# dafyomi

lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah must not rely on Kesivah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  The same rationale as above will apply to making only one 
          shelf in the Heichal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Mishnah teaches that even according to 
          R. Yehudah there were multiple Shofaros (and there he 
          <i>must</i> rely on Kesivah)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The concern of mixing (and why there is no Shofar 
          for Chovah) is (not like R. Yosi said but rather) for a 
          Chatas whose owner may have died.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Mishnah teaches that we do not consider 
          such a possibility of death.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is actually a Gezeirah lest we find out that 
          an owner <i>had</i> died, and we will not know which coins are 
          his.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then take four Zuz and cast them away!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah does not rely on B'reira to permit the 
          Isur.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) BEREIRAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Whence do you derive R. Yehudah's position that 
          he does not rely on Bereirah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> From the Beraisa wherein R. Yehudah 
               prohibits taking Terumos and Ma'aseros from wine 
               (and being allowed to designate and be Mechalel it) 
               before Shabbos, and on Shabbos leaving it over in 
               the bottle.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'BEREIRAH' AND A 'TENAI'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara proves that Rebbi Yehudah maintains 'Ein Bereirah' from the words of Ayo in a Beraisa. Ayo says in the name of Rebbi Yehudah that one may make an Eruv Techumin with a stipulation only with regard to one side of the town or the other. He may stipulate that whichever side of the town the Chacham visits is the side on which the Eruv should take effect. He may not say that if two Chachamim come (one on each side of town), then he reserves the right to choose, on Shabbos, the side on which his Eruv will take effect. In such a case the Eruv is not valid because the validity of the Eruv depends on Bereirah, and Rebbi Yehudah maintains that Bereirah does not work.
</p><p>
The Gemara points out that in both cases the person utilizes Bereirah. Why, then, is the stipulation in the second case not valid while the stipulation in the first case is valid? The Gemara answers that in the first case, the Chacham has already arrived to one of the sides of the town (before Shabbos), and therefore the location of the Eruv will not be determined by a future event. Rather, it is determined by the present location of the Chacham (which will only be known when word of his arrival reaches this town).
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara not suggest a very simple difference between the two cases of Ayo? Perhaps even when one stipulates, 'If the Chacham comes to the east, my Eruv is to the east,' the Eruv is valid, because it involves no more than a normal case of a 'Tenai' (a 'yes' or 'no' condition). It is comparable to a case where one says, 'If you do this act, this Get will be valid, and if you do not do this act, the Get will not be valid.' In contrast, when the person says, 'If two Chachamim come, I will choose tomorrow where I want my Eruv to take effect retroactively,' there is no condition. The issue in that case is one of Bereirah, and thus the Eruv is not valid. Why does the Gemara consider the first case to be a case of Bereirah and not a normal case of a Tenai?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> in Gitin (25b, DH ul'Chi Mayis) writes that a condition, a Tenai, works only because the ability to fulfill the condition is in the hands of one of the parties involved, and it was the person's intention that the condition be fulfilled at the time that he stipulated the Tenai. (That is, because he plans to fulfill it and he wants the transaction to be consummated, the event that is contingent upon the completion of the Tenai takes effect <i>immediately</i>, even before the Tenai is executed. If the Tenai ends up un-fulfilled, then the event is <i>uprooted</i> retroactively. It is not possible to cause an event to <i>take effect</i> retroactively.)
</p><p>
This is not how the condition works in the case of Eruv Techumin. The fulfillment of the condition (that the Chacham comes to one side) is not in the hands of the person who makes the statement. Rather, it depends on the Chacham, who has nothing to do with the Eruv. Since the Eruv depends on an act that is not in the person's hands to fulfill, it is considered a case of Bereirah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> in Gitin (25b) argues with Rashi. He explains that a case of a Tenai exists when there are only two possibilities: either the event will occur or it will not occur. In contrast, when an event can occur in one of several ways it is not a case of Tenai. Rather, it is a question of Bereirah. The case of the Eruv that is dependent on the Chacham's arrival can occur in one of two ways (he could arrive in the east or in the west). Therefore, it involves Bereirah.
</p><p>
One may still ask, however, why is the case of the Chacham a case of Bereirah? Perhaps the person's stipulation involves two completely separate conditions. The first condition is that if the Chacham comes to the east, then the Eruv will be to the east, and if he does not come to the east, then the Eruv will not be to the east. The second condition is that if the Chacham comes to the west, then the Eruv will be to the west, and if he does not come to the west, then the Eruv will not be to the west. (See <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b>, Ma'arachah #4 to Eruvin 38a. <b>TOSFOS</b> (end of Yoma 56a) in fact asks this question on the explanation of the Ramban.)
</p><p>
Apparently, the Ramban maintains that the establishment of the two Eruvei Techumin cannot be viewed as two independent events. Rather, one event takes place (an Eruv is made), and there are two possibilities as to how it will take place (to the east or to the west). The reason for this is that one cannot make two Eruvim to be Koneh Shevisah in two places (since a person lives in only one place at a time). Therefore, when the person adds that if the Chacham comes to the other side then his Eruv will be to that side, it is viewed as an addendum to his first condition. (See also Insights to Eruvin 36:2.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Perhaps his rationale to prohibit there is 
               as taught, out of concern that the bottle might 
               break (a concern which R. Meir does not share)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> From R. Yehudah's position prohibiting making a 
          condition this way and that on two Chachamim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why is one Chacham different than two?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is speaking where the Chacham has already 
               arrived, and only the student is unaware of his 
               direction.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> According to R. Yochanan, that, too, is unrelated to 
               Bereirah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But if R. Yehudah does not rely on Bereirah, 
          and he <i>does</i> rely on Kesivah, then make two shelves and 
          mark them!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Kohen Gadol, in his weakened state, may not 
          pay attention to the writing.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If weakness were not the reason, and we <i>could</i> rely 
               on the alertness of the Kohen Gadol; 
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Then the greater quantity of Dam Par would be 
                    enough of a differentiation between the Damim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> And if we assume that he only received an equal 
                    amount of Dam from the Par as from the Sa'ir;
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b></b>We were taught by R. Yehudah that <i>all</i> the Dam 
                    must be collected.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iv. </font></b></b> And if quantity is not reliable (owing to 
                    spillage) then their color would differentiate 
                    them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It must be the weakness of the Kohen Gadol.
<br>
<b><font>2) CONSISTENT HALACHIC POSITIONS IN THE MUSAF PRAYERS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Rava pointed out to the Sh'liach Tzibur that his prayer 
          was inconsistent.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> His prayer spoke of <i>two</i> shelves, like the 
               Chachamim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He mentioned picking up the Dam Par before setting 
               down the Dam Sa'ir, like R. Yehudah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Rava told him to rather say put down the Dam Sa'ir first 
          and make it consistent with the Chachamim.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE SECOND HAZA'AH IN THE HEICHAL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  From 've'Chein Ya'aseh' we learn that the Haza'ah in the 
          Heichal is identical to that in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  This includes the number of Haza'os as well as the manner 
          in which they were sprinkled.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE SHECHINAH AND 'TUM'AH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  We are taught that even when we are Tamei the Shechinah 
          is with us.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The blasphemer challenged R. Chanina by calling us Tamei 
          (based on the Pasuk indicating that such will be the case 
          in the end).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Chanina responded that the Shechinah is with us even 
          so.
<br>
<b><font>2) VECHEN YA'ASEI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa uses this Pasuk as a Hekesh (to connect 
          Par-Sa'ir and Heichal-Kodesh ha'Kodoshim).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Can something which is, itself, derived from a 
          Hekesh (Par from Sa'ir) in turn teach a Hekesh (Heichal 
          from Lifnim)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This is not called a Hekesh (but rather Heimenu 
          ve'Davar Acher).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But what according to the opinion that 
          considers Heimenu as a Hekesh?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The place is learned from one another (such that 
          each Hekesh deals with its own issues and no Lamed is 
          being Melamed).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer:</font></b> The Limudim can both be learned as one 
          (Chutz from P'nim).
<br>
<b><font>3) HAZA'AH IN THE HEICHAL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar b. R. Yosi reported seeing drops of Dam (from 
          the Sa'ir on Yom Kipur) on the Paroches in Rome, contrary 
          to the Tana Kama who teaches that the Haza'ah is <i>not</i> on 
          the Paroches itself.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps those drops were from other Korbanos 
          (e.g. the Par He'elam Davar)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Elazar saw the (eight) drops in line.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa teaches the same sequence regarding the other 
          Korbanos:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar reported seeing <i>those</i> drops (and while 
               those are not done on the Paroches, it is not 
               Me'akev is some drops fall on it).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Perhaps those were from Yom Kipur?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> He saw they were not in line.
<br>
<b><font>4) IF THE BLOOD OF THE PAR AND SA'IR BECAME MIXED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  If they became mixed before the Haza'ah bi'Fenim:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> He does one set of Haza'os and it counts for 
               both.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yirmiyah sharply put down Rava's suggestion.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Rava ends up with the Sa'ir le'Ma'alah being 
                    sprinkled before the Par le'Matah, which is 
                    Pasul.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Rather, he must sprinkle one sent for Par and 
                    another set for Sa'ir.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If they became mixed after the Par le'Ma'alah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Papa suggested to do one Haza'ah le'Matah for 
               both and then a Sa'ir le'Ma'alah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Rava told R. Papa that the insult leveled by R. 
               Yirmiyah would apply doubly to this suggestion which 
               repeated the earlier error.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A 'HEKESH' THAT TEACHES A HALACHAH WHICH WAS DERIVED THROUGH ANOTHER 'HEKESH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah (55b) discusses where and how the blood of the Par and Sa'ir were sprinkled on Yom Kippur. First, the blood of the Par was sprinkled in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, with one Haza'ah upward and seven Haza'os downward. Second, the blood of the Sa'ir was sprinkled in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim in the same manner, one Haza'ah upward and seven downward. The Kohen Gadol then went from the Kodesh ha'Kodashim into the Heichal and performed similar Haza'os towards the Paroches: one upward and seven downward from the blood of the Par, and one upward and seven downward from the blood of the Sa'ir.
</p><p>
The Gemara (56b) cites a Beraisa which derives from a Hekesh that the blood of the Par and the blood of the Sa'ir were sprinkled in the Heichal in the same manner (towards the Paroches) that they were sprinkled in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. The Hekesh (Vayikra 16:16) associates the Ohel Mo'ed (Heichal) with the Kodesh ha'Kodashim.
</p><p>
The Gemara here asks how such a Hekesh can teach a law about the Haza'os in the Heichal. The Gemara earlier (55a) teaches that the sets of Haza'os for the Par and the Sa'ir (one upward and seven downward) are themselves derived through a Hekesh. The Torah specifies only the number of <i>upward</i> Haza'os (i.e. one) that are done with the blood of the Sa'ir; the number of <i>downward</i> Haza'os (i.e. seven) is derived from a Hekesh to the Haza'os of the Par. With regard to the Par, the Torah specifies only the number of <i>downward</i> Haza'os (i.e. seven); the number of <i>upward</i> Haza'os (i.e. one) is derived from a Hekesh to the Sa'ir. How can another Hekesh teach that these Haza'os are also performed in the Heichal? There is a rule that a Hekesh cannot be used to teach a Halachah for Korbanos when that Halachah is derived in the first place through a Hekesh. Only when a Halachah is written explicitly with regard to one type of Korban can a Hekesh teach that the Halachah applies to a second type of Korban.
</p><p>
The Gemara suggests three answers to this question. In its third answer, the Gemara says that the sprinklings performed in the Heichal are derived from the sprinklings performed in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim 'at one time.'
</p><p>
What do these words mean, and how do they answer the question that a Hekesh cannot teach a Halachah that is derived only through a Hekesh in the first place?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Iy Ba'is Eima) explains that the Haza'os of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim that are written explicitly (one upward sprinkling for the Sa'ir and seven downward sprinklings for the Par) may serve as the source for the Haza'os in the Heichal through a Hekesh, because only a single Hekesh is employed. Once a single Hekesh is used to teach a Halachah, that Hekesh can be used to teach laws which are derived from a different Hekesh in the first place (and which need a 'double Hekesh' to transfer them, such as the <i>seven downward</i> sprinklings for the Sa'ir and the <i>one upward</i> sprinkling for the Par).
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Chutz) questions Rashi's explanation. He cites a number of instances in which a Hekesh is used to teach a law that is written explicitly in the verse, but the same Hekesh is <i>not</i> used to teach a law that is derived only from an earlier Hekesh. Tosfos explains that Rashi's intention is to say that the case here is unique in that the explicit Halachah for which the Hekesh is originally used (one upward Haza'ah for the Sa'ir and seven downward Haza'os for the Par) is an intrinsic part of the other Halachah which is derived through a double Hekesh. Both laws describe the manner in which the <i>Haza'os</i> were done in the Heichal. Since some of the Haza'os performed in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim are derived from a single Hekesh, the entire procedure of the Haza'os may be learned through a Hekesh. (The <b>RITZBA</b>, cited by Tosfos, adds that the verse itself implies that the <i>entire procedure</i> of the Haza'os in the Heichal should be derived from the Haza'os in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> (cited by Tosfos) explains that the Gemara means to say that the Hekesh indeed is <i>not</i> used to teach a Halachah that is derived only through an earlier Hekesh. Rather, the Hekesh teaches only Halachos that are written explicitly in the verse. The number of upward Haza'os is written explicitly with regard to the Sa'ir. The Hekesh which associates the Heichal with the Kodesh ha'Kodashim derives from the Sa'ir's single upward Haza'ah in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim that there also must be one upward Haza'ah for the Sa'ir in the Heichal, <i>in addition</i> to one upward Haza'ah for the Par in the Heichal. Similarly, the downward Haza'os in the Heichal for <i>both</i> the Par and the Sa'ir are derived through a Hekesh from the downward Haza'os of the <i>Par</i> in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> has a different Girsa in the Gemara. The Haza'os of the Heichal are learned <i>with</i> (and not <i>from</i>) the Haza'os of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. That is, when the Torah says, 'And so shall be done in the Ohel Mo'ed,' it is as though it explicitly teaches the same instructions for the Ohel Mo'ed (Heichal) as it teaches for the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. A <i>Hekesh</i> does not teach which Haza'os are performed in the Heichal. Rather, the verse equates the Heichal with the Kodesh ha'Kodashim with regard to the Haza'os. The only Hekesh that is used is a single Hekesh which teaches that the number of downward Haza'os for the Par and Sa'ir are the same in <i>both</i> the Heichal and Kodesh ha'Kodashim, and the number of upward Haza'os for the Par and Sa'ir are the same in <i>both</i> the Heichal and Kodesh ha'Kodashim.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Rather, he must sprinkle for Par le'Matah and then 
               offer a full set for Sa'ir.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If the cups of the Par and Sa'ir became confused:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He sprinkles two sets from each cup.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  If only some of each of the Damim became mixed:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It seems obvious that he would use the non-mixed 
               Dam!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The question is whether the mixed Dam would be 
               considered Shirayim (and placed on the Yesod) or it 
               is Dechuyah (and spilt into the Amah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (R. Papa):</font></b> It is clearly Dechuyah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Even the opinion (R. Elazar b. R. Shimon, 
                    below) which maintains that one cup makes the 
                    others Shirayim would say so only if the 
                    contents of the cups could be, but were not, 
                    sprinkled.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Here, however, they <i>could not</i> be sprinkled 
                    and would be Dechuyah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> (R. Huna b. R. Yehoshua):</font></b> It is clearly Shirayim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Even the opinion (Tana Kama, below) which 
                    maintains that one cup makes the other Dechuyah 
                    would say so only when nothing was offered from 
                    those cups.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> In our case, parts of each cup <i>were</i> 
                    sprinkled.
<br>
<b><font>5) SHIRAYIM OR DECHUYAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Machlokes (referred to above) is reported in the 
          Beraisa which deals with a Chatas whose Dam was collected 
          in four cups.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If the Matanos were offered partially from each cup:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Tana Kama):</font></b> The remaining Dam in each cup is 
               Shirayim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If, however, the Matanos were offered from only one 
               cup, then the Dam in the remaining cups is Dechuyah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (R. Elazar b. R. Shimon):</font></b> This second case would 
               still make the rest Shirayim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How will R. Elazar learn the limitation of 
               've'Es Damo (even partial Dam) Yishpoch'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It will preclude the Shirayim remaining in 
               the animal.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) COMBINING THE BLOOD (bottom of 57b)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Mishnah supports the opinion that the Dam is combined 
          before the Haza'ah on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  This is a Machlokes R. Yoshia and R. Yonasan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  We may infer that R. Yoshia is of the opinion that they 
          must be combined prior to the Haza'ah, since he holds, 
          generally, that items listed together in the Pasuk are to 
          be combined even in the absence of the word 'Yachdav'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps R. Yonasan could also maintain, here, that 
               the blood is combined first, owing to the word 
               'Achas'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This suggestion, however, is clearly refuted by the 
               Beraisa in which the positions of R. Yonasan and R. 
               Yoshia are explicit.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yonasan there rejects the implication of 'Achas' 
               in light of the separator term 'u'mi'Dam'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  A second Beraisa affirms that Me'arvin li'Keranos is the 
          position of R. Yoshia.
'
<br>
<b><font>2) CHATZITZAH MIN BEMINO</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What would be the Din if the Kohen put one 
          Mizrak into the other, would it be considered a 
          Chatzitzah (Min be'Mino) or not?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Our Mishnah indicates that the one vessel <i>may</i> 
          be placed within the other.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  No, the Mishnah means <i>pouring the contents</i> of (the 
          full) one into the other (empty one), not placing one 
          vessel into the other.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Mishnah already taught that he poured 
          the contents of one into the other?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The second pouring is for greater consistency.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa invalidates the Avodah of a Kohen 
          standing on the foot of another, indicating that Min 
          be'Mino <i>is</i> a Chatzitzah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> A foot does not become Batel (and is thus not 
          considered Min be'Mino).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  We could understand the question in (a) as follows:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Is it proper to serve Hash-m with one 
               vessel inside the other?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> From the Pasuk we can learn that multiple 
               vessels may (together) effect one (proper) service.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Would a (fibrous) Siv in a vessel constitute a 
          Chatzitzah (since it is a foreign body- Min bi'she'Eino 
          Mino) or not (since it becomes fully saturated)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We find by the Mei Chatas that whatever is not 
          absorbed into the sponge is invalid but whatever is 
          outside of the sponge is Kosher, and so, too, in our 
          case.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We may not draw conclusions from there since water 
               is thinner than blood and more likely will permeate 
               the space between the sponge and the vessel.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer:</font></b> The Siv would be acceptable by blood, 
          but not by a Minchah (even fine flour might not 
          permeate).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE BLOODSTAINS OF THE 'PAR HE'ELEM DAVAR' ON THE PAROCHES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara earlier (57a) relates that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi testified that he saw the Paroches in Rome, and upon it he discerned droplets of blood from the Haza'os of a Par He'elem Davar.
</p><p>
A number of questions may be asked on his testimony.
</p><p>
(a) The Beraisa here teaches that the Kohen Gadol who sprinkled the blood of the Par He'elem Davar upon the Paroches was required to stand behind the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi (that is, on the eastern side of the Mizbe'ach). The Mizbe'ach was situated half of the length of the Heichal away from the Paroches (Yoma 33b, Shekalim 6:3). Since the Heichal measured 40 Amos until the Paroches, the Kohen needed to throw each drop of blood a distance of 20 Amos (30-35 feet) in order to reach the Paroches. It is highly unlikely that any blood actually reached the Paroches. How, then, could Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi have testified that he saw stains of blood on the Paroches? (Rav Eliezer Chrysler)
</p><p>
(b) The Paroches that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi saw in Rome must have been the Paroches which was captured by the Romans at the time of the Churban. How could that Paroches have bloodstains from the Par He'elem Davar? The Par He'elem Davar was offered only for a misruling of 'the Sanhedri Gedolah that sits in the <i>Lishkas ha'Gazis</i>' (Yerushalmi Horayos 1:1, Tosefta Horayos 1:3, Toras Kohanim Vayikra 4:1). During the forty years before the Churban, the Sanhedrin no longer sat in the Lishkas ha'Gazis (but in Chanuyos, as mentioned in Shabbos 15a), and thus they could not have offered a Par He'elem Davar. The Paroches that he saw could not have been stained with blood forty years before the Churban when the Sanhedrin still sat in the Lishkas ha'Gazis, because a new Paroches was prepared each year (as the Mishnah in Shekalim 21b relates), and thus the bloodstained Paroches would have been replaced. (Rav Yehudah Landy; see also the question and answer of <b>TOSFOS</b> DH Ani Re'isiha.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Rav Yehudah Landy points out that the Gemara in Zevachim (64a) says, 'See how great was the strength of the Kohanim, who were able to throw the Marah a distance of more than thirty Amos.' Perhaps here, too, the Kohanim were able to throw the blood a great distance from where they stood until the Paroches. 
</p><p>
Alternatively, the Gemara may not mean that the Mizbe'ach was halfway across the Heichal from the Paroches. When it says (in Yoma 33b and Yerushalmi Shekalim 6:3) that the Mizbe'ach was 'exactly in the middle,' it appears that the Gemara is referring to the middle of the <i>width</i> of the Heichal, but not the middle of its length. (The Rambam, Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 3:15, rules only that it must be somewhere 'in the inner two thirds of the Heichal' (see Menachos 98b), but does not specify exactly how far it must be from the Paroches.) Accordingly, it could be that the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav was not placed very far from the Paroches, at least when the Kohen had to sprinkle blood on the Paroches. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps during the last years of the Beis ha'Mikdash, no new Paroches was made due to the lack of donations of Shekalim.
</p><p>
Also, many commentaries explain that when the Mishnah in Shekalim states that the Paroches was changed each year, it refers to the Paroches of the Ulam and not the Paroches of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim.
</p><p>
Alternatively, it is possible that when the Romans ransacked the Beis ha'Mikdash they found a cache of old Parochos, and the Paroches which Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi saw was not the one that was in service at the time of the Churban. (In fact, <b>TOSFOS</b> (57a, DH Ani) even suggests that the Paroches in Rome was from the first Beis ha'Mikdash.)
</p><p>
Finally, perhaps Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi maintained that the Sanhedrin did not have to be in the Lishkas ha'Gazis at the time of their ruling in order to be obligated to bring a Par He'elem Davar. The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shegagos 12:2) does not specify that the Sanhedrin must be in the Lishkas ha'Gazis in order to bring a Par. Apparently, he understands either that other Tana'im disagree with the ruling of the Yerushalmi, Tosefta, and Toras Kohanim, or that they mean that the ruling must be issued by the Sanhedrin which <i>normally</i> sits in the Lishkas ha'Gazis (see Mar'eh ha'Panim in the Yerushalmi).
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE LOCATION OF THE FIRST 'HAZA'OS' ON THE 'MIZBE'ACH HA'PENIMI'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara records a Beraisa in which Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili argue about whether the Kohen Gadol performed the first Haza'ah on the south-east or north-east corner of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi. Rabbi Akiva says that the first Haza'ah was performed on the south-east corner. Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili says that it was on the north-east corner.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that their argument is based on a different argument: on which side did the Paroches open? According to Rebbi Akiva, the opening of the Paroches was in the south. When the Kohen Gadol exited the Kodesh ha'Kodashim through the opening of the Paroches in the south, he encountered the southern side of the Mizbe'ach and thus he sprinkled the blood there first. According to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, the opening of the Paroches was in the north. Since the Kohen Gadol encountered the northern side of the Mizbe'ach first as he exited the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, he sprinkled the blood there first. (See Chart.)
</p><p>
Why did the position of the opening of the Paroches affect where the first Haza'ah was performed? Whether the opening was in the north or the south, when the Kohen Gadol exited the Kodesh ha'Kodashim he first sprinkled the blood on the middle of the <i>Paroches</i> opposite the area of the Aron ha'Kodesh (53b), and only afterwards did he approach the Mizbe'ach to sprinkle the blood there. Since the Kohen Gadol walked to the middle of the Paroches before he walked to the Mizbe'ach, he approached the Mizbe'ach from the middle regardless of the direction to which the Paroches opened. (<b>RASHASH</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHASH</b> answers that perhaps since the Kohen Gadol initially emerged on the south side (according to Rebbi Akiva), he was required to go back to the south after he walked to the middle of the Paroches to sprinkle the blood there. He must go back to the place at which he emerged from the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, as the Gemara says later that he must go back to the place where he should have sprinkled first.
</p><p>
(b) The width of the Aron ha'Kodesh was two and a half Amos. Perhaps the Kohen Gadol only needed to sprinkle the blood on the Paroches at a point that was opposite <i>any</i> part of the Aron, and not necessarily at the point due center of the Aron. Consequently, if the Kohen Gadol exited the Kodesh ha'Kodashim from the south, he stayed at the southern end of the two and a half Amos of the Aron as he sprinkled the blood towards the Aron. When he approached the Mizbe'ach from there, he was still in the southern side of the Heichal (as the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, which was only one Amah wide, was narrower than the Aron).
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<b><font>3) MISHNAH: THE MATANOS ON THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE MIZBEACH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Mizbe'ach spoken of in the Pasuk is the Mizbe'ach 
          ha'Zahav.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> He begins the Haza'os (in a downward motion) 
          in the <b><b><b>NE</b></b></b> corner and proceeds to his right (<b><b><b>NW</b></b></b>, <b><b><b>SW</b></b></b>, <b><b><b>SE</b></b></b>). 
          [As such, he concludes his Haza'os in the corresponding 
          corner (<b><b><b>SE</b></b></b>) to where he begins his Avodah on the 
          Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon.]
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Eliezer):</font></b> [Due to the small size of the Mizbe'ach 
          ha'Zahav] He did the Avodah while standing in one place. 
          [All the Haza'os (excepting the closest corner) were done 
          in an upward motion.]
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  After the Matanos on the corners he did seven Haza'os on 
          the top of the Mizbe'ach and then poured the remaining 
          Dam on the Western Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Shirayim from the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon would be 
               poured on the Southern side, and all the blood would 
               combine beneath in the Amah, then flow out to the 
               Kidron valley where it was sold as fertilizer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> There is a prohibition (Me'ilah) against use of the 
               Dam without paying for it.
<br>
<b><font>4) WHERE THE KOHEN STOOD FOR THE HAZAOS OF THE PAROCHES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Two Beraisos teach that, for the Par Chatas of the Kohen 
          Mashiach, the Kohen stands East (outward) of the 
          Mizbe'ach (and does the Haza'ah on the Paroches from 
          there) whereas on Yom Kipur he stands within, West of the 
          Mizbe'ach, while doing Haza'ah on the Paroches.
<br>
<b><font>5) THE STARTING POINT OF THE HAZAOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa cites a Machlokes regarding the starting 
          corner and the direction the Kohen took around the 
          Mizbe'ach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Akiva):</font></b> He began in the <b><b><b>SE</b></b></b> and proceeded to his 
               left (<b><b><b>SW</b></b></b>, <b><b><b>NW</b></b></b>, <b><b><b>NE</b></b></b>).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Yosi ha'Gelili):</font></b> He began in the <b><b><b>NE</b></b></b> and 
               proceeded to his right (<b><b><b>NW</b></b></b>, <b><b><b>SW</b></b></b>, <b><b><b>SE</b></b></b>).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Each opinion begins at the terminus of the other.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why, according to both opinions, does the Kohen 
          Gadol bypass the Western corner (North or South)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 've'Yatza El ha'Mizbe'ach' teaches him to proceed 
          until the exit side of the Mizbe'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why, according to R. Akiva, doesn't he circle 
          to the right?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We learned from Rami b. Yechezkel that all turns 
               must be to the right (Mizrach).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This is learned from the sequence of the Pesukim 
               describing the Mikveh of Shlomoh.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Are we to learn that R. Akiva does not subscribe to 
               this rule (and R. Yosi ha'Gelili does)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They argue not about the principle of turning to 
          the right, but over whether we derive the Avodah on the 
          Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav from the Avodah on the Mizbe'ach 
          ha'Chitzon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But even granting that R. Akiva does not draw 
          from the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, still, the Kohen should 
          turn to his right, as per the accepted principle!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Akiva has the Kohen Gadol going back to the 
          corner which he (ordinarily would not have) bypassed (but 
          did, due to the Pasuk of 've'Yatza').
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) R. AKIVA AND R. YOSI HAGELILI ON THE ORDER OF THE HAZAOS (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer:</font></b> They would agree to learn P'nim from 
          Chutz if the Kohen <i>walked</i> around the Mizbe'ach, but 
          they argue over whether he stood in one place or walked 
          around.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Second Alternate Answer:</font></b> They agree that he stood in 
          place, but R. Yosi ha'Gelili learns Hakafas Yad from 
          Regel and R. Akiva does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But R. Yosi ha'Gelili held that he <i>walked</i> 
          around (as R. Eliezer is <i>arguing</i> with him saying that 
          he stood in place)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, they argue whether the Hakafah is be'Yad 
          or be'Regel (as above), and they provide their rationale:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi ha'Gelili learns from 'Saviv' that he must 
               walk around to do the Zerikah as it is done on the 
               Mizbe'ach ha''Chitzon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva holds that he stands in place since the 
               Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi is as small as one corner of the 
               Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (and there is no requirement to 
               walk around its <i>corners</i>).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Two former Kohanim Gedolim reported their practices, one 
          having walked around and one stood in place, and each one 
          justified his custom based on the rationale just given 
          for R. Yosi ha'Gelili and R. Akiva.
<br>
<b><font>2) HAZAAH FROM UP TO DOWN / DOWN TO UP</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah follows the opinion of R. Yehudah in his 
          dispute with R. Meir regarding the opinion of R. Eliezer:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Meir says that the <i>opposite</i> corner is unique 
               (the Haza'ah must be down to up there given the 
               position of the Kohen) and the rest follow the 
               closest corner (which must be up to down to protect 
               his garments from being soiled).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah holds that the <i>closest</i> corner is unique 
               (which, as stated, must be up to down) and the rest 
               follow the opposite corner (down to up) [as in our 
               Mishnah].
<br>
<b><font>3) TOHARO SHEL MIZBE'ACH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the Tohar of the Mizbe'ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The middle of its height (as 'Tihara' refers to 
          mid- day).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa implies (from its discussion 
          regarding moving around the coals for the Haza'ah) that 
          the Haza'ah is done on the <i>top</i> of the Mizbe'ach!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, the Tohar is the cleared top, as the word 
          'Tohar' means clear.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Chananya):</font></b> The Haza'ah was on the Northern side of the 
          top.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> It was on the Southern side.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the basis for their dispute?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They argue over whether the opening to the Kodesh 
          ha'Kodoshim was North or South.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  They both hold that he does the Avodah where he finishes 
          the Matanos (based on the Pasuk of 've'Tiharo 
          ve'Kidesho').
<br>
<b><font>4) THE SHIRAYIM ARE POURED ON THE WESTERN YESOD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  This is based on the Pasuk 'Yishpoch El Yesod 
          ha'Mizbe'ach'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Western Yesod is the one he encounters first as he 
          exits from the Heichal.
<br>
<b><font>5) THE SHIRAYIM FROM THE MIZBEACH HACHITZON WERE POURED ON ITS SOUTHERN YESOD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  We learn from Yom Kipur that the closest Yesod is to be 
          used, hence the Southern Yesod is the closest to the 
          Kevesh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yishmael holds that the Dam from both Mizbechos 
          (P'nimi and Chitzon) are poured on the Western Yesod.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon b. Yochai says that both are poured on the 
          Southern Yesod.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the basis for R. Shimon b. Yochai 
          (since R. Yishmael is learning the unstated pouring 
          (Chitzon) from the explicitly taught pouring (P'nimi, as 
          4.a. above).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He holds that the opening to the Heichal was 
          South of the Mizbe'ach ha''Chitzon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Yishmael was cited in the Beis Medrash of R. Shimon b. 
          Yochai as having retracted (the students of R. Shimon b. 
          Yochai drew R. Yishmael to their way of thinking).
<br>
<b><font>6) MEILAH BEDAMIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Meir and R. Shimon hold that there is Me'ilah in the 
          blood of a Korban while the Chachamim say that there is 
          no Me'ilah by blood.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHERE THE LEFTOVER BLOOD WAS POURED</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara records three opinions with regard to where the leftover blood (Sheyarei ha'Dam) was poured after the Haza'os were performed. Rebbi Shimon ben Yochai says that both the leftover blood from the Haza'os of the Chata'os Penimiyos (such as the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kippur) and the leftover blood from the Haza'os on the Mizbe'ach in the Azarah were poured on the southern part of the foundation of the Mizbe'ach. The Gemara explains that although the verse implies that the blood must be poured on the <i>western</i> side of the Mizbe'ach when it says 'on the foundation of the Mizbe'ach... which is towards the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed (the Heichal)' (Vayikra 4:7 and 18), Rebbi Shimon ben Yochai maintains that the Mizbe'ach stood in the northern part of the Azarah, and therefore its southern side was opposite the Heichal's entrance.
</p><p>
This answer does not fully explain how Rebbi Shimon ben Yochai understands the verse. Even if the southern side of the Mizbe'ach faced the entrance of the Heichal, the western side of the Mizbe'ach faced the entrance as well! In what way does the verse imply the southern side of the Mizbe'ach as opposed to the western side?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> in Zevachim (53a) addresses this question. He says that perhaps Rebbi Shimon ben Yochai maintains that the Mizbe'ach was <i>entirely</i> to the north of the entrance to the Heichal. The only part of the Mizbe'ach in front of the Heichal was the one-Amah-wide <i>foundation</i> (Yesod) on the southern side of the Mizbe'ach. The western wall of the Mizbe'ach was not in front of the entrance to the Heichal at all, but further to the north. (This appears to be the intention of <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> here as well.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> there (according to the understanding of the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> #13) gives a second explanation. Perhaps the Gemara means that the southern tip of the Mizbe'ach was at the exact <i>center</i> of the Azarah (and thus it corresponded to the midpoint of the entrance of the Heichal), and the rest of the Mizbe'ach extended into the northern half of the Heichal. Accordingly, five Amos of the Mizbe'ach covered the northern half of the entrance of the Heichal. However, since the midpoint of the entranceway faced the southern side of the Mizbe'ach, that side was considered to be the side 'towards the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed,' since people normally walk through the <i>center</i> of a doorway.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> there (#13) suggests (and proves) that the southern side of the Mizbe'ach reached the area opposite the midpoint of the entrance of the Heichal, as Rashi there says. He asserts, however, that the western side did not qualify as 'the foundation of the Mizbe'ach... which is towards the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed,' because only five Amos of the western side was in front of the entrance, while <i>all</i> of the southern side was in front of the entrance. Since the southern side was 'more' in front of the entrance than the western side, the leftover blood was poured on that side. (This also seems to be the understanding of the <b>RITVA</b> here, although a few words seem to be missing from the text.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Mid'Oraisa there is no Me'ilah by Dam, and they argue 
          only if there is Me'ilah mi'de'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for asserting that Me'ilah 
          does not apply to Dam?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Ula learns from 'Lachem', R. Shimon learns from 
          'Lechaper' and R. Yochanan learns from Kaparah (that the 
          Dam is the same before Kaparah as after).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Let R. Yochanan learn the <i>opposite</i>, that 
               just as there <i>is</i> Me'ilah before, so, too, after?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> There is never Me'ilah after a Mitzvah is 
               completed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What about Terumas ha'Deshen (where we 
               find that the ashes need Genizah and, presumably, 
               are subject to Me'ilah, as well)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Terumas ha'Deshen combines with Bigdei 
               Kehunah as unique (non-generalizable) Pesukim where 
               there <i>is</i> Me'ilah after the Mitzvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> This only works if 've'Hinicham Sham' 
               teaches that the Bigdei Kehunah require Genizah, but 
               that is a Machlokes, and what will R. Dosa say?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Terumas ha'Deshen combines with Eglah 
               Arufah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What about the opinion which holds that 
               two Pesukim <i>may</i> generalize!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Still, these cases remain unique owing to 
               the limiting word ('Vesamo' by Terumas ha'Deshen and 
               '*ha'*Arufah' by Eglah Arufah) hence they will not 
               generalize.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why are there three Pesukim to teach that there 
          is no Me'ilah by Dam?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The additional words teach two additional 
          exceptions, that there is no Nosar nor <i>Tum'ah</i> on Dam.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Pigul does not need a Pasuk since Dam has no Matir 
               (nothing is Matir <i>it</i>).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Pigul only applies to that which has a Matir.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MISHNAH: ERRORS IN THE ORDER OF THE AVODAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  An Avodah done out of sequence is meaningless.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If he did the Haza'ah of the Dam Sa'ir before the Dam 
          Par, he must do the Haza'ahs Dam Sa'ir again.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If the rest of the Dam (Shirayim) was poured out before 
          he completed the Matanos, he must slaughter a new Par and 
          start that Avodah again; 
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The same will hold if it was poured out during the 
               Haza'os in the Heichal, whether on the Paroches or 
               on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Each one is a separate Avodah which, once completed, 
               need not be repeated.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar and R. Shimon maintain that he need not even go 
          back to the beginning of that Avodah, rather, he resumes 
          where he left off.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE ORDER OF WHICH AVODOS ARE MEAKEV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> Only the order of the Avodos in the Kodesh 
          ha'Kodoshim (done in Bigdei Lavan) is Me'akev (not those 
          done in Bigdei Lavan outside of the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Nechemyah):</font></b> The order of all Avodos done in Bigdei 
          Lavan is Me'akev (inside or out).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Both of these opinions derive from the 
          application of the word 'Chukah' in the Pasuk:
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) CHANGES IN THE ORDER OF THE AVODOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Nechemyah argue about which Avodos are disqualified if done out of their proper order. Rebbi Nechemyah says that any Avodah which the Kohen Gadol performs while he wears the Bigdei Lavan, whether in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim or in the Heichal, is disqualified when done out of order. Rebbi Yehudah says that only an Avodah which the Kohen Gadol performs in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim is disqualified if done out of order.
</p><p>
Rebbi Chanina adds that if the Kohen Gadol performs the Chafinah of the Ketores before he slaughters the Par (when he is supposed to perform the Shechitah before the Chafinah), the Avodah is disqualified. Even though the Chafinah and Shechitah are Avodos that are performed outside of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, the Gemara says that even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that the Chafinah and Shechitah are disqualified when performed out of order. Since the Chafinah is <i>needed</i> for an Avodah performed inside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim (the burning of the Ketores), and the Shechitah is <i>needed</i> for an Avodah performed inside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim (the sprinkling of the blood of the Par), they are considered to be Avodos performed inside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim such that a change in their order disqualifies them. This is the teaching of Rebbi Chanina.
