Daf Ditty Yoma 16: Defiled Stones of the Altar

1
2
§ Just as the contradiction above was resolved by attributing different sources to different
tanna’im, the Gemara cites an additional contradiction with a similar resolution. We learned in a
mishna there: The appointee, the deputy High Priest, said to the other priests: Go out and bring
a lamb from the Chamber of the Lambs, where lambs awaiting sacrifice were kept after they
underwent inspection and were found to be without blemish.

That mishna continues: The Chamber of the Lambs was located in the northwest corner of the
Hall of the Hearth in the Temple courtyard. And there were four chambers there in that hall.
One was the Chamber of the Lambs, and one was the Chamber of the Seals.

In the Temple, seals were dispensed as receipts to individuals who paid for sacrificial animals. The
person then showed the seal to a Temple official, who supplied him with an animal. And one was
the Chamber of the Hall of the Hearth, and one was the chamber where the shewbread was
prepared.

3
4
5
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna in tractate Middot: Four chambers were
open into the Hall of the Hearth like small semi-open rooms [kitoniyyot] that open into a
central hall [teraklin]. Two of these chambers were located in the sacred area, in the Temple
courtyard, and two of the chambers were located in the non-sacred area of the Temple Mount.
And the tops of wooden stakes [pispasin] in the Hall of the Hearth divided between the sacred
area and the non-sacred area to apprise the people in both areas where they were located and what
conduct is required. And what purpose did these chambers serve? The southwest chamber was
the Chamber of the Sacrificial Lambs;

6
7
the southeast chamber in the Hall of the Hearth was the chamber in which the shewbread was
prepared. The northeast chamber was the chamber in which the Hasmoneans sequestered the
altar stones that were desecrated by the gentile kings when they sacrificed idolatrous offerings.
The northwest chamber was the chamber in which the priests descended through tunnels to the
Hall of Immersion. There is a contradiction between the sources with regard to the location of the
Chamber of the Lambs. Rav Huna said: Who is the tanna who taught the mishnayot in tractate
Middot? It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who has a different opinion with regard to this matter.

8
As we learned in a mishna in tractate Middot: The dimensions of the women’s courtyard were
a length of 135 cubits by a width of 135 cubits, and there were four chambers in its four
corners. And what purpose did these chambers serve? The southeast chamber was the Chamber
of the Nazirites, as there the nazirites cook their peace-offerings and shave their hair and
cast it in the fire to burn beneath the pot in which the peace-offering was cooked, as the Torah
instructs (see Numbers 6:18). The northeast chamber was the Chamber of the Woodshed,
where blemished priests, who are disqualified for any other service, stand and examine the logs
to determine if they were infested by worms, as any log in which there are worms is disqualified
for use on the altar.

9
The northwest chamber was the Chamber of the Lepers, where lepers would immerse for
purification. With regard to the southwest chamber, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov said: I forgot
what purpose it would serve. Abba Shaul says: They would place wine and oil there for the
meal-offerings and libations, and it was called the Chamber of the House of Oils. From this
mishna it may be inferred that the tanna who taught the mishnayot in tractate Middot is Rabbi
Eliezer ben Ya’akov, as that is why the mishna finds it necessary to mention that he forgot the
purpose of one of the chambers.

10
So too, it is reasonable to conclude that the mishnayot in tractate Middot are in accordance with
the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, as we learned in a mishna there: All the walls that
were there surrounding the Temple Mount were high except for the Eastern Wall, as the priest
who burns the red heifer stands on the Mount of Olives, where the red heifer was slaughtered
and burned, and directs his attention and looks toward the entrance of the Sanctuary when he
sprinkles the blood.

11
Summary
Rav Avraham Adler writes:1

The women’s courtyard was one hundred and thirtyfive amos long by one hundred and thirty-five
amos wide and there were four chambers in its four corners. The Mishnah in Middos (2:5) states
that the Women’s Courtyard was one hundred and thirty-five amos long by one hundred and thirty-
five amos wide, and there were four chambers located in its four corners.

