talmud also states9Zevachim 63a. that the gradient of the Altar’s large ramp was 3 ½ cubits and 1 1/3 fingerbreadths for each cubit of height. This figure is derived as follows: The Altar (not counting its horns) was 9 cubits high. The length of the ramp’s incline was 32 cubits. 9 times 3 cubits equals 27 cubits. 9 times half a cubit equals 4 ½ cubits. Adding the 27 cubits and the 4 1/2 cubits produces a sum of 31 ½ cubits, which is still half a cubit short of the length of the ramp. Since these cubits are equal to 6 handbreadths, half a cubit equals 3 handbreadths. Each handbreadth equals 4 fingerbreadths, so 3 handbreadths equal 12 fingerbreadths. Thus for each of the nine cubits of the Altar’s height, there is an additional fingerbreadth and 1/3. Thus the gradient of the Altar was 3 ½ cubits and 1 1/3 fingerbreadths for each cubit of height.
The ramp was built with such a gentle incline to enable the kohanim to ascend while carrying the heavy limbs of the sacrificial animals.10Rashi, Zevachim, loc. cit. A rise of 10 cubits within 4 cubits of length is considered as difficult walking, as Tosafos explains.11Zevachim, loc. cit., based on Shabbos 100a and Eruvin 58b. Hence, the ramp was built in a manner that allowed for a far gentler rise.
5
וְעַל פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה יֵשׁ לָנוּ לְהִתְבּוֹנֵן, אַיֵּה מְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁיִּבָּנֶה בִּמְהֵרָה בְיָמֵינוּ. וְאֵין לָנוּ סָפֵק שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּנֶּה מְקוֹמוֹ בְּהַר הַמּוֹרִיָּה מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁהָיָה לְשֶׁעָבָר לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר. דְּהָא אַמְרִינָן בַּפֶּרֶק הַנִּזְכָּר (זבחים סב.), תַּנָּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: ג' נְבִיאִים עָלוּ עִמָּהֶן מִן הַגּוֹלָה, אֶחָד שֶׁהֵעִיד לָהֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְעַל מְקוֹם הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְכוּ'. שְׁמַע מִנַּהּ, שֶׁהָיוּ צְרִיכִין לְעֵדוּת זוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְשַׁנּוּ אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. וְכָךְ פָּסַק הָרַמְבָּ"ם בְּפֶרֶק שֵׁנִי מֵהִלְכוֹת בֵּית הַבְּחִירָה (ה"א-ד'),דוז”ל: המזבח מקומו מכוון ביותר, ואין משנין אותו ממקומו לעולם, שנאמר (דה”א כב א) וזה מזבח לעולה לישראל. ובמקדש נעקד יצחק אבינו, שנאמר (בראשית כב ב) ולך לך אל ארץ המוריה, ונאמר בדברי הימים (ב ג א) ויחל שלמה לבנות את בית ה’ בירושלים בהר המוריה אשר נראה לדויד אביהו אשר הכין במקום דויד בגרן ארנן היבוסי. ומסורת ביד הכל, שהמקום שבנה בו דוד ושלמה המזבח בגורן ארונה, הוא המקום שבנה בו אברהם המזבח ועקד עליו יצחק (זבחים סב.), והוא המקום שבנה בו נח (פרקי דר”א פל”א) כשיצא מן התיבה , והוא המזבח שהקריבו בו קין והבל (שם כג), ובו הקריב אדם הראשון קרבן כשנברא (ב”ר פל”ד), ומשם נברא, אמרו חכמים (שם פי”ד) אדם ממקום כפרתו נברא. מדות המזבח מכוונות הרבה, וצורתו ידועה איש מאיש (זבחים שם), ומזבח שבנו בני הגולה כעין מזבח שעתיד להבנות עשוהו, ואין להוסיף על מדתו ולא לגרוע ממנה. ושלשה נביאים עלו עמהם מן הגולה (שם), אחד העיד להן על מקום המזבח, ואחד העיד להן על מידותיו, ואחד העיד להן שמקריבין על המזבח הזה כל הקרבנות, אע”פ שאין שם בית, עכ”ל. וְכֵן הוּא בַּסְּמַ"ג (עשה קסג). אָמְנָם נִסְתַּפֵּקהכוונת רבינו, נראה שאע”פ שמקום המזבח מכוון ביותר ולא ישתנה, הרי מדות הבית והחצרות ודאי ישתנו כמפורש בכתוב, וע”כ ביחס למקדש עצמו (מול הפתח ומקומו בתוך החצר וכדו’) יש להסתפק האיך יהיה מקומו, וכמו שמפרש לקמן. בָּזֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהַבִּנְיָן הַמַּקִּיף הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, שֶׁהוּא יִשְׁתַּנֶּה, וְהַמִּזְבֵּחַ עוֹמֵד עַל עָמְדוֹ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹן מוּנָח, שֶׁהֲרֵי עַל כָּרְחִין הֶקֵּף עֲזָרָה דִּלֶעָתִיד לֹא כָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הִיא, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִתְבָּאֵר (עיין סימן ל"ו ול"ז).
Based on the above concepts, it is necessary to contemplate where the Altar will be located in the Future Beis HaMikdash; may it be built speedily, in our days. There is no doubt that its place on Mount Moriah will not change from where it was in the past. As the Talmud states,12Ibid. 62a. “It was taught, ‘Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov relates: Three prophets ascended with [the Jewish people] from the exile: one gave testimony concerning the Altar and its location.’ ” The Sages required this testimony to ensure that the Altar’s location would not be changed. Rambam13Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 2:1-3. and Sefer Mitzvos Gadol14Positive commandment 163. also rule in this manner. The question, however, is whether the design of the structure around the Altar will change, while the Altar will remain in its original location.15In contrast to the Altar and its location, in the Future Beis HaMikdash, there is no requirement that the Holy of Holies be located in the same place as it was in the Second Beis HaMikdash. It is obvious from the narrative in Yechezkel that the dimensions of the Courtyard and the building of the Beis HaMikdash in the Future will differ from their dimensions in the Second Beis HaMikdash. Hence, it is possible that the position of the Altar with regard to the Holy of Holies will also be different. After all, as explained above,16See sections 36-37. the Courtyard in the Future Beis HaMikdash will not resemble the Courtyard in the previous Batei HaMikdash (see secs. 36-37).
6
וְנֹאמַר, דִּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְמֻצָּע וְעוֹמֵד בְּאֶמְצַע הָעֲזָרָה, עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת כְּנֶגֶד פִּתְחוֹ שֶׁל הֵיכַל, י"א אַמָּה לַצָּפוֹן וְי"א אַמָּה לַדָּרוֹם,ורוחב פתחו של היכל עשר אמות, ורוחב המזבח ל”ב אמות. ולדברי ר”י עשר אמות אמצעיות של המזבח ממלאים לנגד כל פתח ההיכל, וי”א אמות ממנו לצפון. וכן לדרום. וְנִמְצָא הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְכֻוָּן כְּנֶגֶד הַהֵיכָל וְכָתְלָיו כִּדְאִיתָא בפ"ק דְּיוֹמָא (טז). לְדִידֵיהּ וַדַּאי לָא קַשְׁיָא מִידִי. דְּהָכִי נַמִּי אִכָּא לְמֵימַר, שֶׁהַהֵיכָל יִבָּנֶה בְּאֹפֶן שֶׁיִּהְיֶה פִּתְחוֹ פָתוּחַ כְּנֶגֶד אֶמְצַע הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּבָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וְיֵשׁ כָּאן מָקוֹם מְרֻוָּח לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְכִבְשׁוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי הַתְחָלָתוֹ י"ו אַמָּה בִּצְפוֹן הָעֲזָרָה, שֶׁהוּא אִם כֵּן מִדְּרוֹם הֶחָצֵר דִּלֶעָתִיד עַד הַתְחָלָתוֹ ס"ו אַמָּה.זחצי שטח רוחב החצר הפנימית לעתיד הוא חמשים אמה, וחצי רוחב המזבח הוא י”ו אמה, הם יחד ס”ו. וְהַמִּזְבֵּחַ עִם כִּבְשׁוֹ אֵינוֹ מַחֲזִיק רַק ס"בחל”ב של מזבח ושלושים של כבש. וכמ”ש רבינו לעיל בסמוך. כְּדִתְנַן בְּסוֹף מִדּוֹת (פ"ה מ"א). הִנֵּה עוֹד ד' אַמּוֹת רֶוַח בֵּין הַכֶּבֶשׁ לְכֹתֶל הָעֲזָרָה בַּדָּרוֹם.