</p><p>
The Gemara challenges Rebbi Chanina's suggestion from the Mishnah (60a). The Mishnah states that if the blood of the Par spilled before the Kohen Gadol finished sprinkling the blood in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, he must slaughter another Par and begin the Haza'os again. However, according to the Mishnah's statement, the Shechitah of the new Par is done <i>after</i> the Chafinah, and yet the Mishnah does not require the Kohen Gadol to perform a new Chafinah after he slaughters the new Par. Accordingly, the Mishnah contradicts Rebbi Chanina's teaching that Avodos which are needed for an Avodah performed inside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim are considered to be Avodos done in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim themselves (and if they are performed out of order they become disqualified, even according to Rebbi Yehudah).
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara ask this question only on the opinion of Rebbi Chanina? The law in the Mishnah is problematic even without Rebbi Chanina's teaching. If the Kohen Gadol slaughters another Par after he has begun to sprinkle the blood, that means that he is slaughtering it after he has offered the Ketores. The Avodah of the Ketores is done inside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and must be done <i>after</i> the Shechitah of the Par. When the Kohen Gadol slaughters a new Par, the Ketores is pushed out of order (*before* the Shechitah instead of <i>after</i> it). He should be required to perform a new Haktaras ha'Ketores after he slaughters the new Par, but the Mishnah makes no mention of such a requirement. The Gemara should ask why the Mishnah does not say that the <i>Haktaras ha'Ketores</i> must be redone. Why does it question only Rebbi Chanina's opinion and ask that the Mishnah does not say that the <i>Chafinah</i> must be redone? (<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b>)
</p><p>
Moreover, the Gemara later (beginning of 61a) quotes Ula who proves that the Mishnah follows the opinion of Rebbi Nechemyah. The Mishnah says that if the Haza'ah of the blood of the Sa'ir was performed before the Haza'ah of the blood of the Par, the Haza'as Dam ha'Sa'ir must be done again after the Haza'as Dam ha'Par. Ula asserts that the Mishnah refers only to the Haza'as Dam ha'Sa'ir which is performed in the <i>Heichal</i>, and nevertheless it is disqualified when done in the wrong order. The only Tana who says that the wrong order disqualifies an Avodah performed in the Heichal is Rebbi Nechemyah.
</p><p>
Ula explains his assertion that the Mishnah refers only to the Avodah done in the Heichal. The Mishnah's statement cannot refer to the Haza'as Dam ha'Sa'ir which is performed in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, because in such a case it would not help to redo the Haza'as Dam ha'Sa'ir after the Haza'as Dam ha'Par. The fact that the initial Haza'as Dam ha'Sa'ir was done before the initial Haza'as Dam ha'Par indicates that the Sa'ir itself was <i>slaughtered</i> before the Haza'as Dam ha'Par was performed, and thus the Shechitah of the Sa'ir itself would also need to be redone after the Haza'as Dam ha'Par. Since the Mishnah makes no mention of such a requirement, it must be that the Mishnah follows the opinion of Rebbi Nechemyah and refers only to the Haza'as Dam ha'Sa'ir performed in the Heichal.
</p><p>
Why, then, does the Gemara here ask that the Mishnah is problematic according to Rebbi Chanina (who says that Avodos which are performed outside of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and are needed for an Avodah performed inside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim are disqualified when done in the wrong order)? The Mishnah is problematic regardless of Rebbi Chanina's principle! The Mishnah follows the opinion of Rebbi Nechemyah, who maintains that <i>any</i> Avodah the Kohen Gadol performs while he wears the Bigdei Lavan becomes disqualified when he performs it in the wrong order. It certainly should not suffice to slaughter another Par and begin the Haza'os again (in the Mishnah's case of the blood of the Par that spilled before the Haza'os were completed), because the Chafinah will be done out of order (*before* the Shechitas ha'Par).
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> answers both questions by citing the words of the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> (40a, DH Nehi) and the <b>RITVA</b> here. They suggest that according to Rashi, the Gemara's conclusion is that a change in the order of Avodos invalidates the Avodos only when both Avodos are those performed in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. In contrast, when an Avodas Penim (an Avodah performed inside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim) is performed in the wrong order before or after an Avodas <i>Chutz</i> (an Avodah performed in the Heichal), the Avodah remains valid (according to Rebbi Yehudah).
</p><p>
For this reason, when the Avodas ha'Ketores (an Avodas Penim) is performed before the Shechitas ha'Par (an Avodas Chutz), the Avodah is valid. Only if the Shechitas ha'Par is considered an Avodas Penim (because it is performed for the sake of an actual Avodas Penim) may it not be done before the Ketores (or the Chafinah, which is also considered an Avodas Penim), according to Rebbi Chanina who rules that an Avodah performed outside of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim but which is needed for an Avodah inside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim is considered an Avodas Penim (see Rashi 60a, DH b'Vigdei Lavan). Therefore, the Gemara asks its question only on the view of Rebbi Chanina. According to Rebbi Chanina, the Shechitas ha'Par must be done before the Chafinah, since both are considered Avodos Penim. Without Rebbi Chanina's principle, the Mishnah itself is not problematic because the Ketores is an Avodas Penim while the Shechitas ha'Par is an Avodas Chutz, and thus their order respective to each other is not relevant (that is, there is no requirement for the Shechitas ha'Par to be done before the Ketores).
</p><p>
This approach also answers the second question. Had Rebbi Chanina not stated that the Shechitas ha'Par is considered an Avodas Penim, the Gemara would not have asserted that the Mishnah follows the opinion of Rebbi Nechemyah and not that of Rebbi Yehudah. When the Mishnah says that the Sa'ir was slaughtered and its blood sprinkled before the Haza'as Dam ha'Par, it may refer to the Haza'os performed in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. In that case, it suffices to perform another Haza'ah of the blood of the Sa'ir and it is not necessary to slaughter another Sa'ir after the Haza'as Dam ha'Par, because the Shechitah is not an Avodas Penim (without Rebbi Chanina's principle), and its order has no bearing on the Avodas Penim.
</p><p>
(b) The previous answer is valid only according to the Tosfos Yeshanim's understanding of Rashi. However, many Rishonim disagree with this understanding based on the Gemara earlier (40a) which says that if an Avodas Penim is done in the wrong order relative to an Avodas Chutz, the Avodah becomes disqualified.
</p><p>
<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> explains that the first question still can be answered based on the words of the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> (DH Aval b'Devarim). The Tosfos Yeshanim says that an Avodah becomes disqualified only when it is performed <i>later</i> than the order requires, but not when it is performed <i>earlier</i> than the order requires. If an Avodas Penim is performed in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim <i>earlier</i> than an Avodas Chutz which is supposed to precede that Avodas Penim, it is valid nevertheless, according to Rebbi Yehudah.
</p><p>
Accordingly, when the Avodas ha'Ketores is performed <i>before</i> the Shechitas ha'Par, the Avodah is valid. Only if the Shechitas ha'Par is considered an Avodas Penim, as Rebbi Chanina states, will it be disqualified when performed <i>after</i> the Chafinah or the Ketores. This is a problem according to Rebbi Yehudah only if Rebbi Chanina's principle is correct. For this reason, the Gemara questions only Rebbi Chanina. According to Rebbi Chanina, if the Shechitas ha'Par must be redone, then the Chafinah should have to be redone after it. Without Rebbi Chanina's principle, the Mishnah is not problematic when it says that the Shechitas ha'Par is redone but does not say that the Ketores also must be redone after it; the Ketores may be done <i>before</i> the Shechitas ha'Par (and performing the Shechitah <i>after</i> the Ketores is not problematic because it is not an Avodas Penim).
</p><p>
However, this answer does not address Rebbi Akiva Eiger's second question. Since the Mishnah follows the opinion of Rebbi Nechemyah, it should not suffice to redo the Shechitas ha'Par and not the Chafinah (and Ketores), since it is clear that the Mishnah maintains that a change in the order disqualifies all Avodos that the Kohen Gadol performs while he wears the Bigdei Lavan, even those he performs in the Heichal and Azarah. The first answer (above) suggested that without the principle of Rebbi Chanina, the Avodah is valid when the Haza'as Dam ha'Par is done after the Shechitas ha'Sa'ir (because one Avodah is done in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and the other is done outside). According to Rebbi Nechemyah, though, the Avodos done inside and outside are considered to have the same status, and thus the Haza'as Dam ha'Par cannot be done after the Shechitas ha'Sa'ir, an Avodas Chutz. A change in the order should disqualify the Avodos! Rebbi Akiva Eiger does not answer this question.
</p><p>
Perhaps a simple answer may be suggested based on the opinion of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 5:1, according to the Lechem Mishneh's understanding) and the <b>BARTERNURA</b>. They explain that the Tana of the Mishnah here is a <i>third</i> opinion which agrees with neither Rebbi Yehudah nor Rebbi Nechemyah. This third Tana maintains that Avodos performed in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim or in the Heichal must be done in the proper order, but an Avodah performed with the Bigdei Lavan <i>outside</i> of the Heichal is not disqualified when performed out of order (see Chart). Accordingly, the Mishnah would not disqualify the Shechitas ha'Par (which is performed outside the Heichal) when it is performed out of order if not for Rebbi Chanina's statement that it is considered an Avodas Penim.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah would say that 'Chukah' refers to the 
               <i>place</i> where the once a year Kaparah occurs.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Nechemyah understands that 'Chukah' refers to all 
               those Avodos which bring atonement once a year.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But <i>place</i> does not appear in the Pasuk!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Rather, R. Yehudah derives from the limiter 
               words 'Zos' and 'Achas' that 'Chukah' is not 
               speaking about Bigdei Lavan outside, nor about 
               Bigdei Zahav.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What will R. Nechemyah learn from these 
               limiters?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> One excludes Bigdei Zahav and the other 
               excludes Shirayim (which were poured later than its 
               proper turn).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Whence will R. Yehudah know the Din that 
               the order is not Me'akev the Shirayim?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Shirayim follows the other Avodos done in 
               Bigdei Lavan (and will be Me'akev, as they are).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah's Din is found as one opinion in the 
               Beraisa:
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  R. Akiva learns the Pasuk 'Kiper-Kilah' (as 
                    explained below).
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> R. Yehudah learns (with the order of the Pasuk) 
                    'Kilah-Kiper'.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b></b>Their meaning is the subject of a Machlokes R. 
                    Yochanan and R. Yehoshua b. Levi.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iv. </font></b></b> One view holds that all agree that Shirayim are 
                    not Me'akev and the argument revolves around 
                    how to decode the Pasuk.
<br>            <b>   <b><font>v.  </font></b></b> According to the other view, the argument is 
                    over the issue of Shirayim being Me'akev (hence 
                    the position of R. Yehudah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we find R. Yochanan teaching that R. 
          Nechemyah (who interprets 'Chukah', as does R. Yehudah) 
          is of the view that Shirayim <i>are</i> Me'akev (yet here [in 
          2.c.] he says that, according to R. Nechemyah, Shirayim 
          are not Me'akev!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Good question.
<br>
<b><font>3) SHECHITAH OUT OF ORDER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Chanina):</font></b> Chafinah of the Ketores done before the 
          Shechitah of the Par is meaningless.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This seems to depart from the view of R. 
          Yehudah who holds that 'Chukah' only applies to Avodos 
          which are done in Bigdei Lavan within (and Shechitah is 
          not done there)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Even according to R. Yehudah, Shechitah is 
          <i>needed</i> for the Avodas P'nim and is considered as such.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then the Mishnah (in 1.c. above) should require 
          a new <i>Chafinah</i> in a case where we needed to slaughter a 
          new Par for the Hazaos!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Tana was only dealing with the Hazaos (and 
          not with the Ketores at all, whose Chafinah would, 
          indeed, need to be repeated -Rashi).
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MATANOS OF THE PAR BEFORE THE SA'IR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Ula):</font></b> If he slaughtered the Sa'ir before completing the 
          Matanos of the Par in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, it is 
          ineffective.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, then our Mishnah should insist that he 
          slaughter a new Sa'ir in the event that he brought the 
          Dam Sa'ir before the Dam Par!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah is speaking of the Matanos in the 
          <i>Heichal</i> (and the Sa'ir was certainly slaughtered after 
          the Matnos Dam Par in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The understanding of the Mishnah is supported by R. Afas.
<br>
<b><font>2) EACH KAPARAH IS INDEPENDENT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa cites a Machlokes regarding which parts of 
          the Avodah bring atonement for <i>Tum'as</i> Mikdash and which 
          parts atone for other Aveiros; similarly the dispute 
          applies to whether the Kohanim and Yisre'elim are atoned 
          through the same Avodah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah holds that regarding <i>Tum'as</i> Mikdash is 
               atoned for by the Sa'ir within, and the Sa'ir 
               ha'Mishtale'ach atones for other Aveiros, Kohanim 
               and Yisre'elim alike.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon holds that the Kaparah for <i>Tum'as</i> 
               Mikdash is accomplished by the Haza'os <i>alone</i> (the 
               Sa'ir for Yisre'elim and the Par for the Kohanim) 
               and the Viduyim (on the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach for 
               Yisre'elim and on the Par for the Kohanim) atone for 
               the other Aveiros (hence the Kaparah for each is 
               <i>not</i> the same for any Aveiros.
<br>
<b><font>3) EACH HAZA'AH SEPARATELY, OR EACH SET OF HAZAOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  A second Beraisa affirms that each Haza'ah is a separate 
          Kaparah. [Note, this Machlokes forms the basis for 
          several subsequent sections]
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> According to R. Meir (the Tana Kama) each <i>set</i> of 
               Haza'os must be complete before the invalidation 
               takes place or else he must repeat that set from the 
               beginning.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar and R. Shimon hold that each Haza'ah which 
               was done is not repeated, even within a set.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan teaches that the above positions are 
               based on different understandings of the Pasuk 
               've'Chiper':
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  R. Meir says that it means one Kaparah for each 
                    set.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> R. Elazar and R. Shimon understand it to mean 
                    only one Chitui, meaning that no Haza'ah may be 
                    repeated.
<br>
<b><font>4) THE LOG SHEMEN OF THE METZORA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Rebbi reported R. Ya'akov clarified that the above 
          Machlokes does not apply to the Log Metzora (which must 
          be Echad) and all would agree that the whole Kaparah must 
          come from the one Log.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we find in the Beraisa that R. Elazar and 
          R. Shimon argue with R. Meir there exactly the same way!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, Rebbi reported R. Ya'akov as teaching 
          that the <i>same</i> Machlokes applies there.
<br>
<b><font>5) MATANOS HAROSH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa cited above (4.b.) taught that the Matanos 
          ha'Rosh are not Me'akev on the Metzora (like the 
          Shefichas Shirayim on the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for this Din?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Since the Torah calls it Nosar (makes it like 
          Shirayim).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> On the basis of Nosar, then the Kometz (where 
          we find 've'ha'Noseres... ') should also not be Me'akev 
          (and we know that is not the case)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That Pasuk speaks of what remains (Shirayim, 
          which may, indeed, be Me'akev) while we are speaking of 
          Shiyarei Shirayim, which are not Me'akev.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AN INTERRUPTED AVODAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the Mishnah (60a), Rebbi Meir (the Tana Kama) states that if the blood of the Par or Sa'ir spills during the procedure of one of the Haza'os, the Kohen Gadol must slaughter a new Par or Sa'ir and begin the Haza'os from the beginning of that set. (There are three sets of Haza'os: one set performed in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, one set in the Heichal in front of the Paroches, and one set in the Heichal upon the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.) Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon argue and say that the Kohen Gadol continues the Haza'os with the blood of the new animal from the point at which he stopped when the blood spilled.
</p><p>
Rebbi Yochanan (61b) says that the same argument applies in a case of a Korban Asham of a Metzora which was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo.
</p><p>
In what way is the argument about how to continue an interrupted Avodah related to a Korban Asham of a Metzora which was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo?
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (61b, DH ul'Rebbi Elazar) explains that when the Torah says that the Metzora must offer 'Keves Echad Asham' -- 'one lamb as an Asham offering' (Vayikra 14:21), it teaches that the Metzora may offer <i>only</i> one Asham and not more. Consequently, if his Asham was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo, he is unable to bring another Asham to rectify the Pesul of the first one, and the Matanos of the blood cannot be administered.
</p><p>
When the Asham is slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo, the Korban does not become entirely invalidated. It may be offered as a Korban but it cannot serve as the Metzora's Asham. Since the Korban is offered by the Metzora, it qualifies as the 'Keves Echad' which he is obligated to bring, and thus he should not be able to bring another Korban Asham.
</p><p>
Rebbi Meir (who maintains that when a procedure is interrupted one must return to the beginning of the procedure) completely disregards all parts of an Avodah that were done before the Avodah was interrupted; the Avodah is considered as though <i>none</i> of it was done. According to Rebbi Meir, since the Metzora's lamb was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo, it should be considered like an Avodah that was only partially done, and thus it should be disregarded. Therefore, the Metzora may bring another Keves as his Asham.
</p><p>
According to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon (who maintain that the parts of an Avodah that were done before the Avodah was interrupted are valid and are not discounted, and thus one continues the Avodah from where he left off), the Metzora's lamb that was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo is considered to be his Asham. However, the Metzora may not offer it because it was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo, nor may he offer an additional Keves as his Asham.
</p><p>
The <b>RASHASH</b> challenges Rashi's explanation. If the verse 'Keves Echad Asham' teaches that the Metzora may bring only <i>one</i> lamb as his Asham and he may not continue the Avodah by slaughtering a second lamb, then the same teaching should be inferred from the verse which discusses the oil which the Metzora is required to bring. When the verse says, 'v'Log Echad Shamen' (Vayikra 14:10), it should imply that the Metzora may bring only one Log of oil and not more. However, the Beraisa earlier (61a) clearly states that if his Log of Shemen spills, he brings another one and the sprinklings of oil are continued from the point at which they were interrupted, according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Gemara earlier (61a) quotes Rebbi who said, 'Rebbi Yakov taught me to differentiate with regard to the Lugin [of oil].' This means that the argument in the Mishnah does <i>not</i> apply to the case of oil of a Metzora that spilled. In that case, everyone agrees that the Metzora cannot redo the sprinklings of oil. The Gemara challenges Rebbi's statement from the Beraisa which the Rashash quotes in his question, and it concludes that Rebbi actually said that 'Rebbi Yakov taught me to <i>compare</i> with regard to the Lugin.' That is, the argument in the Mishnah <i>does</i> apply to the case of oil of a Metzora that spilled.
</p><p>
The first version of Rebbi's statement says exactly what Rashi's words here imply. If the verse of 'Keves Echad Asham' teaches that the Metzora cannot offer another Asham when his Korban is slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo, then the verse of 'v'Log Echad Shamen' also must teach that if the oil spills during the Haza'os, the Kohen may not bring another Log of oil for the Metzora and continue the Haza'os (even according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon). (In the case of spilled oil, Rashi there (61a) does not specify what must be done. Presumably, the Kohen must bring another Log and repeat the Haza'os of the oil from the start. However, the Gemara here (61b) makes it clear that there is no recourse for the Metzora (according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon). He cannot bring another Log of oil because he started his Taharah with a different Log, and the Torah specifies that only one Log be used and not two.) 
</p><p>
Accordingly, Rebbi Yochanan, who makes the statement about Asham Metzora, follows the view of Rebbi as he was originally quoted. It must be that Rebbi Yochanan either was unaware of the Beraisa which the Gemara quotes to refute the original statement of Rebbi, or he was aware of it but he maintained that the original Beraisa which quotes Rebbi <i>argues</i> with the second Beraisa. According to the first Beraisa, the verse of 'v'Log Echad Shamen' indeed teaches that no more oil may be brought (as Rashi says there, DH Li Chilek Rebbi Yakov), just as the verse of 'Keves Echad Asham' teaches that no additional Korban Asham may be brought. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> apparently understands Rashi as explained above, because he does not question Rashi's words the way the Rashash does. Tosfos instead asks a different question on the explanation of Rashi: Why is an Asham that was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo considered 'partially' done? Since the Asham slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo does not serve the purpose for which it was designated, it is unrelated to the Metzora and is considered as though it was never brought as a Korban, even according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon.
</p><p>
Tosfos therefore favors the Girsa of <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b>, according to which Rebbi Yochanan does not equate the case of an Asham that was <i>slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo</i> to the case of the Mishnah. Rather, Rebbi Yochanan equates the case of an Asham <i>whose blood was spilled</i> (she'Nishpach Damo) before the Haza'os were completed to the case of the Mishnah. Accordingly, the case of the Asham indeed is the same type of case as that of the Mishnah, and the argument in the Mishnah clearly applies to that case.
</p><p>
Tosfos also corrects the text from '[according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon...] Ein Lo Takanah' -- 'there is no rectification' (in the case of Asham Metzora) to '[according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon...] here, too, Yaschil mi'Makom she'Pasak' -- 'he should begin anew from where he left off' (just as in the case of the Mishnah), as the <b>MAHARSHA</b> points out. The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> adds that this Girsa circumvents the Rashash's question, since, according to this text, the Gemara here says exactly the same thing as the Beraisa earlier (61a) says with regard to the Log of oil. According to this text, the word 'Echad' in the verse is used to limit neither the number of animals nor the number of Login used by the Metzora.
</p><p>
(Rabeinu Chananel himself does not make the second change in the text that Tosfos makes. Rabeinu Elyakim presents a third approach to the Sugya, which preserves the Girsa of Rashi, but which avoids the Rashash's question by differentiating between <i>spilled</i> (or lost) oil or blood (which is no longer present) and a Korban that was sacrificed she'Lo Lishmah (but which is still present). Only when the original, invalid animal is <i>still present</i> (as in the case of the Asham slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah) is it considered to be inconsistent with the requirement of 'Echad.')
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<b><font>6) ASHAM METZORA AS TAUGHT BY R. YOCHANAN [Note: The following is according to Rashi]</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Meir):</font></b> If an Asham Metzora which was slaughtered 
          she'Lo Lishmo (even though the Avodah went on to Matnas 
          Behonos) he must slaughter a new Asham.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar and R. Shimon):</font></b> In that case he is stuck, 
          since this aspect of the Avodah would have to be done 
          with a second Asham, and would violate Asham <i>Echad</i>.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But even according to R. Meir, the restrictive 
          word 'Oso' should require that the same animal which was 
          used for the Tenufah be the one offered as his Asham.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Good question.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  A Beraisa supports R. Yochanan in its report that a 
          replacement Asham must be brought in the event that the 
          first was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo [or its blood was not 
          placed on the Behonos] and he is not restricted by 'Oso' 
          to prevent such replacement.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Chisda understands that Beraisa to the contrary, 
          teaching that he <i>must</i> bring another, and that he is 
          stuck owing to his inability to do so!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Does a Tana use the word <i>must (Tzarich)</i> when 
          he means, by implication, that the person is stuck?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, we find such a use in the Beraisa 
          regarding a hairless Metzora where Beis Shamai say that 
          me must use a razor.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Ravina understands Beis Shamai to use the word 
               'Tzarich' as implying that he needs to - but is 
               unable to - use the Ta'ar and hence he is stuck in 
               his <i>Tum'ah</i>.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. P'das disagrees and holds that he must, and it is 
               effective for him to pass the Ta'ar over his 
               hairless head, comparable to R. Elazar's position 
               regarding the Matnos Dam on a Metzora with no right 
               thumb.
<br>
<b><font>7) THE METZORA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa teaches that (owing to the link between 
          Nesinah and Kabalah) that the Kabalas ha'Dam from the 
          Asham Metzora must be done into the hands of the Kohen 
          (just as he must place the Dam on the thumbs by hand, not 
          with a K'li); but that the Kabalas ha'Dam for the 
          Mizbe'ach must be done into a K'li (as that is linked to 
          other Chata'os and Ashamos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  It emerges that two Kohanim are needed for the Kabalas 
          ha'Dam of the Asham Metzora (one fills his hands and goes 
          to the Metzora and one fills his K'li and goes to the 
          Mizbe'ach).
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WHICH SAIR IS THE MISHTALE'ACH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Mishnah reported a Machlokes regarding the 
          replacement Se'irim discussed by R. Meir and R. Elazar/R. 
          Shimon above.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Meir):</font></b> One the last Sa'ir is deal with as the 
               actual one (it is burnt and those who deal with the 
               burning contract <i>Tum'as</i> Begadim).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Elazar and R. Shimon):</font></b> All of them must be dealt 
               with in the same way.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> In light of the above, how Many Se'irim are 
          sent out as the Mishtale'ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Shall we send out his whole flock (surely, only 
          one)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But he could have his whole flock burned 
          (multiple Se'irim Lashem)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There is no comparison since the Sa'ir 
          ha'Mishtale'ach is restricted by 'Oso'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  It is a Machlokes regarding the opinion of Rava whether 
          to send out the first Sa'ir (R. Papi) or the last (R. 
          Simi).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why the first (the second makes sense since the 
          Kaparah was completed with its pair)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Papi holds like R. Yosi who holds that the 
          Mitzvah is to be performed with the first animal so 
          designated.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Where is this opinion of R. Yosi?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> When R. Yosi explains the requirement to 
               mark the Kupos as in order to use the first one 
               first.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But that may be required since the second 
               has not yet become usable when the first Kupah was 
               available, but here all the Se'irim become available 
               at the same moment (conclusion of the Matnos 
               Damim)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Rather, the source is R. Yosi regarding the 
               Korban Pesach which was lost, replaced and then 
               found where R. Yosi holds that the first is to be 
               used.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>*****<b>PEREK</b> #6 <b>SH'NEI SA'IRIM</b>*****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>2) MISHNAH: THE PAIR OF SEIRIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The two Se'irim must be the same in appearance, height, 
          price, and time of purchase.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  This requirement, however, is not Me'akev (an example of 
          an imperfect, but Kosher, pairs would be if one Sa'ir 
          died before the Goralos, a pair may be brought for the 
          remaining Sa'ir).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  If one died after the Hagralah, a new pair is brought and 
          a Hagralah is used to determine the replacement for the 
          one which died.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The second Sa'ir pastures until it develops a blemish 
          (since a Korban Tzibur is not put to death).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> The extra Sa'ir is put to death.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah further teaches that if the Dam Sa'ir la'Shem 
          was prematurely spilled out (such that another Sa'ir is 
          slaughtered) then its corresponding Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach 
          is put to death; similarly if the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach 
          dies, the blood of its counterpart is spilled out.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE REQUIREMENT TO BUY THE TWO GOATS AT ONE TIME</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that the two Se'irim of Yom Kippur must be equal in appearance, height, and value, and they must be purchased at one time ('Lekichasan k'Achas'). The Gemara derives these requirements from the threefold repetition of the word '*Shnei* Se'irim' ('*two* goats') in Parshas Acharei Mos, which teaches that the two Se'irim must be identical in three ways.
</p><p>
However, the Mishnah teaches <i>four</i> Halachos with regard to the two Se'irim, but there are only three sources in the verses. What is the source for the fourth Halachah, that the two Se'irim must be purchased at one time?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> and <b>RABEINU ELYAKIM</b> have a different text in the Gemara. According to their text, the Gemara derives from one word 'Shnei' <i>both</i> that the two Se'irim must be equal in appearance and that they must be equal in height. This word teaches that they must <i>look</i> the same, which includes the requirement that they must be of the same height. (The Mishnah nevertheless expresses that they must be the same height in order that one not mistakenly think that the second Sa'ir may be a miniature clone of the first.) Accordingly, two words 'Shnei' are left, one to teach that the Se'irim must be equal in value and one to teach that they must be purchased at the same time. (The first verse teaches a Halachah about their physical appearance. The second verse teaches a Halachah about their value. The third verse teaches a Halachah about when they are purchased.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> suggests further that perhaps the Halachah of 'Lekichasan k'Achas' is not derived from the word 'Shnei' alone, but from the fact that the word 'Shnei' is written next to the word 'Yikach' ('buy'). The Halachah that the Se'irim must be purchased at one time is derived from the proximity of the words.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE SOURCE FOR THE REQUIREMENT THAT TWO ANIMALS LOOK ALIKE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara records a series of Derashos about different types of Korbanos which are brought in pairs. In each case, the word 'Shnei' teaches that the two animals must be identical. The Gemara says that although this Derashah applies to the two Se'irim of Yom Kippur, the two lambs of a Metzora, and the two birds of a Metzora, the words 'Shenayim la'Yom' cannot teach that the Kisvei Temidin, the two lambs offered each day for the morning Tamid and the afternoon Tamid, must be identical. <b>RASHI</b> explains that since no Mishnah mentions such a requirement, it must be that no such requirement exists. The Gemara concludes that the words 'Shenayim la'Yom' are used for a different Derashah.
</p><p>
What does Rashi mean when he says that since no Mishnah mentions the requirement, no such requirement exists? The Gemara continues and says that the two animals offered as the Korban Musaf on Shabbos must be identical, even though no Mishnah mentions that requirement. Why must the Musafin be identical, but not the Temidin? (<b>TOSFOS</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Musafin) answers that since the Mishnayos in Maseches Tamid detail the entire order of the daily Tamid service, the Mishnah should mention the requirement that the two Temidin be identical if such a requirement exists. The fact that the Mishnah makes no mention of it clearly indicates that no such requirement exists. In contrast, the Mishnah does not describe the service of the Korban Musaf in detail, and thus it is possible that the animals must be identical even though the Mishnah makes no mention of it.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MALBIM</b> (beginning of Parshas Acharei Mos) explains that since there are many Beraisos which teach that the word 'Shnei' in a verse implies that the two objects must resemble each other, it is not necessary for a Mishnah to mention that requirement specifically with regard to the Musafin. It is an accepted rule that 'Shnei' means that they must be identical. 
</p><p>
This rule does not apply to the Temidin. The verse that discusses the Temidin does not use the word 'Shnei,' but rather 'Shenayim.' The word 'Shenayim' is the <i>independent</i> form of the number two, while the word 'Shnei' is the conjunctive form. The independent word 'Shenayim' does not necessarily denote that the objects in the verse must be similar. Therefore, Rashi explains that had there been a requirement that the Temidin be identical, a Mishnah (or Beraisa or Midrash) would have taught that even the word 'Shenayim' teaches that the objects in the verse must resemble each other.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<b><font>3) THE SOURCE FOR THE ALIKE PAIR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa draws from the word 'Sh'nei' that the Se'irim 
          must be alike.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How do we know that their similarity is not 
          Me'akev?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> From the repetition of the (singular) word Sa'ir.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Whence would we have <i>thought</i> that it <i>was</i> 
          Me'akev?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The multiple repetition of 'Sh'nei' might lead us 
          to consider their being identical as Me'akev.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then, now, what <i>is</i> the role of the three-fold 
          repetition of 'Sh'nei'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One for appearance, one for height, and one for 
          value.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  The same sequence appears in the Beraisa regarding the 
          two Kivsei Metzora, and in the Beraisa regarding the 
          Tziporei Metzora.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If 'Sh'nei' and 'Sh'tei' teach the requirement 
          of alike pairs, then the word 'Shenayim' by the Temidim 
          should teach the same Din there (as the sequence would 
          work there)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The word 'Shenayim' by Tamid is not extra; it is 
          needed to teach that they must be slaughtered in the 
          sunlight, not in the shade.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa goes on to demonstrate that the number 
               here cannot be teaching the obvious number since the 
               Pasuk is explicit regarding 'the one... ' and 'the 
               one... '.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Where in the Azarah would the sunlit 
               Shechitah take place?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The Tamid in the morning is slaughtered in 
               the <b><b><b>NW</b></b></b> corner (angled back into the <b><b><b>SE</b></b></b> sun, using 
               the second row of rings) and the afternoon Tamid is 
               in the <b><b><b>NE</b></b></b> (angled back to the setting sun in the 
               <b><b><b>SW</b></b></b>).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> The Musafim of Shabbos should (according to Rashi) 
               be alike.
<br>
<b><font>4) THE TWO SA'IRIM PRIOR TO THEIR HAGRALAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  One is Chayav for Shechutei Chutz for slaughtering 
          <i>either</i> Sa'ir prior to the Hagralah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  After the Hagralah one is Chayav only for the Sa'ir 
          la'Shem.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Prior to the Hagralah neither animal is fit for 
          a Korban, so why is there a Chiyuv on them?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Since (Ho'il) they are fit to be the Chatas 
          ha'Musafin (brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon), they 
          are deemed fit.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Avodas ha'Yom needs to be completed 
          before such a Sa'ir Musafin could be fit to be brought!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Timing alone does not render an animal unfit if 
          its time will come that day.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  With this lesson from R. Chisda (that missing an action, 
          such as Hagralah, renders an animal unfit) we can 
          understand the Din of R. Yehudah citing Shmuel:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A Shelamim is Pasul if slaughtered before the gates 
               of the Heichal are opened.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> By extension, the Chiyuv of Shechutei Chutz will not 
               apply to that animal since opening the gates is like 
               an action which stands between the animal and its 
               fitness to be offered.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) HO'IL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We have an indication (from his teaching 
          regarding a Korban Pesach during the year) that R. Chisda 
          does <i>not</i> employ the perspective of Ho'il, contrary to 
          what we learned regarding Shechutei Chutz!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Chisda taught that a Korban Pesach during the 
          year does not incur the Chiyuv of Shechutei Chutz if the 
          Shechitah is le'Shem Pesach (since it could not be 
          brought then).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the Korban Pesach was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmo 
               (i.e. as a Shelamim), he would incur the Chiyuv 
               (since it could be brought as a Shelamim).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We may infer that if he slaughtered the Korban 
               Pesach with no special intention that he would be 
               Patur.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why is that so; Ho'il should give it a 
               status of Shechutei Chutz since it <i>could have</i> been 
               brought she'Lo li'Sh'mo as a Shelamim!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> There is no comparison, since the Korban 
               Pesach needs to be removed from its Lishmo state 
               (Akirah) whereas the Sa'ir of Yom Kipur needs no 
               Akirah to be used as a Sa'ir for Musafin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Rabah b. Simi taught that the contradiction above was not 
          in R. Chisda but in Rabah (the answer remains the same).
<br>
<b><font>2) THREE APPROACHES TO AKIRAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Dimi cites R. Yirmiyah as saying that he is Patur even 
          if he does the Shechitah she'Lo li'Sh'mo.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  When asked for a rationale, R. Yirmiyah explained that 
          Akirah only works in the Azarah (such that this Korban 
          remains a Pesach she'Lo bi'Z'mano and is hence Patur from 
          Shechutei Chutz).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Ravin cites R. Yochanan as teaching that in all instances 
          he is <i>Chayav</i>.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Could this mean that he is Chayav even if the 
          Shechitah is li'Shmo!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But we learned that a Korban she'Lo bi'Z'mano is 
               Patur.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah lists those Korbanos which are Mechusar 
               Z'man and Patur (whose owners are not yet ready to 
               bring such a Korban) and which cannot convert into 
               Nedavos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Those Korbanos which can convert to Nedavos are 
               Chayav if, qualifies R. Chilkiyah b. Tuvi, the 
               Shechitah was li'Shmo, but Shelo Lishmo is <i>Patur</i>.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But li'Sh'mo by Ashamos should be Chayav 
               on account of Ho'il!, as by the Korban Pesach?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> An Asham requires Akirah while a Pesach does 
               <i>not</i> require Akirah as it automatically converts to 
               a Shelamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Ashi cites Ravin/R. Yochanan as saying Chayav (like 
          our text) while;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Yosef mi'Difti cites them as saying Patur, as he holds 
          that a Pesach <i>does</i> require an Akirah to become a 
          Shelamim, and he is Patur because Akirah outside of the 
          Azarah is not an Akirah (and he argues with R. Chilkiyah 
          b. Tuvi who holds that Akiras Chutz <i>is</i> an Akirah (as in 
          d.3. above).
<br>
<b><font>3) SHECHUTEI CHUTZ AFTER THE HAGRALAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  As taught above, after the Hagralah he is only Chayav on 
          the Sa'ir la'Shem.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa cites the Pasuk dealing with Shechutei Chutz 
          and (says that the word 'Korban' teaches that the Isur is 
          only Kodshim ba'Chutz, not Chulin bi'Fenim and then) 
          asks:
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) RAV CHISDA'S OPINION WITH REGARD TO THE PROHIBITION OF 'SHECHUTEI CHUTZ'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Chisda rules that one is liable for slaughtering an animal outside of the Azarah ('Shechutei Chutz') when he slaughters an animal which, <i>under any circumstances</i>, is fit to be a valid Korban (as long as it is not 'Mechusar Ma'aseh,' lacking an essential requisite to be a Korban).
</p><p>
The Gemara challenges Rav Chisda's opinion from a different statement that he made. The Gemara in Pesachim (70b) teaches that a Korban Pesach slaughtered during the rest of the year she'Lo Lishmo (to be offered as a Korban Shelamim) is a valid Korban Shelamim. Rav Chisda states that one who slaughters a Korban Pesach during the rest of the year outside of the Azarah ('ba'Chutz') Lishmo (for the sake of a Korban Pesach) is not liable for 'Shechutei Chutz.' Since he slaughtered it Lishmo, it remains a Korban Pesach, which is not a valid Korban at any time of the year other than the fourteenth of Nisan. If he slaughtered it she'Lo Lishmo (to be offered as a Korban Shelamim) he is liable for Shechutei Chutz, because he slaughtered a valid Korban outside of the Azarah.
</p><p>
The Gemara infers from this statement that Rav Chisda maintains that one who slaughters a Korban Pesach outside of the Azarah with no explicit intention ('Stam') is also exempt, because it is not fit to be offered as a Korban Pesach on that day. This contradicts Rav Chisda's other statement that one transgresses the prohibition of Shechutei Chutz when he slaughters any animal which is fit to be offered as a Korban. A Korban Pesach slaughtered 'Stam' <i>could</i> be offered as a Korban Shelamim if one has in mind during the Shechitah that it is l'Shem Shelamim, and thus he should be liable for slaughtering it ba'Chutz, even 'Stam'! Why does Rav Chisda say that one is exempt for slaughtering it 'Stam' outside of the Azarah?