The southeastern chamber was the chamber of the Nazarites, who would cook their shelamim
offerings there and they would cut their hair and throw it under the cauldron in which their
shelamim offerings were cooking.

The northeastern chamber was the chamber where they stored wood that was used as fuel for the
fires of the mizbeiach. Kohanim who had physical blemishes and could not partake in the avodah
would stand there and examine the wood to see if it had worms inside, because wood that contained
worms was invalid for use on the mizbeiach.

The northwestern chamber was the chamber of the metzoraim where a metzora would immerse
himself in a mikveh before he had blood applied to his body.

Regarding the southwestern chamber, Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yaakov said that he forgot what purpose
the chamber served, and Abba Shaul said that in the southwestern chamber they used to store wine
and oil and this chamber was referred to as the chamber that held the oil.

All the walls that enclosed the Temple Mount were tall except for the eastern wall.

The Mishnah in Middos (2:4) states that the walls that enclosed the Temple Mount were very tall,
with the gateways being twenty amos high and the area above the gateways made the walls even
higher. The eastern wall of the Temple Mount, however, was twenty amos high but the wall did
not rise high above the gateway like the other walls, in order that the Kohen who burned the Parah
Adumah could stand on the Mount of Olives, which is east of the Temple Mount, and he could
focus on the entrance of the Heichal while sprinkling the blood of the Parah Adumah. When the
Kohen sprinkled the blood of the Parah Adumah, he had to aim towards the Heichal, and he also
had to see into the entrance of the Heichal while sprinkling.

When the Kohen stood on the Mount of Olives and faced westward towards the Temple Mount,
he was able to see into the entrance of the Heichal because all the gateways to the Temple Mount
were lined up in a perfect row. For the Kohen to see into the entrance of the Heichal, he had to
look over the Temple Mount wall and through the gateways of the Women’s Courtyard and the
Inner Courtyard. The floor of the Heichal was twenty and a half amos higher than the floor of the
Temple Mount, so the base of the Heichal entrance was a half an amah higher than the top of the
Temple Mount gateway which was only twenty amos high.

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Yoma_16.pdf

12
The women’s courtyard was one hundred and thirty five amos long by one hundred and
thirty-five amos wide and there were four chambers in its four corners.

The Mishnah in Middos (2:5) states that the Women’s Courtyard was one hundred and thirty-five
amos long by one hundred and thirty-five amos wide, and there were four chambers located in its
four corners. The southeastern chamber was the chamber of the Nazarites, who would cook their
shelamim offerings there and they would cut their hair and throw it under the cauldron in which
their shelamim offerings were cooking.

The northeastern chamber was the chamber where they stored wood that was used as fuel for the
fires of the mizbeiach. Kohanim who had physical blemishes and could not partake in the avodah
would stand there and examine the wood to see if it had worms inside, because wood that contained
worms was invalid for use on the mizbeiach.

The northwestern chamber was the chamber of the metzoraim where a metzora would immerse
himself in a mikveh before he had blood applied to his body. Regarding the southwestern chamber,
Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yaakov said that he forgot what purpose the chamber served, and Abba Shaul
said that in the southwestern chamber they used to store wine and oil and this chamber was referred
to as the chamber that held the oil.

All the walls that enclosed the Temple Mount were tall except for the eastern wall.

The Mishnah in Middos (2:4) states that the walls that enclosed the Temple Mount were very tall,
with the gateways being twenty amos high and the area above the gateways made the walls even
higher.

The eastern wall of the Temple Mount, however, was twenty amos high but the wall did not rise
high above the gateway like the other walls, in order that the Kohen who burned the Parah Adumah
could stand on the Mount of Olives, which is east of the Temple Mount, and he could focus on the
entrance of the Heichal while sprinkling the blood of the Parah Adumah.

