# dafyomi

lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<b><font>3) A ZAR AND SIDUR EITZIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> A Zar who does Sidur Eitzim on the Ma'arachah is 
          Chayav Misah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What can be done to repair such a Ma'arachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He takes it apart and puts it back together.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How will that help if the Zar puts it back?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Zar dismantles it and the Kohen rearranges 
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> How could an Avodah of the night 
          (such as Sidur ha'Ma'arachah) be forbidden to a Zar!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Yes, witness the Eivarim and Pedarim (Kosher all 
          night yet forbidden to a Zar)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But these are the end of the <i>day's</i> Avodah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Yes, but witness the Terumas ha'Deshen (Kosher at 
          night yet forbidden to a Zar).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Terumas ha'Deshen is the beginning of the day's Avodah 
          (as taught in the name of R.Yochanan that once a Kohen 
          does Kidush Yadayim for the Terumas ha'Deshen, he is set 
          for the day's Avodah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then R. Zeira's claim is a question on R. 
          Yochanan!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yochanan meant that a Zar would be Chayav if 
          he did Sidur of the two Gizrei Eitzim (Avodas Yom).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> Then this Sidur should require a Payis!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  Rava forgot the answer from the Beraisa which provides 
          that the one who wins the Terumas ha'Deshen also wins 
          Sidur of the Ma'arachah as well as the two Gizrei Eitzim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Would only an Avodas Yom get a Payis, what 
          about Eivarim and Pedarim which are in the fourth Payis!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That is the end of the day's Avodah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But what about the Terumas ha'Deshen!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That was because of the incident.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Are we to infer that there is a Payis only for 
          Avodas Yom, and that which is forbidden to a Zar, then 
          why is there a Payis for Shechitah!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Shechitah is given distinction since it is the 
          start of the Avodas ha'Korban.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(u)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we have a Mishnah which indicates that 
          Sidur of the two Gizrei Eitzim is <i>not</i> part of Avodas 
          Yom (since they did not look for daybreak to do it)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(v)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah only mentioned looking for daybreak 
          for that Avodah which, if inadvertently done before 
          daybreak, is irreparable.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) ALTERNATE RENDITION OF THE QUESTION OF R. ZEIRA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Zeira to R. Yochanan):</font></b> How can a Zar be 
          Chayav Misah for Sidur ha'Ma'arachah, given that it is 
          not the last Avodah (Avodah Tamah)?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But by Eivarim and Pedarim a Zar is Chayav 
               even though there is Terumas ha'Deshen which 
               follows?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> They are the end of the day's Avodah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But Terumas ha'Deshen which is followed by 
               the Hotza'ah and yet (according to Levi) a Zar is 
               Chayav?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is the start of the day's Avodah (as we 
               saw from R. Yochanan's requirement of washing).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is a good question, and R. Yochanan should be 
          rendered as referring to Sidur of the two Gizrei Eitzim 
          (that a Zar is Chayav since it is Avodah Tamah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> If this Sidur is so important then it 
          should be allocated by a Payis?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It <i>does</i> get a Payis, as an extension of the 
          Payis of Terumas ha'Deshen!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We meant, it should get a Payis of its own.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> As we said in the first Lashon.  We skip to Amar 
          Mar Zutra following Rashi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (Mar Zutra or R. Ashi):</font></b> A Mishnah supports R. Yochanan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The coming Mishnah teaches that we check for 
               daybreak in anticipation of Shechitah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We do not check for Sidur Gizrei Eitzim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Thus, they must be Kosher at night.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Perhaps not, but we only check for irreparable 
               Avodos.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>*****<b>PEREK</b> #3 <b>AMAR LAHEM HAMEMUNEH</b>*****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>2) MISHNAH: CHECKING FOR DAYBREAK</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The appointed Kohen calls for someone to climb up and 
          check for daybreak to allow for the Shechitas ha'Tamid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The observer calls out 'Barkai'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Masia b. Shmuel says:</font></b> The entire East until Hevron is 
          lit.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  He (see Gemara) says 'Hen'!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  This procedure was necessitated by an incident in which 
          the moonlight was mistaken for daybreak, and the Tamid 
          was invalidated.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Once the call was made, the Kohen Gadol was taken down to 
          the Mikvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  The rule in the Mikdash requires Tevilah for one who 
          moved his bowels and washing from the Kiyor for one who 
          urinates.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHO INSTITUTED THE TEFILAH OF MINCHAH?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes Rav Safra who refers to Minchah as the 'Tefilah of Avraham.' However, the Gemara in Berachos (26b) says that Yitzchak Avinu instituted the Tefilah of Minchah. Why does the Gemara here attribute Minchah to Avraham Avinu?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> answers that Avraham Avinu himself was the first to pray Minchah and Ma'ariv. He prayed three times a day just as he observed all of the other Mitzvos of the Torah and of the Rabanan. However, Yitzchak Avinu was the first to institute Minchah (and Yakov Avinu the first to institute Ma'ariv) as a Tefilah for <i>all</i> of the members of his household to recite. 