</p><p>
The logic of the Gemara's question is difficult to understand. Rav Chisda says nothing about a Korban Pesach that one slaughters 'Stam.' From where does the Gemara infer that Rav Chisda maintains that one who slaughters a Korban Pesach 'Stam' (during the rest of the year) outside of the Azarah is exempt? The Gemara cannot infer this from Rav Chisda's statement that one who slaughters the Korban Pesach she'Lo Lishmo is liable, which implies that one who slaughters it 'Stam' is exempt, because the opposite inference can be made from the first part of his statement: Rav Chisda says that one who slaughters the animal <i>Lishmo</i> outside of the Azarah is exempt, which implies that one who slaughters it 'Stam' is liable. What is the Gemara's question on Rav Chisda?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ta'ama) suggests (and the <b>RITVA</b> explains at greater length) that according to Rashi, the Gemara assumes that Rav Chisda's intention was to discuss a case of 'Stam,' and not just the cases of Lishmo and she'Lo Lishmo. Since the Halachah is that all Korbanos that are slaughtered 'Stam' are considered to have been slaughtered Lishmo, presumably when Rav Chisda discusses one who slaughters the Korban Pesach 'Lishmo' he refers to one who slaughters it 'Stam.' Consequently, when Rav Chisda says that one who slaughters the animal 'Stam' outside of the Azarah is <i>exempt</i>, he contradicts his other statement.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos cites <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who answers that the Gemara's question is based on the beginning of Rav Chisda's statement. (Rabeinu Tam's text of the Gemara does not include the words that specify 'Stam' as the contradictory case.) Rav Chisda says that one who slaughters a Korban Pesach Lishmo ba'Chutz is exempt, because a Korban Pesach slaughtered Lishmo in the Azarah after the fourteenth of Nisan is invalid. If, however, one slaughters it 'Stam,' it <i>is</i> fit to be offered as a Korban. The Gemara at this point understands that an 'Akirah' is not necessary; the Korban automatically becomes a Shelamim when it is slaughtered 'Stam,' and the owner does not need to verbally declare it a Shelamim. There is no difference between a Korban Pesach slaughtered l'Shem Shelamim and one slaughtered 'Stam.' Accordingly, when one slaughters it Lishmo outside of the Azarah he should be liable for Shechutei Chutz, because the animal would have been fit to be offered as a Korban (Shelamim) had it been slaughtered 'Stam' (and it is not Mechusar Ma'aseh).
</p><p>
Rashi's original text apparently conforms with Rabeinu Tam's Girsa, because Rashi emphasizes that the words 'Ta'ama d'Lo Lishmo...' must be added to the text of the Gemara. Tosfos, on the other hand, says that there is no need to add any words. The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> comments that Rabeinu Tam's explanation is so straightforward that it is difficult to understand why Rashi changes the Girsa and gives a different explanation.
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi and Rabeinu Tam are consistent with their respective opinions as expressed elsewhere. According to one opinion, an animal that was designated as a Korban Pesach does not require 'Akirah' to become a valid Shelamim. Does this mean that the animal automatically becomes a Korban Shelamim when it is slaughtered after Pesach passes, regardless of the intent of the one who slaughters it, or does it mean that it becomes a Korban Shelamim only if the Shochet has nothing in mind (but not if the Shochet has in mind that it is a Korban Pesach)?
</p><p>
Rabeinu Tam in Pesachim (64a, cited by <b>TOSFOS</b> DH Ta'ama) says that according to the opinion that no 'Akirah' is necessary, after the first day of Pesach passes an animal designated to be a Korban Pesach automatically becomes a Korban Shelamim since it can no longer be offered as a Korban Pesach. Even if one slaughters it <i>Lishmo</i> (with intent that it is a Korban Pesach) it <i>remains a Shelamim</i>. There is no such thing as a Korban Pesach after Pesach has passed, and thus the Korban remains a Shelamim. (In fact, it is not clear why, according to Tosfos, the Gemara here presumed that the Korban would be <i>invalid</i> when slaughtered in the Mikdash l'Shem Pesach, according to those who maintain that 'Akirah' is not necessary. The Korban should remain a Shelamim that was slaughtered l'Shem Pesach, which is valid, as Tosfos writes here in Yoma! Apparently, the Gemara here assumes that all Shelamim slaughtered l'Shem Pesach are actually invalid, as the Gemara suggests earlier on 60b.)
</p><p>
Rashi, in contrast, maintains that even if a Korban Pesach does not need Akirah to become a valid Korban Shelamim, this does not mean that it becomes a valid Shelamim regardless of the intent with which it is slaughtered. If it is slaughtered l'Shem <i>Pesach</i>, the intent of the Shochet renders it a Korban Pesach she'Lo b'Zemano, which is an invalid Korban. (In a case in which the intent of the Shochet actively disqualifies the Korban, the logic of 'Ho'il' does not apply to make one liable for slaughtering it outside of the Azarah. Therefore, the Gemara would not have asked that one should be liable for slaughtering the animal <i>l'Shem Pesach</i> outside of the Azarah (if 'Akirah' is not necessary), unlike Rabeinu Tam suggests.) (The Ritva seems to understand Rashi as suggested above.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps the word 'Korban' comes to add Kodshei 
          Bedek ha'Bayis to those Kodshim for which one would be 
          Chayav for Shechutei Chutz?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The words 've'El Pesach Ohel Moed... ' restrict 
          the Isur to those Korbanos which <i>could</i> be brought 
          there, and that which could not be brought to the Pesach 
          Ohel Mo'ed is Patur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we should then not exclude the Sa'ir 
          ha'Mishtale'ach which is brought to the Ohel Moed for 
          Hagralah, and one should be Chayav for it!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'la'Hashem' restricts the Isur to Korbanos whose 
          Avodah is only la'Shem (and not the Sa'ir 
          ha'Mishtale'ach).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we find that 'la'Hashem' is used to 
          <i>include</i> the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> Each instance of 'la'Hashem' must be 
          understood in its context.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Where 'El Pesach' (by Shechutei Chutz) includes; 
               'la'Hashem' excludes;
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Where 'Isheh' (by Mechusar Z'man) excludes; 
               'la'Hashem' includes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Are we to infer that a Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach 
          would be Kadosh even as Mechusar Z'man, had the Pasuk not 
          taught otherwise?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But that would mean that one of the animals in the 
               Goral was not be fit to be brought la'Shem.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We know that both must be fit la'Shem!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yosef):</font></b> The Beraisa which employs 'la'Hashem 
          to include the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach in Mechusar Z'man is 
          Chanan ha'Mitzri (who holds that a replacement Sa'ir 
          ha'Mishtale'ach is brought without Hagralah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> While it is true that Chanan ha'Mitzri allows 
          the use of Dam which was Dechuyah (temporarily unusable), 
          but who says that he allows the Sa'ir to come into 
          service without Hagralah!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, the Beraisa is R. Shimon who teaches that 
          the replacement can be brought without Hagralah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer (Ravina):</font></b> The Beraisa speaks of a case 
          where the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach contracted a Mum after 
          the Hagralah and its substitute does not then require 
          Hagralah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Whence that a Mum invalidates the Sa'ir 
               ha'Mishtale'ach?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa analyzes the words in the Pasuk 
               dealing with Mumin and finds two words combining to 
               teach that both Mechusar Z'man and Ba'al Mum will 
               invalidate the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) RESOLVING THE BERAISA REGARDING MECHUSAR ZMAN (cont'd) [Another answer to explain why we would have prohibited the Sair ha'Mishtale'ach bi'Mechusar Z'man.]</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer (Rava):</font></b> It is speaking where the mother 
          of the Sa'ir was slaughtered on that day (for an ill 
          person) thus creating the prohibition of Oso ve'Es B'no.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we are not doing Shechitah on the child on 
          the same day as the mother, we are only pushing it off a 
          cliff!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> For the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, that is its 
          Shechitah.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE STATUS OF THE SECOND SA'IR - DICHUI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> The remaining Sa'ir from the <i>original</i> pair is 
          used, and the match to the <i>new</i> Sa'ir is put out to 
          pasture.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The opposite (original is pastured, new 
          one is used).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the basis for their dispute?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav holds that the principle of Dichui does not 
          apply prior to Shechitah; while R. Yochanan holds that 
          Dichui does apply to Ba'alei Cha'im.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why does Rav hold his position?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He learns it from the usual case of Mechusar 
          Z'man, which will become fit even though at the moment it 
          is not fit.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But by Mechusar Z'man the animal never went 
          through a period in which it was fit, unlike our case?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, Rav compares it to the case of an animal 
          with a temporary blemish.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Whence do we know that such an animal may 
               be subsequently offered?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> From the Pasuk  'Mum Bam' (only while the 
               blemish is upon them may they not be offered).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why does R. Yochanan hold his position 
               (and not learn, as Rav did, from an impermanent 
               Mum)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Because the Torah restricted its Heter there 
               with the word 'Bahem' (Mum is the only Nidcheh which 
               comes back).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How will Rav understand 'Bahem'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 'Bahem' teaches that the Isur of Mum only 
               applies if the limb of the Ba'al Mum can be 
               identified, but not in a mixture (as we see is R. 
               Eliezer's position in the Mishnah in Zevachim).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Whence then will R. Yochanan learn this 
               Din?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The word 'Bahem' could have otherwise read 
               'Bam'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How will Rav understand 'Bam'-'Bahem'?
<br>        <b>  <b><font>10. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Rav does not interpret the difference 
               between them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why, according to Rav, <i>must</i> we offer the 
          original Sa'ir, why not offer either one?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav holds like R. Yosi that the proper Mitzvah is 
          with the first one designated.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Where is this opinion of R. Yosi?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> When R. Yosi explains the requirement to 
               mark the Kupos as in order to use the first one 
               first.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But that may be required since the second 
               has not yet become usable when the first Kupah was 
               available, but here all the Se'irim become available 
               at the same moment (conclusion of the Matnos 
               Damim)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Rather, the source is R. Yosi regarding the 
               Korban Pesach which was lost, replaced and then 
               found where R. Yosi holds that the first is to be 
               used, unless the second one is superior to it.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) OFFERING LIMBS FROM A MIXTURE THAT CONTAINS A BLEMISHED ANIMAL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> Rav and Rebbi Yochanan argue about whether a live animal that was designated to be a Korban and became disqualified remains disqualified permanently, or whether it becomes valid again if the disqualifying factor is eliminated.
</p><p>
Rav proves that live animals do not become permanently disqualified ('Ba'alei Chayim Einan Nidachin') from the case of an animal with a transitory blemish ('Ba'al Mum Over'). Even though the animal is disqualified from being offered while it has a blemish, it will become valid later when the blemish goes away. Rebbi Yochanan argues that the Torah specifically excludes the case of a 'Ba'al Mum Over' from the category of permanently-disqualified Korbanos when it says 'Mum <i>Bam</i>' (Vayikra 22:25). All other cases of disqualified animals indeed become disqualified permanently. The case of a 'Ba'al Mum Over' is the only case in which an animal which was Nidcheh may be offered as a Korban at a later time. Rav replies that the verse 'Mum Bam' teaches something else, and, therefore, any live animal which was Nidcheh does not remain Nidcheh permanently but only until it becomes fit again to be offered as a Korban.
</p><p>
Rav maintains that the verse 'Mum Bam' teaches that when a blemished animal becomes mixed with unblemished animals, the entire mixture ('Ta'aroves') may be offered on the Mizbe'ach. The Gemara supports Rav's view from the Mishnah in Zevachim which teaches that a Ta'aroves may be offered on the Mizbe'ach. The Mishnah quotes Rebbi Eliezer who states that when the limbs of a blemished animal become mixed with the limbs of unblemished animals, if the first set of limbs was already offered on the Mizbe'ach the rest may be offered. For example, if one of the heads was already offered the rest of the heads may also be offered, because perhaps the first head that was offered was from the blemished animal, and the rest are from the unblemished animals. The Chachamim argue and maintain that the heads that were not yet offered must be sent to the Beis ha'Sereifah to be burned and may not be offered on the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
There are several difficulties with the Gemara.
</p><p>
(a) The reason why Rebbi Eliezer permits all of the heads of the animals to be offered, including the head of the blemished animal, is <i>not</i> because of Rav's rule that the Torah permits a Ta'aroves to be offered on the Mizbe'ach, but rather because one of the heads was already offered (and thus there is a possibility that the rest are from unblemished animals). If Rebbi Eliezer permits all of the heads to be offered because of Rav's rule that a Ta'aroves may be offered on the Mizbe'ach, then why does he permit them only if one of the heads was offered already?
</p><p>
(b) Even if Rebbi Eliezer's opinion in some way supports the ruling of Rav, how does Rav explain the verse of 'Mum Bam' according to the <i>Chachamim</i>? The Chachamim do not agree that the other heads of the mixture may be offered when the head of a blemished animal was mixed with them.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Rishonim (<b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b>, <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b>) explain that Rebbi Eliezer's requirement that one of the heads was already brought in order to permit the rest is only <i>mid'Rabanan</i>. Mid'Oraisa, a blemished animal in a Ta'aroves may be offered, as Rav says. The Rabanan prohibited it unless there exists the additional possibility that the blemished animal was already offered (in which case each head is a Safek d'Rabanan and is permitted). 
</p><p>
It is clear from the Gemara that, mid'Oraisa, a mixture that contains limbs of a blemished animal may be offered on the Mizbe'ach. Had the Torah prohibited offering a mixture that contains limbs of a blemished animal, offering any of the heads in the mixture -- even after one of the heads was already offered -- would have been prohibited, because there would have been a Safek d'Oraisa whether the head that was already offered came from a blemished animal or an unblemished animal.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Ha) answers the second question when he says that Rav's ruling indeed conforms only with Rebbi Eliezer's opinion.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> and other Rishonim explain that Rav's ruling also conforms with the view of the Chachamim. The Chachamim agree that a mixture that contains a blemished animal may be offered mid'Oraisa. The Chachamim maintain, like Rebbi Eliezer, that there is an Isur <i>d'Rabanan</i> to offer such a Ta'aroves on the Mizbe'ach. However, they argue with Rebbi Eliezer and maintain that the Isur d'Rabanan applies even when one of the heads was already offered.
</p><p>
Tosfos proves that the Chachamim agree that such a Ta'aroves is permitted mid'Oraisa, as Rav says, from the fact that the Chachamim do not require the head that was already placed on the Mizbe'ach to be removed from there. If the Torah forbids offering limbs from a mixture that contains a blemished animal, then one would be required to remove it from the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) 'BITUL B'ROV' WITH 'BA'ALEI MUM' AND 'TEMIMIM'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav derives from the verse, 'Mum Bam' (Vayikra 22:25), that animals from a mixture of blemished and unblemished animals may be offered on the Mizbe'ach. The Gemara supports Rav's ruling from the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, who maintains that when the limbs of a blemished animal become mixed with the limbs of unblemished animals, the mixture may be offered on the Mizbe'ach, mid'Oraisa.
</p><p>
Rebbi Eliezer's teaching apparently involves a case in which a single blemished animal becomes mixed with a number of unblemished animals. This is evident from the fact that he permits all of the heads in the mixture to be offered if '*one* head' was already offered, since that head might have been from the blemished animal (and the remaining heads are all from unblemished animals). According to Rebbi Eliezer, why is the verse of 'Mum Bam' necessary to permit offering the limbs of such a mixture? They should be permitted to be offered because of the principle of 'Bitul b'Rov' -- the limbs of the blemished animal are nullified in the majority of unblemished animals.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> answers that the verse indeed is needed only when the mixture contains an equal number of blemished animals as unblemished animals (or the mixture contains <i>more</i> blemished animals), in which case the principle of 'Bitul b'Rov' does not apply. Rebbi Eliezer discusses a case in which the limbs of one blemished animal became mixed with the limbs of one unblemished animal. 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> and <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> explain that the principle of 'Bitul b'Rov' does not apply in this case, even when the mixture contains a <i>majority</i> of unblemished animals. The Rabanan decreed that a mixture that contains a 'Davar she'b'Minyan' (an item that is significant due to the fact that it is sold by count) does not become nullified in a majority, and the mixture is prohibited mid'Rabanan. Since the Torah itself ('Mum Bam') does not prohibit a mixture of limbs even when it contains equal amounts of blemished and unblemished animals, the Rabanan also did not apply their enactment of 'Davar she'b'Minyan' in such a case when 'Bitul b'Rov' annuls the forbidden item.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TOSFOS RID</b> in Bava Basra (31b) teaches that if one prohibited item becomes mixed with two permitted items, one person may not eat all three pieces, because if he does he will certainly consume a prohibited item. According to this opinion, the need for the verse of 'Mum Bam' to permit the mixture upon the Mizbe'ach is clear. Even though the majority of unblemished animals nullifies the blemished animal through 'Bitul b'Rov,' 'Bitul b'Rov' does not permit <i>all</i> of the limbs of the mixture to be offered on the Mizbe'ach. The verse of 'Mum Bam' permits <i>all</i> of the limbs on the Mizbe'ach to be offered, even though one certainly will offer the blemished animal as well. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(d) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> suggests another answer. Perhaps 'Bitul b'Rov' does not apply at all to a blemished animal. In the laws of Korbanos, there is a principle that 'Ein ha'Olin Mevatlin Zeh Es Zeh' -- Korbanos cannot annul each other (Zevachim 81b). Therefore, the verse 'Mum Bam' is necessary.
</p><p>
However, the Tosfos Yeshanim concludes that it is unlikely that this principle applies in the case of a blemished animal. This principle applies only to valid Korbanos ('Olin'). A blemished animal is not a valid Korban and is not 'Oleh Al ha'Mizbe'ach' (even though it is sanctified), and thus 'Bitul b'Rov' should apply to it.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> The Mishnah seems to imply Rav's position while 
          the Beraisa seems to imply R. Yochanan's.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah says that the new animal la'Shem stands 
               in the stead of the one which died, but does not say 
               that the new Mishtale'ach stands in stead of the 
               first (like Rav).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa teaches explicitly that the Sheini is 
               the new Sa'ir, whose partner had not died.
<br>
<b><font>3) APPLYING THE POSITIONS OF RAV AND R. YOCHANAN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah (also) taught in our Mishnah that the Sa'ir 
          ha'Mishtale'ach must be put to death if the blood la'Shem 
          spilt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> While this is understandable according to R. 
          Yochanan (Ba'alei Cha'im Nidachin), why, according to Rav 
          is this Ba'al Chai Nidcheh?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rav admits that he is not teaching his position 
          in R. Yehudah, but rather in the Rabanan (see Rashi for 
          how the Rabanan's position implies that Ba'alei Cha'im 
          are not Nidachin).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Rav's position explains R. Yehudah's argument 
          with the Rabanan, but according to R. Yochanan, what is 
          their argument (they both speak of the same animal)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav):</font></b> That is (another reason) why we said 
          earlier that the Mishnah implies the position of Rav.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) APPLICATIONS OF R. YOCHANAN (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  An implication of the Mishnah (which teaches that a 
          Chatas Tzibur is not put to death) is that a parallel 
          Chatas Yachid would, according to the Chachamim, be put 
          to death.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> An instance of this can be found according to R. 
               Yochanan (who says that the Sheini which is pastured 
               is of the first pair) in accordance with the Din of 
               R. Aba citing Rav, that such a Chatas Yachid would 
               die.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> According to Rav (that the first Sa'ir is 
               used and the second is pastured), the animal should 
               not be worse than a backup animal and should pasture 
               even by a Korban Yachid!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Given that Rav holds like R. Yosi that the 
               Mitzvah is with the first, the second Sa'ir is like 
               an animal which was Nikdash but which could <i>never</i> 
               be used, and, in the opinion of Rebbi, would be 
               destroyed if it was a Chatas Yachid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Mishnah teaches that, according to R. Yehudah, the 
          animal (which would pasture according to Chachamim) is 
          put to death.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan would make sense of R. Yehudah's 
               statement since the second pair remains for the 
               Kaparah (and the remaining animal of the first pair 
               is pastured by the Korban Tzibur and put to death 
               according to R. Yehudah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> According to Rav, however, which animal 
               will serve as the Kaparah?
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  The second of the first set will be Nidcheh 
                    (Ba'al Chai).
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> The second of the second will be put to death!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah was not addressing the same 
               animal which the Chachamim asserted would pasture 
               (second of the second pair); he was speaking of the 
               second of the <i>first</i> pair.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  R. Yehudah disagrees and holds that a Chatas 
                    Tzibur <i>is</i> put to death.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> R. Yehudah also disagrees and holds that second 
                    of the first pair dies.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  We earlier (64b para. 3.b) asked on Rav from 've'Od Amar 
          R. Yehudah' and we now have an alternate rendering of 
          that question, now posed as a question on .R. Yochanan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What, according to R. Yochanan, does 
               've'Od Amar R. Yehudah' come to add that we do not 
               already know from his statement, 'Tamus'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Good question.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE DEATH OF THE SAIR HAMISHTALE'ACH AND SPILLING THE DAM LASHEM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah taught that if the Dam la'Shem is spilled, the 
          Mishtale'ach must die, and if the Mishtale'ach dies, the 
          Dam la'Shem must be spilled.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why, if the Mishtale'ach dies, must the Dam be 
          spilt, given that the minimum Mitzvah of the Mishtale'ach 
          (the Goralos) was already accomplished (and Shilu'ach is 
          not Me'akev)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Based on 'Yo'amad Chai', R. Yanai learns that the 
          Sair ha'Mishtale'ach must be alive for the Matanos 
          la'Shem of its partner.
<br>
<b><font>3) USING A LOST-AND-FOUND SA'IR FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why may the Sa'ir not be used for the following 
          year, rather than pastured or left to die?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding lost-replaced-and-found Shekalim we 
               learned that the Tana Kama holds that they are 
               Hekdesh but they do not count for the next year, 
               whereas R. Yehudah holds that they <i>do</i> count for 
               the following year.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is R. Yehudah's rationale?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rava):</font></b> R. Yehudah holds that over-payments 
               in one year may be carried over to the next.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Then our Sa'ir should also be able to be 
               used the following year!?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) REUSING A 'CHATAS SHE'NISKAPRU BA'ALEHA' THE FOLLOWING YEAR</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara questions whether the past year's Korbanos that were not offered may be used the following year. It proves that they may <i>not</i> be used from a Beraisa in which Rebbi Yehudah says that if one designates a Par and a Sa'ir for Yom Kippur and then a different Par and Sa'ir are offered instead, the original Par and Sa'ir must be put to death. Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Shimon rule that they must graze until they become blemished. The Gemara asks that if Korbanos from the past year may be used for the following year, then the original Par and Sa'ir should not be put to death (or left to graze), but rather they should be used for the Korbanos of Yom Kippur of the following year.
</p><p>
The Gemara's proof is not clear. The reason why each animal is put to death is because it is a 'Chatas she'Niskapru Ba'aleha,' a Chatas whose owner attained atonement through another Korban. A Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches that such a Chatas is put to death. It makes no difference whether the animal is fit to be used as a Korban next year; it must be put to death as the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai requires.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> and the <b>RITVA</b> answer that the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai requires that a 'Chatas she'Niskapru Ba'aleha' be put to death only because nothing else can be done with that animal. Once a Chatas is designated for a particular purpose, it becomes reserved exclusively for that purpose. If the owner attains atonement by bringing another animal as his Chatas, the first Chatas no longer may be offered as a Chatas, either because it was designated to atone for a specific transgression but atonement was already achieved for that transgression (Tosfos Yeshanim), or because there is no reason to expect that the owner will sin again inadvertently (Ritva). (The Ritva maintains that when one designates an animal as a Korban Chatas, it does not become reserved to atone for the <i>specific</i> transgression he committed, but rather it becomes reserved to atone for the <i>general</i> prohibition he violated. Therefore, if he inadvertently violates that prohibition again, he may offer the Chatas to attain atonement.)
</p><p>
Therefore, the rule of 'Chatas she'Niskapru Ba'aleha' does not apply to a public Chatas (Chatas Tzibur) offered on the festivals and on Yom Kippur. Those Korbenos Chatas attain atonement not for a specific sin committed, but for a general category of transgression that was violated during the past year ('Tum'as Mikdash v'Kadoshav,' entry into the Beis ha'Mikdash while Tamei, or eating Kodshim while Tamei). Such a Korban is fit to be offered the following year since it is not designated to atone for a specific act. Therefore, if not for the Gemara's proof from the Beraisa, this type of Chatas should be offered the following year.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> We cannot apply Shekalim to Korbanos since 
          the Korbanos of each year must come from the Terumah of 
          that year, and hence there is no way to re-use the Sa'ir.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But the <i>Par</i> (which comes from the Kohen 
               Gadol's personal funds) should be able to be brought 
               the following year!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is a Gezeirah lest we confuse the Par and 
               the Sa'ir.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Will a Gezeirah cause the Par to die (it 
               should rather pasture and be redeemed as a Ba'al 
               Mum)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Additional Question:</font></b> We have learned that, 
               Bedi'eved, we <i>are</i> Yotzei with the Korban taken 
               from the Terumah of the previous year!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Zeira):</font></b> Rather, they may not be re-used 
          because the Goral of one year cannot apply to the next.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Then bring another animal and do a new 
               Goral!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> We do not permit this lest people not know 
               that a new Goral was performed and they may assume 
               that it is possible to rely on last year's Goral.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What about the Par (no Goral)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Gezeirah lest we bring the Sa'ir without a 
               Goral, as well.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Will a Gezeirah cause the Par to die!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, they may not be re-used as a Gezeirah 
          lest the Sa'ir pass its first year by the following Yom 
          Kipur.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> That is not a Gezeirah, it is a 
               certainty!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is possible, according to Rebbi who 
               (learning from selling a home in an Ir Chomah) says 
               that we count a Shanah Temimah which is a solar 
               year, and a late Yom Kipur, followed by an early 
               one, could result in the animal not yet passing its 
               first year.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What about the Par (see Tosfos)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Gezeirah...
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Will a Gezeirah...?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Additional Question:</font></b> A Chatas whose year has passed 
               is pastured, not put to death, as taught by Resh 
               Lakish!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) USING THIS YEAR'S 'SA'IR' FOR NEXT YEAR'S YOM KIPPUR</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara questions Rebbi Yehudah's opinion that this year's Korbanos may be used for the following year (65a) from a case in which the Sa'ir la'Shem was lost and another Chatas was offered in its place, and then the original Sa'ir was found. In that case, the Halachah requires that the original Sa'ir be put to death. According to Rebbi Yehudah, though, why is the Sa'ir not kept until the following Yom Kippur and offered then? The Gemara answers that the Goral of the previous year is not valid for the following year, and therefore the Sa'ir cannot be offered as the Chatas la'Shem next year because a new Goral must be made. The Gemara asks that even if a new Goral must be made, they should keep the Sa'ir until next year and use it for the new Goral.
</p><p>
The Gemara's question is difficult to understand. If the Sa'ir was already chosen by the previous year's Goral as the Sa'ir la'Shem, a new Goral cannot be made on this Sa'ir because its status cannot be changed. If the new Goral chooses this Sa'ir as the Sa'ir la'Azazel and not as the Sa'ir la'Shem, the Goral does not take effect because the Sa'ir was already sanctified as the Sa'ir la'Shem.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> and <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> apparently understand that when the Gemara says that the previous year's Goral does not work for the following year, it means that the <i>effects</i> of last year's Goral are annulled. Consequently, the original Sa'ir loses its status as the Sa'ir la'Shem. However, its designation as one of the two Se'irim of Yom Kippur remains, and therefore it should be used as one of the two Se'irim for the Goral of the following Yom Kippur.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MENACHEM MESHIV NEFESH</b> explains that the Gemara means that the Sa'ir should be kept and used for the Goral of the following year. <i>If</i> the Goral chooses this Sa'ir again as the Sa'ir la'Shem, then the Sa'ir may be used for that purpose. If the Goral does not choose this Sa'ir as the Sa'ir la'Shem, then it indeed will not be used but instead will be put to death.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>DIKDUKEI SOFRIM</b> points out that early manuscripts (such as the Munich manuscript) omit this question from the text of the Gemara.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) KILLING AN ANIMAL BECAUSE OF A RABBINICAL ENACTMENT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Shekalim (2:1) in which Rebbi Yehudah says that the Korbanos of one year may be offered the following year. The Gemara asks that in the Beraisa (65a), Rebbi Yehudah states that one may not use the previous year's Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kippur for the following year's Yom Kippur. The Gemara suggests several answers for why the Par and Sa'ir are different from other Korbanos. 
</p><p>
The Gemara suggests that the Sa'ir may not be used the following year because the Goral of one year is not valid for the following year. Since the Sa'ir was already sanctified as the Sa'ir la'Shem, it cannot be included in the Goral of the following year.
</p><p>
The Gemara rejects this answer because it does not apply to the Par (which is not selected by a Goral). The Gemara suggests that perhaps the Par should be put to death because of a Gezeirah of the Sa'ir (in order to prevent people from mistakenly keeping the Sa'ir for the following year). The Gemara asserts that it is not logical to put an animal to death because of a Gezeirah d'Rabanan.
</p><p>
The Gemara then suggests that the reason for why the <i>Par</i> may be used the following year is because of a Gezeirah of a 'Chatas she'Mesu Ba'aleha' (in order to prevent people from mistakenly thinking that a Chatas whose owner died does not have to be put to death), or because of a Gezeirah of a 'Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah' (in order to prevent people from mistakenly thinking that a Chatas whose first year has passed may be offered as a Korban). The Gemara rejects these answers because they do not apply to the Sa'ir. The Gemara mentions again that it is also not logical to put an animal to death because of a Gezeirah d'Rabanan.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara not simply combine the valid explanation for why the Sa'ir is not kept for the following year with the valid explanation for why the Par is not kept for the following year? The reason why the Sa'ir is not kept for the following year is because the Goral from the previous year is not valid for the next year, and the reason why the Par is not kept is because of a Gezeirah of a 'Chatas she'Mesu Ba'aleha' or 'Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah.' These two reasons together explain why the Par and Sa'ir differ from other Korbanos. (<b>GEVURAS ARI</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> suggests that when the Gemara says that it is not logical that an animal should die because of a Gezeirah d'Rabanan (since the Par must die for a valid reason, the Rabanan decreed that the Sa'ir must also die), it also means that it is not logical that the Par should die because of a Gezeirah of a 'Chatas she'Mesu Ba'aleha' or 'Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah.' Consequently, the Gemara has no explanation for why the Par must die and is not kept for the following year.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) USING A LOST-AND-FOUND SAIR FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  The as-yet-unanswered Question:</font></b> Why may the Sa'ir not be 
          used for the following year, rather than pastured or left 
          to die?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> We may not re-use the Sa'ir owing to a 
          Gezeirah of Takalah (as taught in the Beraisa).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Fear that the owner will be Makriv the 
               animals at the improper time.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> The same should apply to all Korbanos 
               (none should be put out to pasture)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The Takalah is the concern over accidentally 
               deriving benefit from them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Again, that should not only apply to the 
               Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kippur!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Our concern is that he will offer them 
               improperly, which only applies to animals which, by 
               themselves, <i>are</i> able to be offered, but for the 
               timing.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The Gezeirah over Takalah is, apparently, a Machlokes in 
          the Beraisos:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One Beraisa allows an animal designated as a Korban 
               Pesach to be brought for Pesach Sheini on the 
               following year, while one Beraisa forbids its 
               subsequent use.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> No, the Beraisos argue over how to calculate the 
               year (like Rebbi and Rabanan) and hence if it is 
               possible to use this animal next Pesach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisos add that the same Din will 
          apply to money designated for a Korban Pesach (which does 
          not have an age limit)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They must, indeed, be arguing about Takalah.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE VIDUI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Kohen Gadol's Vidui did not include the 
          transgressions of the Kohanim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to which Tana are the Kohanim 
          omitted?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> It is not R. Yehudah who taught 
          (61b) that all, including Kohanim, gain Kaparah through 
          the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer (Abaye):</font></b> It could even be R. Yehudah, 
          and the Kohanim are certainly part of 'Your nation, 
          Yisrael!'
<br>
<b><font>3) THE DESIGNATED USHER FOR THE SA'IR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa derives from 'Ish' and 'Iti' some of the 
          details of this usher.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Ish' - he may be a Zar
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'AND UPON HEARING THE NAME OF HASH-M THE PEOPLE BOWED'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that when the Kohen Gadol mentioned the Name of Hash-m during the recitation of the Viduy on the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach (the third Viduy of the day), all of the people who were gathered in the Mikdash bowed down. By bowing upon hearing the Name of Hash-m, the people gave honor to Hash-m. (The Yerushalmi says that when they heard the Name of Hash-m, the people near the Kohen Gadol bowed down, and the people who were far away proclaimed, 'Baruch Shem Kevod Malchuso....')
</p><p>
The Kohen Gadol uttered the Name of Hash-m at other times during the Yom Kippur service. The Mishnah earlier (35b) states that he uttered the Name of Hash-m during the first Viduy on the Par. Similarly, the Mishnah (39a) states that he uttered the Name of Hash-m during the second Viduy on the Par. Another Mishnah (41b) states that he uttered the Name of Hash-m when he performed the Goral to choose the Sa'ir la'Shem. The Beraisa (39b) summarizes and says that the Name of Hash-m was uttered ten times on Yom Kippur -- three times during each of the three Viduyim and once during the Goral.
</p><p>
Why does the Mishnah in all of those places omit mention of the people's prostration at the time of the Kohen Gadol's utterance of the Name of Hash-m?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> emends the text of the Mishnah here so that it makes no mention of the people's prostration. (The <b>DIKDUKEI SOFRIM</b> #100 points out that a number of early manuscripts do not include these words in the Mishnah.) Even though it is true that the people bowed down (as the Beraisa and Gemara mention), the Mishnah does not mention it because it is not a detail in the laws of Yom Kippur, but rather in the laws of Hazkaras Hash-m, mentioning the Name of Hash-m, and thus it does not belong in the Mishnayos which discuss the Avodos of Yom Kippur.
</p><p>
The Mishnah in Sotah (37b-38a) mentions the differences between the recitation of Birkas Kohanim in the Beis ha'Mikdash and the recitation of Birkas Kohanim everywhere else. The Mishnah there says that in the Beis ha'Mikdash, the Birkas Kohanim included the actual pronouncement of the Name of Hash-m. The <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> here (see also Insights to Yoma 37:1) asks that the Mishnah in Sotah should also mention as a difference the prostration that was performed when the Name of Hash-m was uttered, since it was performed in the Beis ha'Mikdash (because the Name of Hash-m was pronounced) and nowhere else. According to the Vilna Ga'on's understanding, the answer to this question is that there is no need for the Mishnah in Sotah to mention the prostration as a difference, because that is not a Halachah which relates specifically to Birkas Kohanim.
</p><p>
(b) In the <b>RAMBAM's</b> text of the Mishnah, the people's prostration is mentioned <i>only</i> in the earlier Mishnah (35b) with regard to the first Viduy, which is the first time that the Mishnah mentions that the Kohen Gadol uttered the Name of Hash-m. Thereafter the Mishnah does not need to mention that the people bowed, because the first Mishnah already mentioned it.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RAV YOSEF DOV SOLOVEITCHIK</b> (Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim, 37a) writes that perhaps the reason why the people bowed at the mention of Hashem's name was not in order to honor the Name of Hash-m. Rather, it was an act related specifically to the Viduy recited over the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. Accordingly, it is fitting that only the Mishnah here mentions it and not the earlier Mishnayos.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (21a, DH Mishtachavim) writes that the people used to bow when they recited Viduy in the Beis ha'Mikdash. If bowing indeed is related specifically to Viduy, then it makes sense that the <i>people</i> bowed only when the Name of Hash-m was said during 'the <i>people's</i> Viduy' (the Viduy recited over the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach on behalf of atonement for the sins of the entire nation). Even though the Name of Hash-m was mentioned during the Goral, the Goral was not a Viduy and thus the people did not bow at that time. When the Name of Hash-m was uttered during the first and second Viduyim, the people did not bow because those two Viduyim were for the Kohen Gadol himself (although all of the Kohanim gained atonement through the second Viduy, their atonement was only 'b'Kufya' -- secondary to the Kohen Gadol's atonement -- as the Gemara (50b) explains). In contrast, the Viduy of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach was for all of the Jewish people, and therefore the people bowed when they heard the Name of Hash-m.
</p><p>
(See <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> (DH veha'Kohanim), who alludes to such an approach but eventually rejects it, asserting that the people bowed to honor the Name of Hash-m and not because of the Viduy. The premise of the Tosfos Yom Tov is borne out by the Avodah prayer recited on the Yom Kippur, which mentions three (Nusach Ashkenaz) or four (Nusach Sefard) bowings.)
</p><p>
As an aside, Rav Soloveitchik points out that during the Avodah prayer of Yom Kippur, it is customary to bow down four times -- three times during the description of the three Viduyim, and one time during the description of the Goral (the latter according to the Nusach Sefard text of the Avodah). Why do we bow down four times? If we do not accept Rav Soloveitchik's understanding of the Mishnah, we should bow down ten times, just as the people bowed down in the Beis ha'Mikdash ten times on Yom Kippur when the Kohen Gadol uttered the Name of Hash-m (three times during each Viduy, and once at the time of the Goral). According to Rav Soloveitchik's understanding, we should bow down only once, during the Viduy of the Sa'ir.
</p><p>
He answers that the prostrations during Musaf on Yom Kippur are not for the sake of giving honor to the Name of Hash-m, but rather they commemorate what was done during the Avodah of Yom Kippur in the Beis ha'Mikdash. It suffices to bow once during each Viduy to demonstrate what was done in the Beis ha'Mikdash. (See also <b>PERISHAH</b> OC 621.) He suggests further, based on the Rambam in Hilchos Tefilah (9:1), that when a prayer involves a series of responses (such as a series of prostrations or 'Amen's), it suffices to respond once at the end of the prayer rather than to respond at various points in the prayer. Thus, it was sufficient to bow once at the end of each Viduy, even though the Name of Hash-m was mentioned three times in each Viduy. 
</p><p>


<font><b>2) 'TITHARU' -- THE COMMON PRACTICE TODAY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah describes the procedure of the Viduy with the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. The Kohen Gadol approached the Sa'ir, laid his hands upon it, and uttered the confession on behalf of the Jewish people. The description of the procedure is incorporated into the Chazan's repetition of Musaf on Yom Kippur recited today. However, there is a difference between the way the Chazan recites the text of the Viduy of the Kohen Gadol, and the way the Kohen Gadol actually said it. The common practice is that when the Chazan reaches the words 'Lifnei Hash-m' in the verse, 'Ki ba'Yom ha'Zeh Yechaper Aleichem... Lifnei Hash-m Titharu,' he pauses while the congregation recites the next words in the Mishnah, 'veha'Kohanim veha'Am... Hayu Mishtachavim,' and everyone bows down (in some communities, only the Chazan recites those words and bows down). After everyone has bowed down, the Chazan continues and says 'Titharu,' the last word of the verse he started before the pause. (This is also the order printed in most editions of the Yom Kippur Machzor.)
</p><p>
Why does the Chazan pause before he recites the word 'Titharu'? The Mishnah makes no mention of such an interruption. Rather, it says that the Kohen Gadol recited the verse in its entirety, and afterwards it describes how the people and the other Kohanim bowed down when they heard the Name of Hash-m.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RAV SHALOM SHVADRON</b> zt'l, the Magid of Yerushalayim (who served as the Ba'al Tefilah on Yom Kippur for many years in the Chevron Yeshiva in Givat Mordechai, Yerushalayim) said that although the people in the Beis ha'Mikdash bowed down immediately when they heard the Name of Hash-m, there indeed is no reason for the Chazan to split up the verse and mention the last word of the verse ('Titharu') <i>after</i> he says the other words of the Mishnah that describe the people's prostration. Rav Shalom asserted that there is absolutely no source for interrupting the verse. Therefore, when he would serve as Chazan he would complete the verse and say, 'Lifnei Hash-m Titharu' before he continued with the words, 'veha'Kohanim veha'Am....' This is also the practice in a number of congregations.