In Tractate Yoma,17Yoma 16a. Rabbi Yehudah states that the Altar was situated in the center of the Courtyard. Ten cubits of the Altar’s space were opposite the 10 cubits of the entrance to the Sanctuary, and there were 11 cubits on the north side of the Altar and 11 cubits on the south side of the Altar.18I.e., the Altar was 32 cubits wide. In relation to the entrance to the Sanctuary, there were 10 cubits opposite the entrance and 11 cubits on either side. Thus the Altar was positioned in front of the Sanctuary and its walls. According to this opinion, it can be postulated that, in the Future, the Sanctuary will be built so that its entrance will be opposite the center of the Altar, as it was in the First Beis HaMikdash. This layout will provide for ample space for the Altar and its ramp. To explain: The Courtyard is 100 cubits from north to south and the Altar is 32 cubits wide. If the Altar is placed in the exact center, it will extend 16 cubits to the north. Thus, there will be 66 cubits19I.e., 50 (half the width of Courtyard) + 16 (half the width of the Altar). from the Altar’s northern side to the Courtyard’s southern wall. As mentioned, the Altar and its ramp will cover only 62 cubits. Thus, there will be an additional 4 cubits between the ramp and the Courtyard’s southern wall.
Similarly, there is no difficulty according to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, who maintains20Zevachim 53a. that the entire Altar was positioned on the northern side of the Sanctuary with exception of its southern foundation. Even according to this opinion, it could still be said that the Altar was positioned “before God,”21Vayikra 4:18, 16:18. i.e., opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary. According to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, the Altar’s ramp was located on the south side, so that the kohanim ascending the Altar could fulfill the charge that one who turns should turn to the east.22Yechezkel 43:17; see sec. 43, above. Since Rabbi Shimon maintains that the entire Altar was positioned in the north, according to his approach there was even more space between the ramp and the southern wall than according to Rabbi Yehudah’s approach.
There is, however, a difficulty according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s approach. In Tractates Zevachim and Yoma,23Zevachim 59a; Yoma 16a, 37a.et al., he maintains that the entire Altar was in the south. As stated in those sources, it is written that the sacrifices of the most sacred order must be slaughtered “in the north, before God.”24Vayikra 1:11. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov understands the verse as intimating that the northern portion of the Courtyard must be empty, containing neither sacred vessels, nor the Altar. Toras Kohanim25Toras Kohanim, sec. 67. explicitly states: “ ‘In the north, before God,’ the northern portion of the Courtyard must be empty,” these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. [According to him,] the Altar was positioned in front of half the entrance to the Sanctuary, in front of one of the doors, and extended to the south.
Thus, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, there is a difficulty, for in the Future Beis HaMikdash, the Courtyard will be a square measuring 100 cubits by 100 cubits. Thus, the entire southern portion will only measure 50 cubits. Now, the Altar and its ramp are 62 cubits long, as stated. Thus, there will be at least 12 cubits in the northern portion of the Courtyard, in addition to some space left between the southern wall and the Altar. After all, it must be possible to walk there without stepping on the ramp. Moreover, the Altar will be positioned in front of the entire entrance to the Sanctuary, since the Altar will extend at least 12 cubits into the northern portion, as stated, and the opening to the Sanctuary only extended 5 cubits to the north.
It is desirable to resolve the issue according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s understanding, for our Sages26Gittin 67a. describe his teachings as, “precise and pure.” Moreover, in his redaction of the Mishnah, RabbeinuHaKadosh, Yoma, ch. 3,27Yoma 3:9. states a teaching regarding the Altar based on Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s understanding, without mentioning him by name.28Usually, that is a sign that the opinion cited is accepted by the majority of Sages. Thus, on the mishnah’s words, “to the north of the Altar,” the Talmud comments:29Yoma 37a. “To the north of the Altar”: From this, one can conclude that the Altar is not located in the north. Whose approach does this follow: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s, as it is taught, “ ‘In the north, before God,’ ‘i.e., the northern portion of the Courtyard must be entirely empty,’ these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.”
11
וְכֵן פָּסַק הָרַמְבָּ"ם בפ"ג מֵהִלְכוֹת עֲבוֹדַת יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים (ה"ב) כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁכָּתַב בַּעַל כֶּסֶף מִשְׁנֶה ז"לטרבינו מביא דברי הכס”מ (שם) שלומד בשיטת הרמב”ם שפוסק כראב”י, אולם רבינו מאריך להוכיח מכמה ראיות שאין שיטת הרמב”ם כראב”י, ורבינו הניף ידו שנית בתוי”ט (יומא פ”ג מ”ט) להוכיח כן דלא ככ”מ. ומציין שם לדבריו כאן.. וְאִי הָכִי, קַשְׁיָא טוּבָא מִדִּלֶעָתִיד.
Similarly, Rambam rules in this manner in the third chapter of Hilchos Avodas Yom HaKippurim,30Hilchos Avodas Yom HaKippurim 3:2, see below in the text where this ruling is discussed. as explained by the Kessef Mishneh. Hence, there is a great difficulty regarding his understanding of the Altar’s position in the Future Beis HaMikdash.
Tosafos, in their gloss to Zevachim,31Zevachim, 63a, s.v. kol. mentions a further difficulty according to the opinion that the Altar was located entirely in the southern portion of the Courtyard: In the Sanctuary that accompanied the Jews through the desert, the width of the Courtyard from north to south was 50 cubits. Thus, the southern portion of the Courtyard measured 25 cubits. The Altar was 5 cubits wide. This leaves a maximum of 20 cubits for the length of the ramp. Now, according to Rabbi Yossi,32Ibid. 59b. the Altar was 10 cubits high. Thus, according to his view, one would have to ascend 10 cubits using a ramp that spanned a maximum length of 20 cubits. This would be a steep incline, which would be considered walking with difficulty. Indeed, our Sages33Shabbos 100a; Eruvin 58b. categorize a mound with an even smaller gradient as a private domain for that reason.
Furthermore, an explanation is also necessary regarding the Altar’s position in the Second Beis HaMikdash, according to the opinion that the Altar was located entirely in the southern portion of the Courtyard. The Mishnah in Tractate Middos34Middos 5:1-2. delineates the 135 cubits of the width of the Courtyard as follows: “The Altar and the ramp occupied 62 cubits. There were 8 cubits between the Altar and the rings (used for slaughter), the area of the rings comprised 24 cubits. There were 4 cubits between the rings and the tables and 4 cubits between the tables and the pillars.35See Tosafos Yom Tov to this mishnah, which explains different interpretations regarding the space the tables themselves comprised, and why that space was not included in this calculation. There were 8 cubits between the pillars and the [northern] wall of the Courtyard. The remainder comprised the space between the ramp and the [southern] wall and the space of the pillars.” Now when the remainder, 25 cubits, is divided in 2 – which is logical, even though it is not explicitly stated – there will be 12 ½ cubits for the pillars and 12 ½ cubits between the southern wall and the ramp. Thus, the space from the southern wall until the end of the Altar will be 74 ½ cubits – 62 cubits for the ramp and the Altar and 12 ½ cubits between the southern wall and the ramp. Now, the southern half of the Courtyard only measured 67 ½ cubits (i.e., 135 ½ cubits divided by 2). Thus, Tosafos36Zevachim 59b, s.v. sheyihe. states that one must carefully interpret the mishnah in Middos so that it will not present a difficulty to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who maintains that the entire Altar was located in the southern portion of the Courtyard, for in Tractate Yoma,37Yoma 16a. our Sages explain that the mishnah in Middos follows Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s approach.
