<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16700"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=3 face=Calibri>I had asked in a previous
post:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=3 face=Calibri>Also does the fingernail rule only
apply to the individual stone aggregate, or to the entire surface after removal
of the form. If so, the aggregate-mortar joints must have been near perfect -
almost like a polished surface!? Also does this fingernail rule apply to stone
aggregate buried in the interior of the mizbeach and never visible at its
surface? If yes - you will never know whether during construction a stone in the
interior became scratched and made the mizbeach pasul!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have since found that:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The sugia is in Chulin 18a and the meforshim there discuss it. The gemara
says the pegimas hamizbeach is kdai shtachgor es hatsiporen. Then the gm' brings
a breisa stating that RSB'I holds the shiur pegimas hamizbeach is a
tefach and REB'Y holds it’s a czayis. Then the gm' explains the breisa does
not contradict the previous gm'. One is b'sida (plaster) and the other is b'avna
(stone). Most meforshim assume the shiur of the nail is for the stone and the
shiur of the breisa is for the plaster but some meforshim have it
reversed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It also seems that it should make no difference whether the stones are on
the surface or in the interior of the mizbeach as the psul originates in the
requirement of shlaimos. This of course leaves my final question unanswered for
which you can give a simple (if very tedious for the actual workers building the
mizbeach) balabatishe answer that they were extremely careful in the placement
of each stone in the huge 32 X 32 X 9 (roughly) amo volume. I.e., these stones
were of necessity not placed the way we place concrete into forms today poured
en mass, but each piece of the aggregate (smooth stone) had to be placed
carefully, and then carefully surrounded by the mortar, (unless the mortar was
sufficiently fluid to flow through the stone matrix under gravity).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Correct me if you think I have it wrong.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Kol tuv</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Chaim Manaster</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>