Answer: The opening was not exposed [more above the Yesod than above the Sovev] due to the 12 steps between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach;

Rashi mentioned above the Sovev, for [in all] the steps are six Amos tall, equal to the height of the Sovev, which is six Amos above the ground.

Question (Rashi): Why didn't we say that the tables are in the [width allotted for] the pillars, and we divide the 25 extra Amos [of the width of the Azarah], 12 and a half between the ramp and the [southern] wall, and the rest for the tables?

If so, the Mizbe'ach [which is 32 Amos wide, and has 30 Amos of ramp to its south] would end 74 and a half Amos [from the south wall], so Pesach ha'Heichal would not be seen above the Sovev and Yesod! (Pesach ha'Heichal extends only five Amos into the north, 72 and a half Amos from the south wall. The Sovev and Yesod are the last two Amos of the Mizbe'ach! Since we could say so, why can't the Mishnah be like R. Yehudah?)

Question (against Rashi): What forced Rashi to explain like this, that the Gemara asked based on the two Amos above the recession of the Sovev and Yesod? Due to this, Rashi asked what he asked.

Alternate explanation: We can explain simply, that the Gemara asked because R. Yehudah holds that the Mizbe'ach was in the middle, and the Stam Tana of Midos disagrees;

The Stam Tana holds that at least most of the Mizbe'ach was in the south. If so, the Stam Mishnah is unlike R. Yehudah!

We conclude that it must be like R. Eliezer ben Yakov, who says that the entire Mizbe'ach was in the south.

Implied question: Why didn't we say that [perhaps] the Mishnah in Midos holds that the Mizbe'ach was mostly in the south, and therefore the wall above the eastern gate had to be low [to allow the Kohen to see Pesach ha'Heichal above it], because the entire [eastern] opening was covered! (Steps from the ground of the eastern gate up to the floor of the Azarah covered 13 and a half Amos, and the Mizbe'ach covered the rest of the 20 Amos of the opening.)

This would be true if we say that there were 12 and a half Amos between the ramp and the [south] wall. If so, there is no proof that the Tana holds that R. Eliezer ben Yakov!

Answer: We find only three opinions about this. One holds that the entire Mizbe'ach was in the north, one holds that it was totally in the south, and one holds that it was in the middle;

Since we cannot establish the Mishnah in Midos like the opinion that it was totally in the north, and not like the opinion that it was in the middle, we should not concoct a four-way argument, and say that the Tana of Midos holds that the Mizbe'ach was mostly in the south, since we do not find a Tana who says so;

Rather, you must say that it is R. Eliezer ben Yakov, who holds that the entire Mizbe'ach was in the south.

Rashi's opinion: "Who is this? It is R. Yehudah" refers to the Mishnah in Tamid.

Rejection #1: The words connotes unlike this. If so, it should have said "who is the Tana of [the Mishnah in] Tamid? It is R. Yehudah."

Rejection #2: "Who is this? It is R. Yehudah" connotes that it refers to the last matter discussed.

Rejection #3: The Gemara came only to answer the contradiction between the Mishnayos in Tamid and Midos, and [according to Rashi] said "it is R. Yehudah" regarding the Mishnah in Tamid;

The only necessity to establish it like R. Yehudah is because it argues with the Mishnah in Midos.

It would have been better to say [that we do so] because we find in Zevachim (58a) that the Stam Mishnah in Tamid holds that the Mizbe'ach was in the middle, like R. Yehudah, and unlike R. Eliezer ben Yakov, who says that it was totally in the south!

Rejection #4: We should say that the Mishnah in Tamid is Aba Sha'ul, like I proved above, that the Stam Mishnah of Tamid, which argues with the Stam Mishnah of Yoma, is Aba Sha'ul.

Rejection #5: Rashi deleted from all texts, which say in the conclusion "rather, this shows that it is R. Eliezer ben Yakov."

Question: Why don't we say that both of them list them going around to the right?