In his commentary to Yoma,38Ibid. 17a, see Rashi there.Rashi explains the above mishnah as teaching that there were only 5 ½ cubits between the ramp and the southern wall. Rashi bases his statement on the following calculation: As mentioned above, the Altar and the ramp occupied 62 cubits. Thus the entire Altar was situated in the southern portion of the Courtyard, which measured 67 ½ cubits. The Altar marked the end of that area. Thus, there were 5 ½ cubits between the ramp and the southern wall. The remainder of the 25 cubits alluded to by the mishnah in Middos were allocated to the pillars. Thus, these 25 cubits were not divided equally.
Rambam follows a different approach. In his Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, ch. 5,39Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 5:15.Rambam clearly states that the 25 cubits, were divided equally, half on either side of the Courtyard. Thus, according to Rambam, there were only 60 ½ cubits from the northern wall of the Courtyard until the Altar. It cannot be argued that the opinion presented in this mishnah in Middos presents a fourth opinion, differing with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and differing with the other Sages mentioned above, following the conclusion of Rashi in Yoma. For even were one to say that the mishnah in Middos presents another opinion, Rambam’s rulings reflect a contradiction: In Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, Rambam follows the opinion of the mishnah in Middos. However, in Hilchos Avodas Yom HaKippurim,40Hilchos Avodas Yom Kippurim 3:2.Rambam rules according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, quoting the mishnah, which states, “to the north of the Altar,” as Kessef Mishneh explains in his gloss to the latter teaching.
For this reason, Kessef Mishneh maintains that an emendation should be made to Rambam’s text in ch. 4 of Hilchos Avodas Yom HaKippurim, which states:41Ibid. 4:1. “His bull would stand between the Ulam and the Altar,” maintaining the text should read, “would stand opposite the place of the Ulam and the Altar,”42I.e., the bull would be standing in the northern part of the Courtyard. Since, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, the Altar did not extend into the northern part of the Courtyard, it cannot be said that it was standing between the Altar and the Ulam, but rather in a place opposite that area. without taking into account Rambam’s statements in ch. 5 of Hilchos Beis HaBechirah.
There is a further difficulty in Rambam’s rulings: Rambam rules43Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 5:16. that the rectangle in the northern portion of the Courtyard, where sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity were slaughtered, measured 60 ½ cubits44I.e., the 60 cubits remaining from the edge of the Altar to the northern wall of the Courtyard. by 76 cubits (the length from the eastern wall until the Ulam). He reiterates this concept at the beginning of Hilchos Maaseh HaKorbanos, ch. 5.45Hilchos Maaseh HaKorbanos 5:2. A question arises: Why wasn’t the entire 67 ½ cubits of the northern portion of the Courtyard included in this measure? For Rambam follows the ruling of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi who maintains46Zevachim 20a; Yoma 36a. that even the northern portion of the Courtyard that is in the Courtyard of the Israelites and the Courtyard of the Kohanim,47I.e., the first 22 cubits of the Courtyard. is an acceptable place for the slaughter of these sacrifices. Similarly, in those sources, the Talmud discusses and concludes that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi adds further space in addition to that mentioned by Rabbi Eliezer ben Shimon, who maintains that it is even acceptable to slaughter these sacrifices in the area between the Ulam and the Altar. Thus, according to Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, it is acceptable to slaughter these sacrificial animals in the entire rectangle of 67 ½ by 7648I.e., it’s true that a certain portion of the extra 7 ½ cubits of space is taken up by the Altar, but as Tosafos Yom Tov has explained, there is an even greater portion that the Altar does not cover. cubits. Seemingly, this is problematic: Since Rambam accepts Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi’s opinion, he should have mentioned this entire area.
Therefore, in conclusion, it appears that Rambam is ruling according to the mishnah at the end of Tractate Middos, and that he views that mishnah as a fourth approach.49See also Tosafos Yom Tov, Middos 5:2, which explains that Rambam understands that mishnah as differing with the perspective of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. Therefore, he does not include the entire northern half of the Courtyard in the rectangle defined as “the north.” The difficulty mentioned above – that Rambam quotes the wording of the mishnah, “to the north of the Altar,” in Hilchos Avodas Yom HaKippurim – should not be understood as proof that he rules according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. True, the Talmud makes such a deduction from an analysis of the wording of the Mishnah. Nevertheless, different principles apply when analyzing the words of the halachists from those which apply when analyzing the wording of the Mishnah. Instead, it can be assumed that Rambam was simply quoting the wording of the mishnah.50Tosafos Yom Tov began the latter portion of this section in an attempt to explain the perspective of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov with regard to the position of the Altar in the Future Beis HaMikdash. He posed several questions concerning that approach, and left them unresolved, leading to the conclusion that in that future time, the Altar’s position will not be in accord with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s approach.
"וּמַעֲלֹתֵהוּ פְּנוֹת קָדִים" (יחזקאל מג, יז) פֵּרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י: וְכֶבֶשׁ שֶׁעוֹלִים בּוֹ הָיָה בַּדָּרוֹם, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הָעוֹלֶה בּוֹ פּוֹנֶהאשכן הדין שצריך לפנות למזרח וכו’ לְמִזְרָח. שֶׁכָּל הַפּוֹנוֹתבכ”ה בדפו”ר. ונראה כוונת רבינו, שחז”ל דרשו מפסוק זה, פנות לשון “פונה” (פונות = פניות), שצריך לפנות תמיד דרך ימין. שלכן היה הכבש בדרום שכשעולה בכבש פונה לקדים (למזרח). הָיוּ דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין, וּכְשֶׁאַתָּה נוֹתֵן הַכֶּבֶשׁ בַּדָּרוֹם, הָעוֹלֶה בּוֹ וּפוֹנֶה דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין פּוֹנֶה לַמִּזְרָח, ע"כ. וּדְבָרָיו הַלָּלוּ מְבֹאָרִין (בזבחים) בְּפֶרֶק קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים דַּף ס"ב(:ב).
“[One who ascends] its ramps would turn to the east.”1Yechezkel 43:17. On this verse, Rashi comments: “The ramp via which one would ascend [to the Altar] was in the south, so that one who ascends on it would be facing east. For whenever one would turn, he would turn to the right. When the ramp is placed to the south, one who ascends on it and turns to the right, would thus turn to the east.” His words are reflected by our Sages’ statements in Tractate Zevachim.2Zevachim 62b.
וּתְנַן בְּמִדּוֹת (פ"ג מ"ג): וְכֶבֶשׁ הָיָה לִדְרוֹמוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ ל"ב אַמָּה עַל רֹחַב ט"ז אַמּוֹת מִמִּזְרָח לְמַעֲרָב. פֵּרוּשׁ: גֶּשֶׁר מְשֻׁפָּע וְעָשׂוּי מִדְרוֹן שֶׁבּוֹ עוֹלִין וְיוֹרְדִין מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲלוֹת בּוֹ בְּמַעֲלוֹת, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כ, כג): "וְלֹא תַעֲלֶה בְמַעֲלֹת עַל מִזְבְּחִי". וְאָרְכּוֹ מִדָּרוֹם לְצָפוֹן הוּא ל"ב. כְּלוֹמַר, אֹרֶךְ שִׁפּוּעוֹ. לְפִי שֶׁהָיָה פּוֹרֵחַ אַמָּה עַל הַיְסוֹד וְאַמָּה עַל הַסּוֹבֵב (זבחים סב:). אֲבָל מִתַּחְתִּית הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, מֵהַתְחָלַת הַיְסוֹד עַל הָאָרֶץ, לֹא הָיָה מֶשֶׁךְ שִׁטְחוֹ רַק ל' אַמָּה. וְהַיְנוּ הָא דִתְנַן בְּסוֹף מִדּוֹת (פ"ה מ"ב) הַכֶּבֶשׁ וְהַמִּזְבֵּחַ ס"ב. דְּקָחָשִׁיב אֹרֶךְ הָעֲזָרָה וְרָחְבָּהּ, וְקָאָמַר שֶׁמְּקוֹם הַכֶּבֶשׁ עִם הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אוֹכֵל בָּעֲזָרָה ס"ב אַמָּה, וְהַיְנוּ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ ל"ב אַמָּה, וְהַכֶּבֶשׁ ל', וְכִדְפָרֵישִׁית.