</p><p>
Perhaps the source of the common practice to divide the verse is as follows. The <b>TUR</b> (OC 621) quotes <b>RAV SA'ADYAH GA'ON</b> who says that when the Chazan recounts the Viduy that the Kohen Gadol said ('Ana ha'Shem...'), he should not say the actual Name of Hash-m when he quotes the verse, 'Lifnei Hash-m Titharu.' Rather, he should the say the word 'ha'Shem' ('the Name'). When the custom of Rav Sa'adyah Ga'on was introduced, the Chazan no longer recited the Name of Hash-m in the verse, but rather the word 'ha'Shem.' Since the Name of Hash-m was not recited, there was nothing wrong with interrupting in the middle of the verse. Later, as the Tur relates in the name of <b>RABEINU YITZCHAK IBN GE'AS</b>, the practice was changed again and the Name of Hash-m was recited by the Chazan when he said the verse. However, the printers of the Yom Kippur Machzor neglected to correct the corresponding change in the Machzor and did not remove the interruption between the first part of the verse and the word 'Titharu.' (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> 'Iti' - he must have been previously designated.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> 'Iti' - even when Yom Kipur falls on Shabbos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> 'Iti' - even if Tamei.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why might we have invalidated a Zar?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is an aspect of Kaparah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What activity on Shabbos does 'Iti' permit?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That if the Sa'ir is ill the usher may carry it 
          in Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to whom is this Din?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is not like R. Noson who holds that carrying a 
          living being is not an Isur Torah (as it 'carries 
          itself').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer:</font></b> It could even be the opinion of R. 
          Noson, but being <i>sick</i> may take it out of consideration 
          as 'carrying itself.'
<br>
<b><font>4) HOTZA'AH ON YOM KIPUR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rafram):</font></b> The Beraisa just cited seems to imply that it 
          is permitted to carry on Yom Kipur, as we need to be 
          taught that it is permitted to carry if Yom Kipur falls 
          on Shabbos.
<br>
<b><font>5) 'TUM'AH' IS PERMITTED BY THE SA'IR HA'MISHTALE'ACH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How is <i>Tum'ah</i> relevant to the Sa'ir 
          ha'Mishtale'ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Sheishes):</font></b> If the designated usher becomes 
          Tamei, he enters the Azarah to usher out the Sa'ir.
<br>
<b><font>6) R. ELIEZER'S APPROACH TO THE QUESTIONS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer was asked if the Sa'ir, if ill, could be 
          carried.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  He avoided the question by asserting that the Sa'ir was 
          healthy and strong.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  He was further asked the Din if the usher becomes ill, 
          might he send it with someone else, and he avoided this 
          question, as well.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  They further asked him for the Din if he pushed the 
          animal off the cliff and it did not die, and, again, he 
          avoided the question by asserting that it surely died.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Chachamim answered the above three questions.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He may carry it; he may send a substitute; and, he 
               must go down and kill it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer was asked if a certain person would merit Olam 
          ha'Ba and he redirected their question onto a different 
          person.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  He was asked if it is permitted for the shepherd to save 
          the sheep from the lion (see Rishonim) and he responded 
          that they might ask if it is permitted to save the 
          shepherd.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  The asked if it is proper to save the shepherd and he 
          responded that perhaps they meant the sheep.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  They asked if a Mamzer inherits, and he responded 
          regarding the Mamzer and Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  They asked about an unpainted spot (for the Churban) in a 
          Mamzer's house and he responded regarding painting the 
          grave marking of a Mamzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer did these things because he did not wish to 
          say anything that he had not heard from his Rebbi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  A wise woman asked him why different members of Klal 
          Yisrael received different death penalties for the Eigel, 
          and R. Eliezer redirected her wisdom to the loom.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rav and Levi disputed the answer to this question:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> One opinion was that it varied on the degree of 
               involvement in the transgression (active worship, 
               embracing, private pleasure).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> One opinion was that it varied on the level of 
               warning given (warning plus witnesses, witnesses 
               alone, or neither).
<br>
<b><font>7) THE EIGEL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> The tribe of Levi did not worship the Eigel 
          (proof text).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Ravina recited the above teaching and the sons 
          of R. Papa b. Aba asked how there could have been 
          parents, children and siblings of B'nei Levi who 
          worshipped?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They were all non-Levi'im.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Father- his maternal grandfather.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Brother- the son of his mother.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Sons- his grandchildren from his daughter.
<br>
<b><font>8) THE ACCOSTING BABYLONIANS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  They were not actually Babylonians but Alexandrians.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The term Babylonian was used derogatorily owing to the 
          Jews' hatred of that people.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  This was comforting to R. Yosi in the supporting 
          Beraisa. 
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) ESCORTING THE USHER OF THE SA'IR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The prominent Jews would escort the usher to the first 
          booth en route to Azazel.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  There were ten booths from Yerushalayim to Azazel (90 Ris 
          @ 7.5 Ris per Mil).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  At each booth he was offered food or drink in the event 
          that the fast was too difficult for him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The residents of each booth would escort him to the next 
          booth and the last would watch him proceed to the cliff.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  At the cliff the usher would divide a red thread, tying 
          half to a stone and half between the horns of the Sa'ir.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  He would push the Sa'ir backward where it would break up 
          on the rocks of the cliff, long before it landed at the 
          bottom.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  He would return to the last Sukah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> His garments would be Tamei from his 
          departure from Yerushalayim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (R. Shimon):</font></b> From the point of pushing the Sa'ir.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE TEN SUKOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Meir):</font></b> There were 10 Sukos over 12 Mil distance from 
          Yerushalayim to the cliff.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> Nine Sukos over 10 Mil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> Five Sukos over 10 Mil, each employing an Eruv 
          Techumin to escort him the entire distance.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi reported that his son, Elazar, 
               lightheartedly indicated that, based on his father's 
               reasoning, he could make do with two Sukos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana who holds that the residents of 
          the last Sukah would (have to) stand and watch him from 
          their distance?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is R. Meir (10 Sukos over 12 Mil).
<br>
<b><font>3) OFFERING FOOD AND DRINK</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa teaches that the offer of food was never 
          accepted, but the usher benefited from its being 
          available.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  This is called 'Pas be'Salo' (lit. bread in his basket).
<br>
<b><font>4) THE RED THREAD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why divide the thread at all; let him tie it 
          all to the rock?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> For fear that it may turn white right away and 
          (in his joy) he will neglect his mission (pushing off the 
          Sa'ir).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then tie it all onto the Sa'ir?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Perhaps the Sa'ir will fall such that its horns 
          will be concealed from view.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa teaches that the thread was once hung 
          publicly and would cause the people's mood to change 
          based on whether or not the thread turned white.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  They instituted that it would be tied to the rock, out of 
          public view (R. Elazar ha'Kapar reported similarly).
<br>
<b><font>5) DERIVING HANAAH FROM THE BROKEN PARTS OF THE SAIR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is such benefit permitted?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is a dispute between Rav and Shmuel.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE PROOF THAT ONE MAY DERIVE BENEFIT FROM THE REMAINS OF THE 'SA'IR HA'MISHTALE'ACH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara records a dispute between Rav and Shmuel with regard to whether one may derive benefit from the limbs of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. Rava asserts that it is logical to say that one may derive benefit from them, because had the Torah prohibited them it would not have commanded that the Sa'ir be sent away in a manner that would cause a person to sin. (As Rashi explains, one might find the limbs and derive benefit from them without realizing that they came from the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.)
</p><p>
A similar discussion appears in the Gemara in Kidushin (57b). The Gemara there asks whether one may derive benefit from the live bird of the Metzora (which he dips into blood and sends away as part of his purification process). The Gemara answers that it is not possible that the bird is Asur b'Hana'ah, because the Torah would not have commanded that it be sent away in a manner that would cause a person to sin (one might find it and eat it without realizing that it is Asur b'Hana'ah). The fact that the Torah commands the Metzora to send away the bird proves that it is Mutar b'Hana'ah.
</p><p>
The proof that the limbs of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, and bird of a Metzora, are Mutar b'Hana'ah is difficult to understand.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> (Hilchos Me'ilah 7:6) points out that even if the limbs of a Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach and bird of a Metzora are Asur b'Hana'ah, one who finds them and unknowingly derives benefit from them has <i>not</i> transgressed. In such a situation, the person is <i>permitted</i> to derive benefit from them because of the principle of 'Kol d'Parish, m'Ruba Parish.' This principle teaches that when there is a doubt about the source of a certain item (such as from where it came or to which group it belongs), the item is assumed to have come from the majority group. One who finds the limbs of a goat or catches a bird may assume that his find comes from the majority of goats and birds in the world, from which one is permitted to derive benefit.
</p><p>
Accordingly, even if the limbs of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach are Asur b'Hana'ah, one who finds them is permitted to derive benefit from them. How does the Gemara prove that they are Mutar b'Hana'ah from the fact that one might find the limbs and benefit from them?
</p><p>
(b) The <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> and <b>SI'ACH YITZCHAK</b> ask that the sending away of the Sa'ir, even if it is Asur b'Hana'ah, should not be considered a potential cause for transgression ('Takalah'). If the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach is Asur b'Hana'ah, then it should be treated like any other Isur Hana'ah and <i>buried</i> after Yom Kippur in order to prevent any Takalah from occurring. The argument of Takalah is appropriate only when an object is sent out to roam freely in the wild (such as the bird of the Metzora). In such a case, it is not possible to treat the animal like other Isurei Hana'ah and bury it, and thus the concern for Takalah is relevant. In contrast, the Sa'ir is pushed off a cliff to its death, and its limbs can easily be buried.
</p><p>
(The Si'ach Yitzchak adds that it is because of this question that the Amora who maintains that the Sa'ir remains Asur b'Hana'ah does <i>not</i> compare the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach to the bird of the Metzora. The proof that the bird of the Metzora is Mutar b'Hana'ah because of the concern for Takalah does not apply to the limbs of the Sa'ir.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> answers the first question as follows. The potential Takalah is not that a person who finds the limbs will benefit from them and transgress a prohibition (because, as mentioned above, the principle of 'Kol d'Parish' permits him to benefit from the limbs). Rather, the Takalah in the case of the Sa'ir is that the person who sends away the Sa'ir transgresses if the Sa'ir is Asur b'Hana'ah: When he sends it away, he deliberately causes a prohibited object to become annulled, and the principle of 'Ein Mevatlin Isur l'Chatchilah' teaches that one may not deliberately cause a prohibited object to become annulled. The Torah would not have commanded that he send away the Sa'ir and thereby annul a prohibited object. It must be that the Sa'ir is Mutar b'Hana'ah.
</p><p>
The <b>SHA'AR HA'MELECH</b> (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 15:25) challenges the answer of the Mishneh l'Melech. Almost all of the Rishonim rule that the prohibition of 'Ein Mevatlin Isur l'Chatchilah' is only mid'Rabanan. The Torah does not prohibit one from annulling a prohibited object (see <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> YD 99:5, and <b>SHACH</b> 99:7). Consequently, the person who sends away the Sa'ir does <i>not</i> transgress any Torah prohibition against annulling a prohibited object, and his act cannot be the Takalah to which the Gemara here refers.
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARATZ CHAYOS</b> answers the Sha'ar ha'Melech's question. He explains that the Isur d'Rabanan of 'Ein Mevatlin Isur l'Chatchilah' applies when the mixture of forbidden and permitted items is comprised of items which blend with each other and render each other unrecognizable (such as a forbidden liquid which fell into a permitted liquid). In such a case, the Torah permits one to annul the Isur, and the Rabanan prohibit it. However, when solid items become mixed up in such a way that each piece remains separate but one does not recognize which piece is the piece of Isur, even mid'Oraisa one is prohibited from annulling the Isur (because the piece of Isur in the mixture remains physically unchanged and is independent of the other pieces; the only doubt is its location in the mixture).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> and <b>SI'ACH YITZCHAK</b> answer the second question as follows. The reason why the Gemara considers sending away the Sa'ir to be a Takalah if it is Asur b'Hana'ah, even though the limbs can be buried and kept away from inadvertent use, is because it is possible that the Sa'ir will not die during its descent, and when it reaches the bottom it will run away. (Although the Gemara (66b) teaches that in the event that the Sa'ir does not die from the fall the Torah requires that one go down and kill it, nevertheless it is possible that the animal will run away before the person reaches it.) Indeed, the Yerushalmi (Yoma 6:3) relates that this was a common occurrence after the death of Shimon ha'Tzadik.
</p><p>
However, <b>RASHI</b> (DH l'Takalah) apparently does not accept this answer. Rashi implies that the Gemara is concerned only that one will find and use the dismembered <i>limbs</i> of the Sa'ir, and not that one will find and use a live Sa'ir.
</p><p>
Perhaps the reason why the Gemara does not consider the burial of the Sa'ir as a way to prevent Takalah is because the Sa'ir is crushed into many pieces as it falls down the steep incline, as the Mishnah here says. So many small pieces become scattered that it is not possible to bury every little piece of the Sa'ir. Consequently, the concern for Takalah remains even after the limbs of the Sa'ir are buried. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Heter can be derived from the Hefker implications of 
               the extra word 'ba'Midbar'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Isur could be derived from the stringency implied by 
               Gezeirah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> According to the Isur opinion, what is the 
               role of 'ba'Midbar'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It teaches that the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach is 
               done even when the Ohel Mo'ed has been replaced with 
               Mishkan and Mikdash.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What will the Heter opinion do with the 
               word 'Gezeirah'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It teaches that the cliff must be jagged.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Alternate Answer:</font></b> It refers to the quality of the 
               Sa'ir as that which breaks apart as it falls.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Alternate Answer:</font></b> It is a decree (Gezeirah) from 
               Hash-m, even if its Kaparah is unfathomable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The Mutar position seems logical since, otherwise, the 
          Torah has given an instruction which could lead to a 
          great stumbling (if someone unwittingly benefited from 
          those found parts of the Sa'ir).
<br>
<b><font>6) THE PLACE OF AZAZEL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  As its name implies, it is doubly harsh ('Az' and 'El').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  'ba'Midbar' teaches that it may not be in a place of 
          residence.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  'Gezeirah' teaches that it is a cliff.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Another Beraisa teaches that it is the harshest of 
          mountains (proof text).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> The name Azazel alludes to its 
          atonement for Uza and Aza'el (Arayos, -Rashi).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa teaches that 'Es Mishpatei Ta'asu' refers to 
          Mitzvos which are logical; while 'Es Chukosei Tishmeru' 
          is Hashem's demand of fidelity regarding that which is 
          mysterious and which the Satan claims is meaningless 
          (including the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach).
<br>
<b><font>7) 'TUM'AS' BEGADIM OF THE MISHTALE'ACH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The usher himself contracts <i>Tum'as</i> Begadim but not his 
          escorts (or the Kohen Gadol) who accompany him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa negates the possibilities that his <i>Tum'as</i> 
          Begadim began directly upon leaving the Azarah or only 
          once he arrives at the cliff.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> The <i>Tum'ah</i> begins once he leaves the 
          walls of Yerushalayim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> Once he arrives at the cliff.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Shimon):</font></b> Once he pushes it over the cliff.
<br>
<b><font>8) MISHNAH: THE AVODAH AFTER SENDING THE SA'IR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  He removed the Eimurim from the Par and Sa'ir.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  He placed the Eimurim in a Meigis and brought them onto 
          the Mizbe'ach as a Kaparah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  He braided the two animals on top of one another and four 
          people carried them out, whole, to be burnt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> <i>Tum'as</i> Begadim (for the ones dealing with 
          the burning) begins upon leaving the Azarah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Shimon):</font></b> From the moment the fire takes hold of the 
          majority of the Par and Sa'ir.
<br>
<b><font>9) BRINGING THE EIMURIM ONTO THE MIZBEACH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Does the Mishnah really mean that he does the 
          Haktarah now (given that there are many Avodos between 
          removing the Eimurim and putting them on the Mizbe'ach)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It means that he placed them in the Meigis <i>in 
          order</i> to (later) offer them as a Ketores.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) PLAITING THE ANIMALS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan taught, like a braid.
<br>
<b><font>2) BURNING THE ANIMALS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa teaches that those who burned the Par and 
          Sa'ir would not cut it up after flaying it (like an 
          Olah); rather, it would be cut up without flaying.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How do we know both of these things (that they 
          cut them up and did so without flaying them)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The words 'Or', 'Basar' and 'Peresh' link the 
          Par/Sa'ir to the Chatas Kohen Mashi'ach (where there was 
          Nitu'ach without Hefshet).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source by Chatas Kohen Mashi'ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa learns it from the Pasuk 've'Hotzei'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Perhaps it should also be <i>burned</i> whole?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> By linking it to the Olah the Torah teaches 
               that the parts are to be separate.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Perhaps we should learn from Olah that it 
               requires Hefshet?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 've'Kirbo u'Firsho' teaches that it was 
               burnt without Hefshet.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How do those words demonstrate that?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer (R. Papa):</font></b> The Torah links the removal of the 
               Eimurim and Peresh with flaying the hide and flesh 
               of the Par, that both are done without Hefshet.
<br>
<b><font>3) 'TUM'AS' BEGADIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Why does the Torah speak of leaving 
          <i>three</i> Machanos for Sereifah by the Par ha'Eidah 
          (He'elam Davar) and Kohen Mashi'ach, while by the Par Yom 
          ha'Kipurim, which is identical, the Pasuk speaks of 
          leaving only <i>one</i> Machaneh?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It must be that the <i>one</i> Machaneh identifies the 
          point of <i>Tum'as</i> Begadim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that the Par He'elam Davar 
          is burned outside three Machanos?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk 've'Hotzei ... mi'Chutz la'Machaneh' 
          implies outside three Machanos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Perhaps this implies outside <i>one</i> 
               Machaneh?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> There are three indications of going out.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Two references to taking out. 
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> The Pasuk teaches that the Par ha'Eidah is to 
                    be burnt in the same way as the Par Kohen 
                    Mashiach.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b></b>These combine to push us out of three Machanos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What will R. Shimon do with 'mi'Chutz 
          la'Machaneh'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It serves to link the Parah Adumah with the Par 
          Yom ha'Kipurim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Thus the Shechitah of the Parah Adumah is outside 
               the three Machanos, like the burning of the Par.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Further, the Par Yom Kipur is done in the East, like 
               the Parah Adumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Where would the Rabanan (who do not utilize 
          'mi'Chutz la'Machaneh' in this way) locate the burning of 
          the Par and Sa'ir?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WAITING FOR THE 'SA'IR HA'MISHTALE'ACH' TO REACH THE WILDERNESS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah relates that when the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach reached the wilderness, 'they said to the Kohen Gadol, 'The Sa'ir has reached the wilderness.'' <b>RASHI</b> (DH Amru Lo) explains that after the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach was sent away, the Kohen Gadol was not allowed to begin another Avodah until the Sa'ir reached the wilderness. Once it reached the wilderness, the Mitzvah to send away the Sa'ir was fulfilled (according to Rebbi Yehudah) and the Kohen Gadol was permitted to proceed to the next Avodah.
</p><p>
The previous Mishnah (67b) states that after the Kohen Gadol sent away the Sa'ir, he immediately proceeded to the next stage of the Avodah and removed the innards ('Emurin') from the Par and Sa'ir ha'Nisrafin. Why was the Kohen Gadol permitted to perform that Avodah before he was informed that the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach reached the wilderness?
</p><p>
It must be that the removal of the Emurin from the Par and Sa'ir ha'Nisrafin is not a real Avodah. Since it is merely a preparatory act for another Avodah (the burning of the Emurin on the Mizbe'ach), the Kohen Gadol was permitted to perform this act before the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach reached the wilderness.
</p><p>
However, if the Kohen Gadol was permitted to perform an act which does not constitute an Avodah, why was he not permitted to begin reading from the Torah immediately after he sent away the Sa'ir? The Gemara later clearly states that the reading of the Torah is not considered an Avodah, and yet the Mishnah implies that the Kohen Gadol needed to wait until he was informed that the Sa'ir had reached the wilderness before he began to read from the Torah (as Rashi says later, DH Na'asis Mitzvaso).
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RABEINU YEHONASAN MI'LUNIL</b> suggests that the Kohen Gadol indeed read from the Torah immediately after he sent away the Sa'ir. Moreover, he suggests that the reason why the Torah was read at this time was to engage the people in a productive endeavor while they waited for the Sa'ir to reach the wilderness, at which time the Kohen Gadol would become permitted to begin the next Avodah.
</p><p>
The <b>YEFEH EINAYIM</b> (67b) cites an opinion in the Yerushalmi that supports the assertion of Rabeinu Yehonasan mi'Lunil. The Yerushalmi says that the Kohen Gadol approached the Par and Sa'ir, and then he read from the Torah <i>immediately</i> after he sent the Sa'ir to the wilderness. He did not wait for the Sa'ir to arrive at the wilderness, because both the act of preparing the Par and Sa'ir and the act of reading the Torah are not Avodos.
</p><p>
(b) However, <b>RASHI</b> and the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> write that there are other sources for the requirement to read the Torah at this point in the service of Yom Kippur. Rashi (DH Ba Likros) writes that the Kohen Gadol's obligation to read from the Torah on Yom Kippur is derived from the Parshah of Milu'im, as the Gemara earlier (5b) teaches. The Tosfos Yeshanim cites the Yerushalmi which states that the obligation to read from the Torah on Yom Kippur is derived from a verse (Vayikra 16:34).
</p><p>
The Tosfos Yeshanim says that, alternatively, the obligation is derived logically. The Kohen Gadol must pray at some point during the day. Since he has completed the main Avodos of the day once he has sent away the Sa'ir, that moment is an opportune time for him to pray for forgiveness and to read from the Torah.
</p><p>
Rashi (DH Na'asis Mitzavso) clearly says that the Kohen Gadol did not read from the Torah until after the Sa'ir reached the wilderness and the Mitzvah was completed. Why was the Kohen Gadol required to wait to read the Torah if he was permitted to remove the Emurin?
</p><p>
Perhaps the requirement that the Kohen Gadol wait until the Sa'ir reaches the wilderness before he begins a new Avodah applies only to an act which is part of a <i>new</i> series of Avodos unrelated to the Avodos done until now. The removal of the Emurin from the Par and Sa'ir is merely a continuation of the Avodos which were started earlier. Perhaps this is why the Kohen Gadol was permitted to remove the Emurin at this point, while he was not permitted to read the Torah (an entirely new act) until the Mitzvah of sending the Sa'ir was completed.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>BRISKER RAV</b> cites his father, <b>RAV CHAIM SOLOVEITCHIK</b>, who proposes that not only was the Kohen Gadol prohibited from starting a new Avodah until the previous one was completed, but he was also prohibited from <i>leaving the area</i> in which he stood until the previous Avodah was completed. Since the Kohen Gadol sent away the Sa'ir from the Azarah, he was not permitted to leave the Azarah in order to go to the Ezras Nashim to read the Torah. He was required to remain in the Azarah until he was informed that the Sa'ir reached the wilderness.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>NETZIV</b> (in <b>MEROMEI SADEH</b>) answers that although the reading of the Torah was not an Avodah, it was an act which the Kohen Gadol was required to perform <i>himself</i>. Since it required the Kohen Gadol, he was not permitted to begin until he completed the previous Avodah. In contrast, the removal of the Emurin could be performed by any Kohen; there was no obligation for the Kohen Gadol himself to do it. Therefore, the Kohen Gadol was permitted to remove the Emurin before the Sa'ir reached the wilderness.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) READING THE TORAH BY HEART</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah teaches that after the Kohen Gadol read Parshas Acharei Mos (Vayikra 16:1 to 18:30) and the verses in Parshas Emor that discuss Yom Kippur (Vayikra 23:26-32), he rolled up the Torah scroll, held it close to his chest, and read by heart the verses in Parshas Pinchas (Bamidbar 29:7-11) that discuss Yom Kippur.
</p><p>
Why was the Kohen Gadol permitted to read verses by heart? The Halachah prohibits one from reading verses in the Torah by heart (Gitin 60b).
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> (70a) explains, based on the Yerushalmi, that the prohibition against reading verses of the Torah by heart applies only to verses which must be read publicly ('Chovas Keri'as Tzibur'). The prohibition does not apply to verses read for the sake of reviewing the Torah, or for the sake of giving praise to Hash-m. The Kohen Gadol was permitted to read verses of the Torah by heart on Yom Kippur because there was no obligation to read these verses publicly. Rather, they were read merely for the sake of reviewing the topics relevant for the day. (This is in contrast to the explanation of Rashi, who says that there was an obligation to read the verses publicly.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> (70a) says that there is no <i>prohibition</i> to read verses of the Torah by heart; rather, it is a <i>Mitzvah Min ha'Muvchar</i> (the most preferable way to perform the Mitzvah) to read the verses from the Sefer Torah. The Rabanan permitted the Kohen Gadol to read part of the Torah by heart on Yom Kippur in order not to trouble the people to wait as he rolled the Sefer Torah to the proper place. The Rabanan permitted him not to do the Mitzvah in the most preferable way for the sake of the honor of the Tzibur.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TALMIDEI RABEINU YONAH</b> in Berachos (9b) explain as follows. The Torah requires an individual to read certain verses, but it does not require him to read them from a Sefer Torah. For example, the Torah requires one to recite the Shema twice each day, but it permits him to recite the verses of Shema by heart. The Torah does not expect every person to read the Shema twice each day from a Sefer Torah. The same applies to the verses of Birkas Kohanim which the Kohanim recite each day when they bless the people. Similarly, the Gemara in Ta'anis (27b) says that when the Beis ha'Mikdash is not standing, one who recites the Parshah of Korbanos in the Torah is considered as though he offered the Korbanos. One certainly is not required to recite the Parshah of Korbanos every day from a Sefer Torah.
</p><p>
Since the Torah permits one to recite these verses by heart, he may recite them by heart even when he does <i>not</i> perform a specific Mitzvah when he reads them. For this reason, the Kohen Gadol may read by heart the verses which discuss the Korbanos of Yom Kippur.
</p><p>
It seems that these three answers of the Rishonim appear to be based on three different reasons for the prohibition against reciting verses of the Torah by heart.
</p><p>
The first reason is that when one reads verses by heart, he might make a mistake. This reason is consistent with the explanation of the Ritva (a), who says that one must read from a Sefer Torah only when there is an obligation to read the verses in public (see also Tosfos to Temurah 14b, DH Devarim). In order for the Tzibur to fulfill the obligation, the reader must not make a mistake. In contrast, when one reads verses for the sake of giving praise to Hash-m the consequences of making a mistake are not as severe, because he is not attempting to fulfill any obligation.
</p><p>
(See also the <b>TUR</b> (OC 49) who quotes his uncle, <b>HA'RAV REBBI CHAIM</b>, who says that one may recite verses by heart when he is fluent in those verses, because there is no concern that he will err. This is also the approach of <b>RABEINU TAM</b> cited by the <b>MORDECHAI</b> in Gitin (#407). This reasoning also seems to be the basis of the answer of the <b>SHILTEI GIBORIM</b> in Megilah (14a of the pages of the Rif), who rules that it is permissible for the congregation as a whole to recite verses by heart. When the entire congregation recites verses by heart, it is unlikely that everyone will make the same mistake.)
</p><p>
The second reason given for the obligation to read verses from the Sefer Torah and not by heart is cited by the <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (OC 49) and by the <b>RITVA</b> in Gitin (60b) in the name of the <b>RAMBAN</b>. The written word -- which one sees when he reads the verses from the Sefer Torah -- contains various elements and meanings which one does not see when he recites the verses by heart. The advantage of reading the verses with those deeper meanings, however, is only a Mitzvah Min ha'Muvchar; one certainly fulfills his obligation if he does not have in mind those deeper meanings. This is consistent with the answer of the Tosfos Yeshanim (b).
</p><p>
The third reason is offered by the <b>KOL <b><b>BO</b></b></b>. If one recites verses by heart in front of an open Sefer Torah, the people present might think that those verses are not part of the Torah. Therefore, one must always read from the Sefer Torah. This reason is consistent with the answer of the Talmidei Rabeinu Yonah (c). If verses are normally recited by heart in the course of a Mitzvah, then everyone knows that they are in the Torah and that they are recited by heart only out of necessity. No one will think that they are not written in the Torah. (M. Kornfeld) (See also Insights to Sotah 40:3 and Temurah 14:3.)
<br> 
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> In the North, outside the three Machanos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yosi):</font></b> In the Beis ha'Deshen, meaning that 
          ashes from the Mizbe'ach must first be brought to that 
          place to render it a Makom Shefech ha'Deshen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> Which Tana disagrees with this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is R. Eliezer b. Ya'akov, who interprets 'El 
          Shefech ha'Deshen': to mean that the place must be on a 
          tilt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Perhaps R. Eliezer b. Ya'akov is coming 
          only to <i>add</i> that requirement (not to disagree)!?
<br>
<b><font>4) 'TUM'AS' BEGADIM ONLY FOR THE ONES WHO BURN THE PARAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The ones who do, or assist in, the actual burning 
          contract the <i>Tum'ah</i>, but not the ones who arrange or 
          ignite the wood.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  It is a Machlokes regarding the point beyond which the 
          Parah no longer imparts <i>Tum'ah</i>.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Tana Kama):</font></b> Once it is ash.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Eliezer b. R. Shimon):</font></b> Once it is scorched and 
               not thought of as Parah.
<br>
<b><font>5) MISHNAH: KNOWING THAT THE SAIR REACHED THE MIDBAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Kohen Gadol was notified of the Sa'ir's arrival at 
          the Midbar, such that he may continue the Avodah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  There are three opinions regarding how they knew:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Tana Kama):</font></b> They would wave a signal from one 
               lookout to the next back to Yerushalayim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Yehudah):</font></b> They would time the return of the 
               first group of escorts to when the usher would 
               arrive at the Midbar (three Mil to Beis Chidudo).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (R. Yishmael):</font></b> The red thread would turn white.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> We see that Beis Chidudo is in the Midbar.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  This teaches that, according to R. Yehudah, <i>arrival</i> 
          alone to the Midbar is sufficient to allow the Kohen 
          Gadol to continue the Avodah.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>*****<b>PEREK</b> #7 <b><b><b>BA</b></b> <b><b>LO</b></b> KOHEN GADOL</b>*****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>6) MISHNAH: READING THE PARSHIOS OF YOM HAKIPURIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Kohen Gadol went to the Ezras Nashim (dressed either 
          in the Bigdei Lavan or in his personal white garments).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Sefer Torah was passed by the Shamash of the Beis 
          ha'Keneses to the Gabai who handed it to the S'gan who 
          gave it to the Kohen Gadol.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The Kohen Gadol read from 'Acharei Mos' and 'Emor'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  He then rolled up and held the Sefer, announcing that 
          there is more contained within.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  He read the Parshas of Musaf (from Pinchas) by heart.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  He recited eight Berachos, as listed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  The burning of the Par/Sa'ir and the Keri'as ha'Torah 
          took place at the same time in different locations such 
          that one who attended one could not attend the other.
<br>
<b><font>7) BENEFIT FROM THE BIGDEI KEHUNAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  From the Mishnah which allows the Kohen Gadol to wear 
          personal clothing, we may infer that Keri'as ha'Torah is 
          not an Avodah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  From the Mishnah which permits him to wear the Bigdei 
          Lavan we may infer that it is permitted to derive benefit 
          from the Bigdei Kehunah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps the Keri'ah is a Tzorech Avodah (but 
          general benefit may <i>not</i> be derived from Bigdei Kehunah) 
          given that deriving benefit from Bigdei Kehunah is a 
          subject of investigation?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah in Tamid (that Kohanim are only 
          restricted regarding sleeping but may eat in their 
          Begadim) was invoked to prove that they <i>may</i> derive 
          benefit from them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Perhaps there, too, the eating is a Tzorech Avodah and 
          may not generalize to all forms of benefit.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa teaches that the owners get Kaparah when 
               the Kohanim eat their Chata'os and Ashamos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This lends support to referring to their eating as a 
               Tzorech Avodah, even if it is not, itself, an 
               Avodah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  The Mishnah in Tamid (by restricting sleeping) seems to 
          imply that walking about in the Bigdei Kehunah is 
          permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  In fact such strolling is not permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why, then, did the Mishnah single out 
               sleeping as being impermissible?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The reference to sleeping is necessitated by 
               the Seifah which permits them to fold up their 
               garments and place them under their heads whilst 
               they slept.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) BENEFIT FROM BIGDEI KEHUNAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The permission to use the garments as a pillow 
          should, itself, prove that benefit is permitted!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Papa):</font></b> They did not actually place them 
          <i>under</i> their heads, but near them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Mesharshia):</font></b> This Din could be extended to 
               permit leaving one's Tefilin alongside a sleeping 
               person.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  It appears that R. Papa is correct, since understanding 
          <i>under</i> their heads literally would introduce the problem 
          of Sha'atnez (the Avnet being made of wool and linen).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The opinion which maintains that the Avnet is, 
               indeed, made of both wool and linen would have no 
               reading of the Mishnah in Tamid (*under* their 
               heads).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This opinion maintains that the Avnet of a regular 
               Kohen is unlike the Avnet of the Kohen Gadol.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> This is unlike the opinion which maintains that the 
               Avnet of a regular Kohen is identical with the all- 
               linen Avnet of the Kohen Gadol, for whom the Mishnah 
               presents no difficulty.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps Sha'anez is only a problem 
                    when worn, not when used as a pillow?
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Both from the concern of the Chachamim 
                    and from R. Shimon b. Pazi we know that it is 
                    prohibited, even with any number of protective 
                    separations between the Sha'atnez and the 
                    person.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  We may, indeed, infer like R. Papa.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Ashi maintains that they placed the Avnet <i>under</i> 
          their heads.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What about the Sh'aatnez problem?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Bigdei Kehunah were stiff and thus not 
          subject to the Isur of wearing Sh'aatnez, as supported by 
          the Din of R. Huna b. R. Yehoshua regarding stiff 
          garments.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We see clearly from the Beraisa that benefit is 
          permitted!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa teaches that it is permitted to wear the 
               Bigdei Kehunah for non-Avodah purposes in the 
               Mikdash (and is only prohibited outside out of 
               respect).
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we hear of Shimon ha'Tzadik 
                    wearing Bigdei Kehunah outside (in the reported 
                    incident wherein he appeared thus before 
                    Alexander)!?
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Those may have been not actual Bigdei 
                    Kehunah, but garments fitting for a Kohen 
                    Gadol.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b><font>Alternate Answer:</font></b> This was an emergency ('Eis 
                    La'asos la'Shem').
<br>
<b><font>2) HONOR TO A STUDENT IN HIS MASTER'S PRESENCE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The honor bestowed on the S'gan and Rosh ha'Keneses seems 
          to imply that we honor a student in the presence of his 
          Rav!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> There is no indication from there, since the 
          entire procedure was done in honor of the Kohen Gadol.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE KOHEN GADOL STOOD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Are we to infer that previously he was sitting?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'KIL'AYIM' IN THE VESTMENTS OF THE KOHEN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses whether a Kohen is permitted to derive benefit from the Bigdei Kehunah while he is not performing an Avodah. Does deriving benefit from the Bigdei Kehunah constitute Me'ilah or not? The Gemara suggests various proofs to permit a Kohen to derive benefit from the Bigdei Kehunah. The first proof is from the Mishnah (68b) which states that the Kohen Gadol may wear the Bigdei Kehunah when he reads from the Torah (which is not an Avodah) on Yom Kippur. The second proof is from a Beraisa which says that the Kohanim are permitted to sleep in the Bigdei Kehunah and to walk around while wearing the Bigdei Kehunah. Finally, the Gemara cites a Beraisa which says that the Kohanim are permitted to place the Bigdei Kehunah beneath their heads when they sleep.
</p><p>
The Gemara rejects its final proof and says that the Beraisa does not mean that the Kohanim are permitted to place the Bigdei Kehunah <i>underneath</i> their heads, but rather <i>beside</i> their heads. The Gemara supports this interpretation of the Beraisa by pointing out that the Beraisa cannot mean that the Kohanim may place the Bigdei Kehunah literally underneath their heads, because if they place the Bigdei Kehunah there they will transgress the prohibition against deriving benefit from Kil'ayim (the Avnet was made of wool and linen).
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara address the problem of Kil'ayim only at this point? If wearing the Bigdei Kehunah (when not performing an Avodah) poses a problem of Kil'ayim, why does the Gemara earlier suggest that the Kohen may wear the Bigdei Kehunah even when he is not performing an Avodah? Even if he transgresses no prohibition of Me'ilah, he still transgresses the prohibition of Kil'ayim! Why does the Gemara address the problem of Kil'ayim only now, when it discusses placing the Bigdei Kehunah underneath one's head?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Menachos (40b-41a, DH Techeles) and the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> here write that the Gemara here provides strong support for the opinion of <b>RABEINU TAM</b>. Rabeinu Tam asserts that since one is permitted to wear a garment which contains Kil'ayim in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Tzitzis, he may wear that garment even at a time when he fulfills no Mitzvah (such as the nighttime). (Rabeinu Tam maintains that the reason why one may wear a garment with Kil'ayim in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Tzitzis is not merely because of the principle, 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh,' but because the Torah completely permits the prohibition of Kil'ayim on a garment with Tzitzis.) Similarly, with regard to Kil'ayim in the Bigdei Kehunah, since the Kohen is permitted to wear the Bigdei Kehunah with Kil'ayim when he performs the Avodah he may also wear the Bigdei Kehunah with Kil'ayim when he does not perform the Avodah. The prohibition against benefiting from Kil'ayim applies only when the Kohen does not <i>wear</i> the Bigdei Kehunah but merely <i>warms</i> himself with them in some other way. The Torah permits Kil'ayim only when the Kohen <i>wears</i> the Bigdei Kehunah, but not when he sits on top of them or rests his head on them.
</p><p>
(See also <b>RA'AVAD</b>, Hilchos Kil'ayim 10:32 and Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 8:10, who rules like Rabeinu Tam and argues with the Rambam on this point.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MEFARESH</b> in Tamid (27a) says that the Gemara's question here with regard to Kil'ayim refers back to the beginning of the Sugya. The Gemara indeed could have asked this question earlier, but it knew that the answer to the question would apply to the entire Sugya (to all of the cases of Kohanim who wear the Bigdei Kehunah with Kil'ayim). The Gemara answers that the garment with Kil'ayim is made of a very hard material, to which the prohibition of Kil'ayim does not apply. 