When the Kohen sprinkled the blood of the Parah Adumah, he had to aim towards the Heichal,
and he also had to see into the entrance of the Heichal while sprinkling.

When the Kohen stood on the Mount of Olives and faced westward towards the Temple Mount,
he was able to see into the entrance of the Heichal because all the gateways to the Temple Mount
were lined up in a perfect row. For the Kohen to see into the entrance of the Heichal, he had to
look over the Temple Mount wall and through the gateways of the Women’s Courtyard and the
Inner Courtyard.

The floor of the Heichal was twenty and a half amos higher than the floor of the Temple Mount,
so the base of the Heichal entrance was a half an amah higher than the top of the Temple Mount
gateway which was only twenty amos high. Kohen could not see into the entrance of the Heichal
by looking through the Temple Mount gateway, so the eastern wall had to be lower than the other
walls so the Kohen could look over the wall and see into the Heichal entrance through the other
gateways.

13
All the entrances in the Bais HaMikdash and on the Temple Mount were twenty amos high
and ten amos wide.

The Mishnah in Middos (2:3) states that all the gateways in the Bais HaMikdash and the Temple
Mount were twenty amos high and they were all ten amos wide. (16a2-16a3) Inside the Temple
Mount wall was the soreg and inside the soreg was the cheil.

Another Mishnah in Middos (2:3) states that inside the wall of the Temple Mount was the soreg,
which was a fence constructed of latticework and it served as a marker that a gentile and a Jew
who was tamei from a corpse could not cross that point.

It is said further in the Mishnah there that inside of the soreg was the cheil which was an open area
of ten amos, and within those ten amos there were twelve steps. The height of each of those twelve
steps was a half an amah and its tread was a half an amah. Thus, four amos of the cheil were flat
and the remaining six amos were steps leading up to the Women’s Courtyard, whose floor was six
amos higher.

There were fifteen steps from the Israelite Courtyard descending to the Women’s Courtyard.

The Mishnah in Middos (2:5) states further that there were fifteen steps ascending from within the
Women’s Courtyard. These fifteen steps descended from the Israelite Courtyard into the Women’s
Courtyard. Here, too, the height of each step was half an amah and its tread was a half an amah,
so the Israelite Courtyard was seven and a half amos higher than the women’s Courtyard and
thirteen and a half amos higher than the Temple Mount.

Between the Ulam and the mizbeiach was a space of twenty-two amos.

The Mishnah in Middos (3:6) states that in the Courtyard, between the Ulam and the mizbeiach
was a space of twenty-two amos, and there were twelve steps there that led up to the Ulam. The
height of each step was a half an amah, and its tread was a half an amah, so it was elevated an
additional six amos. Thus, the floor of the Ulam and of the Heichal was six amos higher than the
Israelite Courtyard. The Women’s Courtyard was six amos higher than the Temple Mount area,
the Israelite Courtyard was seven amos higher, and the Heichal was six amos higher, for a total of
nineteen and a half amos high.

Thus, all these Mishnahs in Middos that were cited prove that the Kohen who was standing on
the Mount of Olives was able to see through the upper half of the Eastern Gate of the Temple
Mount which was twenty amos high and he could see into the Heichal through the lowest half-
amah of its entrance.

The Kohen did not have to look over the top of the Eastern Wall and therefore it was not necessary
to build the wall so low. This Tanna differs with Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yaakov who maintains that
the base of the Heichal was twenty and a half amos higher than that of the Temple Mount, and
therefore Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov maintains that the Eastern Wall had to be lower than all the
other walls.

14
Rabbi Yehudah maintains that the mizbeiach stood exactly in the middle of the Courtyard
and it was thirty-two amos wide.

The Gemara stated that if the anonymous Mishnah that states that the Eastern Wall of the Temple
Mount was lower than the other walls is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, then that is why
the Kohen standing on the Mount of Olives could not see through the Eastern Gateway. For this
reason the Eastern Wall had to be lowered so that the Kohen could look over it.