In Tractate Middos, the mishnah states:3Middos 3:3. “The ramp was positioned to the south of the Altar. It was 32 cubits long and 16 cubits wide from east to west.” The ramp was a slanted walkway, and was inclined at an angle. The kohanim used it to ascend to and descend from the Altar. The kohanim could not ascend to the Altar by steps, because of the prohibition,4Shmos 20:23. “Do not ascend My Altar with steps.” The ramp was 32 cubits long from the south to the north, i.e., this was the length of its incline,5I.e., the length of its incline as measured on the ground. The length of the ramp itself (i.e., the hypotenuse of the triangle) was slightly longer, a drop more than 33 cubits. for it extended a cubit over the foundation and a cubit over the sovev.6Zevachim 62b. On the ground, however, the ramp only extended 30 cubits.7I.e., the vertex of its angle was slightly obtuse. Thus, when the length and width of the Courtyard of the Beis HaMikdash is described in Tractate Middos, the mishnah states,8Middos 5:2. “The ramp and the Altar comprised 62 cubits,” i.e., the Altar took up 32, and the ramp took up 30 cubits, as explained.
וַאֲוִיר מְלֹא נִימָא בֵּינוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, כִּדְאַמָּרָן בְּפֶרֶק קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים (זבחים סב:). וְאָמְרִינַן נַמִּי הָתָם (סג.), דְּכֶבֶשׁ הַגָּדוֹלגבגמ’ (שם) ארמב”ח כל כבשי כבשים ג’ אמות לאמה חוץ מכבשו של מזבח וכו’, ובפרש”י שם וז”ל: כל כבשים גדולים וקטנים שהיו שם היה להן שיפוע שלש אמות לאמה גובה, חוץ מכבש הגדול של מזבח, שעולין בו במשא איברים כבדים, והוא חלק, היה צריך להיות משופע ביותר, לכך האריכוהו וכו’, עכ”ל. שֶׁל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מַגִּיעַ שִׁפּוּעוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה וְאֶצְבַּע וּשְׁלִישׁ אֶצְבַּע לְאַמָּה. שֶׁהֲרֵי לְט' אַמּוֹת שֶׁל גֹּבַהּ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ עוֹלֶה שִׁפּוּעוֹ ל"ב אַמָּה. צֵא וַחֲשֹׁב ט' פְּעָמִים ג' אַמּוֹת הֵן כ"ז וְט' פְּעָמִים חֲצִי אַמָּה הוּא ד' אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה, הֲרֵי ל"א וּמֶחֱצָה. חָסֵר לְךָ חֲצִי אַמָּה שֶׁהוּא ג' טְפָחִים שֶׁהֵן י"ב אֶצְבָּעוֹת, תֵּן לְט' אַמּוֹת ט' אֶצְבָּעוֹת, נִשְׁאָר לְךָ ג' אֶצְבָּעוֹת, עוֹלִים ט' שְׁלִישֵׁי אֶצְבַּע. הִנֵּה מְבֹאָר שֶׁלְּכָל אַמָּה מִגֹּבַהּ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, מַגִּיעַ שִׁפּוּעַ הַכֶּבֶשׁ ג' אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה וְאֶצְבַּע וּשְׁלִישׁוֹ.
There was a hairsbreadth of space between the ramp and the Altar, as stated in Tractate Zevachim. The Talmud also states9Zevachim 63a. that the gradient of the Altar’s large ramp was 3 ½ cubits and 1 1/3 fingerbreadths for each cubit of height. This figure is derived as follows: The Altar (not counting its horns) was 9 cubits high. The length of the ramp’s incline was 32 cubits. 9 times 3 cubits equals 27 cubits. 9 times half a cubit equals 4 ½ cubits. Adding the 27 cubits and the 4 1/2 cubits produces a sum of 31 ½ cubits, which is still half a cubit short of the length of the ramp. Since these cubits are equal to 6 handbreadths, half a cubit equals 3 handbreadths. Each handbreadth equals 4 fingerbreadths, so 3 handbreadths equal 12 fingerbreadths. Thus for each of the nine cubits of the Altar’s height, there is an additional fingerbreadth and 1/3. Thus the gradient of the Altar was 3 ½ cubits and 1 1/3 fingerbreadths for each cubit of height.
וְכָל זֶה הַמִּשּׁוֹר הַגָּדוֹל בַּעֲבוּר הַכֹּהֲנִים הַנֹּשְׂאִין אֵבְרֵי הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת הַכְּבֵדִים (רש"י שם), שֶׁיֵּלְכוּ שֶׁלֹּא עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק. דְּהָא אֲפִלּוּ מִתְלַקֵּט עֲשָׂרָה מִתּוֹךְ אַרְבַּע הֲוָה הִלּוּךְ עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוֹכִיחוּ הַתּוֹסָפוֹת (שם ד"ה כל) מִשַּׁבָּת (ק.) וְעֵרוּבִין (נח:).
The ramp was built with such a gentle incline to enable the kohanim to ascend while carrying the heavy limbs of the sacrificial animals.10Rashi, Zevachim, loc. cit. A rise of 10 cubits within 4 cubits of length is considered as difficult walking, as Tosafos explains.11Zevachim, loc. cit., based on Shabbos 100a and Eruvin 58b. Hence, the ramp was built in a manner that allowed for a far gentler rise.
וְעַל פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה יֵשׁ לָנוּ לְהִתְבּוֹנֵן, אַיֵּה מְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁיִּבָּנֶה בִּמְהֵרָה בְיָמֵינוּ. וְאֵין לָנוּ סָפֵק שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּנֶּה מְקוֹמוֹ בְּהַר הַמּוֹרִיָּה מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁהָיָה לְשֶׁעָבָר לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר. דְּהָא אַמְרִינָן בַּפֶּרֶק הַנִּזְכָּר (זבחים סב.), תַּנָּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: ג' נְבִיאִים עָלוּ עִמָּהֶן מִן הַגּוֹלָה, אֶחָד שֶׁהֵעִיד לָהֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְעַל מְקוֹם הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְכוּ'. שְׁמַע מִנַּהּ, שֶׁהָיוּ צְרִיכִין לְעֵדוּת זוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְשַׁנּוּ אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. וְכָךְ פָּסַק הָרַמְבָּ"ם בְּפֶרֶק שֵׁנִי מֵהִלְכוֹת בֵּית הַבְּחִירָה (ה"א-ד'),דוז”ל: המזבח מקומו מכוון ביותר, ואין משנין אותו ממקומו לעולם, שנאמר (דה”א כב א) וזה מזבח לעולה לישראל. ובמקדש נעקד יצחק אבינו, שנאמר (בראשית כב ב) ולך לך אל ארץ המוריה, ונאמר בדברי הימים (ב ג א) ויחל שלמה לבנות את בית ה’ בירושלים בהר המוריה אשר נראה לדויד אביהו אשר הכין במקום דויד בגרן ארנן היבוסי. ומסורת ביד הכל, שהמקום שבנה בו דוד ושלמה המזבח בגורן ארונה, הוא המקום שבנה בו אברהם המזבח ועקד עליו יצחק (זבחים סב.), והוא המקום שבנה בו נח (פרקי דר”א פל”א) כשיצא מן התיבה , והוא המזבח שהקריבו בו קין והבל (שם כג), ובו הקריב אדם הראשון קרבן כשנברא (ב”ר פל”ד), ומשם נברא, אמרו חכמים (שם פי”ד) אדם ממקום כפרתו נברא. מדות המזבח מכוונות הרבה, וצורתו ידועה איש מאיש (זבחים שם), ומזבח שבנו בני הגולה כעין מזבח שעתיד להבנות עשוהו, ואין להוסיף על מדתו ולא לגרוע ממנה. ושלשה נביאים עלו עמהם מן הגולה (שם), אחד העיד להן על מקום המזבח, ואחד העיד להן על מידותיו, ואחד העיד להן שמקריבין על המזבח הזה כל הקרבנות, אע”פ שאין שם בית, עכ”ל. וְכֵן הוּא בַּסְּמַ"ג (עשה קסג). אָמְנָם נִסְתַּפֵּקהכוונת רבינו, נראה שאע”פ שמקום המזבח מכוון ביותר ולא ישתנה, הרי מדות הבית והחצרות ודאי ישתנו כמפורש בכתוב, וע”כ ביחס למקדש עצמו (מול הפתח ומקומו בתוך החצר וכדו’) יש להסתפק האיך יהיה מקומו, וכמו שמפרש לקמן. בָּזֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהַבִּנְיָן הַמַּקִּיף הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, שֶׁהוּא יִשְׁתַּנֶּה, וְהַמִּזְבֵּחַ עוֹמֵד עַל עָמְדוֹ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹן מוּנָח, שֶׁהֲרֵי עַל כָּרְחִין הֶקֵּף עֲזָרָה דִּלֶעָתִיד לֹא כָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הִיא, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִתְבָּאֵר (עיין סימן ל"ו ול"ז).