</p><p>
If Avraham Avinu was the first to pray Minchah, then how does the Gemara in Berachos derive from the verse, 'Yitzchak went out to converse in the field' (Bereishis 24:63), that Yitzchak <i>instituted</i> the Tefilah of Minchah? Perhaps, like his father, he merely recited Minchah for himself (as Yitzchak also observed all of the Mitzvos), but he did not institute it for others. In addition, if Avraham Avinu did not find it necessary to institute Minchah for his entire household, why did Yitzchak Avinu do so?
</p><p>
Perhaps the Gemara in Berachos is addressing the following question. If Yitzchak Avinu recited Minchah every day, then why does the Torah record that Yitzchak recited Minchah on that specific occasion? It must be that the intention of the verse is to teach not only that Yitzchak Avinu himself prayed, but to offer an explanation for why Yitzchak Avinu <i>instituted</i> the Tefilah of Minchah for his entire household. The verse teaches that at the time that Yitzchak Avinu prayed Minchah, Hash-m bestowed upon him a great kindness, for it was at that moment that his bride, Rivkah, arrived, confirming that Eliezer succeeded with Divine assistance in his mission to find a bride for Yitzchak Avinu. Out of gratitude to Hash-m, Yitzchak Avinu instituted the Tefilah of Minchah as an obligatory prayer for his entire household, because he understood that it was in the merit of his Tefilah of Minchah that Eliezer succeeded in finding him a wife.
</p><p>
This approach also explains Yakov Avinu's institution of the Tefilah of Ma'ariv. The Torah relates that Yakov Avinu recited Ma'ariv at Beis El (Bereishis 28:11). The Torah's intention is not to teach merely that Yakov Avinu followed the ways of his father and grandfather and prayed Ma'ariv. Rather, the Torah's intention is to teach that because of what occurred on that particular occasion, Yakov Avinu decided to institute the Tefilah of Ma'ariv for his entire household. It was at that time that Hash-m promised to protect him as he sojourned outside of Eretz Yisrael. Yakov Avinu understood that Hashem's promise at that time was a sign that his Tefilah of Ma'ariv afforded him the merit of Hashem's protection. For this reason, he instituted that his entire family should always recite Ma'ariv. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Berachos (27b) and the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> here (in his second answer) explain that the first person to recite Minchah was Yitzchak Avinu. Rav Safra refers to the prayer as the 'Tefilah of Avraham' because Avraham also recited Minchah after Yitzchak had instituted it.
</p><p>
Why, though, does Rav Safra refer to Minchah as 'the prayer of Avraham,' if Avraham Avinu was merely following his <i>son's</i> example? It should be called 'the prayer of <i>Yitzchak</i>,' since Yitzchak originated the Tefilah of Minchah. Perhaps the Gemara mentions Avraham only because it refers to Avraham's <i>Zerizus</i> in praying Minchah at the earliest possible time. Since Avraham Avinu is known for his exceptional Zerizus (as the Gemara here describes), he certainly taught that attribute to his son; Yitzchak's <i>timing</i> for Minchah may be attributed to his father. In this sense, it is correct to refer to Minchah <i>when recited immediately after Chatzos</i> as 'the prayer of Avraham.' (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> and the <b>ARUCH</b> (Erech 'Shachar') explain simply that although the Torah mentions Minchah explicitly only with regard to Yitzchak Avinu, all of the Avos recited Minchah.
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS RID</b> explains that Rabeinu Chananel means that the Gemara here argues with the Gemara in Berachos which says that Yitzchak Avinu instituted the Tefilah of Minchah. The Gemara here follows the other opinion in Berachos which says that the Anshei Keneses ha'Gedolah, and not the Avos, instituted the Tefilos, and that they correspond to the Korbenos Tamid which were offered in this Beis ha'Mikdash each day and whose fats were burned each night.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) LEARNING A HALACHAH FROM AVRAHAM AVINU</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes Rav Safra who says that one should recite Minchah, the 'Tefilah of Avraham' (see previous Insight), as soon as the eastern sides of the walls begin to darken (that is, as close as possible to midday). Rav Yosef questions how we can derive a Halachah about how to pray from the conduct of Avraham Avinu.
</p><p>
What is Rav Yosef's question? Why should we not derive a Halachah from the conduct of Avraham Avinu?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that Rav Yosef's intention is to ask that Avraham Avinu was especially fervent in his performance of Mitzvos (see Chulin 16a), and it is not logical to require l'Chatchilah that everyone be as zealous as Avraham Avinu and recite Minchah immediately after midday. Rather, one who is particularly zealous in his performance of the Mitzvos should emulate Avraham Avinu and recite Minchah as soon as possible, as Avraham Avinu did. The Rabanan, though, cannot enact a <i>requirement</i> l'Chatchilah for everyone to be as zealous as Avraham Avinu.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU TAM</b> and the <b>ARUCH</b> (as explained by the <b>RITVA</b>) understand that Rav Yosef's intention is to ask how a Halachah can be derived from an act that was done <i>before</i> the Torah was given. Halachos may be derived only from what was done after the Mitzvos were commanded. 