If the Mishnah follows the Chachamim who differ with Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yaakov, then it was not
necessary to shorten the Eastern Wall to allow the Kohen to look over it, because there was a half
an amah at the top of the Eastern Gateway through which the Kohen standing on the Mount of
Olives could see the entrance of the Heichal. The Gemara attempts to reject this proof by stating
that the opinion in the anonymous Mishnah that the Eastern Wall is shorter is that of Rabbi
Yehudah, who maintains in a Baraisa that the mizbeiach stood exactly in middle of the Courtyard
and was thirty-two amos wide.

The mizbeiach was situated directly opposite the width of the Heichal and its walls.

Rabbi Yehudah maintains that the middle ten amos of the mizbeiach were opposite the entrance
of the Heichal, and eleven amos of the mizbeiach extended to the north side of the entrance and
eleven amos extended to the south side of the entrance. Thus, the entire width of the mizbeiach
was situated directly opposite the entire width of the Heichal and its walls. Thus, the mizbeiach
blocked the view of someone looking through the Temple Mount Gateway to the Heichal Entrance.
The top of the mizbeiach was twenty-two and a half amos high above the base of the Temple
Mount.

The Temple Mount Gateway was only twenty amos high, so for the Kohen sprinkling the blood of
the Parah Adumah on the Mount of Olives to see the Heichal Entrance, the Eastern Wall had to be
lower than the other walls.

The entire Courtyard was one hundred and eighty seven amos in length by one hundred and
thirty-five amos in width.

The Mishnah in Middos (5:1-2) states that the entire Courtyard was one hundred and eighty-seven
amos long and one hundred and thirty-five amos wide.

This is referring to the Inner Courtyard, which incorporated the Israelite’s Courtyard and the
Kohanim’s Courtyard. The Courtyard measured from east to west one hundred and eighty-seven
amos, and this section consisted of the area where the Israelites walked as they wished for an area
of eleven amos, and the area where even kohanim unfit to do the avodah would walk for another
area of eleven amos. The area also included the mizbeiach which occupied an area of thirty-two
amos, the area between the Ulam and the mizbeiach which measured twenty-two amos, and the
Heichal which was one hundred amos long. There was an area of eleven amos behind the chamber
of the kapores, which was the Holy of Holies. The holy of Holies was in the rear of the Bais

15
HaMikdash, so there were eleven amos between the rear of the Bais HaMikdash and the western
Wall of the Courtyard that were unoccupied.

The Courtyard measured one hundred and thirty-five amos from south to north and consisted of
the following sections: the ramp of the mizbeiach and the mizbeiach occupied an area of sixty-two
amos. From the mizbeiach to the slaughtering rings was an area of eight amos. The area of the
rings occupied twenty-four amos. From the rings to the tables where the innards of the offerings
were rinsed was an area of four amos. From the tables to the dwarf-pillars was a space of four
amos. From the dwarf-pillars to the northern wall of the Courtyard was an area of eight amos. The
remainder of the one hundred and thirty-five amos was from the area between the ramp and the
southern Courtyard and the area occupied by the dwarf-pillars.

The Chamber of Lambs (cont.) R’ Huna resolves the contradiction regarding the location of the
Chamber of Lambs, by asserting that the Mishnah in Middos reflects the opinion of R’ Eliezer ben
Yaakov.

The Gemara cites a series of Mishnayos from Middos that deals with the construction and height
of the walls around the Beis HaMikdash, which demonstrates that anonymous Mishnayos from
Middos reflect the position of R’ Eliezer ben Yaakov.

R’ Ada bar Ahava suggests that the series of Mishnayos reflects R’ Yehudah’s opinion rather than
that of R’ Eliezer ben Yaakov. The Gemara demonstrates that the Mishnayos cannot reflect the
opinion of R’ Yehudah, and therefore must reflect the opinion of R’ Eliezer ben Yaakov.