Based on the above concepts, it is necessary to contemplate where the Altar will be located in the Future Beis HaMikdash; may it be built speedily, in our days. There is no doubt that its place on Mount Moriah will not change from where it was in the past. As the Talmud states,12Ibid. 62a. “It was taught, ‘Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov relates: Three prophets ascended with [the Jewish people] from the exile: one gave testimony concerning the Altar and its location.’ ” The Sages required this testimony to ensure that the Altar’s location would not be changed. Rambam13Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 2:1-3. and Sefer Mitzvos Gadol14Positive commandment 163. also rule in this manner. The question, however, is whether the design of the structure around the Altar will change, while the Altar will remain in its original location.15In contrast to the Altar and its location, in the Future Beis HaMikdash, there is no requirement that the Holy of Holies be located in the same place as it was in the Second Beis HaMikdash. It is obvious from the narrative in Yechezkel that the dimensions of the Courtyard and the building of the Beis HaMikdash in the Future will differ from their dimensions in the Second Beis HaMikdash. Hence, it is possible that the position of the Altar with regard to the Holy of Holies will also be different. After all, as explained above,16See sections 36-37. the Courtyard in the Future Beis HaMikdash will not resemble the Courtyard in the previous Batei HaMikdash (see secs. 36-37).
וְנֹאמַר, דִּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְמֻצָּע וְעוֹמֵד בְּאֶמְצַע הָעֲזָרָה, עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת כְּנֶגֶד פִּתְחוֹ שֶׁל הֵיכַל, י"א אַמָּה לַצָּפוֹן וְי"א אַמָּה לַדָּרוֹם,ורוחב פתחו של היכל עשר אמות, ורוחב המזבח ל”ב אמות. ולדברי ר”י עשר אמות אמצעיות של המזבח ממלאים לנגד כל פתח ההיכל, וי”א אמות ממנו לצפון. וכן לדרום. וְנִמְצָא הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְכֻוָּן כְּנֶגֶד הַהֵיכָל וְכָתְלָיו כִּדְאִיתָא בפ"ק דְּיוֹמָא (טז). לְדִידֵיהּ וַדַּאי לָא קַשְׁיָא מִידִי. דְּהָכִי נַמִּי אִכָּא לְמֵימַר, שֶׁהַהֵיכָל יִבָּנֶה בְּאֹפֶן שֶׁיִּהְיֶה פִּתְחוֹ פָתוּחַ כְּנֶגֶד אֶמְצַע הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּבָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וְיֵשׁ כָּאן מָקוֹם מְרֻוָּח לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְכִבְשׁוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי הַתְחָלָתוֹ י"ו אַמָּה בִּצְפוֹן הָעֲזָרָה, שֶׁהוּא אִם כֵּן מִדְּרוֹם הֶחָצֵר דִּלֶעָתִיד עַד הַתְחָלָתוֹ ס"ו אַמָּה.זחצי שטח רוחב החצר הפנימית לעתיד הוא חמשים אמה, וחצי רוחב המזבח הוא י”ו אמה, הם יחד ס”ו. וְהַמִּזְבֵּחַ עִם כִּבְשׁוֹ אֵינוֹ מַחֲזִיק רַק ס"בחל”ב של מזבח ושלושים של כבש. וכמ”ש רבינו לעיל בסמוך. כְּדִתְנַן בְּסוֹף מִדּוֹת (פ"ה מ"א). הִנֵּה עוֹד ד' אַמּוֹת רֶוַח בֵּין הַכֶּבֶשׁ לְכֹתֶל הָעֲזָרָה בַּדָּרוֹם.
In Tractate Yoma,17Yoma 16a. Rabbi Yehudah states that the Altar was situated in the center of the Courtyard. Ten cubits of the Altar’s space were opposite the 10 cubits of the entrance to the Sanctuary, and there were 11 cubits on the north side of the Altar and 11 cubits on the south side of the Altar.18I.e., the Altar was 32 cubits wide. In relation to the entrance to the Sanctuary, there were 10 cubits opposite the entrance and 11 cubits on either side. Thus the Altar was positioned in front of the Sanctuary and its walls. According to this opinion, it can be postulated that, in the Future, the Sanctuary will be built so that its entrance will be opposite the center of the Altar, as it was in the First Beis HaMikdash. This layout will provide for ample space for the Altar and its ramp. To explain: The Courtyard is 100 cubits from north to south and the Altar is 32 cubits wide. If the Altar is placed in the exact center, it will extend 16 cubits to the north. Thus, there will be 66 cubits19I.e., 50 (half the width of Courtyard) + 16 (half the width of the Altar). from the Altar’s northern side to the Courtyard’s southern wall. As mentioned, the Altar and its ramp will cover only 62 cubits. Thus, there will be an additional 4 cubits between the ramp and the Courtyard’s southern wall.
וְכֵן נַמִּי לְר' שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי, דְּאָמַר בְּפֶרֶק אֵיזֶהוּ מְקוֹמָן (זבחים נג) דְּכֻלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בַּצָּפוֹן קָאֵי, חוּץ מִיסוֹד דְּרוֹמִי דְּבֵיהּ מְקַיְּמִינַן לִפְנֵי ה'. לְדִידֵיהּ נַמִּי לָא קַשְׁיָא, דְּהָא לְעוֹלָם הַכֶּבֶשׁ בַּדָּרוֹם, לְקַיֵּם פְּנוֹת קָדִים (יחזקאל מג, יז), וְכֵיוָן שֶׁכָּל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לַצָּפוֹן, הִנֵּה לְךָ מָקוֹם מְרֻוָּח לַכֶּבֶשׁ בַּדָּרוֹם, יוֹתֵר מִדִּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
Similarly, there is no difficulty according to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, who maintains20Zevachim 53a. that the entire Altar was positioned on the northern side of the Sanctuary with exception of its southern foundation. Even according to this opinion, it could still be said that the Altar was positioned “before God,”21Vayikra 4:18, 16:18. i.e., opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary. According to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, the Altar’s ramp was located on the south side, so that the kohanim ascending the Altar could fulfill the charge that one who turns should turn to the east.22Yechezkel 43:17; see sec. 43, above. Since Rabbi Shimon maintains that the entire Altar was positioned in the north, according to his approach there was even more space between the ramp and the southern wall than according to Rabbi Yehudah’s approach.