</p><p>
The Mefaresh understands that not only is one permitted to lie on Kil'ayim when the garment is made of a hard material, but the prohibition does not apply even when one <i>wears</i> a garment made of a hard material. Since such a garment does not warm the person while he wears it, it does not constitute forbidden benefit from Kil'ayim. (See following Insights.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE PROHIBITION OF LYING ON 'KIL'AYIM'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that although the Torah forbids one only from wearing Kil'ayim upon his body, the Rabanan prohibited even lying or sitting on Kil'ayim out of concern that perhaps a thread of Kil'ayim will become wrapped upon the person in such a way that he will benefit from wearing it. The Gemara asks that perhaps the Isur d'Rabanan applies only when the Kil'ayim is directly underneath the person, but if another object separates between him and the Kil'ayim he may lie or sit on it. The Gemara responds with a statement of the Tana'im that even when ten sheets are spread over the Kil'ayim, one sheet on top of the other, one may not lie on the uppermost sheet.
</p><p>
Why does the Beraisa say that the reason for the Isur d'Rabanan against lying on Kil'ayim is because of the concern that a thread of Kil'ayim will wrap up onto the person's body? If one is forbidden to lie even on top of sheets which cover the Kil'ayim, the prohibition obviously is <i>not</i> due to the concern that a thread might wrap up onto one's body, because many sheets separate his body from the Kil'ayim! Rather, the Isur is merely a Gezeirah to prevent one from taking the Kil'ayim from underneath him and wearing it. Why, then, does the Beraisa say that the reason is because a thread of Kil'ayim might become wrapped around part of his body?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> in Beitzah (14b) says that the Gezeirah which prohibits lying on top of ten sheets which are on top of Kil'ayim is actually a 'Gezeirah l'Gezeirah,' a rabbinical decree made to safeguard another decree. The original Gezeirah of the Rabanan prohibited lying directly on a garment of Kil'ayim lest a thread of Kil'ayim wrap up onto his skin. The Gezeirah which prohibits lying on the uppermost of ten sheets which are on top of Kil'ayim was enacted in order to prevent one from lying or sitting directly on Kil'ayim, which in turn is prohibited lest a thread wrap onto his skin. (The two Gezeiros are considered to be one Gezeirah -- 'Kula Chada Gezeirah' -- since they were enacted at one time.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Kil'ayim 10:12) appears to understand that even if a garment of Kil'ayim is underneath ten sheets, there still is a concern that a thread from the Kil'ayim might reach the top of the sheets and wrap around one's skin. Accordingly, only one Gezeirah was enacted. This also appears to be the opinion of <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Kashim).
</p><p>
The Rambam and Tosfos are consistent with their own opinion as expressed elsewhere. They maintain that one is prohibited from lying directly on top of a garment of Kil'ayim even if it is very hard. One is permitted to sit on top of it only when another object separates between his skin and the hard garment of Kil'ayim. They consider sitting on Kil'ayim a form of 'Ha'ala'ah,' placing the garment on one's body, because there is no logical reason to differentiate between a garment on top of one's body and one's body on top of a garment. As long as one's flesh touches the garment, it is considered 'Ha'ala'ah.' According to this opinion, no Gezeirah is necessary to prohibit one from sitting on Kil'ayim because of the reason that a thread might wrap up onto one's body, since the prohibition of Kil'ayim itself prohibits one from sitting on Kil'ayim. Why, then, was such a Gezeirah enacted? It must be that the Gezeirah that a thread might wrap up onto one's body was enacted in order to prohibit one from lying on a garment of Kil'ayim when it is underneath several sheets.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAN</b> in Beitzah (14b) infers from the words of <b>RASHI</b> there (DH Shema Tikarev) that the prohibition against lying on Kil'ayim lest a thread wrap up onto one's body is d'Oraisa and not merely d'Rabanan. When the Beraisa teaches that 'the Chachamim said that it is forbidden [to lie on Kil'ayim],' it means that it is forbidden because it is a doubt in a case of an Isur d'Oraisa. In the case of Kil'ayim underneath ten sheets, there is no Isur d'Oraisa but only a Gezeirah that one not come to sit on the garment of Kil'ayim itself.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RAN</b> himself, however, suggests that the Gezeirah against lying on top of sheets which are on top of a garment of Kil'ayim is a Gezeirah to prevent 'Ha'ala'ah' -- to ensure that one does not pick up the garment and wear it. It is unrelated to the concern that a thread will wrap onto one's body. There is no concern for a thread in this case because the Kil'ayim is separated from his body by other sheets.
</p><p>
The concern that one might pick up and wear the Kil'ayim, however, applies only to a type of garment that is normally worn, but not to sheets. If the Kil'ayim underneath the sheets is itself a sheet, one is prohibited only to sit directly on top of it. There is no concern that one might pick it up and wear it, but rather there is a concern that since he is sitting directly on the Kil'ayim a thread might wrap up onto him. In contrast, one may not sit on an item of clothing of Kil'ayim even when it is underneath ten sheets, because in such a case the Gezeirah that he might wear it applies. 
</p><p>
This explanation is supported by the text of the Beraisa which says, 'Even ten sheets, one on top of the other, and Kil'ayim <i>beneath them</i> [is prohibited].' This implies that the prohibited item itself is not a sheet but a different type of garment (a wearable one) made of Kil'ayim.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) 'KIL'AYIM' MADE FROM A HARD MATERIAL</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara explains that a Kohen does not transgress the prohibition of Kil'ayim when he lies on the Avnet, because the Avnet is made from a hard material.
</p><p>
When is one permitted to benefit from Kil'ayim made from a hard material?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (on the Rif, Beitzah 15a) explains that, mid'Oraisa, there is no prohibition of Kil'ayim made from a hard material. Mid'Oraisa, one is permitted even to <i>wear</i> such Kil'ayim. The Rabanan, however, prohibited one from wearing it, but they did not prohibit one from lying or sitting on it. Mid'Oraisa, one is prohibited from wearing a soft material of Kil'ayim, and the Rabanan prohibited one from lying or sitting on it. If the material is a bit soft and a bit hard, one is prohibited to <i>wear</i> such a garment mid'Oraisa, but one is permitted to <i>sit</i> on it even mid'Rabanan. The Rabanan did not prohibit sitting on such material because it is uncommon ('Lo Shachi'ach').
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Shari) here writes that one is permitted to place Kil'ayim of a hard material on one's body ('Ha'ala'ah') even though one normally is prohibited mid'Oraisa from placing Kil'ayim on one's body. 'Ha'ala'ah' is forbidden only when it is done in a manner similar to the way a garment is <i>worn</i>, for only in such a way does it give a person some form of pleasure (it provides warmth).
</p><p>
Rashi implies that <i>wearing</i> Kil'ayim ('Levishah') is <i>always</i> forbidden, even when the material is hard, because (as the <b>TOSFOS RID</b> in Beitzah writes) when one wears an item he derives benefit not only from the warmth that it provides but from the protection that it affords or from the honor that it brings him. In the case of 'Ha'ala'ah,' however, the only benefit one derives from the cloth is the warmth.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Beitzah (15a) and the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> here explain in the name of <b>RABEINU TAM</b> that whenever an Isur <i>d'Rabanan</i> of Kil'ayim applies (such as in the case of lying down on a normal garment of Kil'ayim), the Rabanan permitted one to use the Kil'ayim if it is made of a hard material. In contrast, any form of Kil'ayim which is Asur mid'Oraisa remains Asur mid'Oraisa even when it is a hard material. Therefore, the Rabanan permitted one to sit on Kil'ayim (an act which normally is prohibited mid'Rabanan) or to wear a garment made from threads of wool and linen which were pressed but not woven (which is prohibited mid'Rabanan), if it is a hard material.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> in Tamid (27b) permits one only to lie on or sit on Kil'ayim of a hard material. He maintains that only 'Hatza'ah' is permitted when the material is hard. Any other form of the prohibition of Kil'ayim d'Rabanan remains prohibited even when the material is hard (such as wearing a garment of pressed threads which were not woven). He says in the name of Rabeinu Efraim that the threads of a hard cloth do not have a tendency to wrap up around the person's body, and therefore the Gezeirah against lying on Kil'ayim does not apply to hard material.
</p><p>
(e) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Kil'ayim 10:13) rules that <i>wearing</i> Kil'ayim of a hard material is forbidden mid'Oraisa. One is permitted only to lie on or sit on hard Kil'ayim ('Hatza'ah') but not to wear it ('Levishah') or place it on top of his body ('Ha'ala'ah'), as the Ra'avad in Tamid rules.
</p><p>
Moreover, the allowance to lie on or sit on hard Kil'ayim applies only when the material does not touch the person's skin. According to the Rambam, one may not sit directly on top of the Kil'ayim (with no intervening material). (The Ra'avad in Tamid suggests that the reason why the Rambam prohibits sitting directly on hard Kil'ayim is because he maintains that 'Ha'ala'ah' applies whenever the Kil'ayim is in direct contact with the person's skin, whether the garment is on the person or the person is on the garment. 'Ha'ala'ah' is forbidden mid'Oraisa, and therefore it remains forbidden even when the Kil'ayim is a hard material.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> That seems unlikely since nobody excepting a Davidic 
               King may sit in the Mikdash.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This is supported by the Pasuk.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The sitting was in the Ezras Nashim, as R. Chisda 
          taught.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Where did R. Chisda teach that it was in the 
          Ezras Nashim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He taught this in conjunction with the Beraisa 
          which says that the Keri'ah was in the Azarah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer b. Ya'akov says it was in the Azarah 
               (citing a Pasuk in Nechemyah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Chisda teaches that it was in the Ezras Nashim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  We continue to interpret the word 'Gadol' in the Pasuk in 
          Nechemyah.
<br>
<b><font>4) EZRA AND THE GREAT NAME</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is 'Gadol' in the Pasuk, 'Ezra blessed 
          Hash-m Elokim ha'Gadol'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yosef citing Rav):</font></b> Ezra exalted Hash-m 
          employing the Shem ha'Meforash.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Gidel):</font></b> Ezra exalted the Name by instituting 
          the refrain at the conclusion of each Berachah, 'Baruch 
          Hash-m ... '.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps it was the Shem ha'Meforash?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Shem ha'Meforash is not uttered outside the 
          Azarah (where Ezra was then standing).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we find that Ezra <i>did</i> utter the Name 
          outside (as R. Gidal himself taught on the Pasuk in 
          Nechemyah 9)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That was an emergency, as extensively reported, 
          they successfully cried out for the Yetzer Harah for 
          idolatry to be given over to their hands.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> After this success, they attempted to do the same 
               with the Yetzer for licentiousness.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Though they were successful in having the Yetzer 
               given over to their hands, they discovered that the 
               world could not exist without its (positive) force, 
               and its force could not be divided.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Thus they blinded it and freed it, thus eliminating 
               its push to incest.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  In Eretz Yisrael the word 'Gadol' was interpreted by R. 
          Masna that Ezra exalted the Name with saying 'ha'E-l 
          ha'Gadol... '
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  This supports the words of R. Yehoshua b. Levi, who 
          taught that the Anshei Kneses ha'Gedolah earned that 
          great name because they restored the praise of Hash-m 
          which had been removed by Yirmiyah and Daniel during the 
          destruction and exile.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  They asserted that the very oppression of the Jews and 
          their endurance amidst the nations is the greatest 
          testimony to His Gevurah and Nora'os.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How could Yirmiyah and Daniel uproot the 
          institution of Moshe to praise Hash-m in this Manner?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Knowing that Hash-m is Truth, they did not 
          falsify before Him.
<br>
<b><font>5) SKIPPING IN READING THE PARSHIOS OF ACHAREI MOS AND ACH BE'ASOR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> There is a contradiction from the Mishnah in 
          Megilah which says that one may not skip in Keri'as 
          ha'Torah!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> A <i>short</i> skip (in which there is sufficient time 
          to move to the next spot while the Turgeman is still 
          reciting the Targum) is permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa teaches there that the short 
          skip only applies to Nevi'im, and that no skip in the 
          Torah is permitted!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> When the skip maintains one topic it is 
          permitted (as supported by the cited Beraisa).
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) ROLLING THE SEFER TORAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why did the Kohen Gadol need to announce that 
          there is more, i.e. that what he was about to read by 
          heart is contained in the Sefer Torah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> To avoid impugning the Sefer (leaving the 
          impression that the Sefer was missing the Parshah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why did he read it by heart, rather than roll 
          to it?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> To avoid burdening the Tzibur with the delay.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then they should bring another Sefer!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We are afraid people will think the first Sefer 
          is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer:</font></b> To avoid an unnecessary B'rachah (which 
          would be needed over a new Sefer).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we see that we regularly bring out multiple 
          Sefarim without concern for impugning the first!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That is when a different person reads from each 
          one, not when he reads from one and then switches to the 
          other.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE EIGHT BERACHOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The B'rachah Al ha'Torah is as we say at public readings 
          of the Torah ('Asher Nasan Lanu Toras Emes... ').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Al ha'Avodah, Hoda'ah, Mechilas Avon are as we have them 
          in our Nusach ha'Tefilah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Mikdash, Kohanim, and Yisrael are the subject of separate 
          Berachos.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE REST OF THE TEFILAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Nusach includes Rinah, Techinah and Bakashah, 
          concluding with 'Shomea Tefilah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Subsequent to the Tefilah of the Kohen Gadol, each person 
          who had previously brought a Sefer Torah to the Azarah 
          read from it to display its beauty.
<br>
<b><font>4) ATTENDING EITHER THE READING OR THE BURNING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> It is obvious that he can only attend one!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We might have thought that the principle of 'Ein 
          Ma'avirin Al ha'Mitzvos' would prevent even a bystander 
          from moving from one to the other.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What Mitzvah are we speaking of?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Of honoring  Hash-m be'Rov Am.
<br>
<b><font>5) MISHNAH: THE OTHER KORBANOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  If the Kohen Gadol read from the Torah in the Bigdei 
          Lavan then:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He did Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim and undressed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He immersed, emerged, dried off and was brought, and 
               donned, Bigdei Zahav, and did Kidush thereafter.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  (If he read in private garments, he would have done 
          Kidush before removing the Bigdei Lavan, prior to Keri'as 
          ha'Torah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Eliezer):</font></b> He went out and offered his Ayil, and the 
          people's Ayil before the seven Kevasim of Musaf.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Akiva):</font></b> The seven Kevasim for Musaf were offered 
          together with the morning Tamid, and the Par (Olah), and 
          the Sa'ir (done outside) were offered together with the 
          afternoon Tamid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  He did Kidush, undressed, immersed, donned Bigdei Lavan 
          and did Kidush.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  He went into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim to remove the Kaf and 
          Machtah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  He went through the procedure again to change to Bigdei 
          Zahav and offered the afternoon Ketores, and to arrange 
          the Neiros.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  He did Kidush, removed the Bigdei Zahav, put on his own 
          clothes and was escorted to his home where he hosted a 
          Seudah, having emerged peacefully from the Avodah.
<br>
<b><font>6) THE PAR (OLAH)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Par (Olah) in R. Akiva's teaching is to be 
          read as attached to the first clause (and is brought with 
          the morning Tamid) or to the second clause (and is 
          associated with the afternoon Tamid).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Additional Question:</font></b> When was the Par (Olah) done 
          according to R. Eliezer?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Additional Question:</font></b> When were the Eimurei Chatas 
          brought?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> You will find one order listed according 
          to R. Eliezer (in a Beraisa from Bei Shmuel) and one 
          according to R. Akiva (in the Tosefta).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Tana d'bei Shmuel teaches that, according to R. 
               Eliezer, the Eimurei Chatas were right after the 
               Ailim, and the Par le'Olah, seven Kavasim and Sa'ir 
               were all associated with the afternoon Tamid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Tosefta teaches that, according to R. Akiva, the 
               Par le'Olah is connected to the seven Kevasim, and 
               with the morning Tamid (as a rule derived from 
               'Mil'vad... ').
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Next is the Avodas ha'Yom (Hagralah, Chata'os 
                    Penimiyos) then (after the Par and Sa'ir 
                    within) bring the outer Sa'ir.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE AFTERNOON TAMID ON YOM KIPPUR</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah discusses the specific times during the day at which various parts of the Avodah on Yom Kippur are performed, such as the different Musaf offerings, the removal of the Kaf u'Machtah from the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, the afternoon Ketores and the afternoon lighting of the Neros.
</p><p>
The Mishnah, however, does not mention when during the day the afternoon Korban Tamid is offered. When is the afternoon Korban Tamid offered on Yom Kippur?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH u'Par, and 70b, DH v'Achar Kach) explains that the afternoon Tamid is offered after the <i>fifth</i> Tevilah, which follows the Avodah of the removal of the Kaf u'Machtah (which is performed after the fourth Tevilah). The Tamid is offered immediately before the Avodah of the Ketores and the Neros.
</p><p>
The Beraisa later (Tana d'Vei Shmuel) provides support for Rashi's opinion. The Beraisa says that the Kohen Gadol offers his Ayil and the nation's Ayil, as well as the Emurei Chatas, after his third Tevilah, 'but the Par ha'Olah, Shiv'as Kevasim, and Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz (i.e., all of the remaining Musaf offerings) [are offered] <i>together with the afternoon Tamid</i>.' The fact that the Beraisa differentiates between the time at which the Kohen Gadol offers his Ayil and the nation's Ayil, and the time at which he offers the afternoon Tamid, implies that he performs those Avodos at separate times (and one is performed after the fifth Tevilah). (See Chart #15, footnote 12, and Chart #16, footnote 6.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 4:2), however, rules that the Korban Tamid is offered after the <i>third</i> Tevilah, together with (i.e., right after) the Musaf offerings. The <b>RAMBAN</b> (Vayikra 16:32) adduces proof to this opinion from the wording of the Mishnah which mentions only the Ketores and the lighting of the Neros when it discusses what is done after the fifth Tevilah. If the Tamid is also offered after the fifth Tevilah, then the Mishnah should mention it together with the other routine, daily Avodos done at that point. On the other hand, if the Tamid is offered after the third Tevilah, the Mishnah does not need to mention it, as it leaves out a number of other Avodos done after the third Tevilah.
</p><p>
Further support for this opinion may be adduced from the next Beraisa which the Gemara cites. The Beraisa says that the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz is offered before the Kohen Gadol's Ayil and the nation's Ayil, after the <i>third</i> Tevilah. The Beraisa continues and says that after the Kohen Gadol offers his Ayil and the nation's Ayil, he burns the Emurei Chatas and, afterwards, he offers the afternoon Tamid. This implies that all of these Korbanos are offered after the third Tevilah. (This is in contrast to Rashi's understanding of the Beraisa. Rashi explains that when the Beraisa says, 'afterwards, the afternoon Tamid is offered,' it does not mean that it is offered at the same time as the previously-mentioned Korbanos, but rather it means much later, after the <i>fifth</i> Tevilah.)
</p><p>
In addition, the Mishnah says that the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz is offered with the afternoon Tamid. According to Rashi, the Mishnah must be arguing with the Beraisa, because the Mishnah maintains that the Sa'ir is offered after the fifth Tevilah and the Beraisa maintains that it is offered after the third Tevilah. (See Tosfos DH v'Achar Kach, and Chart #16, footnote 2.)
</p><p>
How does the Rambam understand the first Beraisa (Tana d'Vei Shmuel) which clearly supports Rashi's opinion when it says that the Korban Tamid is <i>not</i> offered after the same Tevilah as the Ayil of the Kohen Gadol?
</p><p>
<b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> (cited by <b>TOSFOS</b> DH d'Tana) has a different Girsa in the first Beraisa. In our text of the Gemara, the Beraisa reads, 'He offered his Ayil and the nation's Ayil and the Emurei Chatas [after the third Tevilah], <i>but</i> the Par ha'Olah, Shiv'as Kevasim, and Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz together with the afternoon Tamid.' According to the text of Rabeinu Chananel's Gemara, the Beraisa reads, 'He offered his Ayil and the nation's Ayil and the Emurei Chatas <i>and</i> the Par ha'Olah, Shiv'as Kevasim, and Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz together with the afternoon Tamid.' That is, he offers all of these Korbanos, including the afternoon Tamid, after the third Tevilah. This apparently is the Girsa of the Rambam as well.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE EIGHT BLESSINGS RECITED BY THE KOHEN GADOL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (68b) relates that the Kohen Gadol recited eight blessings in the afternoon of Yom Kippur when he read from the Torah. Those eight blessings included the familiar blessings of Birkas ha'Torah, Avodah ('Retzeh'), Hoda'ah ('Modim'), and Mechilas Avon (the central blessing of the Shemoneh Esreh of Yom Kippur), as well as four blessings which were unique to the Avodah of Yom Kippur: a blessing for the Mikdash, a blessing for Yisrael, a blessing for the Kohanim, and a blessing for Yerushalayim. The Mishnah adds that the Kohen Gadol then recited 'the rest of the Tefilah.'
</p><p>
The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which explains that 'the rest of the Tefilah' refers to a prayer in which the Kohen Gadol beseeched Hash-m to protect the Jewish people. This prayer concluded with the blessing, 'Shome'a Tefilah.'
</p><p>
If the Kohen Gadol also recited the blessing of 'Shome'a Tefilah,' then he recited <i>nine</i> blessings and not eight. Why does the Mishnah say that he recited only eight blessings?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) In the text of the printed Mishnayos, the words 'v'Al Yerushalayim' do not appear, nor do they appear in the Yerushalmi (Sotah 7:6 and Yoma 7:1). When the Beraisa lists the eight blessings, it does not include these words. The <b>BACH</b> and <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> delete these words from the Mishnah (68b) as well. Most of the Rishonim, including Rashi and the Rambam (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 3:11), quote the Mishnah without these words.
</p><p>
Although Rashi in Sotah (40b) writes that 'the Yerushalmi explains the blessing for Yerushalayim,' the Yerushalmi makes no mention of such a blessing. Apparently, Rashi refers to the blessing for the <i>Kohanim</i>, because he does not explain that blessing anywhere else. (It is probable that the word 'Yerushalayim' in the text of Rashi is a mistake, and it should read 'Kohanim' instead.) Rashi means that the blessing for <i>Kohanim</i> is described in the Yerushalmi (which indeed it is). Accordingly, there are eight blessings (the blessing of 'Shome'a Tefilah' is the eighth).
</p><p>
According to the Girsa that includes the words 'Al Yerushalayim,' perhaps the Mishnah merely uses these words to give another description for the blessing for the Mikdash, which, according to the Yerushalmi cited by the Rambam (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 3:11), ends with the words 'Shochen b'Tziyon' -- 'Who dwells in Zion,' a reference to Yerushalayim.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> in Perush ha'Mishnayos (here and in Sotah) also omits the blessing 'Al Yerushalayim,' but he presents a slightly different way of counting the eight blessings. He counts Birkas ha'Torah, the blessing for the Torah, as <i>two</i> blessings. The Kohen Gadol recited one blessing before he read the Torah and a second blessing after he read the Torah. He counts the blessing for Yisrael and the blessing of 'Shome'a Tefilah' as <i>one</i> blessing: the Kohen Gadol prayed that Hash-m protect the Jewish people and he concluded his prayer with the words 'Shome'a Tefilah,' as the Beraisa here mentions. This is the eighth of the eight blessings.
</p><p>
The Rambam's text of the Mishnah apparently lists the blessing for Kohanim before 'Al Yisrael' and 'the rest of the Tefilah.' Since those two blessings are listed consecutively ('Al Yisrael and the rest of the Tefilah'), the Rambam understands that they are counted as a single blessing. (However, in Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim (3:11), the Rambam explains the Mishnah like the Rishonim cited above in (a), and he places the blessing for the Kohanim <i>after</i> the blessing for Yisrael.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ME'IRI</b> cites Rishonim who have the text of 'Al Yerushalayim' in the Mishnah, and he writes that according to this Girsa the last blessing ('Shome'a Tefilah') is a general prayer and is not included in the count of eight blessings. (See also Insights to Sotah 40:4.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> In spite of its being part of the Musaf, the 
                    outer Sa'ir is associated with the morning 
                    Tamid.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b></b>This is drawn from the Pasuk 'u'Se'ir Izim 
                    Echad Chatas - Mil'vad Chatas ha'Kipurim'.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iv. </font></b></b> Next are the Ailim, then the Eimurei Chatas and 
                    then the afternoon Tamid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the rationale of R. Eliezer (for 
          associating the Musafim with the afternoon Tamid, unlike 
          the other Regalim when the Musafim are associated with 
          the morning Tamid)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> First do the Avodos listed in 'Vayikra' (Par and 
          Sa'ir Penimi'im), and then the Avodos listed in 
          'Bamidbar' (Musaf).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the rationale of R. Akiva?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> As taught, 'Mil'vad Olas ha'Boker... ' implying 
          that the Musafim come together with the morning Tamid (as 
          well by Yom Kipur).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What will R. Eliezer do with 'Mil'vad Chatas 
          ha'Kipurim' (which R. Akiva used to put the outer Sa'ir 
          before the Ailim)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> To teach that they both (Sa'ir ha'Penimi and 
          Chitzon) atone for the same things.
<br>
<b><font>7) OTHER OPINIONS IN THE TOSEFTA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehudah, citing R. Akiva):</font></b> One of the seven Kevasim 
          is brought with the morning Tamid, and the other six with 
          the afternoon Tamid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar b. R. Shimon citing R. Akiva):</font></b> Six with 
          Shachar, one with Bein ha'Arbayim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the rationale of these two 
               renditions of R. Akiva (splitting up the Kevasim)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is a resolution of two, seemingly 
               contradictory Pesukim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What, then, is the basis of their dispute?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah holds to do the minimum Kevasim before 
          the Avodas ha'Yom in order not to tire out the Kohen 
          Gadol;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar holds to do as many as possible lest he neglect 
          to do them later, and the Kohan Gadol is Zariz and not 
          likely to get weak.
<br>
<b><font>8) THE AYIL OF THE TZIBUR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Both R. Eliezer and R. Akiva agree that only one Ayil is 
          brought for the Tzibur, like the opinion of Rebbi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Rebbi had taught that the Ayil mentioned in Acharei Mos 
          is the same one mentioned in Pinchas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar b. R. Shimon holds that there are two.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the rationale of Rebbi?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The extra word 'Echad'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How will R. Elazar b. R. Shimon learn 'Echad'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Echad' means the finest (Meyuchad) of his flock.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How will Rebbi learn the requirement of 
          Meyuchad?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> From 'Mivchar Nedarecha (Nidreichem)'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How will R. Elazar b. R. Shimon relate to these 
          two references to Meyuchad?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One is for Korbanos Chovah and one for Nedavos 
          (and each reference is needed- Rashi).
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) RETRIEVING THE KAF UMACHTAH IN THE ORDER OF THE PASUK</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  (Beraisa): All of the Avodos listed in the Pesukim are in </font></b>
          order excepting the retrieving of the Kaf u'Machtah.
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  Question: Why do we assume this is out of sequence?</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  Answer (R. Chisda): If it were in sequence, we would not </font></b>
          have five Tevilos and 10 Kidushin as is our tradition 
          (since he would remain in the Bigdei Lavan to retrieve 
          the Kaf u'Machtah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> Perhaps there was (an 
               unwritten) interruption, the outer-Sa'ir (Chatas 
               ha'Kipurim), and the Pesukim remain in order?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Pasuk 've'Yatza ve'Asa' teaches 
               that the Ailim (in Bigdei Zahav) follow directly on 
               his (first) emergence from the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim.
<br><b><font> <b>    (d)</b>  Answer (Rava): The Pesukim are not in sequence since </font></b>
          'Asher Lavash' indicates that he changes <i>back</i> into 
          Bigdei Lavan which he wore previously, (and changed out 
          of for an earlier outside-Avodah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (Rabah b'R. Shila):</font></b> Perhaps the 
               interruption was the outer Sa'ir and the Pesukim 
               remain in order?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Rava):</font></b> The Pasuk 've'Yatza ve'Asa' teaches 
               that the Ailim (in Bigdei Zahav) follow directly on 
               his (first) emergence from the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim.
<br><b><font> <b>    (e)</b>  Question: But this is <i>not</i> the only part of the Pesukim </font></b>
          which are out of order!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Pesukim have the Eimurei Chatas offered before 
               the Sereifas Par/Sa'ir.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah has the Sereifas Par/Sa'ir earlier 
               (coinciding with the Keri'as ha'Torah) and the 
               Eimurei Chatas after!?
<br><b><font> <b>    (f)</b>  Answer: The Beraisa means that from Kaf u'Machtah onward </font></b>
          the Pesukim are out of order.
<br><b><font> <b>    (g)</b>  Question: Why assume that the Pesukim are out of order </font></b>
          when we can assume that the Mishnah is out of order!?
<br><b><font> <b>    (h)</b>  Answer (Abaye): The Pasuk uses the term </font></b>
          've'ha'Mishale'ach' to echo back to its earlier position 
          (ie he sent it out before the Eimurei Chatas even though 
          it is written after) so, too, the word 've'ha'Soref' 
          positions the Sereifah earlier (before the Eimurim), even 
          though it is written after.
<br><b><font> <b>    (i)</b>  Question: Perhaps this connection teaches the <i>opposite</i> </font></b>
          that both are done <i>after</i> the Eimurim!?
<br><b><font> <b>    (j)</b>  Answer (Abaye): 've'ha'Meshale'ach' (where the Pasuk </font></b>
          could have said 've'Shilach') echoes back to an already 
          known Meshaleach.
<br><b><font> <b>    (k)</b>  Answer (Rava): The Shiluach could not have been later </font></b>
          (after the Eimurim and out of Pasuk-sequence) since the 
          Sa'ir only needs to remain alive for the Matan Damim 
          within ('Yo'omad Chai'), not longer (as for the Eimurei 
          Chatas).
<br>
<b><font>2) GREETING THE KOHEN GADOL</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  The usher returns to Yerushalayim and reports back to the </font></b>
          Kohen Gadol.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he finds the Kohen Gadol in a public place, he 
               honors him by saying that he executed his mission.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If he finds him in private, he honors Hash-m by 
               proclaiming that he fulfilled the mission of the One 
               Who sustains the living.
<br>
<b><font>3) AGADIC INSIGHTS REGARDING LIFE</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  (Rabah): When Talmidei Chachamim would take leave from </font></b>
          one another they would say, 'May the Sustainer of the 
          living grant you long, good, upstanding years'.
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  (R. Yehudah): The 'Land of the Living' refers to the </font></b>
          marketplaces (where people find their provisions.
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  'Years of Life' refer to years in which a person's </font></b>
          fortune turns to the good, and he feels newly alive.
<br>
<b><font>4) THREE FROM R. BERECHYAH</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  'Aleichem Ishim Ekra' refers to scholars who appear weak </font></b>
          yet accomplish acts of great valor ('Eizehu Gibor... ' - 
          Maharsha).
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  It also teaches that one who wishes to merit offering </font></b>
          libations on the Mizbe'ach should provide wine for 
          scholars.
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  If one sees Torah ceasing from his offspring, he should </font></b>
          marry the daughter of a scholar (proof text from Iyov).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE RESPONSE OF SHEMAYAH AND AVTALYON TO THE KOHEN GADOL'S INSULT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that on one Motza'i Yom Kippur, as the people escorted the Kohen Gadol to his home from the Beis ha'Mikdash they saw the two great sages, Shemayah and Avtalyon. In deference to the Torah sages, they left the Kohen Gadol to accompany Shemayah and Avtalyon.
</p><p>
When Shemayah and Avtalyon came later to the Kohen Gadol to take leave of him, he said to them, 'Let the descendants of the [gentile] nations go to peace,' a derogatory reference to their status as converts. They responded, 'Let the descendants of the [gentile] nations, who perform the act of Aharon, go to peace, and let not the descendant of Aharon, who does not perform the act of Aharon, go to peace.'
</p><p>
In what way did Shemayah and Avtalyon feel that they 'performed the act of Aharon' more than the Kohen Gadol?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that Shemayah and Avtalyon meant that they acted in accordance with the attribute of Aharon, who always pursued peace and brotherhood (Avos 1:12). They told the Kohen Gadol that his insult to them was not in accordance with the attribute of Aharon who pursued peace.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>KOZHNITZER MAGID</b> (the 'Avodas Yisrael,' cited by <b>RAV TZADOK HA'KOHEN</b> in <b>PRI TZADIK</b>, Erev Yom Kippur #3) suggests an original interpretation for this incident. The Kohen Gadol had become arrogant after he performed the Avodah of Yom Kippur; he viewed himself to be of great importance for having entered the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and achieved atonement for the Jewish people. A consequence of this arrogance was his insult to Shemayah and Avtalyon. He derided their status as converts and implied that it was because of his lofty familial descent that he was privileged to enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and perform the Avodah, which they, as converts, could never do.
</p><p>
They responded that his pride was inappropriate. It was not a result of <i>his</i> Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash that the Jewish people were granted atonement, for the Avodah of an insolent Kohen certainly is not effective. (Indeed, it was unlikely that he lived past that year, as the Gemara says on 9a.) Rather, the atonement was granted as a result of <i>their</i> Avodah: through their prayers on Yom Kippur and their recitation of the order of the day's Avodah with all of the proper intentions, they effected atonement for the Jewish people. The Kohen Gadol's Avodah alone was not effective because it was done without proper intent, sanctity, and purity. The Tzadikim performed the real Avodah of Yom Kippur.
</p><p>
This is what Shemayah and Avtalyon meant when they said, 'Let the descendants of the nations, who perform the <i>Avodah</i> of Aharon, go to peace, and let not the descendant of Aharon, who does not perform the <i>Avodah</i> of Aharon, go to peace.' It was the descendants of the nations, Shemayah and Avtalyon, who performed the Avodah that attained atonement for the Jewish people, and not the descendant of Aharon who did not properly perform the Avodah.
</p><p>
Perhaps their statement also included a response to the Kohen Gadol's remark about the difference between his lineage and theirs. The Gemara in Horayos (13a) teaches that the lineage of Talmidei Chachamim who toil in Torah is greater than the lineage of 'a Kohen Gadol who enters the Kodesh ha'Kodashim.'
</p><p>


<font><b>2) AGADAH: THE 'BIGDEI KEHUNAH' OF THE KOHEN GADOL</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Mishnah lists the four garments of the Bigdei Kehunah which an ordinary Kohen wears when he performs the Avodah and the additional four garments which the Kohen Gadol wears. The priestly garments are an integral part of the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Just as the various types of Korbanos atone for different sins of the people, the various garments atone for different sins, as the Gemara in Zevachim (88b) describes.
</p><p>
A closer look at the significance of each garment reveals allusions in the Torah to its role in the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The following two examples are culled from the work of Rav Mordechai Aran, the author of <b>NIFLA'OS MI'TORASECHA</b>.
</p><p>
(a) The Gemara in Zevachim (88b) relates that the Choshen, which is referred to as the 'Choshen Mishpat,' atones for 'Ivus ha'Din' -- the corruption of justice by the judges. The word 'Choshen' appears as an acronym in the Roshei Teivos (the first letters of consecutive words) in the verse, 'Hash-m scrutinizes the righteous one, and He despises the wicked and the lover of theft' (Tehilim 11:5). The last three words in that verse are 'Chamas San'ah Nafsho,' the Roshei Teivos of which spell 'Choshen.' This is most appropriate, as that verse discusses Hashem's abhorrence for the wickedness of theft, the sin which is the basis for the corruption of justice for which the Choshen atones. (There are only two other occurrences of the word 'Choshen' as Roshei Teivos: in Yirmeyahu 23:32 and Nachum 2:1.)
</p><p>
(b) The Gemara teaches that the Me'il atones for Lashon ha'Ra, because the Pa'amonim and Rimonim (the bells and pomegranate-shaped forms) on the hem of the Me'il make noise as the Kohen walks. The sound that they make atones for man's misuse of his voice when he speaks Lashon ha'Ra.
</p><p>
The Midrash teaches that man's first sin, eating the fruit of the Etz ha'Da'as, originated with the sin of Lashon ha'Ra. When the Nachash convinced Adam and Chavah to eat from the Etz ha'Da'as, it spoke Lashon ha'Ra about Hash-m (Midrash Tanchuma, Bereishis 8:8, and Rashi to Shemos 4:3; see Insights to Shabbos 56:2). Those were the first words of Lashon ha'Ra ever spoken, and they are the basis for all subsequent words of Lashon ha'Ra. The Gemara in Erchin (15b) adds that the snake symbolizes the person who speaks Lashon ha'Ra: just as the snake derives no benefit from its bite, the person who speaks Lashon ha'Ra causes damage with his mouth but derives no personal benefit from it.
</p><p>
The verse commands that Rimonim be placed on the hem of the Me'il: 'Al Shulav Rimonei Techeles v'Argaman' (Shemos 28:33). The Sofei Teivos (the last letters of consecutive words) of those words spell, 'Livyasan.' (This is the only occurrence in all of Tanach of the word 'Livyasan' as an acronym in a verse, either as Roshei Teivos or Sofei Teivos.) The Zohar relates that when the prophet says that in the future Hash-m will kill the 'Livyasan Nachash Akalason' (Yeshayah 27:1), the prophet refers to the original Nachash. The Nachash is identified as the Yetzer ha'Ra, and also as 'Lilis,' the force of evil which is aroused whenever a person speaks Lashon ha'Ra (Zohar, Pekudei 265a; Rav Moshe Cordavero in Sefer ha'Pardes, Sha'ar ha'Temuros 25:5). Accordingly, it is appropriate that the word 'Livyasan' appears in the verse which discusses the Pa'amonim and Rimonim on the hem of the Me'il, for they atone for the sin of Lashon ha'Ra. The atonement they effect repeals the power of the Livyasan which is aroused when a person speaks Lashon ha'Ra. (When a word appears as an acronym of Sofei Teivos, it represents the end, or repeal, of something.)
</p><p>
Rav Aran adds that when the verse describes the people's fulfillment of the command to place the Rimonim on the Me'il, it says, 'Al Shulei ha'Me'il Rimonei Techeles' (Shemos 39:24). The Sofei Teivos of those words spell 'Lilis.' This allusion also demonstrates that the Pa'amonim and Rimonim repeal the power of 'Lilis' which is aroused by the sin of Lashon ha'Ra. (There is only one other occurrence in all of Tanach of the word 'Lilis' as Sofei Teivos: Divrei ha'Yamim II 17:10.) (See also Insights to Erchin 16:2.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<b><font>5) AN EMBARRASSING KOHEN GADOL</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  In the reported incident, a Kohen Gadol's pride was hurt </font></b>
          when the people turned to follow Sh'maya and Avtalyon.
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  When Sh'maya and Avtalyon took their leave of the Kohen </font></b>
          Gadol, the latter referred to them derogatorily (making 
          reference to their non-Jewish ancestry).
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  They rebuked the Kohen Gadol for not following in the </font></b>
          peace- loving steps of his ancestor, Aharon ha'Kohen (and 
          transgressing Ona'as Devarim).
<br>
<b><font>6) MISHNAH: THE GARMENTS OF THE KOHANIM</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  The Kohen Gadol served in eight garments (those listed </font></b>
          for a Kohen Hedyot as well as the Choshen, Eifod, Me'il 
          and Tzitz) while a Kohen Hedyot served in four (Kesones, 
          Michnasayim, Mitznefes and Avnet).
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  Only when wearing his eight garments may the Urim </font></b>
          ve'Tumim be consulted, and then only on behalf of the 
          King, Av Beis Din and him whom the Tzibur requires.