THE LOCATION OF THE MIZBE'ACH

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

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 Lishkat 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 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

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-016.htm

16
made lower than the other walls 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

17
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),

18
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.

19
(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.

The Layout of the Temple

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

Much of our daf is devoted to a description of the plan of The Temple Mount itself, with detailed
descriptions of the area from the Ezrat Yisrael (Court of the Israelites) and south of it. The furthest
north that a Jewish person who was not a kohen could enter was the Ezrat Yisrael . Kohanim were
allowed in the Ezrat Kohanim (The Priests’ Courtyard), as well.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov reported on the set-up of the Temple:

The Ezrat Nashim was an open square of 135 cubits by 135 cubits. In each corner of the square
were small, open courtyards, each of which was 40 square cubits.

Each of these courtyards served a specific purpose:

• Lishkat ha-nezirim was where the nazir would have his hair cut and burned under the pot
where his sacrifice was being cooked.
• Lishkat dir ha-etzim was where kohanim who could not perform the Temple service due to
a mum (physical blemish) were employed in checking the wood for worms or bugs. The
Me’iri explains that this was necessary either because nothing non-Kosher could be
brought on the altar, or because disgusting things would be inappropriate to be brought on
the mizbe’ah (altar)
• Lishkat ha-metzora’im was where people who recovered from Biblical leprosy would go
to the mikveh
• Lishkat bet shemanya was where the oil and wine used for the offerings and libations were
stored.

3
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_yoma_16a22b/

20
Women’s courtyard and its chambers

Chamber of the Nazirites

21
With regard to the southwest chamber, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov said: I forgot what purpose it
would serve. Abba Shaul says: They would place wine and oil there for the meal-offerings and
libations, and it was called the Chamber of the House of Oils. From this mishna it may be
inferred that the tanna who taught the mishnayot in tractate Middot is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov,
as that is why the mishna finds it necessary to mention that he forgot the purpose of one of the
chambers.

Altar in the middle of the courtyard, according to Rambam

With all the detail that appears in the Gemara, there are still a number of things that are left
unexplained. For example, the azara – an area that included not only the altar, but the area of the
slaughterhouse, as well – is not clearly detailed.

The Gemara teaches that the altar was in the middle of the azara, opposite the entrance to the Holy
and the Holy of Holies.

Since there had to be room for the apparatus of the slaughterhouse, including taba’ot (rings to hold
the animals), shulhanot (tables on which the animals were butchered), and nanasim (hooks on
which the animals were hung), the Rambam explains that only part of the altar was opposite the
entrance to the ulam (Sanctuary) and the heikhal (the Temple proper).

The kevesh (ramp) leading to the mizbe’ah (altar) was to the south, leaving room on the northern
side for the tables, rings and hooks.

22
The Altar was defiled by the Seleucid Greeks when they controlled Eretz Yisroel. Later, the
remnants of this Altar were taken and placed into the chamber in the northeast corner of the
courtyard.4

HaRav Moshe Feinstein was asked (Igros Moshe O.C. 4:#38) about how to handle holy objects
recovered from the destruction of European Jewry in World War II. The question was whether
pieces from a torn Torah cover must be placed into shaimos and buried, or whether they may be
put on display in a respectable manner as a memorial to the evil which the Nazis, ‫שמם ימח‬
,perpetrated against our people and against humanity.

Would this constitute a compromise to the honor of the remnants of the Sefer Torah which should
possibly be buried? Reb Moshe brings a proof from our Gemara to answer this question. The office
in the northeastern corner of the courtyard contained stones which came from the Altar which had
been defiled. If might seem that it would have been better to bury these stones, rather than to keep
them in storage. Apparently, the reason they were kept was to remember the evil of the Greeks,
and to renew our gratitude to Hashem for having saved us from their threat.