אֲבָל לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב דְּתַנָּא הָתָם (זבחים נט) וּבְיוֹמָא (טז) וּבְכַמָּה דּוּכְתֵי (שם לז), דְּכֻלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בַּדָּרוֹם קָאֵי, דְּתָנֵי "צָפֹנָה לִפְנֵי ה'" שֶׁיְּהֵא צָפוֹן פָּנוּי מִכְּלוּם וַאֲפִלּוּ מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וּבְתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים תַּנְיָא בְּהֶדְיָא בפ"ז (ויקרא א, יא) צָפֹנָה לִפְנֵי ה' שֶׁהַצָּפוֹן פָּנוּי, דִּבְרֵי ר' אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְכֻוָּן כְּנֶגֶד חֲצִי פִּתְחוֹ שֶׁל הֵיכַל, וּכְּנֶגֶד אֶחָד מִן הַדְּלָתוֹת מָשׁוּךְ כְּלַפֵּי הַדָּרוֹם, עכ"ל.
There is, however, a difficulty according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s approach. In Tractates Zevachim and Yoma,23Zevachim 59a; Yoma 16a, 37a. et al., he maintains that the entire Altar was in the south. As stated in those sources, it is written that the sacrifices of the most sacred order must be slaughtered “in the north, before God.”24Vayikra 1:11. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov understands the verse as intimating that the northern portion of the Courtyard must be empty, containing neither sacred vessels, nor the Altar. Toras Kohanim25Toras Kohanim, sec. 67. explicitly states: “ ‘In the north, before God,’ the northern portion of the Courtyard must be empty,” these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. [According to him,] the Altar was positioned in front of half the entrance to the Sanctuary, in front of one of the doors, and extended to the south.
לְדִידֵיהּ קַשְׁיָא טוּבָא, דְּהָא הַךְ חָצֵר לֹא יִהְיֶה כִּי אִם מֵאָה אַמָּה מְרֻבַּעַת. וְאִם כֵּן, כָּל רוּחַ דְּרוֹמִית רַק חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה וְהַמִּזְבֵּחַ עִם כִּבְשׁוֹ אוֹכֵל ס"ב אַמָּה כִּדְאָמְרָן. וְהִנֵּה עַל כָּרְחִין עוֹמֵד י"ב אַמָּה בְּחֶצְיָהּ הַשֵּׁנִית שֶׁל צָפוֹן מִלְּבַד מַה שֶּׁבֵּין הַכֶּבֶשׁ לַכֹּתֶל דְּרוֹמִית, שֶׁבִּלְתִּי סָפֵק [צָרִיךְ שֶׁ]יִּהְיוּ יְכוֹלִין לַהֲלֹךְ לְשָׁם מִבְּלִי שֶׁיַּפְסִיעוּ עַל סְעִיפֵי הַכֶּבֶשׁ. וְיִהְיֶה גַּם כֵּן לִפְנֵי כָּל פֶּתַח הַהֵיכָל, שֶׁהֲרֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אוֹכֵל לְפָחוֹת י"ב אַמָּה בַּצָּפוֹן, וּפֶתַח הַהֵיכָל אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בַּצָּפוֹן רַק ה' אַמּוֹת.
Thus, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, there is a difficulty, for in the Future Beis HaMikdash, the Courtyard will be a square measuring 100 cubits by 100 cubits. Thus, the entire southern portion will only measure 50 cubits. Now, the Altar and its ramp are 62 cubits long, as stated. Thus, there will be at least 12 cubits in the northern portion of the Courtyard, in addition to some space left between the southern wall and the Altar. After all, it must be possible to walk there without stepping on the ramp. Moreover, the Altar will be positioned in front of the entire entrance to the Sanctuary, since the Altar will extend at least 12 cubits into the northern portion, as stated, and the opening to the Sanctuary only extended 5 cubits to the north.
וּמַה גַּם שֶׁמִּשְׁנַת ר' אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב קַב וְנָקִי (גיטין סז.). וְתוּ, סָתַם רַבֵּנוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ כַּוָּתֵיהּ בפ"ג דְּיוֹמָא (לז.), דִּתְנַן הָתָם לִצְפוֹן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְדִיֵּק תַּלְמוּדָא, מִדְּקָאָמַר לִצְפוֹן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, מִכְּלַל דְּמִזְבֵּחַ לָאו בַּצָּפוֹן קָאֵי. מַנִּי ר' אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב הִיא; דְּתַנְיָא צָפֹנָה לִפְנֵי ה' שֶׁיְּהֵא צָפוֹן כֻּלּוֹ פָּנוּי, דִּבְרֵי ר' אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב.
It is desirable to resolve the issue according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s understanding, for our Sages26Gittin 67a. describe his teachings as, “precise and pure.” Moreover, in his redaction of the Mishnah, Rabbeinu HaKadosh, Yoma, ch. 3,27Yoma 3:9. states a teaching regarding the Altar based on Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s understanding, without mentioning him by name.28Usually, that is a sign that the opinion cited is accepted by the majority of Sages. Thus, on the mishnah’s words, “to the north of the Altar,” the Talmud comments:29Yoma 37a. “To the north of the Altar”: From this, one can conclude that the Altar is not located in the north. Whose approach does this follow: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s, as it is taught, “ ‘In the north, before God,’ ‘i.e., the northern portion of the Courtyard must be entirely empty,’ these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.”
וְכֵן פָּסַק הָרַמְבָּ"ם בפ"ג מֵהִלְכוֹת עֲבוֹדַת יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים (ה"ב) כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁכָּתַב בַּעַל כֶּסֶף מִשְׁנֶה ז"לטרבינו מביא דברי הכס”מ (שם) שלומד בשיטת הרמב”ם שפוסק כראב”י, אולם רבינו מאריך להוכיח מכמה ראיות שאין שיטת הרמב”ם כראב”י, ורבינו הניף ידו שנית בתוי”ט (יומא פ”ג מ”ט) להוכיח כן דלא ככ”מ. ומציין שם לדבריו כאן.. וְאִי הָכִי, קַשְׁיָא טוּבָא מִדִּלֶעָתִיד.
Similarly, Rambam rules in this manner in the third chapter of Hilchos Avodas Yom HaKippurim,30Hilchos Avodas Yom HaKippurim 3:2, see below in the text where this ruling is discussed. as explained by the Kessef Mishneh. Hence, there is a great difficulty regarding his understanding of the Altar’s position in the Future Beis HaMikdash.
וְאַשְׁכַּחְנָא בַּתּוֹסָפוֹת פֶּרֶק קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים (זבחים סג. ד"ה כל) שֶׁתָּמְהוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כֻּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בַּדָּרוֹם קָאֵי. אִם כֵּן, מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁגָּבְהוֹ עֶשֶׂר, לֹא מַשְׁכַּחַת לְכָל הַיּוֹתֵר גֹּבַהּ שִׁפּוּעַ הַכֶּבֶשׁ כִּי אִם עֶשְׂרִים וְכוּ'. וַהֲוָה לֵיהּ הִלּוּךְ עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק וְכוּ', כִּדְמוּכָח בְּשַׁבָּת (ק.) וְעֵרוּבִין (נח:) בְּמִתְלַקֵּט עֲשָׂרָה מִתּוֹךְ אַרְבַּע דְּהָוֵה רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, עכ"ל.
Tosafos, in their gloss to Zevachim,31Zevachim, 63a, s.v. kol. mentions a further difficulty according to the opinion that the Altar was located entirely in the southern portion of the Courtyard: In the Sanctuary that accompanied the Jews through the desert, the width of the Courtyard from north to south was 50 cubits. Thus, the southern portion of the Courtyard measured 25 cubits. The Altar was 5 cubits wide. This leaves a maximum of 20 cubits for the length of the ramp. Now, according to Rabbi Yossi,32Ibid. 59b. the Altar was 10 cubits high. Thus, according to his view, one would have to ascend 10 cubits using a ramp that spanned a maximum length of 20 cubits. This would be a steep incline, which would be considered walking with difficulty. Indeed, our Sages33Shabbos 100a; Eruvin 58b. categorize a mound with an even smaller gradient as a private domain for that reason.