<br>
<b><font>7) THE THREADS OF THE GARMENTS</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  Where the word 'Sheish' is used, the threads of each </font></b>
          material are made six-ply while the word 'Mashzar' 
          implies eight-ply threads, Paroches-24 ply, and 
          Choshen/Eifod-28 ply.
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  Question: What is the source for six-ply threads?</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  Answer: It is implied by one of the five references to </font></b>
          linen (the word 'Sheish' four times plus the word 'Bad') 
          in the Pasuk.
<br><b><font> <b>    (d)</b>  Question: How do we know that 'Sheish' means linen?</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (e)</b>  Answer (R. Yosi b'R. Chanina): Since 'Bad' (which appears </font></b>
          alongside 'Sheish' in the Pasuk- Tofsos Yeshanim) implies 
          that which emerges from the ground alone (as the linen 
          derives from the stalk, not from its leaves).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Perhaps this refers to the wool-thread?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Wool splits, unlike Pishtan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But Pishtan also splits when processed?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Pishtan only splits under the pressure of 
               its process, whereas wool is inherently stranded.
<br><b><font> <b>    (f)</b>  Answer (Ravina): The Pasuk in Yechezkel teaches us that </font></b>
          the garments (referred to in the Pesukim as 'Sheish') are 
          Pishtan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How did we know that before Yechezkel?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It was a tradition handed down from Moshe 
               and only recorded by Yechezkel.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If not, then how can we understand the 
                    statement (of R. Chisda regarding the 
                    prohibition of a Kohen Areil not serving) that 
                    it is known from Yechezkel (and not from the 
                    Torah)?
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> That surely must have been an existing 
                    tradition.
<br><b><font> <b>    (g)</b>  Question: How do we know that 'Mashzar' means eight-ply?</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (h)</b>  Answer: We link the word 'Mashzar' to the Paroches where </font></b>
          the 24 threads were comprised of four materials, each of 
          six- ply, so, too, the Rimonim were 24, three materials 
          of each of eight-ply.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Link it rather to the Choshen/Eifod which 
               is 28 threads?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is more logical to link those items which 
               do not contain gold (than to introduce the 
               Choshen/Eifod which does).
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> To the contrary, link garments (the 
                    Rimon to the Choshen/Eifod) and do not 
                    introduce that which is not a garment (the 
                    Paroches)?!
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Rather, we link the Rimon to the Avnet 
                    (which is a garment and gold is absent).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer (R. Mari):</font></b> The word 'Ta'asenu' is meant to 
               make the Choshen <i>unique</i> an no other garments will 
               have 28 threads.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer (R. Ashi):</font></b> The word 've'Asisa' teaches that 
               each of the materials must have an equal number of 
               threads, which is not possible if we link to Choshen 
               (28 divided by three).
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE THREADS OF THE GARMENTS (cont'd)</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  Question: How do we know that the Me'il was 12-ply </font></b>
          threads?
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  Answer: It is learned from combining the plural </font></b>
          implication of 'K'lil' (minimum two to braid a thread) 
          with the link to the Paroches (which is made of six-ply 
          threads) to yield 12.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Learn the threads of the Me'il from the 
               Shulayim and Rimonim, which are eight?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> We would rather link a K'li (Me'il) with a 
               K'li (Paroches) and not to an adornment of a K'li 
               (Shulayim).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> To the contrary, keep the link within 
               Me'il!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> This was addressed by one of the words 
               'Sheish' above, to teach that the other garments, 
               where Sheish does not appear, should be made of 
               six-ply threads.
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  The Paroches with 24 (four types of six-ply threads) is </font></b>
          obvious and does not need investigation.
<br><b><font> <b>    (d)</b>  Question: What is the source for 28-ply threads on the </font></b>
          Choshen/Eifod?
<br><b><font> <b>    (e)</b>  Answer: Based on the Pasuk, we find four species of </font></b>
          six-ply plus gold (four-ply) totalling 28.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Perhaps the gold is six-ply?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 've'Kitzetz Pesilim' means dividing each of 
               two threads.
<br><b><font> <b>    (f)</b>  Answer (R. Ashi): 'La'asos Besoch...' teaches that the </font></b>
          gold must be mixed with each species, hence only four 
          threads of gold.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Other combinations, such as two-ply gold, would 
               result in eight gold threads, not six.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Alternately, two-ply in two materials and one-ply in 
               two others would result in inconsistent materials 
               and violate 've'Asisa'.
<br>
<b><font>2) TEARING THE BIGDEI KEHUNAH</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  (Rachba citing R. Yehudah): One incurs Malkos for tearing </font></b>
          Bigdei Kehunah, as we read by the Me'il, 'Lo Yikarea'.
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  Question (R. Acha b. Ya'akov): Perhaps the Pasuk only </font></b>
          means for us to take the precaution (of making an 
          opening) <i>in order</i> that it not rip, but not to prohibit 
          ripping it!?
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  Answer: The Pasuk says 'Do not' and does not say 'in </font></b>
          order that it should not'.
<br>
<b><font>3) DETACHING THE CHOSHEN OR THE BADIM</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  (R. Eliezer): One who detaches the Choshen from the </font></b>
          Eifod, or the Badim from the Aron incurs Malkos, as per 
          the Pasuk.
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  Question (R. Acha b. Ya'akov): Perhaps the Pasuk is only </font></b>
          instructing us how tight to fasten them, but not to 
          prohibit their removal?
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  Answer: The Pasuk says 'Do not' and does not say 'in </font></b>
          order that it should not'.
<br>
<b><font>4) THE MOVABLE NON-REMOVABLE BADIM</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  (R. Yosi b'R. Chanina): One Pasuk refers to the Badim as </font></b>
          immobile while another implies that they may be moved 
          within their Taba'os!?
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  The explanation is that they could slide until the end of </font></b>
          the Badim reached the Taba'os where they had been 
          inserted with pressure, but could not subsequently be 
          removed (as confirmed by the Beraisa).
<br>
<b><font>5) THE STANDING SHITIM-WOOD</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  (R. Chama b'R. Chanina): The expression 'Atzei Shitim </font></b>
          Omdim' implies that they are to stand in the Mishkan 
          upright, as they grew.
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  Another explanation: that their gold-plate remains on </font></b>
          them (either by being affixed or by being Divinely 
          preserved).
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  Another explanation: They will stand forever, lest we </font></b>
          think that once the Mishkan was interred its restoration 
          may not be anticipated.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: 'BIGDEI HA'SERAD'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara understands that the words 'Bigdei ha'Serad' (Shemos 35:19) refer to the Bigdei Kehunah. (See, however, Rashi to Shemos 31:10, 35:19, and 39:1, who challenges this interpretation.) The Gemara explains that the Bigdei Kehunah are called 'Bigdei ha'Serad' because if it were not for the Bigdei Kehunah, there would be, G-d forbid, no remnant ('Serid') left of the Jewish people.
</p><p>
In what way do the Bigdei Kehunah save the Jewish people? Moreover, if it is true that without the Bigdei Kehunah there would be no remnant left of the Jewish people, then why, after the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash, are the Jewish people still alive?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> explains that the Bigdei Kehunah save the Jewish people by attaining atonement for their sins. He refers to the Gemara in Zevachim (88b), which he quotes earlier as well (Yoma 44a), which relates that the Bigdei Kehunah atone for various sins.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Bigdei Kehunah enable the Kohen to offer Korbanos, which attain atonement for the sins of the Jewish people. Without the Bigdei Kehunah, the Kohen is not permitted to perform the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
Rashi's explanation is difficult to understand. Why does Rashi say that the Bigdei Kehunah save the Jewish people because they enable the Kohen to offer the Korbanos? He should say simply that the Bigdei Kehunah themselves attain atonement for the Jewish people (as Rabeinu Chananel says). (<b>RASHASH</b>)
</p><p>
Apparently, Rashi is bothered by the Gemara's expression, 'If not for the Bigdei Kehunah, there would be no remnant left....' Even if there were no Bigdei Kehunah to atone for the sins of the people, the <i>Korbanos</i> would atone for their sins! Rashi therefore explains that the Gemara means that without the Bigdei Kehunah, no atonement would be provided by the Korbanos because the Korbanos cannot be offered without the Bigdei Kehunah.
</p><p>
(Rabeinu Chananel perhaps understands that since the Bigdei Kehunah may be worn all day, the verse emphasizes them as the element which provides for the continued existence of the Jewish people. Even at a time when no Korbanos are offered (such as at night), the Bigdei Kehunah still provide Kaparah, for the Bigdei Kehunah are worn even at night.)
</p><p>
Why, though, do the Jewish people exist today when there is no Bigdei Kehunah (to attain atonement, according to Rabeinu Chananel, or to enable the Korbanos to attain atonement, according to Rashi)?
</p><p>
The Gemara in Ta'anis (27b) answers this question. The Gemara teaches that when there is no Beis ha'Mikdash, a person attains atonement by reading and studying the portions of the Torah which discuss the Korbanos. 'Whenever they recite the Seder ha'Korbanos, I consider it as if they offered Korbanos before Me, and I forgive them for their sins.' (According to this approach, Rabeinu Chananel apparently maintains that when one reads and studies the portions of the Torah which discuss the Bigdei Kehunah, he becomes worthy of the atonement which they provide.)
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU ELYAKIM</b> suggests another explanation for the words of the Gemara. He explains that the Torah calls the Bigdei Kehunah 'Bigdei ha'Serad' because <i>they remained</i> even after the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed. Just as the Tzitz, one of the Begadim of the Kohen Gadol, was taken to Rome at the time of the Churban (see Shabbos 63b), so, too, the rest of the Bigdei Kehunah were taken to Rome. They are still there today, and thus they provide atonement for the Jewish people (even though they are not being worn).
</p><p>
This approach explains why the Gemara mentions the Bigdei Kehunah and not the Korbanos as the source for the Jewish people's existence, and it also explains how the Jewish people attain atonement from the Bigdei Kehunah today when the Beis ha'Mikdash is not standing. 
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<b><font>6) 'BIGDEI 'SRAD''</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  (R. Chama b'R. Chanina): They are called 'S'rad' since, </font></b>
          without them, not a trace of the people would remain.
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  (R. Shmuel b. Nachmani citing Bei R. Shimon): 'S'rad' </font></b>
          refers to the non-woven part of the garment which was 
          otherwise woven to its complete form on the loom, not 
          woven as sheets and sewn together to form the garment.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why did they leave this unwoven portion?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Resh Lakish):</font></b> It was left to allow the woven 
               portion to be sewn to the rest of the garment.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa teaches that the Bigdei 
               Kehunah were woven, and not sewn?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The sleeve was woven entirely on the 
               loom, and then sewn to the body of the garment.
<br>
<b><font>7) THE ARON</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  (Rachbah citing R. Yehudah): Beztalel made three Aronos, </font></b>
          a middle, wooden, Aron of nine Tefachim height; an inner 
          gold Aron of eight Tefachim and an outer gold Aron of 
          slightly (Mashehu) more than 10 Tefachim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa taught that the outer Aron 
               was slightly more than <i>11</i> Tefachim tall!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It depends on whether we learn that the base 
               of the outer Aron was a Tefach thick or only a 
               Mashehu thick.
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  Question: What was this Mashehu?</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  Answer: For a Zir (rim) around the Kapores.</font></b>
<br>
<b><font>8) TORAH SCHOLARS</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  (R. Yochanan): There are three Zirim, Aharon merited the </font></b>
          Zir of the Mizbe'ach (Kehunah); David merited the Zir of 
          Shulchan (sovereignty) while the Zir of the Aron (Torah) 
          remains available for anyone to claim it.
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  The Pasuk 'Bi Melachim Yimlochu' is taught lest a person </font></b>
          think that the Zir of Torah is lesser than the other two.
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  R. Yochanan resolved the K'siv ('Zer') with the K'ri </font></b>
          ('Zir') as saying that it is an adornment (Zir) to one 
          who merits it, and it is a stranger (Zer) to one who does 
          not.
<br><b><font> <b>    (d)</b>  R. Yochanan resolved the Pesukim, one of which implies </font></b>
          that the Aron is to be made by Moshe, and the other in 
          which it is made by the community, as alluding to the 
          Melachah of the Talmid Chacham being borne by his 
          community.
<br><b><font> <b>    (e)</b>  The Aron is gold inside and out to allude to the </font></b>
          requirement that a Talmid Chacham be congruous in his 
          sterling thoughts and behaviors.
<br><b><font> <b>    (f)</b>  (Abaye): One whose conduct is incompatible with his Torah </font></b>
          study (compared to drinking water) is contemptible.
<br><b><font> <b>    (g)</b>  (R. Yonasan): 'Woe to the scholar lacking in Yiras </font></b>
<br><b><font>          Shamayim'</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (h)</b>  (R. Yanai): 'Pity the one who has no courtyard (Yiras </font></b>
          Shamayim) but builds a door to one (study of Torah)'.
<br><b><font> <b>    (i)</b>  Rava pleaded with the scholars not to lose both worlds </font></b>
          (by suffering the toil of Torah in this world, but, by 
          not upholding the Torah, being punished in the world to 
          come).
<br><b><font> <b>    (j)</b>  R. Yehoshua b. Levi learned an allusion from the word </font></b>
          'Sam' (placed) to the word 'Sam' (elixir) that the merit 
          of Torah makes it an elixir of life, but the lack of that 
          merit makes it lethal (as Rava had similarly taught).
<br><b><font> <b>    (k)</b>  Based on the Pesukim we learn that if one merits, the </font></b>
          Torah brings him joy, if not, it purges him with 
          affliction.
<br><b><font> <b>    (l)</b>  Resh Lakish learns from that Pasuk that, depending on a </font></b>
          person's merit, the Torah can purify him to life, or 
          purge him to death.
<br><b><font> <b>    (m)</b>  'Yiras Hash-m Tehorah Omedes La'ad' refers to one who </font></b>
          studies in Taharah by getting married and then studying 
          Torah.
<br><b><font> <b>    (n)</b>  Torah is Ne'emanah, reliable to testify who among her </font></b>
          students upheld her.
<br>
<b><font>9) MAASEI ROKEM, MAASEI CHOSHEV</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  (R. Elazar): This teaches that they embroidered (Rokem) </font></b>
          where they first thought or colored the pattern.
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  (R. Nechemyah): Rokem is with a needle, and results in </font></b>
          one face, while Choshev is weaving and results in two 
          faces.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE EIGHT GARMENTS OF THE KOHEN GADOL</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  (R. Dimi): These same garments are worn by the Kohen </font></b>
          Mashu'ach Milchamah during his daily Avodah (this 
          additional Kohen is learned from the extra word 
          'Acharav').
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  Question: But that would make the Kohen Mashu'ach </font></b>
          Milchamah fitting to go into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim 
          (which hinges on Begadim) and his son should inherit his 
          position, not as we are taught that the position does not 
          pass to his son!?
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  Answer: The Pasuk requires that the person be primarily </font></b>
          dedicated to the Ohel Mo'ed in order to confer the 
          position on his son, thus excluding one whose anointment 
          is primarily for battle.
<br><b><font> <b>    (d)</b>  Question: But the Beraisa teaches that he does <i>not</i> wear </font></b>
          the eight Begadim, nor the four of a Kohen Hedyot!?
<br><b><font> <b>    (e)</b>  (Abaye): Then you have invalidated him from Avodah </font></b>
          entirely!?
<br><b><font> <b>    (f)</b>  Rather, he <i>is</i> fitting for Avodah, but does not do so.</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He does not wear the Begadim of the Kohen Gadol out 
               of concern for enmity (Eivah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He does not wear the four Begadim of a Kohen Hedyot 
               owing to his elevated status.
<br><b><font> <b>    (g)</b>  Question: But according to the Tana who is not concerned </font></b>
          with enmity, he <i>should</i> be able to function, thus 
          proving that he is <i>not</i> fit to function at all!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Tana who is not concerned with Eivah 
               demonstrates this by allowing a former Kohen Gadol 
               to continue to function.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> At the same time he does not permit the Kohen 
               Mashu'ach Milchamah to function, thus demonstrating 
               that the Torah does not permit him to function (and 
               it is not only because of our concern for enmity).
<br><b><font> <b>    (h)</b>  Answer: There is no Eivah when the other Kohen is at the </font></b>
          same level, but for a lesser Kohen (the Mashu'ach 
          Milchamah) to function would engender Eivah.
<br><b><font> <b>    (i)</b>  When R. Avahu reported R. Dimi's teaching (that the </font></b>
          Mashu'ach Milchamah wears eight Begadim) citing R. 
          Yochanan, R. Ami and R. Asi turned away from him (to 
          indicate that R. Yochanan did not teach that Din).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Others say it was R. Chiya b. Aba who reported it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> I would understand why R. Ami and R. Asi 
               could not openly state their disapproval of R. Avahu 
               owing to his political position, but why could they 
               not have spoken directly to R. Chiya b. Aba!?
<br><b><font> <b>    (j)</b>  R. Yochanan (as cited by Ravin) actually taught that the </font></b>
          Mashu'ach Milchamah wore the Urim ve'Tumim when going out 
          to battle, and was thus consulted by the King (as 
          supported in the Beraisa).
<br>
<b><font>2) CONSULTING THE URIM VETUMIM</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  Question: How is this accomplished?</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  Answer: The petitioner faces the Kohen Gadol, and the </font></b>
          Kohen Gadol faces the Shechinah (the Shem ha'Meforash on 
          the Choshen-Rashi).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The petitioner asks the request of David ha'Melech, 
               and the Kohen Gadol responds (either with or without 
               'Ko Amar Hashem') 'Aleh ve'Hatzlach'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The petitioner may not ask his question in a full 
               voice ('veSha'al <i>Lo'</i>) nor merely <i>think</i> the 
               question, but rather utters it quietly, as Chanah 
               spoke with Hash-m.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> He may not ask two questions at once, and if he 
               does, the response comes to the first question 
               (proof text).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But we see that David received an answer 
               to his <i>second</i> question!?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE 'BIGDEI KEHUNAH' OF THE 'KOHEN MASHU'ACH MILCHAMAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Dimi (72b) states that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah (the Kohen appointed to encourage and admonish the men of the Jewish army when they go to war, as described in Devarim 20:1-9) may wear the eight garments of the Kohen Gadol. The Gemara challenges Rav Dimi's opinion from a Beraisa which states that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may wear neither the eight garments of the Kohen Gadol nor the four garments of an ordinary Kohen. Abaye answers that mid'Oraisa he may wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah of the Kohen Gadol, as Rav Dimi says. The Rabanan, however, decreed that he not wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah of the Kohen Gadol in order to prevent the Kohen Gadol from feeling malice towards him. The Rabanan decreed that he not wear the four Bigdei Kehunah of an ordinary Kohen because of the principle, 'Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin' -- once a person (or object) achieves a higher status of holiness, his status may not be lowered but only raised to a higher level.
</p><p>
Why does Abaye say that the reason why the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may not wear the four Bigdei Kehunah is because of 'Ma'alin ba'Kodesh'? Rav Dimi maintains that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah is <i>required</i> to wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah, and <i>that</i> is why he may not wear only four garments! If he wears only four garments, he is considered 'Mechusar Begadim' (lacking the required number of Bigdei Kehunah) and any Avodah he performs is invalid.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> answers that there are times when a Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah must be removed from his position. For example, if he becomes too old to go out to war with the army, he is dismissed from his position and his status returns to that of an ordinary Kohen. (The position of Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah is an appointed position. Just as the appointment to the position is made with a verbal declaration of the king or Beis Din, so, too, the resignation from the position is made with a verbal declaration of the king or Beis Din.) Nevertheless, he still may not wear the four Bigdei Kehunah of an ordinary Kohen. Even though he is no longer a Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah and thus he will not be 'Mechusar Begadim' if he wears only four Bigdei Kehunah, another reason prevents him from wearing the four Bigdei Kehunah: the principle of 'Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin.'
</p><p>


<font><b>2) RAVIN'S EXPLANATION FOR THE NUMBER OF 'BEGADIM' WORN BY THE 'KOHEN MASHU'ACH MILCHAMAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Dimi (72b) states that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah (see previous Insight) may wear the eight garments of the Kohen Gadol when he performs the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Gemara challenges Rav Dimi's opinion from several sources that clearly show that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may <i>not</i> wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah.
</p><p>
Ravin answers that Rav Dimi does not teach that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may perform the Avodah while he wears the eight Bigdei Kehunah of the Kohen Gadol. Rather, Rav Dimi says that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah when the king stands before him and requests guidance from the Urim v'Tumim. When he performs the Avodah, however, he wears only four Bigdei Kehunah. This understanding of Rav Dimi's statement answers all of the questions posed on his opinion, because, according to this understanding, Rav Dimi agrees that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah never wears the eight Bigdei Kehunah for the Avodah.
</p><p>
However, one Beraisa apparently contradicts Ravin's statement. The Beraisa says that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may not perform the Avodah while he wears the four Bigdei Kehunah of an ordinary Kohen, nor may he perform the Avodah while he wears the eight Bigdei Kehunah of the Kohen Gadol. According to the Gemara's original understanding of the Beraisa (before Ravin), the reason why he cannot wear the four Bigdei Kehunah is because of the principle, 'Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin' -- one may rise in holiness but not descend; since the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah is supposed to wear eight Bigdei Kehunah, he may not 'descend' to four Begadim even when he loses his position and becomes an ordinary Kohen. According to Ravin, however, the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah <i>never</i> wears eight Begadim; he wears only four Begadim like an ordinary Kohen. Accordingly, the principle of 'Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin' does not apply, because the status of the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah is not being lowered when he wears four Bigdei Kehunah, since he never wore eight. Why, then, does the Beraisa not permit him to serve with four Begadim?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>CHAFETZ CHAIM</b> (in <b>ZEVACH TODAH</b>) and the <b>SEFAS EMES</b> answer that according to Ravin, if the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah ever dons the eight Begadim in order for a petitioner to ask a question of the Urim v'Tumim, he henceforth is not allowed to perform the Avodah with four Begadim because of 'Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin.' Since he once wore the eight Begadim he may no longer wear only four Begadim. That is the case which the Beraisa discusses.
</p><p>
This answer, however, is questionable. 'Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin' means that because the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah held a loftier position (as demonstrated by the fact that he was permitted to wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah), he may no longer perform the Avodah with four Begadim like an ordinary Kohen. According to Ravin, however, his position as a Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah is no loftier than the position of an ordinary Kohen (as far as the Avodah is concerned), because he does not perform the Avodah with the eight Bigdei Kehunah. The fact that a question was asked of him through the Urim v'Tumim is not considered a form of 'rising' in holiness such that he may not 'descend.' (These Acharonim apparently maintain that the very act of donning the eight Bigdei Kehunah grants the Kohen more Kedushah.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHAZON ISH</b> (Horayos 15:22) points out that the Beraisa which the Gemara cites as support for Ravin's statement explicitly says that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah dons the eight Bigdei Kehunah so that one may ask a question of the Urim v'Tumim through him. This implies that he wears four Bigdei Kehunah when he performs the Avodah. This Beraisa argues with the earlier Beraisa which says that he may not perform the Avodah with four Begadim because of 'Ma'alin ba'Kodesh.' It is apparent that the two Beraisos argue, and Ravin follows the second Beraisa.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>YEFEH EINAYIM</b> cites the Yerushalmi which is bothered by this question. The Yerushalmi says that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may not wear four Begadim because people who see him wear eight Begadim (when one asks a question of the Urim v'Tumim through him) might think that he has the status of a Kohen Gadol. If he then performs the Avodah with four Begadim, they will say that a <i>Kohen Gadol</i> is permitted to perform the Avodah with four Begadim. Therefore, the Rabanan decreed that he may not perform the Avodah with four Begadim so that people not think that a Kohen Gadol is permitted to perform the Avodah with four Begadim.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> David asked out of order (whether the city 
               would turn him over to Shaul, and whether Shaul 
               would come down to the city).
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  The Shechinah corrected him by answering the 
                    second (properly the first) question.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> David then asked the second question properly.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> When the matter is urgent (as by Shaul), both 
               questions will receive an answer.
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  The decree of a Navi may be reversed (as by Yonah) but </font></b>
          not that of the Urim ve'Tumim (proof text and Beraisa).
<br><b><font> <b>    (d)</b>  Question: Why was the prophecy regarding the Pilegesh </font></b>
          be'Giv'ah (to go to battle with Binyamin) not fulfilled 
          (and Many B'nei Yisrael fell in those two days)?
<br><b><font> <b>    (e)</b>  Answer: They only asked if to go to battle, not if they </font></b>
          would be victorious (proof text regarding the third day).
<br><b><font> <b>    (f)</b>  Question: How would the answer appear?</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (g)</b>  Answer: R. Yochanan says the letters would stand out (in </font></b>
          their place) and Resh Lakish says they would organize 
          into words.
<br><b><font> <b>    (h)</b>  Question: But the names of the Shevatim are missing the </font></b>
          letter 'Tzadi' ('Ches' and 'Kuf'?
<br><b><font> <b>    (i)</b>  Answer: The names Avraham Yitzchak and Ya'akov also </font></b>
          featured on the Choshen.
<br><b><font> <b>    (j)</b>  Question: But we are still missing a 'Tes'?</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (k)</b>  Answer: The words 'Shivtei Yeshurun' appeared there, as </font></b>
          well.
<br><b><font> <b>    (l)</b>  Question: We see that the operation of the Urim ve'Tumim </font></b>
          was based on the level of Shechinah in the Kohen Gadol 
          and so (according to Rashi) there is no need for the 
          letters to stand out or to organize at all!?
<br><b><font> <b>    (m)</b>  Answer: The Kohen would assist the Urim ve'Tumim to </font></b>
          function.
<br>
<b><font>3) ONLY A KING MAY ASK OR ONE WHO IS NEEDED</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  Question: How is this known?</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  Answer: It is based on the Pasuk:</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The referent of the Pasuk is the King.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> 've'Chol B'nei Yisrael' is the Mashu'ach Milchamah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> 've'Chol ha'Eidah' refers to the Sanhedrin.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>*****<b>PEREK</b> #8 <b>YOM HAKIPURIM</b>*****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>4) MISHNAH: THE RESTRICTIONS OF YOM KIPUR</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  It is Asur on Yom Kipur to eat, drink, bath, anoint, wear </font></b>
          shoes or cohabit.
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  A King and a Kalah wash their face.</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  A nursing mother wears shoes; while the Chachamim prohibit.</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (d)</b>  One who eats the equivalent of a plump dried date </font></b>
          (Koseves) with its pit is Chayav, as is one who drinks a 
          cheek-full (Malei Lugmav).
<br><b><font> <b>    (e)</b>  Foods combine with other foods as do liquids with others, </font></b>
          but foods and liquids do not combine.
<br>
<b><font>5) CHATZI SHIUR</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  Question: The Mishnah should have referred to the Isur as </font></b>
          'Chayav Kareis' (not merely 'Asur')!?
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  Answer: The Mishnah means to refer to Chatzi Shiur (Asur, </font></b>
          but not Kareis).
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  Question: But what of Resh Lakish who holds (in his </font></b>
          Machlokes with R. Yochanan) that Chatzi Shiur is <i>Mutar</i> 
          from the Torah!?
<br><b><font> <b>    (d)</b>  Answer: Resh Lakish admits that Chatzi Shiur is Asur </font></b>
          mi'de'Rabanan (and thus the Mishnah refers to it as 
          'Asur').
<br><b><font> <b>    (e)</b>  Question: But then how can Resh Lakish explain that his </font></b>
          Shevu'ah applies to his eating less than a Shiur 
          (according to Rabanan, in the following discussion from 
          Shevu'os), given that he is already bound not to eat 
          this!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One who takes a Shevu'ah not to eat, and violates 
               his oath by eating forbidden foods, according to 
               Rabanan, is Chayav for violating his Shevu'ah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> According to R. Shimon he is Patur.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> The Gemara there asks why he is Chayav, since he is 
               already under oath from Har Sinai, and his Shevu'ah 
               should not take hold!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> The Gemara there provides two answers:
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Rav, Shmuel and R. Yochanan explain that he is 
                    Chayav because he included <i>permitted</i> foods in 
                    his oath, and was thus able to be bound even 
                    regarding forbidden foods ('Isur Kolel', while 
                    R. Shimon holds that such a Kolel cannot cause 
                    the Shevu'ah to apply to the Isur).
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Resh Lakish explained that he can be Chayav 
                    (even though a Shevu'ah cannot apply to any 
                    Isur, even Kolel) in one of two ways:</font></b> 
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b></b>He specifies in his Shevu'ah that he will not 
                    eat Chatzi Shiur (according to Rabanan who hold 
                    that one who does not specify means to prohibit 
                    only a full Shiur, and thus only one who 
                    specifies less will become prohibited in less); 
                    or,
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iv. </font></b></b> He does not specify (according to R. Akiva who 
                    holds that one who does not specify means to 
                    include even a minimal amount).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> According to Resh Lakish who holds that there is an 
               Isur mi'de'Rabanan on Chatzi Shiur, how can the 
               Rabanan hold that his Shevu'ah can apply to less 
               than a Shiur (even if he is explicit) given his 
               standing prohibition!?
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) 'TZADI' BEFORE 'TES'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara asks how the letters on the stones of the Choshen combined to spell the answer to any question if they did not contain every letter of the alphabet. The names of the twelve sons of Yakov were inscribed on the stones of the Choshen, but none of those names contain the letter 'Tzadi.' The Gemara answers that the names of the Avos were also inscribed on the stones; the name 'Yitzchak' contains the letter 'Tzadi.'
</p><p>
The Gemara asks further that the letter 'Tes' appears neither in the names of the sons of Yakov nor in the names of the Avos. If the letter 'Tes' was not inscribed on the stones, how could answers from the Urim v'Tumim include it? The Gemara answers that the words 'Shivtei Yeshurun' were also inscribed on the stones.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara first ask about the exclusion of the letter 'Tzadi' from the Choshen, and afterwards about the exclusion of the letter 'Tes'? The letter 'Tes' precedes 'Tzadi' in the alphabet, and thus the Gemara should first ask about the missing 'Tes' and then about the missing 'Tzadi.'
</p><p>
Moreover, there are other letters that also are not included in the names of the sons of Yakov, such as the letters 'Ches' and 'Kuf.' Since the letter 'Ches' precedes both 'Tes' and 'Tzadi,' the Gemara should have asked first about the missing letter 'Ches.' (The Yerushalmi (Yoma 7:3) indeed asks about 'Ches,' 'Tes,' and 'Tzadi' together before it answers that those letters appear in the names of the Avos which were also inscribed on the stones.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> (Parshas Tetzaveh) cites a brilliant answer in the name of the <b>SHEV YAKOV</b>. When the Gemara asks about the missing 'Tzadi,' it is uncertain about what exactly was written on the stones. The Gemara is in doubt whether the names of the <i>tribes</i> were written on the stones or whether the names of the <i>stones</i> were written on the stones. The Gemara specifically asks about the missing letter 'Tzadi,' because the 'Tzadi' is the only letter missing from both the names of the tribes <i>and</i> the names of the stones!
</p><p>
Once the Gemara answers that the names of the Avos were written on the stones, the Gemara understands that the names of the tribes were written on the stones along with the names of the Avos, and not the names of the stones. (This is a logical conclusion. If the names of the stones would have been written on the stones, there would have been no purpose in adding the names of the Avos which are unrelated to the names of the stones.) Only at this point does the Gemara safely assume that the names of the tribes were written on the stones, and thus it now asks about the missing letter 'Tes,' which appears neither in the names of the tribes nor in the names of the Avos (although it <i>does</i> appear in the names of the stones, in 'Pitda').
</p><p>
(See <b>NITZOTZEI SHIMSHON</b>, Parshas Tetzaveh, for an extensive and original mathematical-Kabbalistic approach of <b>RAV SHIMSHON</b> of <b>OSTROPOLI</b>.)
</p><p>


<font><b>4) HOW THE KOHEN GADOL 'ASSISTS' THE 'URIM V'TUMIM'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara asks why the Kohen Gadol needs to have Ru'ach ha'Kodesh in order to receive an answer from the Urim v'Tumim if the letters themselves protrude or join together (see Rashi) to give him the answer. The Gemara answers that the Kohen Gadol must have Ru'ach ha'Kodesh because he 'assists' the letters that protrude or join together.
</p><p>
In what way does the Kohen Gadol assist the letters of the Urim v'Tumim, and why must he have Ru'ach ha'Kodesh for that purpose?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> implies that the Kohen Gadol concentrates on the letters of the Choshen and, as a result, his Ru'ach ha'Kodesh causes the letters to protrude or join together.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAN</b> (Shemos 28:30) and the <b>RITVA</b> here explain this process in more detail. They explain that Rebbi Yochanan, who maintains that the letters protrude, and Reish Lakish, who maintains that the letters join together, do not argue with each other. Rather, the letters both protrude and join together. The Kohen Gadol first concentrates on the Name of Hash-m known as the 'Urim,' which causes the letters to stand out by lighting up ('Urim'). The Kohen Gadol then concentrates on the Name of Hash-m known as the 'Tumim,' which enables him to see the correct order of the letters as they join together ('Tumim' refers to their feature of being 'Metamem Divrehen' -- they make their message complete, as the Gemara says on 73b; see Rashi there).
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU ELYAKIM</b> says that the Kohen Gadol first concentrates in order to perceive the answer by himself with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. After he has thought of the answer, he then verifies his answer by using the Urim v'Tumim. Rabeinu Elyakim explains that this is the meaning of the Gemara's words, 'it (the Urim v'Tumim) assists him (the Kohen Gadol).' The Gemara does not mean that the Kohen Gadol assists the Urim v'Tumim.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> (end of 73a) writes that 'the Urim v'Tumim did not work for the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah the same way it worked for the Kohen Gadol; rather, it merely helped him.' The Ritva apparently has a different Girsa in the Gemara. According to his Girsa, the phrase 'he assists them' does not address the question of why the Kohen Gadol needed Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. Rather, it addresses a different question.
</p><p>
The <b>CHAFETZ CHAIM</b> (in <b>ZEVACH TODAH</b>) explains that the Gemara asks why the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah was permitted to wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah in order for someone to ask a question of the Urim v'Tumim, when it was unlikely that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah had Ru'ach ha'Kodesh and thus the Urim v'Tumim would not work. The Gemara answers that, indeed, the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah's Urim v'Tumim was not entirely reliable; the answer it provided served only as a support for the petitioner's other reasons to act in that particular way.
</p><p>
An alternative understanding of the Ritva's intention is that in the text of his Gemara, the phrase 'he assists them' appears at the very end of the chapter, and it is answering a different question. The Gemara at the end of the chapter says that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah was permitted to serve as the questioner when a question needed to be asked to the Urim v'Tumim (while the Kohen Gadol wore it). This implies that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah could <i>not</i> wear the Urim v'Tumim, but he had to ask the question to the Kohen Gadol who wore the Urim v'Tumim. 
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that although it is true that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah is not permitted to wear the Urim v'Tumim himself while a question is asked of it, 'the Urim v'Tumim assists him.' This means that he has the authority to <i>ask a question</i> to the Urim v'Tumim while the <i>Kohen Gadol</i> wears it, and the Urim v'Tumim will give him an answer, even though it usually gives an answer only to the king or to the Sanhedrin. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) CHATZI SHIUR (cont.)</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  Answer: Since it is permitted by the Torah, he is not </font></b>
          considered Mushba ve'Omed, and his Shevu'ah can thus 
          apply.
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  Question: But the Mishnah regarding Shevu'as ha'Eidus </font></b>
          teaches that a Shevu'ah <i>cannot</i> apply to an Isur 
          mi'de'Rabanan!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The requirement of bringing a Korban for Shevu'as 
               ha'Eidus (if he is sworn to testify but then denies, 
               falsely, that he has any information) applies only 
               to one who is otherwise fit as a witness.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Who does this exclude?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (R. Papa):</font></b> It excludes the King (who may not testify 
               due to his honor) and is Patur from bringing a 
               Korban.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> (R. Acha b. Ya'akov):</font></b> It excludes (and exempts) 
               those who are Pasul mi'de'Rabanan freom testifying, 
               such as a gambler.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> A gambler is only excluded mi'de'Rabanan and yet the 
               Shevu'ah does not apply to him!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> By extension, the same should be true for a Shevu'as 
               Bitui which should not apply to an Isur de'Rabanan!?
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  Answer: Shevu'as ha'Eidus is different since it cannot </font></b>
          apply to the gambler who, having been excluded 
          mi'de'Rabanan, is not subject to the Lav of not 
          testifying.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE WORD ASUR APPLIED TO A CHIYUV KAREIS</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  Question: But we <i>do</i> find the word 'Asur' used regarding </font></b>
          a Chiyuv Kareis!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa teaches that the Chiyuv Kareis only 
               applies to eating and drinking, not to the other 
               afflictions.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Still, the term 'Asur' is used for <i>all</i> the Inuyim.
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  Answer: The term 'Asur' applies to Chatzi Shiur, even as </font></b>
          it is true that eating a full shiur would incur Kareis.
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  Alternate Answer: The term 'Asur' is used, since it </font></b>
          applies to the other Inuyim.
<br><b><font> <b>    (d)</b>  This is supported by the citation from the Sha'ar Sifrei </font></b>
          d'bei Rav that the word 'Shabason' is the license given 
          to the Chachamim to add other Inuyim onto eating and 
          drinking (the same way that Shabason is used to add other 
          Melachos onto the 39 on Shabbos), and they are called 
          <i>Isurim</i>.
<br>
<b><font>3) CHATZI SHIUR (cont'd)</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  R. Yochanan holds that Chatzi Shi'ur is an Isur Torah </font></b>
          while Resh Lakish holds it is an Isur de'Rabanan.
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  R. Yochanan holds that things which may aggregate must be </font></b>
          viewed, from the outset, as the Isur.
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  Resh Lakish holds that the Torah specifically prohibited </font></b>
          Achilah (and less than a Shi'ur is not called Achilah).
<br><b><font> <b>    (d)</b>  Question (R. Yochanan of Resh Lakish): The Beraisa </font></b>
          (searching for the Isur of eating Chelev Koy as well as 
          Chatzi Shiur finds the word 'Kol') indicates that a tiny 
          amount <i>is</i> an Isur Torah!?
<br><b><font> <b>    (e)</b>  Answer: The word 'Kol' is an Asmachta which the Rabanan </font></b>
          use.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This seems likely, since, if it were an actual Isur 
               Torah, it would be prohibiting Koy.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It is not reasonable that the word 'Kol' would come 
               to prohibit a Safek (since it is only a doubt for 
               <i>us</i>)!