The Tana of Tamid is from the perspective of someone inside the big Beis ha'Mokad, facing the chambers, and the Tana of Midos is from the perspective of someone outside in the Azaros, facing the chambers? This is easy to understand. (Circling to the right from the outside is like circling to the left from the inside.)

Answer: In Tamid (30a), it was taught that after the lottery, the appointee said "bring me a lamb from Lishkas [ha'Tela'im...]

Below (25a), it says that the lottery was in Lishkas ha'Gazis! This shows that he was outside [Beis ha'Mokad], and not inside.

Question: Why don't we say that both [Mishnayos] list [the chambers] going around to the right, just also Lishkas Lechem ha'Panim is on the side [and can appear to be in the north or south corner, just like Lishkas ha'Tela'im]?

It is in the east. To one who comes from the north it appears to be in the south, and to one who comes from the south it appears to be in the north;

(We can say that Tamid 30a considers these two chambers, i.e. Lechem ha'Panim and ha'Tela'im, to be in the north corners, and lists the chambers going around to the right.) Lishkas ha'Tela'im is in the northwest, Lishkas ha'Chosamos is in the southwest, Lishkas Beis ha'Mokad is in the southeast, and Lishkas Lechem ha'Panim was in the northeast.

Note: Midos 1:6 explicitly says that the chambers of Tela'im and Lechem ha'Panim are southwest and southeast, and mentions two other chambers in the north corners. Those other two chambers cannot be of Chosamos and Beis ha'Mokad if we say that they are in the south corners!

The Mishnah in Midos can also be established Derech Yamin. It is easy to understand this. (It considers the chambers Lechem ha'Panim and ha'Tela'im to be in the south corners.)

Answer: You must say that Lishkas ha'Chosamos and Lishkas Beis ha'Mokad are the same two chambers mentioned in Midos 1:6. (Therefore, we cannot answer like above. See the note after a:2.)

In one of them, Beis Din Chashmonai buried stones of the Mizbe'ach, and from one Kohanim descend to Beis ha'Tevilah.

We cannot say that they were different, for [the big] Lishkas Beis ha'Mokad had only four chambers. If these were different, it had six chambers!

If you will say that both Mishnayos list going to the right, the Mishnah in Tamid connotes that one of Lishkas ha'Chosamos and Lishkas Beis ha'Mokad was in the southwest, and one was in the southeast;

The Mishnah in Midos, if it lists going to the right, connotes that one of those chambers was in the northeast, and one was in the northwest!

Implied question: What is the source for the Gemara to say that presumably, [Lishkas ha'Telaim] was in the southwest? Perhaps it was in the northwest, and even so we answer the question from [Lishkas] Lechem ha'Panim like this [picture]! (Note: The picture is inaccurate. The southwest corner should be empty, and Lishkas ha'Chosamos should be in the northwest corner, with Lishkas ha'Telaim (R. Yitzchak Chaver, Malei ha'Ro'im and Sefas Emes).)

Suggestion: We cannot say that it was in the northwest, for if so, there was no chamber in the southwest!

Rejection: This is not difficult. The Mishnah did not say that there are four chambers in the four corners. It taught Stam that there are four chambers!

Answer: Since it teaches that Lishkas ha'Tela'im was in a corner, presumably each of them was in its own corner;

It is unreasonable that there were two in the northwest corner, and nothing in the southwest corner.

Question: Perhaps Lishkas ha'Tela'im was in the northwest, and all the rest were on the sides, like this! (The picture in Tosfos is missing Lishkas Lechem ha'Panim on the south side - Rashash, R. Y. Chaver.)

Answer: This is why the Gemara said "presumably it was in the southwest", and did not say "you must say that it was in the south, for if so you cannot answer Lechem ha'Panim";

Rather, it is because one could have said that it was in the northwest, like I said, but it holds that it is difficult to say that all were on the sides.

Explanation: We learn from the Yam (Mikveh) that Shlomo made.

Question (R. Efrayim): Why do we learn from Shlomo's Yam? We should learn from the Migrash (land left undeveloped around the Leviyim's cities)!