תּוּ אִכָּא לְמֵידַק בְּמִזְבַּח בַּיִת שֵׁנִי בְּעַצְמוֹ, הֵיכִי הַוָה קָאֵי. כֻּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ לַדָּרוֹם, הָא כִּי דַיְקָת בְּחֻשְׁבְּנָא דִּבְסוֹף מִדּוֹת (פ"ה מ"א וב'). דְּחָשִׁיב בַּמֶּה נִתְפַּרְנְסוּ קל"ה אַמּוֹת רֹחַב הָעֲזָרָה? וּמוֹנֶה וְהוֹלֵךְ: הַכֶּבֶשׁ וְהַמִּזְבֵּחַ - ס"ב אַמָּה, מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְלַטַּבָּעוֹת - ח' אַמּוֹת, מְקוֹם הַטַּבָּעוֹת - כ"ד, מִן הַטַּבָּעוֹת לַשֻּׁלְחָנוֹת - אַרְבַּע, מִן הַשֻּׁלְחָנוֹת לַנַּנָּסִין - אַרְבַּע, מִן הַנַּנָּסִין לְכֹתֶל הָעֲזָרָה - שְׁמוֹנֶה אַמּוֹת, (וְהַנּוֹתָר) [וְהַמּוֹתָר] - בֵּין הַכֶּבֶשׁ לַכֹּתֶל וּמְקוֹם הַנַּנָּסִין. וּכְשֶׁתַּחֲלֹק הַמּוֹתָר שֶׁהוּא כ"ה אַמּוֹת לַחֲצָאִין, כִּי כֵן מִן הַנִּרְאֶה כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרֵשׁ, יִהְיֶה אִם כֵּן י"ב אַמּוֹת וָחֵצִי מְקוֹם הַנַּנָּסִין, וְי"ב אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה מֵהַכֶּבֶשׁ וְלַכֹּתֶל. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁכָּךְ הוּא, יַעֲלֶה מַה שֶּׁמִּכֹּתֶל דְּרוֹמִי עַד כְּלוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ ע"ד אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָהיס”ב אַמּוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהַכֶּבֶשׁ, וְי”ב אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה מֵהַכֶּבֶשׁ עַד כֹּתֶל דְּרוֹמִי.. וְכָל רוּחַ דְּרוֹמִית שֶׁהוּא חֲצִי קל"ה, רַק ס"ז אַמָּה וּמֶחֱצָה. וּמָצָאתִי בְּתוֹסָפוֹת פֶּרֶק קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים (זבחים נט. ד"ה שיהא) שֶׁכָּתְבוּ צָרִיךְ לְדַקְדֵּק בְּמַתְנִיתִין דְּמִדּוֹת שֶׁלֹּא תַקְשֶׁה דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב סְבִירָא לֵיהּ הָכָא כֻּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בַּדָּרוֹם קָאֵי, וּבְפֶרֶק קַמָּא דְּיוֹמָא (טז.) מוֹקְמִינַן מַתְנִיתִין דְּמִדּוֹת כְּר' אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, ע"כ.
Furthermore, an explanation is also necessary regarding the Altar’s position in the Second Beis HaMikdash, according to the opinion that the Altar was located entirely in the southern portion of the Courtyard. The Mishnah in Tractate Middos34Middos 5:1-2. delineates the 135 cubits of the width of the Courtyard as follows: “The Altar and the ramp occupied 62 cubits. There were 8 cubits between the Altar and the rings (used for slaughter), the area of the rings comprised 24 cubits. There were 4 cubits between the rings and the tables and 4 cubits between the tables and the pillars.35See Tosafos Yom Tov to this mishnah, which explains different interpretations regarding the space the tables themselves comprised, and why that space was not included in this calculation. There were 8 cubits between the pillars and the [northern] wall of the Courtyard. The remainder comprised the space between the ramp and the [southern] wall and the space of the pillars.” Now when the remainder, 25 cubits, is divided in 2 – which is logical, even though it is not explicitly stated – there will be 12 ½ cubits for the pillars and 12 ½ cubits between the southern wall and the ramp. Thus, the space from the southern wall until the end of the Altar will be 74 ½ cubits – 62 cubits for the ramp and the Altar and 12 ½ cubits between the southern wall and the ramp. Now, the southern half of the Courtyard only measured 67 ½ cubits (i.e., 135 ½ cubits divided by 2). Thus, Tosafos36Zevachim 59b, s.v. sheyihe. states that one must carefully interpret the mishnah in Middos so that it will not present a difficulty to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who maintains that the entire Altar was located in the southern portion of the Courtyard, for in Tractate Yoma,37Yoma 16a. our Sages explain that the mishnah in Middos follows Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s approach.
וְרַשִׁ"י ז"ל בְּפֶרֶק קַמָּא דְּיוֹמָא (יז.) מוֹקִי הַךְ מַתְנִיתִין, שֶׁאֵין בֵּין הַכֶּבֶשׁ וְלַכֹּתֶל כִּי אִם חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה, וְהַכֶּבֶשׁ וְהַמִּזְבֵּחַ שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁתַּיִם. הֲרֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כֻּלּוֹ בַּדָּרוֹם שֶׁהוּא ס"ז אַמָּה וּמֶחֱצָה. וְכָלָה הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בְּסוֹף דָּרוֹם בְּאֶמְצַע הָעֲזָרָה, וְהַנּוֹתָר כֻּלּוֹ לִמְקוֹם הַנַּנָּסִין, וְלֹא דִּקְדֵּק הַתַּנָּא לְחַלְּקוֹ לַחֲצָאִין. כֵּן כָּתַב רַשִׁ"י ז"ל.
In his commentary to Yoma,38Ibid. 17a, see Rashi there. Rashi explains the above mishnah as teaching that there were only 5 ½ cubits between the ramp and the southern wall. Rashi bases his statement on the following calculation: As mentioned above, the Altar and the ramp occupied 62 cubits. Thus the entire Altar was situated in the southern portion of the Courtyard, which measured 67 ½ cubits. The Altar marked the end of that area. Thus, there were 5 ½ cubits between the ramp and the southern wall. The remainder of the 25 cubits alluded to by the mishnah in Middos were allocated to the pillars. Thus, these 25 cubits were not divided equally.
אֲבָל הָרַמְבָּ"ם בפ"ה מֵהִלְכוֹת בֵּית הַבְּחִירָה (הט"ו) קָחָשִׁיב לְהוּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ לַחֲצָאִין, וְשֶׁמִּכֹּתֶל צְפוֹנִית הָעֲזָרָה עַד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ רַק ס' אַמָּה וּמֶחֱצָה. וְאֵין לוֹמַר דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּדַעַת רְבִיעִית אִכָּא, וְהַיְנוּ הַאי תַּנָּא דְּסוֹף מִדּוֹת (פ"ה מ"ב), וְאָתָא דְּלָא כְּר' אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, וְלָא כְּחַד מֵהָנֵי תְּלָת תַּנָּאֵי דְּכָתְבִינַן לְעֵיל,יאנראה כוונת רבינו א) דעת ר”י הנ”ל שמזבח מכוון ממש לאמצע. ב) דעת רשב”י שמזבח לגמרי בצפון. ג) דעת ראב”י שמזבח לגמרי בדרום. והדעה ברמב”ם הנ”ל שהמזבח בדרום, אלא שנמשך עוד שבע אמות לצד צפון עיי”ש, וע”ז כתב רבינו שי”ל שהוא שיטה רביעית דלא כשלש שיטות הנ”ל. וְכִדְאַסִּיק אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַשִׁ"י ז"ל בְּיוֹמָא. דַאֲפִלּוּ כִּי תֵּימָא דְּהַהוּא מַתְנִיתִין תַּנָּא אַחֲרִינָא הוּא, מִכָּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא דִּידֵיהּ אַדִּידֵיהּ. דְּהָכָא פָּסִיק כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא רְבִיעִי, ובפ"ג מֵעֲבוֹדַת יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים (ה"ב) פָּסַק כְּר' אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, מִדְּכָתַב הָתָם לְשׁוֹן הַמִּשְׁנָה לִצְפוֹן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב עָלָיו הָרַב בַּעַל כֶּסֶף מִשְׁנֶה זלה"ה.