<br><b><font> <b>    (f)</b>  Question: That is not an indication, since that Tana </font></b>
          could hold that Koy is a separate creature, necessitating 
          a special word to prohibit its Chelev.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) ARE THE FIVE 'INUYIM' OF YOM KIPPUR MID'ORAISA OR MID'RABANAN?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (73b) lists the five prohibitions of Inuy on Yom Kippur: Achilah and Shetiyah, Rechitzah, Sichah, Ne'ilas ha'Sandal, and Tashmish ha'Mitah (eating and drinking, washing, anointing with oil, wearing shoes, and marital relations). The Beraisa says that while all of these acts are forbidden on Yom Kippur, only Achilah and Shetiyah are punishable with Kares.
</p><p>
The Beraisa implies that all of the Inuyim are forbidden mid'Oraisa. However, if they are forbidden mid'Oraisa, why does the Mishnah state that a king and a bride may wash their faces and a woman who gave birth ('Chayah') may wear shoes on Yom Kippur? The Rabanan cannot permit these acts if the Torah forbids them.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (77a, DH d'Tenan) quotes <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who says that the other four Inuyim, besides Achilah and Shetiyah, are forbidden only mid'Rabanan and not mid'Oraisa. When the Rabanan prohibited those acts, they prohibited them only when they give a person pleasure. When they do not provide pleasure but they serve a basic necessity (such as in the case of a king, Kalah, and Chayah), the Rabanan did not prohibit them.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Shabason, and in Shabbos 114b, DH Talmud Lomar Shabason) implies that all of the Inuyim are forbidden mid'Oraisa. This is also the opinion of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shevisas Asor 1:4-5). Why, then, are some of the Inuyim permitted for a king, Kalah, and Chayah?
</p><p>
The <b>SEFER YERE'IM</b> explains that a king and Kalah may wash their faces because the Torah does not forbid the act of washing the face alone. The Isur d'Oraisa of Rechitzah involves washing one's <i>entire</i> body. Washing part of the body is forbidden only mid'Rabanan, and in the case of a king and Kalah the Rabanan permitted it.
</p><p>
Why, though, is a Chayah permitted to wear shoes?
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> suggests that, according to those who maintain that the Inuyim are mid'Oraisa, perhaps the prohibition against wearing shoes applies only to a 'Min'al' (a shoe that covers the entire foot). A 'Sandal,' though, is permitted mid'Oraisa.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAN</b> explains that even if all of the Inuyim are forbidden mid'Oraisa, the Torah empowered the Chachamim to determine what act is considered an Inuy. The Chachamim determined (based on their understanding of the concept of Inuy) that the Torah forbids as an Inuy only an act which is considered pleasurable. Consequently, a king and a Kalah are permitted to wash their faces, and a Chayah is permitted to wear shoes, because those acts are not acts of pleasure but acts of necessity.
</p><p>
The Ran asks that the Mishnah later (82a) states that children are not required to observe the prohibitions of Inuy. The Mishnah implies that an adult is permitted to wash a child on Yom Kippur. However, the Halachah states that an adult may not feed an Isur d'Oraisa to a child or help a child perform an act which the Torah forbids an adult to perform (Yevamos 114a, and as cited by Rashi on 78b, DH Inshi Avdu Lei). Why, then, may an adult wash a child on Yom Kippur, when the washing certainly is pleasurable for the child?
</p><p>
The Ran does not answer this question. We may suggest that the prohibitions of Rechitzah, Sichah, and Ne'ilas ha'Sandal (which are not punishable with Kares) are actually secondary prohibitions derived from the Torah's commandment to observe the primary Inuyim of Achilah and Shetiyah (which are punishable with Kares). Since an adult is permitted to feed a child on Yom Kippur because of Piku'ach Nefesh (it is dangerous for a child to fast), an adult is also permitted to give the child the secondary Isurim which are derived from Achilah and Shetiyah. (See also <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b>, Hilchos Shevisas Asor 1:5. This approach necessitates a re-evaluation of the Gemara on 78b; see Insights there.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE REASON FOR THE PROHIBITION OF 'CHATZI SHI'UR'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about the prohibition of 'Chatzi Shi'ur.' Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the Torah forbids Chatzi Shi'ur. Reish Lakish maintains that the Torah permits it, but the Rabanan prohibit it. The Gemara explains that Rebbi Yochanan derives that Chatzi Shi'ur is Asur mid'Oraisa from the verse, 'Kol Chelev' (Vayikra 7:23). He gives a logical explanation as well: Since a partial Shi'ur of Isur is able to join with another partial Shi'ur to make a complete Shi'ur ('Chazi l'Itzterufi') which is certainly Asur mid'Oraisa, a partial Shi'ur is also Asur. This logic also explains why Chatzi Shi'ur is forbidden for all Isurim in the Torah and not only for those that involve eating (see Rashi to Shabbos 74a).
</p><p>
The Acharonim suggest a number of ways to understand the logic of 'Chazi l'Itzterufi.'
</p><p>
(a) The most simple way to understand the logic of 'Chazi l'Itzterufi' is as follows. When a person eats one Chatzi Shi'ur of a prohibited food and then eats another Chatzi Shi'ur of the same food, he transgresses the Isur d'Oraisa of eating a complete Shi'ur of the prohibited food item. The Torah therefore prohibits one from eating the first Chatzi Shi'ur as a preventative measure, lest one eat a second Chatzi Shi'ur and thereby transgress the Isur by eating a full Shi'ur.
</p><p>
According to this explanation, there are grounds to suggest that when a person eats a Chatzi Shi'ur at the last moment of the day on Yom Kippur, that Chatzi Shi'ur is <i>not</i> Asur mid'Oraisa. Since there is not enough time to eat a second Chatzi Shi'ur on Yom Kippur, the logic of 'Chazi l'Itzterufi' does not apply. (See <b>ACHIEZER</b> 2:21 and others.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHACHAM TZVI</b> asserts that even according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Torah forbids Chatzi Shi'ur only for transgressions which involve <i>eating</i>. When one eats something, he gives it value and importance through his act of eating it ('Achshevei'), and therefore it becomes forbidden by the Torah. (In other words, the amount of Isur that the Torah forbids is based on the amount that is considered 'significant.') The Isur d'Oraisa of Chatzi Shi'ur does not apply to other types of prohibitions, such as the prohibitions of Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei on Pesach, where one does no act to give the object of Isur significance.
</p><p>
The Rishonim, however, apply the Isur of Chatzi Shi'ur to all types of prohibitions. (See Rashi to Shabbos 74a, and Rambam in Perush ha'Mishnayos to Shabbos, end of chapter 12.) 
</p><p>
(c) The <b>SHA'AGAS ARYEH</b> explains that the prohibition of Chatzi Shi'ur is more than a safeguard against eating a full Shi'ur (as described in (a) above). He asserts that the logic of 'Chazi l'Itzterufi' teaches that a Chatzi Shi'ur is forbidden because the partial Shi'ur of Isur <i>itself</i> may end up forbidden mid'Oraisa. If a person eats one Chatzi Shi'ur and then he eats more of the prohibited food, the first Chatzi Shi'ur he ate retroactively becomes a part of a full Shi'ur which is prohibited mid'Oraisa. At the time that he eats the first Chatzi Shi'ur, it is considered as though he eats a Safek Isur d'Oraisa (because he might eat more later), and therefore it is forbidden (like every Safek Isur d'Oraisa).
</p><p>
According to this explanation, the Isur of Chatzi Shi'ur does not apply to an Isur such as Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei. In order to transgress Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei, the full Shi'ur of a k'Zayis of Chametz must be in one's house all at one time. One transgresses Bal Yera'eh without doing any action with the prohibited item; he transgresses only when the full Shi'ur is in his possession. In contrast, one transgresses an Isur Achilah, a prohibition against eating a forbidden food, even when he performs two acts at two different times (within Kedei Achilas Peras) with two partial Shi'urim which join together to make one full Shi'ur. When no action is involved in the transgression, no temporal element can join two partial Shi'urim; one must have the entire Shi'ur at once in order to transgress. Accordingly, a Jew is permitted to own a 'Chatzi Shi'ur' on Pesach, because the 'Chatzi Shi'ur' of Chametz cannot become forbidden retroactively. If another 'Chatzi Shi'ur' of Chametz is brought into the house later, only from that point on does the first 'Chatzi Shi'ur' become forbidden. (See also Insights to Pesachim 29:3 and Yoma 45:1:e.)
</p><p>
The <b>MINCHAS CHINUCH</b> uses the Sha'agas Aryeh's explanation to answer a question on the <b>RAMBAM</b>. The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah 1:7) rules that eating a Chatzi Shi'ur of Chametz on Pesach is forbidden mid'Oraisa because of the verse, 'Lo Ye'achel.'
</p><p>
Why does the Rambam need a special verse to teach that a Chatzi Shi'ur of Chametz is forbidden? Chatzi Shi'ur is forbidden for <i>all</i> prohibitions! (See <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b> there.)
</p><p>
The Minchas Chinuch explains that perhaps the Rambam maintains that the normal Isur of Chatzi Shi'ur does not apply to the prohibition against owning Chametz because, as the Sha'agas Aryeh explains, that partial Shi'ur will never be forbidden as a partial Shi'ur. For this reason, the Rambam needs to cite a verse to show that a Chatzi Shi'ur of Chametz is forbidden to be eaten in and of itself, and not just because of 'Chazi l'Itzterufi.' The purpose of the prohibitions of Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei is to prevent a person from transgressing the prohibition against eating Chametz (Avos d'Rebbi Nasan chapter 1); if there is no prohibition against eating a partial Shi'ur of Chametz, then the prohibitions of Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei should also apply to half a Shi'ur of Chametz -- even without relying on the logic of 'Chazi l'Itzterufi.' (If the prohibition against <i>eating</i> a partial Shi'ur of Chametz would have been because of 'Chazi l'Itzterufi,' a preventative measure but not an Isur in its own right, then the prohibitions of Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei would not have applied since they would have been a preventative measure to prevent the transgression of what is itself only a preventative measure.)
</p><p>
(d) The <b>MESHECH CHOCHMAH</b> (Vayikra 7:23) and others suggest that 'Chazi l'Itzterufi' means something entirely different. It does not mean that perhaps one will eat a little more later and thereby transgress the full Shi'ur of an Isur d'Oraisa. Rather, the logic of 'Chazi l'Itzterufi' means as follows.
</p><p>
When the Torah forbids a certain food (such as the meat of a non-kosher animal) and teaches that one transgresses only when he eats a minimum Shi'ur of that food, it is not logical to say that one who eats less than that Shi'ur eats a permissible item. If the Torah forbids, with a punishment of Malkus, the act of eating a k'Zayis of meat of a non-kosher animal, it would not give outright permission to eat a little bit less than a k'Zayis. If the Torah permits each bite until one has reached the Shi'ur of k'Zayis, what changes at the last bite, at the moment that he eats a k'Zayis? Why should the last bite of meat be more forbidden than the others?
</p><p>
Rebbi Yochanan explains that Chatzi Shi'ur is forbidden mid'Oraisa, but one is not liable for Malkus until he repeats the Isur many times by eating a k'Zayis. 'Chazi l'Itzterufi' means that if the Torah punishes a person for eating a k'Zayis, it must be that it also forbids <i>any</i> amount of the item. A k'Zayis is merely the amount for which a person is punished. (Perhaps the Meshech Chochmah understands that the logic of 'Chazi l'Itzterufi' serves as a <i>sign</i> that Chatzi Shi'ur is forbidden, but not as a <i>reason</i> to forbid it.)
</p><p>
However, according to the Meshech Chochmah's explanation for 'Chazi l'Itzterufi,' how does Reish Lakish refute Rebbi Yochanan's logical argument by saying that Chatzi Shi'ur is not called 'Achilah'? Although it is true that eating a partial Shi'ur is not considered an act of Achilah, an Achilah is necessary only in order to administer the punishment of Malkus but not to prohibit the food. The food is <i>prohibited</i> even if the act is not an Achilah.
</p><p>
According to the other explanations for 'Chazi l'Itzterufi,' the way Reish Lakish refutes Rebbi Yochanan's logic of 'Chazi l'Itzterufi' is straightforward. He says simply that if eating less than a k'Zayis is not considered an act of Achilah, then there are no grounds to say that the Torah establishes a preventative measure to prohibit a Chatzi Shi'ur lest one eat a full Shi'ur. In addition, since there is no reason to suspect that a person will eat more of the prohibited food and thereby transgress an Isur d'Oraisa, there is no reason to say that the first half-Shi'ur retroactively becomes forbidden when one eats a second half-Shi'ur.
</p><p>
Reish Lakish apparently maintains that a food item itself is not inherently forbidden. Rather, the Torah prohibits a <i>person</i> from performing an <i>act of Achilah</i> with the food. An act of Achilah is defined as the consumption of a k'Zayis through the normal manner of consumption. Until one eats a k'Zayis of the forbidden food, he has not performed an act of 'Achilah' and thus everything he ate until now was <i>permitted</i>. Only at the point at which he eats a full k'Zayis has he performed an act of Achilah and transgressed the prohibition.
</p><p>
(Rebbi Yochanan, in contrast, maintains that the act of eating less than a k'Zayis is not fundamentally different than the act of eating a k'Zayis. The difference between the two acts is merely in the quantity of the Isur consumed.) (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is supported by the statement of R. Idi b. Avin 
               in Kerisus, where 'Kol' in the Beraisa comes to 
               include Koy.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Again, there, the Pasuk could not be including a 
               Safek!
<br>
<b><font>4) INUY ON YOM KIPUR</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  The Beraisa teaches that the Inuy is only through </font></b>
          passive, not active affliction ('Shev ve'Al Ta'Asei').
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  Question: Perhaps if he finds himself in the sun he </font></b>
          should not move into the shade (or the opposite)!?
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  Answer: The Inuy is comparable to Isur Melachah, where we </font></b>
          do not distinguish within the same activity (an act is 
          either a Melachah or it is not, just as sitting in the 
          sun is either an Inuy or it is not).
<br><b><font> <b>    (d)</b>  The Beraisa further teaches that Inuy is like Melachah on </font></b>
          Yom Kipur.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Just as Melachah is prohibited elsewhere (as by 
               Shabbos), so, too, Inuy is Chayav elsewhere (as by 
               eating Pigul and Nosar).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We are not to think, however, that only the Kareis 
               foods are prohibited on Yom Kipur.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> The Pasuk is understood to prohibit other foods 
               (Tevel, Neveilah, Chulin, Terumah, Kodshim) to be 
               eaten on Yom Kipur, all from the inclusive word 
               'Te'anu'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> If one would argue with the implications of 
               'Te'anu', another support may be brought to include 
               all foods from the reference to Inuy which causes 
               loss of Nefesh (eating and drinking).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> What is the need for the the Pasuk if one would 
               argue support?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Perhaps one would feel that 'Te'anu' refers 
               to Arayos, the Torah thus speaks of Inuy which 
               causes loss of Nefesh, meaning eating and drinking.
<br><b><font> <b>    (e)</b>  The Tana de'Bei R. Yishmael links the Inuy of Yom Kipur </font></b>
          with the Inuy to which Hash-m subjected the people in the 
          Midbar, both being based on hunger.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Learn from Lavan's use of the word 
               'Te'aneh' that it refers to abstention from 
               cohabitation?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is more reasonable to link general 
               distress and not to personal distress.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Link it to the general distress in 
               Mitzrayim which, we have learned, was Perishus 
               Derech Eretz!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Rather, we link to deprivation by Divine 
               decree (Yom Kipur and the Man in the Midbar) and not 
               to deprivation by human decree.
<br>
<b><font>5) THE DEPRIVATION OF THE MANNA IN THE MIDBAR</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  R. Ami and R. Asi argue over what the deprivation </font></b>
          involved.
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  One said it was the lack of 'Pas be'Salo'.</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  One said it was the inability to see (differentiate) the </font></b>
          food.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yosef reported this as the source that a blind 
               person does not feel satisfied.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Abaye further taught that food should be eaten when 
               it is light.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Zeira supported this with the Pasuk 'Tov Mar'eh 
               Einayim... '
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Resh Lakish extended this to the pleasure of seeing 
               one's wife.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) AGADIC TEACHINGS</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  'Ki Yiten be'Kos Eino...' - One who likes drunkenness </font></b>
          justifies forbidden relations or theft (Machlokes R. Ami 
          and R. Asi).
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  'De'agah be'Lev Ish, Yashchenah... ' - A person should </font></b>
          push his worries out of his thoughts, or he should speak 
          them out with a friend (Machlokes R. Ami and R. Asi).
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  've'Nachash Afar Lachmo... ' - All foods taste like dust </font></b>
          for the snake, or, after the finest delicacies, the snake 
          is only satisfied with dust (Machlokes R. Ami and R. 
          Asi).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Yosi):</font></b> Hash-m deals more graciously with those 
               who annoy him than a person would.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The snake, though cursed, finds benefit within the 
               curse, as do slaves (Cana'anites), women, and the 
               earth.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE TEARS OF THE JEWS OVER THE MANNA IN THE MIDBAR</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  'Zacharnu Es ha'Dagah... ' - We fondly recall the fish, </font></b>
          or, the permitted (now forbidden) relations (Rav and 
          Shmuel).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Fish, since it says 'Nochal' (we ate).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Arayos, since it says 'Chinam'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> 'Nochal' could still refer to Arayos, in a dignified 
               way.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> 'Chinam' could still refer to fish, since they came 
               to them from Hefker (Hash-m placed the fish in their 
               water buckets).
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  Question: If they were involved in Arayos, why does </font></b>
          Shlomoh praise their chastity (Shir ha'Shirim 4- 'Gan 
          Na'ul...')?
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  Answer: They were chaste regarding the previously </font></b>
          forbidden relations (and were crying over the new 
          prohibitions).
<br><b><font> <b>    (d)</b>  Question: If they missed the fish, why were they crying </font></b>
          'le'Mishpechosav' implying a concern over conjugal 
          relations?
<br><b><font> <b>    (e)</b>  Answer: They were crying over both, fish and Arayos.</font></b>
<br>
<b><font>3) THE MANNA</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  'Es ha'Kishuim... ' - The Manna imparted all flavor </font></b>
          except these five, or, it imparted all flavors and became 
          all textures, except these five (R. Ami and R. Asi).
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  've'Hu ke'Zera Gad Lavan' (R. Asi) - Its shape was like </font></b>
          the Zera Gad (round) and it was white as a pearl.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Gad' - similar to a Pishtan seed be'Givolin 
               (round).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> 'Gad' - likened to Hagadah, (Agad'ta) which draws 
               the hearts (Libo) of its listeners (so did the Manna 
               whet a person's appetite)
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> 'Gad' - It told (Magid) and resolved a doubt 
               regarding the child whose mother remarried 
               prematurely.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> 'Lavan' - It whitened the Aveiros of Yisrael.
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  The Manna, like a Navi, would reveal the secrets of the </font></b>
          people (as in revealing which person or servant belongs 
          to which household or whether a woman was still a loyal 
          part of her husband's household).
<br><b><font> <b>    (d)</b>  'u'Ve'redes ha'Tal... ' (implies the Manna fell within </font></b>
          the Machaneh) 've'Yatza ha'Am ve'Laktu... ' (implies that 
          it fell <i>outside</i>) 'Shatu ha'Am ve'Laktu... ' (implies a 
          considerable distance).
<br><b><font> <b>    (e)</b>  The Tzadikim received it near their homes, Beinonim went </font></b>
          out and Resha'im had to go a distance for theirs.
<br><b><font> <b>    (f)</b>  'Lechem' (implies it was found in a baked state) 've'Asu </font></b>
          Oso Ugos' (that they had to prepare and bake it) 
          've'Tachanu' (implies an even earlier state, requiring 
          milling).
<br><b><font> <b>    (g)</b>  Again, Tzadikim, Beinonim and Resha'im.</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (h)</b>  'O Dachu ba'Meduchah... ' - Women's perfumes (adornments </font></b>
          which are pulverized) came down with the Manna.
<br><b><font> <b>    (i)</b>  'u'Vishlu ba'Parur... ' - with its spices for the cooked </font></b>
          food.
<br><b><font> <b>    (j)</b>  've'Hemi Heivi'u Od Nedavah <i>ba'Boker ba'Boker'</i> - They </font></b>
          brought gems from the <i>daily</i> shower which accompanied 
          the Manna (as 'Nesi'im' refers to the <i>clouds</i> which 
          brought the gems).
<br><b><font> <b>    (k)</b>  've'Hayah Ta'amo ke'Ta'am L'shad Hashemen' - (The Manna </font></b>
          had many flavors, like a child experiences in nursing 
          [Shad], alternately like a Sheid (demon) which has many 
          forms, so, too did the Manna change to many flavors).
<br>
<b><font>4) THE REQUESTS FOR BREAD AND MEAT</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  (R. Yehoshua b. Korchah): They requested meat improperly </font></b>
          and it was given in an improper fashion, whereas bread 
          was requested properly, and given in kind.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE JEWISH PEOPLE COMPLAIN FOR 'FISH' </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> When the Jewish people left Har Sinai, where they had been encamped for nearly a year, they complained that they missed the fish which they ate in Mitzrayim (Bamidbar 11:5). The Gemara says that these 'fish' refer to the relationships of Arayos (incestuous relationships) that were permitted until the Torah was given at Har Sinai.
</p><p>
Why did the people start to complain only when they <i>left</i> Har Sinai? The prohibitions of Arayos were given when the Torah was given eleven months earlier (in Sivan)! Why did they wait until they left Har Sinai to complain? (<b>MIZRACHI</b>, Bamidbar 11:10)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>SIFSEI CHACHAMIM</b> answers that when the Jewish people were encamped at Har Sinai, all of the tribes were grouped together. Only when they started to travel were they separated into different camps. At that time, the only women in their midst were those from their immediate family. Since many of the women of their own family and tribe were forbidden to them because of the prohibitions of Arayos, they felt the restriction at this time more than they felt it when they were encamped at Har Sinai.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAHARAL</b> (in <b>GUR ARYEH</b>) explains that when the Jewish people complained that they missed the 'fish,' they indeed meant the foods that they missed. Now that they became overcome with Ta'avah (lust) for those foods, they added the other things for which they craved, including the Arayos.
</p><p>
Perhaps the Maharal means that throughout the time the Jewish people sojourned at Har Sinai, they constantly experienced the awe of the Shechinah's presence as Hash-m taught Moshe the Mitzvos accompanied by thunder and flame (Rashi to Ta'anis 21a, DH El Mul). They had no Ta'avos at Har Sinai because the awe of Hash-m overcame them. Once they departed from Sinai, however, their Ta'avos overcame them and they complained.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TOSFOS YOM HA'KIPURIM</b> suggests that when a man and a woman who are closely related are permitted to marry each other, it is easier for each one to find a wife or a husband who will be totally subservient to the will of the other. One can find a close relative who, because of the relationship, will be eager to be subservient. When the Jewish people became limited to marrying non-relatives, the husbands and wives (who would have been subservient had they married relatives) were able to make all sorts of demands upon their spouses. At Har Sinai, living conditions were good (since they were settled down and were not traveling) and their spouses were able to give in to those demands, but once they started to travel their standard of living decreased and they were disturbed by the demands their spouses were making.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>KLI YAKAR</b> cites the Gemara in Bava Kama (83a) which teaches that the Shechinah dwells amidst the Jewish people only when there are at least 22,000 Jews in one place. The Gemara derives this from the verse, '... Shuvah Hash-m Rivevos Alfei Yisrael' (Bamidbar 10:36; see Rashi there), which is part of the description of the Jews' departure from Har Sinai. The fact that the Shechinah dwells only amidst such a large number of Jews emphasizes the importance of increasing the number of Jews, for without large numbers the Shechinah cannot dwell among us.
</p><p>
When the Jews were commanded at Har Sinai to divorce their spouses who were closely related to them, they acquiesced and reasoned that there is no need to be married. However, when they left Har Sinai Hash-m said to them, '... Shuvah Hash-m Rivevos Alfei Yisrael.' Hash-m told them that they must increase their numbers in order to have the Shechinah among them. When they realized that Hash-m wanted them to be married, they complained about being commanded to divorce their original wives.
</p><p>
This explains why they complained about their wives in terms of 'fish.' Fish represent the ability to multiply rapidly, as the verse says, 'v'Yidgu la'Rov' (Bereishis 48:16).
</p><p>
The Kli Yakar points out that this explains the presence of the backwards 'Nun' at the beginning and end of the verses of 'Vayehi Binso'a ha'Aron' (Bamidbar 10:35-36). The word 'Nun' means fish. The people complained that they were like 'inverted fish' -- they were forced to divorce their wives, while at the same time commanded to multiply.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  This instructs a person to eat meat at night.</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  Question: But Abaye taught that a festive meal should be </font></b>
          eaten by day!?
<br><b><font> <b>    (d)</b>  Answer: He meant by torch-light (*like* daylight).</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (e)</b>  The people used to eat (peck away at) their food all day, </font></b>
          until Moshe established meal times.
<br>
<b><font>5) THE SLAV</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  Question: One Pasuk says they died during their first </font></b>
          bite and another teaches that they received the S'lav for 
          30 days!?
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  Answer: Beinonim died right away while the Resha'im </font></b>
          lingered in their suffering up to a month.
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  (Resh Lakish): Understand the word 'va'Yisht'chu' to </font></b>
          imply 've'Yishchatu', meaning the people were Chayavim on 
          account of their improper request for meat.
<br><b><font> <b>    (d)</b>  (R. Yehoshua b. Korchah): 'Shato'ach' implies 'Shachut'; </font></b>
          the Manna was accompanied by that which required 
          Shechitah.
<br><b><font> <b>    (e)</b>  Question: We surely have other sources for the </font></b>
          requirement to perform Shechitah on a bird (as learned in 
          the Beraisa regarding the Simanim of an animal and a 
          bird)!?
<br><b><font> <b>    (f)</b>  Answer: Rather, 'Shato'ach' refers to the carpet of </font></b>
          'S'lav'.
<br>
<b><font>6) MANNA (cont'd)</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  Question: How can the same thing be Lechem, Shemen and </font></b>
          D'vash?
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  Answer: Lechem for young people, Shemen for the older </font></b>
          people and D'vash for the infants.
<br>
<b><font>7) SLAV (cont'd)</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  The word begins with a Shin/Sin and is read with a Samech </font></b>
          to indicate Shalvah (for Tzadikim) and Silvin (thorns, 
          for the Resha'im).
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  R. Chanin b. Rava lists four types of S'lav, noting the </font></b>
          best and worst of them.
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  It was a small bird which would be stuffed and roasted in </font></b>
          an oven, and it would expand from the great quantity of 
          oil within it such that it would even permeate 13 loaves 
          of bread and the bottom loaf would need diluting in order 
          to be eaten.
<br><b><font> <b>    (d)</b>  R. Yehudah was granted such birds between his barrels, R. </font></b>
          Chisda found them among his trees and Rava's sharecropper 
          would bring him one each day.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One day the Aris did not bring the S'lav, and Rava 
               interpreted the signs (the call of the child and the 
               absence of the S'lav) to know that R. Chisda had 
               passed away.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Now that his Rebbi had passed away, Rava felt that 
               he no longer had the merit to eat S'lav.
<br>
<b><font>8) TAL AND MANNA</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (a)</b>  From the seemingly contradictory Pesukim we learn that </font></b>
          there was dew above and below the Manna.
<br><b><font> <b>    (b)</b>  'Dak Mechuspas... ' abbreviates that which melts in the </font></b>
          palm of the hand (Resh Lakish), or, that which is 
          retained in 248 body parts (like the numerical value of 
          'Mechuspas' - R. Yochanan).
<br><b><font> <b>    (c)</b>  Question: But Mechuspas (254) is greater in number than </font></b>
          248?
<br><b><font> <b>    (d)</b>  Answer: It is written without the Vav.</font></b>
<br><b><font> <b>    (e)</b>  'Lechem Abirim... ' - The Manna is the food of the </font></b>
          Mal'achim (R. Akiva).
<br><b><font> <b>    (f)</b>  R. Yishmael indicated that R. Akiva had erred, since </font></b>
          Mal'achim do not eat, but, rather, 'Abirim' refers to the 
          Eivarim into which the Manna is absorbed.
<br><b><font> <b>    (g)</b>  Question: Why, if it was entirely absorbed, was there </font></b>
          need for privies (as in the Pasuk)?
<br><b><font> <b>    (h)</b>  Answer: It was from the food that the itinerant merchants </font></b>
          would sell them.
<br><b><font> <b>    (i)</b>  Answer (R. Elazar b. Parta): Even that food was absorbed </font></b>
          on account of the Manna.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The privy was needed after they committed Aveiros.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Hash-m had said that they were to be like Mal'achim, 
               but now they must be troubled with such bodily 
               needs.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> They had to walk three Parsah to the privy as Rabah 
               bar bar Chanah reported.
<br><b><font> <b>    (j)</b>  When they used the privy they went to the rear of the </font></b>
          Ananim (since the Ananim never went backwards, so they 
          did not need to worry there that they would suddenly find 
          themselves inside the Machaneh).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE 'SLAV' WHICH FELL WITH THE 'MAN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses the source that Slav descended for the Jewish people in the wilderness. The verse relates that Hash-m gave the Jewish people Slav after they complained, 'and it was spread out (Shato'ach) around the encampment' (Bamidbar 11:32). Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah says, 'Do not read the word 'Shato'ach' but rather 'Shachot.' This teaches that along with the Man (manna) came something which needed Shechitah.'
</p><p>
Rebbi argues and says that the source that Slav descended is not from the word 'Shachot.' Rather, the verse in Tehilim (78:27) states that 'it rained down upon them... winged birds.' Rebbi adds that the verse, 'v'Zavachta... Ka'asher Tzivisicha' (Devarim 12:21), teaches that when Hash-m commanded the laws of Shechitah, He included the law that a bird must be slaughtered by cutting the majority of one of the two Simanim.
</p><p>
(a) Where is the Man mentioned in the verse which Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah quotes? The verse discusses the Slav and makes no mention of the Man.
</p><p>
(b) Why does Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah need to prove that birds came down with the Man by reversing the letters of the word 'Shato'ach,' and why does Rebbi need to prove from the verse in Tehilim that birds came down? No proof is necessary, because the verse explicitly states that Slav came down and covered the camp.
</p><p>
(c) When Rebbi asserts that the verse in Tehilim teaches that birds came down, why does the Gemara add that Rebbi maintains that birds need Shechitah? What does this Halachah add to Rebbi's rejection of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah's proof that Slav descended?
</p><p>
If Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah's intention is to teach that birds need Shechitah, then why does Rebbi respond with the verse in Tehilim that says that birds came down but makes no mention of Shechitah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>NIMUKEI HA'GRIV</b> points out that when <b>RASHI</b> quotes the words of the Gemara, he omits the words 'with the Man.' Apparently, Rashi's text of the Gemara did not include those words. That Girsa makes sense, because the verse that discusses the Slav makes no mention of the Man.
</p><p>
(According to our text which includes the words 'with the Man,' perhaps those words mean simply that Slav came down for the Jewish people <i>just as</i> Man came down, but the two indeed are unrelated to each other.)
</p><p>
(b) Apparently, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah was unsure what the Slav were. The verse states that they 'came from the sea' (Bamidbar 11:31), and thus he was in doubt whether the Slav were <i>birds</i> or whether they were <i>fish</i>. He derives from the word 'Shato'ach' which can be read 'Shachot' that the Slav must have been birds, because fish do not require Shechitah.
</p><p>
(c) Why, in his response to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah, does Rebbi need to mention the law that birds need Shechitah in addition to the verse in Tehilim which teaches that birds came down for the Jewish people? Apparently, Rebbi is unsure what Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah was trying to prove (that is, Rebbi is unsure about what Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah was unsure about). In case Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah wanted to prove that birds came down and not fish, Rebbi cites the verse in Tehilim which teaches that the Slav were birds. In case Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah knew that the Slav were birds but he wanted to prove that birds need Shechitah, Rebbi shows that there is a different source for the requirement for Shechitah of birds -- the verse 'v'Zavachta Ka'asher Tzivisicha.' (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) AGADAH: THE GEMARA'S DISCUSSION OF THE 'MAN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara continues its lengthy discussion about the Man (manna) and records a dispute about why the Man was called 'Lechem Abirim' (Tehilim 78:25). According to Rebbi Akiva, the Man was the food of angels ('Abirim'). According to Rebbi Yishmael, the Man became entirely absorbed into the limbs ('Nivla b'Evarim') of the person who ate it, leaving no waste products.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara choose to discuss the Man specifically in this chapter of Yoma? In what way is the Man related to the primary topics of discussion?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: REBBI TZADOK</b> (in <b>PRI TZADIK</b>, end of Erev Yom Kippur #1) explains that whenever the Gemara discusses a topic of Agadah at length, that topic has some connection to both the name of the Maseches and to the first words of the chapter. For example, the Gemara in Perek ha'Nizakin, the fifth chapter of Gitin, discusses the topic of the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash at length. Hashem's expulsion of the Jewish people from Eretz Yisrael at the time of the Churban was similar to a man's divorce of his wife (as the verse says in Yeshayah 50:1). Accordingly, the Gemara's discussion of the Churban there is related to the name of the Maseches, Gitin. Furthermore, the discussion of the Churban is related to Perek 'ha'Nizakin' because the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash was like damage ('Nezek') done to the Jewish people, as the Gemara in Bava Kama (60b) describes. (The Gemara there says that Hash-m will have to compensate for burning down the Beis ha'Mikdash, as it were, by rebuilding it, just as a Mazik, a person who damages the property of another, is obligated to pay for the damages.)
</p><p>
Rebbi Tzadok explains that in the Gemara here, both Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yishmael are correct. The Man was the food of the angels, as Rebbi Akiva says, and yet it was eaten by mortal man. How could mortal man eat the heavenly Man, a spiritual substance? When the spiritual entity of the Man descended to the physical world, it became corporeal itself (like every Neshamah that descends to this world), and thus it could be eaten by man.
</p><p>
The contrasting experiences of feasting on Erev Yom Kippur and fasting on Yom Kippur are comparable to the two forms of the Man, its original spiritual form and its eventual physical form. On Erev Yom Kippur one is commanded to eat and to enjoy the physical pleasure of food (81b). In contrast, on Yom Kippur one attains an elevated level of holiness, a level even greater than the holiness one attains on Shabbos, and his source of pleasure becomes the spiritual pleasure of Olam ha'Ba, where 'there is no eating or drinking, but rather the righteous sit with their crowns upon their heads and bask in the pleasure of the Shechinah' (Berachos 17a). The spiritual pleasure which one experiences on Yom Kippur corresponds to the pristine, spiritual Man itself, the food of the angels.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) AGADIC INTERPRETATIONS (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  've'Ata Nafsheinu Yeveishah...' - They were concerned 
          that they would die from the food which they did not 
          excrete. (R. Yishmael's teaching is deleted here by the 
          <b>GRA</b>.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  'Lechem Abirim Achal Ish... ' - This is Yehoshua for whom 
          Manna fell (Yehoshua is called 'Ish' and is equated with 
          all of Klal Yisrael).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Perhaps 'Ish' refers to Moshe, about whom 
               it says 've'ha'Ish'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is more reasonable to connect to 'Ish'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (students of R. Shimon b. Yochai):</font></b> Why didn't 
          the Manna fall once for the whole year?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Mashal to a King (Hash-m)... who established a 
          daily dependant relationship with his son (the large 
          families of Klal Yisrael).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answers:</font></b> So that it would be warm and fresh or, 
          to lighten their load.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar ha'Moda'i stated (before the Chachamim) that 
          the Manna was 60 Amos high.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Chachamim were not, at first, pleased, until R. 
               Elazar justified his innovation based on the 
               Pesukim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He made the calculation based on the four times 15 
               Amos of water which came down during the Mabul 
               (Midas Pur'aniyos from <i>two</i> Arubos), and inferred 
               the Midah Tovah of the Manna as greater than that 
               disaster (eight Arubos- two Dalsos each with four 
               Arubos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Isi b. Yehudah):</font></b> The Manna rose until all the Kingdoms 
          of East and West could see it (as implied by the Pasuk in 
          Tehilim).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> 'Kosi Revayah... ' The size of the future cup of 
          David ha'Melech.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question (on R. Elazar ha'Moda'i):</font></b> But the measure came 
          by the flood in 40 days (960 hours), and here we are 
          speaking of that which fell in one hour!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Further Question:</font></b> The flood covered the entire world, and 
          here it all fell on the Machaneh Yisrael!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Elazar ha'Moda'i was speaking of the Pesichah 
          (initial opening) of the Arubos.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE FIVE INUYIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How are these Inuyim alluded to in the Torah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The five references to <i>Inuy</i> in the Pesukim, as 
          listed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But there are <i>six</i> Inuyim!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Eating and drinking are counted as one.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How do we know this?]
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Resh Lakish derives this from the fact that the 
          Torah uses the word 've'Achalta' when one of the items 
          referred to is wine.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps the wine was part of a food dish?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Rather, the source is 've'Nasata ha'Kesef... 
               ba'Yayin u'va'Sheichar... ve'Achalta' (beverage 
               spoken of as Achilah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Perhaps, this, too refers to Anigron?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk refers to an intoxicating beverage 
               (not a food ingredient, thus that drinking is part 
               of Achilah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But we find illustrations of intoxicating 
               foods (Deveilah Ka'ilis)!?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE CUP OF DAVID HA'MELECH IN THE WORLD TO COME</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Abaye teaches that the cup of David ha'Melech in Olam ha'Ba will hold 221 Log. He derives this from the verse, 'Kosi Revayah' -- 'my cup overflows' (Tehilim 23:5). The Gematriya of the word 'Revayah' is 221.
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that the cup of David ha'Melech refers to the Kos Shel Berachah, the cup of wine over which Birkas ha'Mazon is recited. The Gemara in Pesachim (119b) relates that in the World to Come, Hash-m will make a feast at which David ha'Melech will be honored with the recitation of Birkas ha'Mazon over a cup of wine.
</p><p>
What does the Gemara intend to teach? What is the significance of the number 221, and why is it important to know that David ha'Melech's cup will hold that quantity of Log? (Various approaches are given based on Kabalastic symbolism.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RAV YOSEF GAVRIEL BECHHOFER</b> shlit'a suggests the following approach.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Sanhedrin (97a) says that the arrival of Mashi'ach ben David is associated with an epoch of seven years. David ha'Melech's 'cup' refers to the amount of wine used for the Kos Shel Berachah of Birkas ha'Mazon over the seven-year period of Mashi'ach ben David's arrival.
</p><p>
How many times must Birkas ha'Mazon be recited over a Kos Shel Berachah in the course of seven years?
</p><p>
In seven years, there are approximately 365 days of Shabbos. Since the obligation to eat bread applies only to the first two Shabbos meals (since, b'Di'eved, one fulfills the requirement to eat the third Shabbos meal even if he does not eat bread (Shulchan Aruch OC 291:5)), Birkas ha'Mazon needs to be recited twice on Shabbos. Thus, in seven years there are 730 cups over which Birkas ha'Mazon is recited (Kos Shel Berachah) on Shabbos.