It says "u'Madosem mi'Chutz la'Ir Es Pe'as Kedmah Alpayim ba'Amah v'Es Pe'as Negev" (east, south...), which is going to the left if one faces the city and circles it from the outside!

Answer: We learn from the Yam, because it says "Ponim Ponim." (The repetition teaches that we always circle to the right.) It says so explicitly in Zevachim (62b).

Citation - Question: We need the verse for the simple meaning [to teach about the supports]. How can it teach that we always circle to the right?

Citation (cont.) Answer: If it does not teach this, why is "Ponim" repeated?!

Question (Riva): Why didn't we answer the question from Lishkas ha'Telaim through saying that it is in the northwest corner, i.e. of the Azarah, but it was the southwest corner of Beis ha'Mokad?

Midos 1:5 connotes that the big Beis ha'Mokad was in the north of the Azarah, like this [picture].

There (Tamid 30a) discusses [the northwest corner of] the Azarah, and here (Midos 1:6 discusses the southwest corner) of Beis ha'Mokad!

We could have answered like this also regarding [Lishkas] Lechem ha'Panim, that also there (Tamid) they are listed going to the right;

We would say that Lishkas ha'Chosamos and Lishkas ha'Mokad, which are listed in Tamid but not in Midos, were other chambers in the Azarah, one in the northeast corner of the Azarah, and one in the northwest corner of the Azarah, which is south of the big Beis ha'Mokad!

When you list from Lishkas ha'Telaim to the right, Lechem ha'Panim is the fourth, southeast of the big Beis ha'Mokad, like this [picture. I think that the picture in R. Y. Chaver is more reliable - PF.]

Answer #1: It is unreasonable [for Tamid 30a] to say that four chambers were there, since only two of them were in the Azarah.

Answer #2: The corners of the Azarah cannot coincide with the corners of the big Beis ha'Mokad. Presumably, the Azarah was bigger (i.e. longer) than Beis ha'Mokad. (I.e. according to Riva's answer, the big Beis ha'Mokad spanned the entire north side of the Azarah.)

Question: What forced Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua to establish the Stam Mishnayos of Tamid so they will not argue with each other, and like one Tana?

You are forced to say that the Stam Mishnayos argue with each other, for the Stam Mishnah in Midos holds that the entire Mizbe'ach or its majority is in the south, like we find here;

It is clear from Zevachim 58b that the Stam Mishnah in Tamid holds that the Mizbe'ach is in the middle!

Answer: We are not concerned if they argue about something that we know that Tana'im argue about. However, we did not find Tana'im who explicitly argue about where the chambers were.

Question: Initially, before the Gemara thought of this answer, how did it understand why Rabanan [of Rebbi] hold that he gets four or five?

Since Rabanan of R. Yehudah hold that the Kohen Gadol receives five, i.e. a sixth less than half [of the 12], why does R. Yehudah hold that he receives only four, i.e. a fifth less than half [of the 10, i.e. excluding the two given for locking the doors]?

They should give to him four whole loaves and a small piece (a sixth), so the deficiency less than half [five] that he gets will be only a sixth!

Alternatively, since R. Yehudah holds that he receives a fifth less [than half of the 10], also Rabanan should hold that he receives a fifth less [than half of the 12, i.e. four and four fifths]!

Answer: Really, the Gemara realized that it is improper to give to him a partial loaf, as long as he gets less than half;

Therefore, regarding Lechem ha'Panim, if we would give to him one less than half, he would get [nothing, i.e.] less than other Kohanim, therefore we give to him a whole loaf;

We are not so exacting to equate R. Yehudah and Rabanan, so that according to both of them he will get a fifth less than half or a sixth less than half, for it is improper to give a piece!

However, regarding Lechem ha'Panim, the Gemara thought that it is more proper to give to him a piece than to give a full half.

It is not proper at all to give to him as much as all his fellow Kohanim, that he alone should be equal to all of them.

The Gemara answered that even so, it is better to equate him to all of them than to give to him a piece.