Rambam follows a different approach. In his Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, ch. 5,39Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 5:15. Rambam clearly states that the 25 cubits, were divided equally, half on either side of the Courtyard. Thus, according to Rambam, there were only 60 ½ cubits from the northern wall of the Courtyard until the Altar. It cannot be argued that the opinion presented in this mishnah in Middos presents a fourth opinion, differing with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and differing with the other Sages mentioned above, following the conclusion of Rashi in Yoma. For even were one to say that the mishnah in Middos presents another opinion, Rambam’s rulings reflect a contradiction: In Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, Rambam follows the opinion of the mishnah in Middos. However, in Hilchos Avodas Yom HaKippurim,40Hilchos Avodas Yom Kippurim 3:2. Rambam rules according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, quoting the mishnah, which states, “to the north of the Altar,” as Kessef Mishneh explains in his gloss to the latter teaching.
וְהוּא ז"ל (בכס"מ פ"ג מעבודת יוה"כ ה"ב) הִגִּיהַּ מִשּׁוּם כָּךְ בְּפֶרֶק ד' מֵהִלְכוֹת עֲבוֹדַת יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב 'וּפָרוֹ הָיָה עוֹמֵד בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ', שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לוֹמַר כְּבֵין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ דְּהָכִי הוּא לְר' אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, וְלֹא הִרְגִּישׁ בְּהַךְ דפ"ה מֵהִלְכוֹת בֵּית הַבְּחִירָה.
For this reason, Kessef Mishneh maintains that an emendation should be made to Rambam’s text in ch. 4 of Hilchos Avodas Yom HaKippurim, which states:41Ibid. 4:1. “His bull would stand between the Ulam and the Altar,” maintaining the text should read, “would stand opposite the place of the Ulam and the Altar,”42I.e., the bull would be standing in the northern part of the Courtyard. Since, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, the Altar did not extend into the northern part of the Courtyard, it cannot be said that it was standing between the Altar and the Ulam, but rather in a place opposite that area. without taking into account Rambam’s statements in ch. 5 of Hilchos Beis HaBechirah.
וְתוּ קַשְׁיָא לָן, בְּהָא דְּכָתַב הָרַמְבָּ"ם ז"ל (פ"ה מבית הבחירה הט"ז) דְּרִבּוּעַ מְקוֹם הַשְּׁחִיטָה הוּא, אֵלּוּ ס' אַמָּה וּמֶחֱצָה עַל ע"ו אַמָּה שֶׁמֵּהַתְחָלַת עֲזָרָה זוֹ לְמִזְרָחָהּ עַד לִפְנֵי הָאוּלָם. וְכֵן הִסְכִּים שֵׁנִית לִדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ בְּרֵישׁ פ"ה מֵהִלְכוֹת מַעֲשֵׂה הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת. וְקַשְׁיָא, אַמַּאי לֹא מְרַבְּעוֹ עַל רֹחַב חֲצִי הֶחָצֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁהִיא ס"ז אַמָּה וּמֶחֱצָה, דְּהָא הַךְ דְּפָסַק הָתָם, הוּא אַלִּבָּא דְּרַבִּי דְּפֶרֶק ב' דִּזְבָחִים (כ.) וּפֶרֶק ג' דְּיוֹמָא (לו.) דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאַף לַצָּפוֹן מְקוֹם דְּרִיסַת רַגְלֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים וְיִשְׂרָאֵל מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא. וּשָׁקִיל וְטָרִי הָתָם תַּלְמוּדָא, דְּרַבִּי מוֹסִיף אַדְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ שֶׁבֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ כָּשֵׁר כָּל רוּחַ צְפוֹנִית. וְאִם כֵּן, רַבִּי דְּמוֹסִיף, סְבִירָא לֵיהּ שֶׁכָּל רוּחַ צְפוֹנִית כָּשֵׁר, וְיַעֲלֶה הָרִבּוּעַ לס"ז וּמֶחֱצָה עַל ע"ו, וְהָכִי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְהָרַמְבָּ"ם לְרַבֵּעַ כֵּיוָן דְּפָסַק כְּרַבִּי.
There is a further difficulty in Rambam’s rulings: Rambam rules43Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 5:16. that the rectangle in the northern portion of the Courtyard, where sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity were slaughtered, measured 60 ½ cubits44I.e., the 60 cubits remaining from the edge of the Altar to the northern wall of the Courtyard. by 76 cubits (the length from the eastern wall until the Ulam). He reiterates this concept at the beginning of Hilchos Maaseh HaKorbanos, ch. 5.45Hilchos Maaseh HaKorbanos 5:2. A question arises: Why wasn’t the entire 67 ½ cubits of the northern portion of the Courtyard included in this measure? For Rambam follows the ruling of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi who maintains46Zevachim 20a; Yoma 36a. that even the northern portion of the Courtyard that is in the Courtyard of the Israelites and the Courtyard of the Kohanim,47I.e., the first 22 cubits of the Courtyard. is an acceptable place for the slaughter of these sacrifices. Similarly, in those sources, the Talmud discusses and concludes that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi adds further space in addition to that mentioned by Rabbi Eliezer ben Shimon, who maintains that it is even acceptable to slaughter these sacrifices in the area between the Ulam and the Altar. Thus, according to Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, it is acceptable to slaughter these sacrificial animals in the entire rectangle of 67 ½ by 7648I.e., it’s true that a certain portion of the extra 7 ½ cubits of space is taken up by the Altar, but as Tosafos Yom Tov has explained, there is an even greater portion that the Altar does not cover. cubits. Seemingly, this is problematic: Since Rambam accepts Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi’s opinion, he should have mentioned this entire area.
הִלְכָּךְ נִרְאֶה דְּהָרַמְבָּ"ם פּוֹסֵק כְּהַךְ תַּנָּא דְּסוֹף מִדּוֹת, וּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּאִיהוּ דַּעַת רְבִיעִית, וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ מְרַבֵּעַ כָּל חֲצִי הָעֲזָרָה. וּדְכָתַב לִצְפוֹן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לֹא בָּעֵי, דְּתֵידוּק מִנֵּיהּ כִּדְדַיֵּק תַּלְמוּדָא אַמַּתְנִיתִין, אֶלָּא דְּנָקַט לְשׁוֹן הַמִּשְׁנָה, וּכְבָר יָדָעְנוּ דְּאֵין לְדַקְדֵּק כָּל כָּךְ בִּלְשׁוֹן הַפּוֹסְקִים כְּמוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן הַמִּשְׁנָה.
Therefore, in conclusion, it appears that Rambam is ruling according to the mishnah at the end of Tractate Middos, and that he views that mishnah as a fourth approach.49See also Tosafos Yom Tov, Middos 5:2, which explains that Rambam understands that mishnah as differing with the perspective of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. Therefore, he does not include the entire northern half of the Courtyard in the rectangle defined as “the north.” The difficulty mentioned above – that Rambam quotes the wording of the mishnah, “to the north of the Altar,” in Hilchos Avodas Yom HaKippurim – should not be understood as proof that he rules according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. True, the Talmud makes such a deduction from an analysis of the wording of the Mishnah. Nevertheless, different principles apply when analyzing the words of the halachists from those which apply when analyzing the wording of the Mishnah. Instead, it can be assumed that Rambam was simply quoting the wording of the mishnah.50Tosafos Yom Tov began the latter portion of this section in an attempt to explain the perspective of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov with regard to the position of the Altar in the Future Beis HaMikdash. He posed several questions concerning that approach, and left them unresolved, leading to the conclusion that in that future time, the Altar’s position will not be in accord with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s approach.