</p><p>
On Yom Tov, too, one is required to eat two meals with bread. In seven years, how many days of Yom Tov are there on which two meals are eaten? During the exile, two days of Yom Tov are observed in Galus. Although the Rabanan did not apply the enactment to observe two days of Yom Tov to the Jews in Eretz Yisrael, from the time of the beginning of the Galus the majority of the Jewish people have lived in Chutz la'Aretz and have observed two days of Yom Tov. Accordingly, there are 12 days of Yom Tov on which two meals are eaten: the first two days of Sukos and last two days (Shemini Atzeres and Simchas Torah), the first two and last two days of Pesach, two days of Shavuos, and two days of Rosh Hashanah. However, on Rosh Hashanah, one is permitted to fast during the day, according to the letter of the law, and recite Kidush and eat only at night (Shulchan Aruch OC 597). Therefore, Birkas ha'Mazon with a Kos Shel Berachah is recited on Yom Tov 22 times during the year, or 154 times in seven years. The total number of times which Birkas ha'Mazon is recited with a Kos Shel Berachah in seven years is 884.
</p><p>
Every Kos Shel Berachah is comprised of a minimum of one Revi'is, which is a fourth of a Log. Hence, 884 cups of Kos Shel Berachah are comprised of 221 Log, the number alluded to by the verse, 'Kosi Revayah,' which refers to the cup of wine of David ha'Melech!
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps the Gemara here may be understood based on the Gemara in Berachos (7b) which says, 'Why was she called 'Ruth'? -Because among her offspring was David ha'Melech, who satiated ('Rivehu') Hash-m with songs and praises.' The Chachamim make use of the root 'Revayah' to describe the satisfaction of Hash-m with the Tehilim of David ha'Melech. Accordingly, the Gemara here in Yoma is saying that as reward for the Tehilim he composed to praise Hash-m, David ha'Melech will receive, measure for measure, a 'satiating cup' ('Kos Revayah').
</p><p>
The Chachamim teach that there are not actually 150 chapters in Tehilim (as divided in our texts), but 147, which correspond to the years of the life of Yakov Avinu (Maseches Sofrim ch. 16, cited by Tosfos to Pesachim 117a; see Parsha Page, Vayechi 5757, for a comprehensive discussion about how to reconcile this number with the count in our texts of Tehilim). David ha'Melech's intention was to counteract the 49 curses listed in Parshas Bechukosai and the 98 curses in Parshas Ki Savo (see Rashi to Devarim 29:12) with 147 psalms of Tehilim. For this he was rewarded with the cup of Birkas ha'Mazon in the World to Come (Pesachim 119b), which is the 'Kos Revayah' of 221 Log mentioned by the Gemara here according to the Maharsha.
</p><p>
How is a cup of 221 Log a fitting reward for David ha'Melech's achievements?
</p><p>
In order to compose the chapters of Tehilim, David ha'Melech stayed awake to serve Hash-m for an amount of time one and a half times more than the ordinary person. It is appropriate for the reward for his efforts to correspond to one and a half times the number of psalms he composed. One and a half times 147 is 220.5. The Gemara rounds up the fraction to 221 (because one half is treated like a whole; see Berachos 3b, 'Mishmerah u'Palga, 'Mishmaros' Kari Lehu'). For this he is rewarded with the 'Kos Revayah' which contains 221 Log of wine (as 'songs [of praise to Hash-m] may be recited only over a cup of wine,' Berachos 36a). This can be demonstrated as follows.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Berachos (4a) relates that David ha'Melech considered himself worthy of praise. He said, 'Am I not a Chasid (who conducts himself over and above the letter of the law)? All the world's kings arise at the third hour of the day, while I arise at midnight to praise You!' Rashi (Berachos 3b) explains that the third hour refers to the <i>beginning</i> of the third hour of the day (i.e., two hours into the day). Accordingly, David ha'Melech arose <i>eight</i> hours earlier than other kings. These hours were David ha'Melech's 'overtime,' so to speak, during which he composed the psalms of Tehilim, as the Gemara in Berachos (3b) says.
</p><p>
In total, how many hours during the day was David ha'Melech awake and involved in the service of Hash-m? He was awake the <i>entire day and night</i>. The Gemara (ibid.) says that he merely 'napped like a horse' from nightfall until midnight, which, as Rashi explains, means that he merely 'dozed as he learned' -- he did not enjoy a full sleep at all. Ordinary people, on the other hand, are awake for 16 hours of the day: The Gemara (Berachos 3a) teaches that at dawn (Alos ha'Shachar) 'a man begins to talk with his wife' (he wakes up; Rashi), and the latest time at which the average person goes to sleep is the end of the fourth hour of the night (Rashi, end of Berachos 4a, based on the Gemara there). This leaves a total of 16 hours of wakeful activity. (This may be the source for the Rambam's statement (Hilchos De'os 4:6) that eight hours is a sufficient (and necessary) amount of sleep for the average person.)
</p><p>
The number of hours (24) that David ha'Melech was awake and served Hash-m each day was one and a half times more than the number of hours an ordinary person (16) is awake. He added those extra eight hours in order to sing praises to Hash-m, praises which he composed as the 147 psalms of Tehilim. This is why he was rewarded with a cup that holds one and a half times 147 Log, or 221 Log). 
<br> 
<br>(According to a different opinion in Berachos (beginning of 3b), the night is divided into four Mishmaros, each of which is three hours long (as opposed to the opinion which maintains that the night is divided into three Mishmaros, each of which is four hours long). This opinion apparently maintains that David ha'Melech added only <i>six</i> waking hours (the length of two Mishmaros) to his day, and not eight. This opinion compares David ha'Melech to the ordinary Jew and not to other kings who rise especially late. Nevertheless, this opinion seems to agree that David ha'Melech served Hash-m for one and a half more hours than the ordinary person, because it simply equates being 'half-awake' to being asleep. Thus, the first six hours of the night, when David was half-awake, were not considered to be waking hours; he was awake only 18 hours. Other people, on the other hand, go to bed at the <i>earliest</i> at the beginning of the night (Tzeis ha'Kochavim). Even though some go to sleep later, the hours during which only some people are awake do not count as normal waking hours. Accordingly, waking hours for normal people are considered to be 12 hours, while David ha'Melech was awake 18 -- one and a half times more than others.) (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, we learn from Nazir who is forbidden to 
          drink wine (Sheichar), so, too, here, by Ma'aser Sheini 
          we are speaking of wine, not an ingredient.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But 'Tirosh' is grapes, not wine as we 
               find that one who makes a Neder to abstain from 
               Tirosh is forbidden to eat sweet fruits, but is 
               <i>permitted</i> to drink wine!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We suggest three Pesukim indicating that 'Tirosh' 
               is, indeed, wine, two of which are rejected.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Rather, 'Tirosh' is wine, and the reason for 
               the permission regarding Nedarim is because people 
               do not generally refer to wine as 'Tirosh' and we 
               thus interpret the words of his Neder to refer to 
               sweet fruit.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is wine called by two names, 
                    'Yayin' and 'Tirosh'?
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 'Yayin' brings Yelalah; 'Tirosh' brings 
                    poverty (Rash) to its adherents.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b><font>Question (R. Kehana):</font></b> How may we resolve the 
                    K'siv ('Tirash') with the K'ri ('Tirosh')?
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iv. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> One who is Zocheh (drinks in proper 
                    measure) becomes a Rosh; one who is not becomes 
                    a pauper (Rashi).
<br>            <b>   <b><font>v.  </font></b><font> Question (Rava):</font></b> How may we resolve the K'siv 
                    ('Yishmach') with the K'ri ('Yismach')?
<br>             <b>  <b><font>vi. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> If drunk in proper measure is gladdens 
                    ('Yismach'); if not, it destroys ('Yishmach').
<br>             <b>  <b><font>vii. </font></b></b>As Rava stated 'Wine and fragrance (in their 
                    proper measure) contributed to my wisdom'
<br>
<b><font>3) LEARNING RECHITZAH FROM SICHAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How do we know that washing and anointing are 
          called Inuyim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> From the mourning of Daniel, 'Lechem Chamudos Lo 
          Achalti... ve'Shoch Lo Sachti'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the 'Lechem Chamudos' from which 
               he refrained?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Bread made from clean flour.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How do we know that 'Soch Lo Sachti' means 
               Inuy?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> From Gavriel's assurance to Daniel 
               ('Lehis'anos').
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> That covers Sichah, but what of Rechitzah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk in Tehilim equates water on the 
               skin to anointing with oil.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Maybe the anointing in the Pasuk is like 
               drinking?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk implies that the water came into 
               his system similarly to oil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Tana in Shabbos learns oil <i>from</i> water 
          (that Sichah is like drinking) not water from oil!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah there asks how we know that Sichah is 
               forbidden like drinking on Yom Kipur.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> In response, the Tana quotes the very same Pasuk in 
               Tehilim, 'va'Tavo ka'Mayim... '.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, Rechitzah is implicit in the words 
          've'Soch Lo Sachti' in Daniel.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) PROOF THAT 'SHETIYAH' IS INCLUDED IN 'ACHILAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara teaches that the primary form of Inuy (affliction) of Yom Kippur is the requirement to refrain from Achilah and Shetiyah, eating and drinking. These two acts are considered one Inuy, since Shetiyah is included in Achilah. The Gemara proves that Shetiyah is included in Achilah from a verse which lists the items that one may buy with the money of Ma'aser Sheni to eat in Yerushalayim. 'You shall buy with the money whatever you desire of cattle, sheep, wine, and old wine (Shechar)... and you shall eat it there' (Devarim 14:26). Since the verse says that one shall 'eat' the food of Ma'aser Sheni, and one of those foods mentioned is Shechar, clearly the act of drinking Shechar is considered 'eating.'
</p><p>
The Gemara rejects this proof with the suggestion that perhaps the 'Shechar' mentioned in the verse refers to an intoxicating <i>food</i>, such as 'Deveilah Ke'ilis,' a type of fermented fig. Consequently, there is no proof that Shetiyah is called Achilah. The Gemara proves that figs can be intoxicating from the Beraisa that says that a person is Chayav Misah if he enters the Mikdash while under the influence of 'Deveilah Ke'ilis' or intoxicating beverages, as the verse says, 'Yayin v'Shechar Al Tesht... v'Lo Samusu' (Vayikra 10:9).
</p><p>
The Gemara rejoins that 'Shechar' must refer to a <i>wine</i> product, because the Torah prohibits a Nazir from drinking 'Shechar,' while it also states that he is prohibited only from 'what comes from grapes.' Accordingly, the word 'Shechar' used in reference to Ma'aser Sheni must also refer to an intoxicating beverage and not to a food. Hence, the proof that drinking a beverage is indeed a form of 'Achilah' remains.
</p><p>
There are a number of difficulties with the words of the Gemara.
</p><p>
First, why does the Gemara derive the meaning of the term 'Shechar' written in reference to Ma'aser Sheni from the term 'Shechar' written in reference to a Nazir (where 'Shechar' must mean wine)? The Gemara could also learn its meaning from the term written in reference to the prohibition against entering the Mikdash while intoxicated, where 'Shechar' includes <i>any</i> food item that has intoxicating properties (such as Deveilah Ke'ilis). Why does the Gemara prefer to learn Ma'aser Sheni from Nazir than to learn Ma'aser Sheni from Bi'as Mikdash (entering the Mikdash while intoxicated)?
</p><p>
Second, with regard to Bi'as Mikdash itself, why is a person liable for entering the Mikdash after eating an intoxicating fig? If the meaning of 'Shechar' in the verse of Ma'aser Sheni can be derived from Nazir, why is the meaning of 'Shechar' in the verse of Bi'as Mikdash not also learned from Nazir? The Gemara should learn from Nazir that the 'Shechar' of Bi'as Mikdash refers only to wine and not to figs.
</p><p>
Third, even if Bi'as Mikdash is not comparable to Nazir, there is another reason to exempt a person who enters the Mikdash after he eats a Deveilah Ke'ilis. With regard to Bi'as Mikdash the verse says, 'Wine and Shechar you shall not <i>drink</i>' (Vayikra 10:9). The verse specifically refers to <i>drinking</i>. Even if the word Achilah includes the act of Shetiyah, certainly the word <i>Shetiyah</i> does not include the act of Achilah. Why, then, should a person be liable for Bi'as Mikdash after he <i>eats</i> an intoxicating fig dish if the verse specifically refers to <i>drinking</i>?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> answers all three questions as follows. Why does the Beraisa say that one is liable for Bi'as Mikdash when he enters the Mikdash after he eats intoxicating figs? The word 'Shechar' of Nazir, which refers only to wine, should teach that the 'Shechar' of Bi'as Mikdash also refers only to wine and not to intoxicating figs. The answer is that, indeed, when the Gemara says that the meaning of 'Shechar' of Ma'aser Sheni is derived from 'Shechar' of Nazir, it also means that the meaning of 'Shechar' of <i>Bi'as Mikdash</i> is derived from 'Shechar' of Nazir, and one will <i>not</i> be liable for eating intoxicating figs and entering the Mikdash.
</p><p>
When the Beraisa says that one <i>is</i> liable for such an act, it is expressing the view of a Tana who disagrees with the conclusion of the Gemara. The Gemara follows the view of Rebbi Shimon (Nazir 4a) who maintains that one is <i>not</i> liable for Bi'as Mikdash after he eats intoxicating figs (one is liable only if he enters the Mikdash after he drinks wine). The Beraisa cited by the Gemara, which expresses the opposite view, follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah who maintains that one is liable for entering the Mikdash after eating intoxicating figs, but when the Gemara concludes that Ma'aser Sheni is derived from Nazir, it rejects his opinion and accepts the opinion of Rebbi Shimon who <i>does</i> derive Bi'as Mikdash from Nazir.
</p><p>
The other two questions may be answered as follows. According to <i>Rebbi Yehudah</i>, why is one liable for entering the Mikdash after eating intoxicating figs? Even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that 'Shechar' of Nazir refers only to wine, and thus 'Shechar' of Bi'as Mikdash should also refer only to wine and not to food items. Moreover, the fact that the verse says that 'you shall not <i>drink</i>' should teach that one is liable only for entering the Mikdash after <i>drinking</i> an intoxicating beverage, but not after <i>eating</i> an intoxicating food.
</p><p>
The Tosfos Yeshanim answers that the verse which discusses entering the Mikdash while intoxicated gives the reason why one may not drink wine and enter the Mikdash: 'so that he can differentiate between the holy and the profane... and so that he can teach all of the laws to the Jewish people' (Vayikra 10:10-11). The logic of this reason implies that <i>anything</i> which causes one to be in a state of drunkenness may not be consumed (whether a beverage or a food) before one enters the Mikdash. Thus, intoxicating foods <i>are</i> included in the prohibition of Bi'as Mikdash. (That is, they are not learned from the words 'Shechar Al Tesht,' but from the end of the verse, 'l'Havdil ul'Horos').
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Gamar) suggests that everyone (even Rebbi Shimon) agrees that one who eats an intoxicating fig and enters the Mikdash is liable. Even though 'Shechar' always refers to wine (as derived from Nazir), and even though the verse says 'you shall not <i>drink</i>' and implies that the prohibition of Bi'as Mikdash applies only to wine, nevertheless logic teaches that the prohibition applies even to entering the Mikdash after eating intoxicating foods. The reason the Torah prohibits entering the Mikdash while intoxicated is because it is disgraceful for a person to stand in front of a mortal king in such a state, and all the more so in front of Hash-m. The same logic should apply to one who <i>eats</i> an intoxicating food. This logic, which applies only to Bi'as Mikdash and not to other laws (such as Nazir and Ma'aser Sheni), precludes deriving the laws of entering the Mikdash while intoxicated from Nazir, and the laws of Ma'aser Sheni from Bi'as Mikdash.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) AGADA: GAVRIEL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Mal'ach Gavriel reported to Daniel 'va'Ani Basi 
          bi'Devarecha'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  As derived from the Pesukim in Yechezkel, Gavriel had 
          been expelled from among the Mal'achim for improperly 
          carrying out his agency.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He should have either not executed the decree 
               against K'lal Yisrael (anticipating a reprieve); or,
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He should have carried it out exactly, and not 
               cooled the flames somewhat by having the K'ruv 
               deliver the coals instead of taking them directly.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Although by doing so, Gavriel saved the remnant of 
               Klal Yisrael, he was punished with 60 lashes of fire 
               and expelled.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  During the 21 days of his absence, the Mal'ach Dubiel, 
          Sar of the Persians, took his place.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  When Dubiel tried to exact a terrible price from his new 
          status, that of taxing even the Talmidei Chachamim, 
          Gavriel called out from Achorei ha'Pargod that they do 
          not deserve this, given that all of their scholars 
          combined do not equal Daniel.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  This defense of the people caused Gavriel to be invited 
          back, as above, 'va'Ani Basi bi'Devarecha'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  When he returned, he succeeded in diminishing somewhat 
          the effect of the concessions made to Dubiel, but he was 
          not successful in blunting the effect of Yavan.
<br>
<b><font>2) RECHITZAH AS AN INUY (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Alternate explanation for how Rechitzah is considered an 
          Inuy derives from Shlomoh ha'Melech's dialogue with 
          Evyasar ha'Kohen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Evyasar was spared being killed right away for 
               having participated in the Inuy of David ha'Melech.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Included in that Inuy was 'Ra'av' (lack of bread), 
               'Tzamei' (lack of water) and 'Ayef' (lit. tiredness, 
               understood to refer to Rechitzah) thus labeling 
               Rechitzah as an Inuy.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps 'Ayef' refers to (the lack of) wearing 
          shoes?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk in Mishlei demonstrates that 'Ayef' 
          relates to the lack of cool water (presumably for 
          washing).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps 'Ayef' refers to their thirst (which 
          would fit with the Pasuk in Mishlei, as well)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk reads 'like water <i>on</i> a tired soul', 
          not '*in'* as would imply drinking.
<br>
<b><font>3) NE'ILAS HA'SANDEL AS AN 'INUY'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Whence that Ne'ilas ha'Sandel is called an 
          Inuy?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> From the fact that David ha'Melech, when running 
          from Avshalom (in the state referred to before as Inuy) 
          was 'Yachef' (presumably, without shoes).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps 'Yachef' means without a horse, in the 
          manner of a king?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The word 'Yachef' is found, in Yeshayah, to mean 
          unshod, thus informing its meaning by David ha'Melech.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps Yeshayah went with tattered shoes, and 
          that is still called 'Yachef' (just as 'Arom' there 
          surely does not mean fully unclothed, but with tattered 
          clothes)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk in Yirmiyah identifies 'Yachef' with 
          the exiles, who would truly be going barefoot.
<br>
<b><font>4) TASHMISH HAMITAH AS AN 'INUY'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Whence that Tashmish ha'Mitah is called an 
          Inuy?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Lavan identified withholding Tashmish as an Inuy.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: SIXTY PULSES OF FIRE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> As a punishment for not properly carrying out his duty, the angel Gavriel was punished with 'sixty bursts of fire.' The Gemara in other places mentions this punishment in reference to angels (see, for example, Chagigah 15a and Bava Metzia 85b). What is the significance of sixty lashes?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> According to one opinion in the Rishonim, 'Makos Mardus' -- lashes mandated by the Rabanan for transgression of a rabbinical prohibition, are comprised of only 13 lashes, instead of 39 which comprise Malkus d'Oraisa (<b>TASHBETZ</b> 2:51, citing <b>RASHI</b> in Yevamos 52a; <b>SHILTEI GIBORIM</b> on the Mordechai to Bava Basra, end of Perek Yesh Nochlim, citing <b>RABEINU TAM</b>). (See Insights to Chulin 141:4 with regard to the differences between Malkus d'Oraisa and Malkus d'Rabanan.)
</p><p>
The <b>TERUMAS HA'DESHEN</b> (in Bi'urim on the Torah, end of Parshas Ki Setzei, as cited by the <b>BACH</b> on the Rif to Kesuvos, page 16b of the pages of the Rif; see also <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> OC 496:2) explains this opinion as follows. The Mishnah in Makos (22a-b) describes the 39 lashes of Malkus d'Oraisa as three sets of 13 lashes. Two sets are administered on the person's back and one set on his chest. The Terumas ha'Deshen explains that this means that the actual number of lashes that should be administered is only 13, to correspond to the first 13 years of a person's life during which he is expected to learn to make the proper decisions. If he sins, this shows that he failed to learn to make the proper decisions as he was maturing, and thus he is punished with 13 lashes. However, the Torah prescribes two additional sets of 13 lashes on two other parts of his body as an additional penalty. (One set of lashes is given opposite his heart, the place where his thoughts originate, and two sets are given opposite his two kidneys, which counsel the body as to what actions to take.) The Rabanan do not have the prerogative to add two extra sets of lashes because their enactments themselves are already added penalties or restrictions, and the Rabanan cannot impose one penalty on top of another. Therefore, for the transgression of an Isur d'Rabanan only 13 lashes are administered.
</p><p>
A similar logic applies to punishments administered to angels. Although a person becomes accountable for his actions with regard to punishments in the hands of the worldly Beis Din at the age of 13, he is not accountable with regard to punishments at the hand of the 'heavenly court' until the age of 20 (Shabbos 89b). Hence, when the heavenly court administers Malkus, it is in the form of 20 lashes repeated three times (like the lashes of the worldly courts), for a total of 60 lashes.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Im Te'aneh' refers to withholding Tashmish.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> 've'Im Tikach' refers to taking other wives.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Perhaps both expressions refer to taking 
               other wives (if you will oppress my daughters <i>by</i> 
               taking other wives).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> This translation is not plausible since 
               Lavan said <i>'ve'Im' and </i> not '*Im'*.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Perhaps it refers to two types of Tzaros, 
               Bilhah and Zilpah, as well as other potential wives 
               (which is contextually logical in the Pasuk)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> He would not have put the less painful 
               matter (taking other unknown wives) first and the 
               more painful matter (taking Bilhah and Zilpah) 
               second.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We find (in the incident of Dinah) that 
          Tashmish itself is called Inuy, thus casting doubt on its 
          absence as being called Inuy!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Inuy there was withholding further Tashmish 
          from Dinah, consistent with the definition of Inuy.
<br>
<b><font>5) RECHITZAH OF PART OF THE BODY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa teaches that partial Rechitzah is forbidden 
          on Yom Kipur; however, if one is soiled, he may wash 
          normally.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Similarly, while Sichah on even a part of the body is 
          forbidden, one who is ill anoints normally.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  A woman is permitted to wash one hand (from the Ru'ach 
          Ra'ah upon awaking which would transfer onto bread) in 
          order to give bread to a child.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Shamai ha'Zaken was concerned about using one hand (on 
          account of the Shivsa), and they permitted him to feed 
          the child after washing both hands.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  One who is going to greet his father or Rebbi, or another 
          person greater than he, may enter water until his neck, 
          without concern.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What of the Rebbi on route to his Talmid?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yitzhok b. Chanah reported that Zeiri went to 
          R Chiya.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Ashi reported that it was R. Chiya b. Ashi who 
               went to Zeiri his Rebbi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Rava permitted people to cross through water to protect 
          their fruit.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> A Beraisa supports this ruling, as reported.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Yosef permitted people to cross to attend a Shiur, but 
          not to return to their homes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> If you will rule this way, you will cause them 
          not to come next year to the Shiur.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> An alternate reading has R. Yosef permitting both 
               their coming and their return. 
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Abaye then asked why their return is permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yosef explained that the permission is so they 
               should not be prevented from coming in the future.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah, R. Shmuel b. R. Yehudah were standing on one 
          side of the river, and Rami b. Papa was on the other.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rami b. Papa called out to ask if he was permitted 
               to cross in order to ask them about a matter of 
               Torah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah responded that Rav and Shmuel permitted 
               one to cross, but being careful not to raise one's 
               hands.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> An alternate reading has R. Shmuel b. R. Yehudah 
               reporting the same response directly from a Beraisa.
<br>
<b><font>6) THE RIVER LEADING OUT OF THE KODESH HAKODOSHIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Yosef):</font></b> Is it <i>ever</i> permitted to enter deep 
          waters and expose oneself to danger?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Mal'ach showed Yechezkel the river which will 
               lead out of Yerushalayim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It will be shallow for the first 1000 Amos, and will 
               get deeper after each 1000 Amos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> We see there that it is permitted to enter shallow 
               water only up to one's waist!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That river is different because of the strong 
          current, thus above waist deep will be dangerous, as 
          opposed to the still river we are speaking of.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Will one be able to swim across that river?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The continuation of the Pasuk indicates that it 
          will be too strong for that, as well.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Might one be able to cross in a small boat?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk indicates that this, too, will not be 
          possible.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Might onbe be able to cross with a large 
          vessel?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The river in Yechezkel's prophecy will be too 
          powerful even for that.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  The Targum confirms the impossibility of crossing this 
          river.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Even the Mal'ach ha'Maves will not be able to cross, as 
          indicated by the word 'mi'Shut'.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE PROPHETIC RIVER FROM THE KODESH HAKODOSHIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Pinchas citing R. Huna of Tzipori):</font></b> The River will 
          begin as a tiny rivulet and grow in size as it proceeds 
          out of the parts of the Mikdash, as listed, each alluded 
          to in the Pasuk.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  It will become a deeper river at the door of David 
          ha'Melech's home.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The Navi Zecharyah refers to the river at David's door as 
          suitable for Tevilah (Zavin, Zavos, Nidos, Yoldos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yosef wished to learn from here that a Nidah must do 
          Tevilah in water which reaches her neck when she sits in 
          it (but this is not the Halachah).
<br>
<b><font>2) CROSSING A RIVER ON SHABBOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Would it be permissible to cross a river on 
          Shabbos (where he <i>would</i> be wearing shoes), for fear 
          that he might carry his shoes?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Nechemyah reported that R. Ami and R. Asi crossed 
          while wearing their shoes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What about sandals (less firmly strapped to the 
          leg)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Richumi reported seeing Ravina cross in 
          sandals, however, R. Ashi taught that one should not do 
          so Lechatchilah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Ravina did not come to the D'rashah of the Resh 
               Gelusa.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Rafram tried to diminish the anger of the Resh 
               Gelusa which was directed at Ravina for his absence.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> In the presence of the Resh Galusa, Rafram asked 
               Ravina about his absence.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> After a series of possibilities are raised and 
               refuted, Ravina indicated that he could not cross 
               the river in sandals, in deference to the teaching 
               of R. Ashi.
<br>
<b><font>3) ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE SIMILAR TO RECHITZAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehudah b. Grogeros):</font></b> One may not sit in mud on Yom 
          Kipur (owing to its cooling moisture).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Yehoshua b. Levi):</font></b> We are speaking of moist mud.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Abaye):</font></b> Moist enough to make something else wet.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> It is permitted to (touch or rub fruit in 
          order to) cool oneself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah would use a gourd to cool himself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Rabah would touch a baby.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Rava would touch a silver cup.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (R. Papa):</font></b> The silver cup must not be full of 
                    water (lest some spill and lead to Rechitzah).
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> It is permitted if the cup is only partially 
                    full.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b></b>An earthenware cup (which extudes the moisture 
                    from within) may not be used with any water.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iv. </font></b><font> (R. Ashi):</font></b> Even a partially filled silver cup 
                    may not be used, lest it slip from his hands.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The innkeeper reported to R. Yosef, the son the R. 
          Yehoshua b. Levi, his father's practice regarding using 
          the remaining moisture in a wrung-out cloth (prepared the 
          day before) to wipe his face, hands and feet on Yom Kipur 
          (and on <i>Tish'ah</i> be'Av he let the cloth dry and used it 
          that day).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  This report was confirmed by Rabah b. Mari (that R. 
          Yehoshua b. Levi was Machmir additionally on Yom Kipur to 
          assure that the cloth was fully wrung out Erev Yom 
          Kipur).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Ya'akov to R. Yirmiyah b. Tachlifah):</font></b> 'But 
          you taught us the opposite' (that he was more careful to 
          wring out the cloth Erev <i>Tish'ah be'Av</i> and we asked you 
          why he was not concerned about Sechitah on Yom Kipur!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  (According to the second Girsa in Rashi, he was more 
          Machmir on Erev <i>Tish'ah</i> be'Av [only drying his hands 
          with the cloth and using its residual moisture on 
          <i>Tish'ah</i> be'Av] whereas on Erev Yom Kipur he soaked and 
          wrung out the cloth.)
<br>
<b><font>4) PERMISSION TO JUDGE THE MUM OF A BECHOR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (asked of R. Elazar b. P'das):</font></b> Must an 
          established Dayan receive permission from the Nasi to 
          check the Mumin of a Bechor, or is he exempt?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What was the question?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The question was if the requirement to ask 
               Reshus given in order to aggrandize the Nasi (in 
               which case none are exempt) or to check for 
               sufficient expertise (in which case an expert would 
               be exempt).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Tzadok b. Chalukah reported that the elder 
          Dayan R. Yosi b. Zimra still asked permission of the 
          young Nasi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Aba):</font></b> R. Yosi b. Zimra was a Kohen and he (was not 
          asking Reshus as above, but rather) deliberated the 
          question of whether a Kohen may check the Mumin of 
          another Kohen's Bechor.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Kohanim may not check their own Bechoros, since they 
               have personal interest in the matter.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Meir holds that, by extention, they may not judge 
               the Mumin of others.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon b. Gamliel holds they are Ne'eman on 
               others.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi b. Zimra was told that the Halachah is like 
               R. Shimon b. Gamliel.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MAY AN ADULT HELP A CHILD TO WASH HIMSELF ON YOM KIPPUR</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara teaches that a child is not required to observe any of the prohibitions of Yom Kippur except for that of Ne'ilas ha'Sandal, wearing shoes. As <b>RASHI</b> explains, the Gemara initially suggests that the reason why a child may not wear shoes on Yom Kippur is because of what onlookers might think: if people see the child wearing shoes, they will think that his parent put them on him, which his parent is not allowed to do. The prohibition of 'Lo Sachilum,' derived from the verse, 'Lo Sochlum' (Vayikra 11:42; Yevamos 114a), teaches that an adult may not give a prohibited item to a child.
</p><p>
The Gemara argues that if this is the reason why a child may not wear shoes on Yom Kippur, then the child should also be required to observe the prohibitions of Rechitzah (washing) and Sichah (smearing with oil) for the same reason. The Gemara answers that when people see a child who is washed or smeared with oil, they assume that he was washed or smeared the day before. In contrast, when they see a child wearing shoes, it is obvious that the shoes were placed on the child on that day (as no one wears shoes overnight), and thus they will think that the child's parent put the shoes on him on Yom Kippur.
</p><p>
The Gemara continues to challenge this reason. The Beraisa says, 'Children are permitted in all of the prohibitions [of Yom Kippur] except Ne'ilas ha'Sandal.' The words of the Beraisa imply that an adult is permitted l'Chatchilah to wash the child and to smear oil on him. <b>RASHI</b> explains that since it is permitted l'Chatchilah, when the father asks Beis Din whether or not he may feed or wash his son on Yom Kippur, Beis Din tells him to feed and wash him. The father, and others, obviously know that the child was fed and washed on Yom Kippur, and yet there is no concern that people will think that the child's parent fed and washed him on Yom Kippur.
</p><p>
There are a number of difficulties with Rashi's comments.
</p><p>
(a) Why does Rashi add that the father asks whether he is allowed to <i>feed</i> the child? The Gemara has no question about whether or not the father may feed the child. Feeding a child is certainly permitted on Yom Kippur, because it is dangerous for a child not to eat.
</p><p>
(b) Why does Rashi write that when Beis Din tells the father that he is allowed to wash the child, the father knows that the washing is done on Yom Kippur (and, therefore, it must be that there is no concern that people will suspect that he transgressed by having a child perform an Isur)? Rashi should say that Beis Din's allowance shows that a much greater problem is resolved and not merely people's <i>suspicion</i> that an adult gave the child an Isur. The father actually <i>did</i> give the child an Isur, and yet Beis Din permitted him to do so. If Beis Din permitted him to do so, it must be that there is no Isur of 'Lo Sachilum' whatsoever (and, obviously, there is no reason to be concerned that people will suspect him of transgressing such an Isur, as the Isur does not exist).
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>SI'ACH YITZCHAK</b> explains that Rashi's intention is to explain how the Gemara knows that one is permitted to wash a child l'Chatchilah on Yom Kippur. Rashi understands that from the fact that an adult is permitted to <i>feed</i> a child on Yom Kippur it can be inferred that one may also <i>wash</i> a child. The Beraisa, which groups together all of the Inuyim except for Ne'ilas ha'Sandal, implies that all of the Inuyim are similar to Achilah and are permitted l'Chatchilah. This is why Rashi adds that the father asked Beis Din if he may <i>feed</i> the child and wash him. Rashi shows how the Gemara knows that washing the child is permitted l'Chatchilah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAN</b> earlier (73b) asks that according to Rashi, the Rambam, and the other Rishonim who maintain that all of the Inuyim are Asur mid'Oraisa (and not only Achilah and Shetiyah), why is one permitted to do those things for a child on Yom Kippur? An adult may not do for a child anything which he is forbidden to do for himself because of the Derashah of 'Lo Sachilum.' The prohibition of 'Lo Sachilum' should prohibit an adult from helping a child perform any of the Inuyim, just as Rashi says here with regard to Ne'ilas ha'Sandal.
</p><p>
The Rishonim quote the Tosefta (4:1) which says that Ne'ilas ha'Sandal for a child is prohibited only because of Mar'is ha'Ayin (and not because of 'Lo Sachilum'). <b>RABEINU ELYAKIM</b> explains what the Mar'is ha'Ayin is in this case: Although the prohibition of 'Lo Sachilum' does not actually apply here, people will <i>think</i> that it applies to smearing oil, washing, or placing shoes on a child on Yom Kippur. When they see others perform such acts for children (or when they see Beis Din permit such acts to be done for children), they will think that the Torah forbids only eating and drinking on Yom Kippur, but not smearing oil, washing and wearing shoes. For this reason, the Rabanan prohibited placing shoes on a child on Yom Kippur. They permitted smearing and washing the child only because of 'Hainu Rivisai'hu,' they are needed for the normal development of the child.
</p><p>
Why, though, does 'Lo Sachilum' indeed <i>not</i> apply? According to the Rishonim who maintain that these Inuyim are prohibited mid'Rabanan and not mid'Oraisa, the Rabanan did not apply 'Lo Sachilum' to their own prohibitions. According to the Rishonim who maintain that all of the Inuyim are mid'Oraisa, the Torah may not have prohibited the other Inuyim in cases where the primary Inuy of fasting does not apply (see Insights to Yoma 74:1).
</p><p>
This may be Rashi's intention here as well. Rashi does not mean to say that the Gemara originally prohibited putting shoes on a child because of 'Lo Sachilum.' Rather, it prohibited the act lest people <i>think</i> that 'Lo Sachilum' is being transgressed and, as a result, come to permit wearing shoes on Yom Kippur. Similarly, Rashi says that if Beis Din permits a person l'Chatchilah to wash or smear oil on his child, the person may mistakenly think that those acts are not prohibited at all on Yom Kippur. (He will reason that had they been prohibited, Beis Din would not have permitted him to do them for his child because of 'Lo Sachilum.')
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<b><font>5) ALTERNATE SANDALS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is it permitted to go out with a hard rubber 
          sandal (Sha'am) sandal on Yom Kipur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yitzhok b. Nachmeini reported that R. Yehoshua 
          b. Levi wore such a sandal.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He asked R. Yehoshua b. Levi if it is permitted on a 
               Ta'anis Tzibur (see Rashi), and he said it is the 
               same.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Rabah bar bar Chanah saw R. Elazar wearing it on a 
               Ta'anis Tzibur, and asked regarding Yom Kipur.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> The Gemara reports the foot coverings worn by R. 
               Yehudah, Abaye, Rava and Rabah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Rami b. Chama):</font></b> But we find in the Mishnah that 
          alternate (non-leather) sandals are forbidden on Yom 
          Kipur!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah in Shabbos is dealing with the 
               permission for an amputee to wear his prosthesis on 
               Shabbos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Even R. Yosi, who does not consider his prosthesis 
               to be a shoe for clothing purposes on Shabbos, would 
               hold that it is a shoe regarding Yom Kipur!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The issue there revolves around the 
          cloth- lined device which the amputee used (forbidden 
          because of Ta'anug) but here we are permitting hard, 
          uncomfortable (non-leather) shoes.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question (Rava):</font></b> Would simply inserting cloths turn 
               a non-K'li into a K'li (a shoe which is forbidden on 
               account of Ne'ilas ha'Sandal)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Additional Question:</font></b> Is every enjoyment (even if it 
               is not a shoe) forbidden on Yom Kipur (we learned 
               that Rabah b. R. Huna wrapped cloth around his 
               feet)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Additional Question:</font></b> The Seifa there speaks where 
               his prosthesis has a Beis Kibul (to insert cloths), 
               which indicates that the Reisha is speaking where 
               there is no such place for cloths!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> The prosthesis is a shoe (and thus 
          forbidden on Yom Kipur), and the discussion there is 
          whether we are concerned that it might slip off and be 
          carried.
<br>
<b><font>6) CHILDREN AND INUYIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Children are not restricted by the Inuyim, except for 
          Ne'ilas ha'Sandal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is this singled out?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Lest people think that an adult helped them on 
          with their shoes.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Then the same concern should apply to 
               Rechitzah or Sichah!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> People will say that the washing was done 
               Erev Yom Kipur.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Then why won't people assume that the 
               child slept in his shoes, tied before Yom Kipur, as 
               well?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> This is not done, as Shmuel taught, that 
               sleeping with tied shoes is deathly uncomfortable.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa says that the other Inuyim are 
          entirely permitted for children (even for adults to help 
          them), so why should Ne'ilas ha'Sandal be different!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Shoes are not needed for a child's development 
          (unlike Rechitzah etc.) and Chazal therefore forbade 
          them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Abaye, citing a mother, reported the development 
               needs of a child:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> First to be bathed in warm water and smeared with 
               oil.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Later to be fed an egg in a dip.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Later to be given toys to play with and break (as 
               Rabah bought inexpensive breakables for the 
               youngsters).
<br>
<b><font>7) THE KING AND THE KALAH WASH THEIR FACES...</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  These exemptions are the teaching of R. Chananyah b. 
          Teradyon (citing R. Eliezer) in the Beraisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is the King exempt?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> As the Pasuk teaches, a King in his beauty...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why a Kalah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> So that she should not be unseemly to her 
          husband.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> For how long is she considered a Kalah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 30 days, as taught in the Beraisa.
<br>
<b><font>8) WEARING SHOES IN THE FACE OF DANGER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer (cited by R. Chananyah) had taught that a 
          nursing mother wears shoes, out of concern for the cold.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Shmuel clarified that wherever there might be danger 
          (such as from scorpions), all would be permitted to wear 
          shoes.
<br>