We therefore see that if the purpose of keeping the remnant of a holy item is in order to promote
the honor of Hashem, this is not considered a disgrace to that item. As a follow-up point, Reb
Moshe was asked whether a person must tear his clothing as a sign of mourning and grief when he
views the torn pieces of a Torah which was defiled.

He answers that the halachah only requires a response of tearing one’s clothes when a person
actually witnesses the terrible scene of a Torah being torn or burned. Viewing pieces of a Torah
which was destroyed does not require such a response.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:5

Much of our daf (Yoma 16a) explores the structure and dimensions of the Beit HaMikdash while
also quoting extensively from Massechet Middot, which then leads the Gemara to note that
Massechet Middot was taught and edited by Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

According to tradition, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s life spanned the final years of the second Beit
HaMikdash as well as the years of destruction that followed, and it seems that the need to clearly
record the dimensions (Middot) of the Beit HaMikdash became somewhat of a life mission of his.
Significantly, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov was referred to by the accolade ‫ – קב ונקי‬literally ‘small
measured and clean’ – which is generally interpreted to mean that while, aside from Massechet

4
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20016.pdf
5
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

23
Middot, he made far fewer contributions to rabbinic discourse than most of his rabbinic
contemporaries, when he did his teachings were generally considered to be authoritative. However,
it should be noted that the usage of the term ‫ – קב‬small measured, may also have been employed
to allude to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s interest in Middot – dimensions.

I am a strong believer that each of us have latent Torah wisdom that we have been gifted by God
to discover and to reveal to the world – each according to our unique interests, skills and
understanding. And it seems that while Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov was a great Torah scholar, it
was the realm of explaining the structure and dimensions of the Beit HaMikdash which most spoke
to him and which became his life mission to learn and teach to the world. And from then on,
whenever Massechet Middot is referenced, it is done so in his name, because it represents his
passion and dedication to this subject which ran so deep that he held himself back from
contributing to other areas of rabbinic discussion in order to focus his attention on this one.

There are those who feel frustrated when their total involvement in their own ‘stuff’ means that
they ‘lose out’ from participating or contributing to other valuable topics and discussions. Of
course, in the ideal world it would be nice to have sufficient time and attention for everything.
However, I personally take comfort from the legacy of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, because though
he was ‘small measured’ in other areas of Torah, his contribution to Judaism - through Massechet
Middot – was monumental.

Hasmonean stones.
SARA RONIS WRITES:6

Today’s daf offers more description of the Second Temple compound’s layout — a description
that can help us to remember just how enormous and complex this entire structure really was, a
structure that employed a bevy of priests and Levites to work round the clock offering sacrifices
to God.

According to all the earlier traditions cited, there was a room called the Hall of the Hearth, which
presumably had a fire pit or hearth burning, and there were four rooms that opened onto it. What
were these rooms used for? The Gemara cites two opinions from earlier mishnahs.

The first is from Mishnah Tamid 3:3:

One was the Chamber of the Lambs, and one was the Chamber of the Seals, and one was the
Chamber of the Hall of the Hearth, and one was the chamber where the showbread was
prepared.

The second opinion is from Mishnah Middot 1:6:

The one on the southwest was the Chamber of Sacrificial Lambs, the one on the southeast was
the Chamber of the Showbread. In the one to the northeast the Hasmoneans deposited the

6
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/yoma-16/

24
stones of the altar which the kings of Greece had defiled. Through the one on the northwest
they used to go down to the place of immersion.

Both texts agree that one of the four rooms was used to pen the sacrificial lambs before they were
sacrificed. They also agree that one of the rooms was used to make the showbread, a set of cakes
that were left out for God on a special table and baked (likely on that hearth) and replaced weekly.
The two mishnahs disagree, however, on the functions of the last two rooms.

According to the mishnah in Tamid, these rooms were also used for the day-to-day function of the
Temple: storing the seals (receipts) for people’s payments to the Temple, and an antechamber.
According to the Mishnah in Middot, however, one of these rooms housed some kind of stairwell
or ramp to a place to immerse and prepare for Temple service, but the other was very different: it
served to store “the stones of the altar which of the kinds of Greece had defiled.”

Those familiar with the story of Hanukkah will remember that after recapturing the Temple from
the Greeks, Judah Maccabee and his band purified and rededicated the sanctuary. They also saw
that the altar itself had been used to offer impure sacrifices to foreign gods. Could it be purified as
well? According to 1 Maccabees 4:

“They deliberated what to do about the altar of burnt offering, which had been profaned.
And they thought it best to tear it down, so that it would not be a lasting shame to them that
the Gentiles had defiled it. So they tore down the altar, and stored the stones in a convenient
place on the Temple hill until a prophet should come to tell what to do with them.”

The sacred stones of the altar, which had been desecrated by impure offerings made to foreign
gods, couldn’t remain — they would serve as a lasting reminder of the invasion and defilement of
their most holy space. But before that they had been used to serve the God of Israel and so the
stones retained a degree of holiness and could not simply be discarded. Hence: storage in the
Temple in a convenient place which, according to the mishnah in Middot, turned out to be a room
off of the Hall of the Hearth.

The Gemara doesn’t tell us which identification of the four rooms off the Hall of the Hearth is
correct. But it’s worth thinking about what it would have meant to have a room filled with
Hasmonean stones that had once been part of God’s sacred altar, and then dripped with porcine
blood offered to Zeus, somewhere in the Temple precincts.

Like the Maccabees and their descendants, many of us feel obligated to keep certain objects around
that bring up painful memories. But today’s daf asks us consider the emotional impact of
surrounding ourselves with these items. What would it have meant for a priest to walk by a room
with the stones that symbolized Israel’s defeat and defilement every day on his way to work? What
would it have felt like to see, every day, the evidence that your most sacred space had been used
to worship the foreign gods of one’s oppressors?

What would it have meant to priests to be serving in the Temple, now rededicated and purified,
with a renewed awareness of the impermanence of the Temple service? And perhaps most
importantly, what would it have meant for the rabbis of the Mishnah and the Talmud, living in a
world without a Temple — at least for the time being — to try to recapture these experiences?

25
TIMELINE

From the Maccabean Revolt to Roman Rule7

The Maccabean Revolt and the Hasmonean Dynasty [167-37 BCE]

167 Antiochus IV issues a decree abolishing Jewish religion.

• He defiles the temple (1 Macc. 1:54-59; 2 Macc. 6:2-5; Dan. 11:31).

• He tortures those who refused to comply.
• Mattathias, an old priest in Modein, N.W. of Jerusalem, refuses to cooperate, kills an
idolatrous Jew and flees with his five sons: John, Eleazar, Judas, Jonathan, Simon.
• The Maccabean revolt (and the Hasmonean dynasty) begins. See 1 Macc.2:15-28.
On the zeal of Phinehas, see Num.25:6-15; Psm.106:28-31; Sir.45:23-24; 1 Macc.2:27,
54.

1 Macc.2:29-38: a band of rebels hiding in the desert are attacked on the Sabbath. They refuse to
defend themselves and are slaughtered.
1 Macc.2:39-41: Mattathias and company determine to fight even on Sabbath--they would break
the Torah for the sake of Torah.

166/165 Mattathias delivers his final testament (1 Macc.2:49-68) and dies (1 Macc.2:69-70).

Judas ("Maccabeus"='the hammerer'), 3rd son of Mattathias, becomes commander of about 3000
rebel forces.

165-164 The rebels successfully wage guerilla warfare on the Syrian forces lead by Antiochus'
commander, Lysias (while Antiochus is away in Persia raising funds).

• To explore how the author of 1 Maccabees makes good use of his

characters' speeches and prayers, see 3:18-22, 58-60; 4:8-11, 17-18; 4:30-33.
• For examples of circumlocutions (like "kingdom of heaven" in Matthew) see 1 Macc.
3:18, 19, 50, 60; 4:10, 24, 40, 55.

164 The temple is purified.

• They store the stones from the profaned Altar of Burnt Offering.
• On the hope for a future prophet, see 1 Macc.4:44-46; 14:41; Deut.18:15; Mal.4:5.
• The altar is rebuilt and sacrifices resume on 25th of Chislev (= November/December).
• This event is celebrated as the 8 day Feast of Hannukah (began on Dec.24, 1997). See 1
Macc.4:36-58.

164/163 Antiochus dies during a campaign against the Parthians (1 Macc.6:16).

7
https://www.westmont.edu/~fisk/articles/jewhistc.htm

26
164-161 Popular support for Judas wanes.

163-162 Antiochus V rules as a child, with Lysias as regent.

• The Jews' religious freedom is restored. Menelaus is executed. Judas' position is

recognized.
• Jewish proponents of Hellenization are virtually eliminated.

162 Demetrius, son of Seleucus IV, returns from Rome, seizes power, and appoints Alcimus as
high priest (1 Macc.7:5-9). Judas opposes Alcimus.

• On the pro-Maccabean bias of 1 Maccabees, see 7:5, 9, 21-23.

• Judas concludes a treaty with Rome, against Demetrius and the Syrians (1 Macc.8:17-
32).
• Judas dies in battle against (1 Macc.9:17-22).
• Question: Did the Jews believe that the gift of prophecy had ceased? See 1 Macc.9:27;
4:46; 14:41.

161-142 Jonathan, Judas' brother, rules in Judas' place.

• Many Jews, content with restored religious freedoms, do not support his quest for
independence from the Seleucids.

159 Alcimus dies while attempting to remodel the Temple (1 Macc.9:54-56).

• See Josephus Antiquities 13.171-173 (read chapter 5, section 9 of Whiston's translation)

who offers comments on three Jewish groups--Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes--at this
point in the story.

152 Alexander Balas arrives and recruits Jonathan in his quest for the Seleucid throne.

• He rewards Jonathan by appointing him as High Priest, even though not of Zadokite
descent.
• The (non-Zadokite) Hasmonean priesthood lasts from 152 to 37 BCE.

27
Sichos of Lubavitcher Rebbe8
"‫"כשנכנסו יוונים להיכל טמאו כל השמנים‬

“When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary they defiled all the oils.”

If the purpose of the Greeks was to extinguish the light of the Menorah and prevent its rekindling,
why did they defile the oil? They could have accomplished this more effectively by using it up or
destroying it.

ANSWER: The true objective of the Greeks was not to prevent the rekindling of the Menorah,
but rather that it should be rekindled with defiled oil. Hence, they purposely left a supply of defiled
oil in the Sanctuary to be readily available for this purpose.

The Greeks were willing to recognize the Torah as a beautiful literary creation, with exceptional
wisdom and profound philosophy, provided only that it was considered as a human creation, like
their own mythology. As such, the Torah could be changed and modified from time to time, so as
to harmonize with the character of the ruling class and the novel ideas and morals of the period.
Thus, it was not the suppression of the Torah that they aimed at, but “lehashkicham Toratecha” —
“to make them forget Your Torah” — and not treat it as G-d-given.

Similarly, they were not against to the moral and ethical values contained therein, but their concern
was “leha’aviram meichukei retzonecha” — “to violate the decrees of Your Will” — not to
observe the Divine chukim, the so-called “supra-rational” precepts, which more than any other,
distinguish the Divinely ordained Jewish way of life.

Their objective was, thus, not to prevent the rekindling of the Menorah, but that its light should
come from oil that had a Greek “taint.”

8
https://www.sie.org/templates/sie/article_cdo/aid/2865736/jewish/The-Gemaras-Account-of-the-Chanukah-Miracle.htm

28
‫)לקוטי שיחות ח"ג(‬

‫‪29‬‬