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that since we derive the precept of 'Zerizin Makdimin l'Mitzvos' from the conduct of Avraham Avinu, we should also be able to derive the preferable time to recite Minchah from the conduct of Avraham Avinu. The Gemara rejoins that Halachos indeed may be derived from what was done before the Torah was given, but only when there is no indication that such a practice was discontinued or changed at the time of Matan Torah. In the case of Minchah, there is evidence from a Tana that from the time of the giving of the Torah it is no longer proper to recite Minchah immediately after midday. The Tana teaches that the Korban Tamid can be offered a half-hour after midday (and not immediately after midday). Therefore, even though Avraham Avinu recited Minchah immediately after midday, there is no reason for us to do so.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>MAHARATZ CHAYOS</b> (Chulin 16a) explains, based on the Yerushalmi (Moed Katan 3), that although we may not derive <i>Mitzvos</i> or <i>Halachos</i> from the conduct of the Avos before the Torah was given, nevertheless we <i>may</i> derive guidelines for what is considered praiseworthy conduct from the Avos.
</p><p>
According to this, the Gemara's question may be understand as explained by the Aruch (in (b) above), but the answer may be expressed differently. The Gemara's answer is that we do not mean to derive a Halachah from the prayer of Avraham Avinu, but rather a commendable practice: one should be 'Zariz' and pray Minchah immediately after midday. The Gemara's proof that this practice may be learned from Avraham Avinu is that the practice of 'Zerizin Makdimin l'Mitzvos' is learned from him (from the way he conducted his Bris Milah). (See Insights to Chulin 16:2.)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) AVRAHAM AVINU OBSERVED ALL OF THE MITZVOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that Avraham Avinu observed all of the Mitzvos of the Torah, even though the Torah had not yet been given. To emphasize the point, the Gemara says that Avraham Avinu observed even the rabbinical enactment of Eruv Tavshilin.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara choose this Mitzvah, of all the Mitzvos, to emphasize that Avraham Avinu observed the Mitzvos? (<b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> explains that Eruv Tavshilin differs from other rabbinical enactments insofar as it is not a prohibition. The Rabanan did not enact Eruv Tavshilin in order to prevent people from transgressing a Torah prohibition. Rather, the Rabanan enacted Eruv Tavshilin in order to enhance a person's Shabbos enjoyment by encouraging him to put away some food for Shabbos and not to eat all of his food on the Yom Tov that precedes Shabbos (Beitzah 15b). The Gemara teaches that Avraham Avinu fulfilled even this type of enactment.
</p><p>
The <b>SEFER YUCHASIN</b> (Erech 'Avraham Avinu') explains that the Rabanan enacted Eruv Tavshilin as a way to fulfill the Mitzvah of 'Zachor Es Yom ha'Shabbos' -- 'Remember the Shabbos day' (Shemos 20:8). The enactment of Eruv Tavshilin reminds a person that Shabbos is coming, so that he will remember to save some of his delicious food for Shabbos and he will not eat it all on the Yom Tov that precedes Shabbos (Beitzah ibid.). In a similar manner, Avraham Avinu 'reminded' the people that the world has a Creator Who created the world in six days and rested on Shabbos.
</p><p>
The <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> adds additional insight to why Eruv Tavshilin exemplifies Avraham Avinu's fulfillment of Mitzvos. He explains that according to the opinion of Rabah in Pesachim (46b), an Eruv Tavshilin permits one to cook on Yom Tov for Shabbos only because of the principle of 'Ho'il.' When one cooks on Yom Tov for Shabbos, he is actually cooking for Yom Tov itself, since it is possible that guests will visit him on Yom Tov and he will need to serve them the extra food. However, this application of 'Ho'il' enables one to cook on Yom Tov only when the guests who might visit are Jewish. One is not permitted to prepare food for a non-Jewish guest on Yom Tov, even if the non-Jew will eat it on Yom Tov.
</p><p>
In the times of Avraham Avinu, there were no other Jews. Consequently, Avraham Avinu could not rely on the principle of 'Ho'il' to cook on Yom Tov for a guest who might come and eat with him on Yom Tov, because any guest who might come would not be Jewish, and one is not permitted to prepare food for a non-Jew on Yom Tov. One might have thought that if Avraham Avinu made an Eruv Tavshilin, then he did not properly observe the Mitzvah not to cook on Yom Tov. Therefore, the Gemara teaches that he indeed fulfilled the Mitzvah of Eruv Tavshilin. The Gemara here follows the opinion of Rav Chisda who argues with Rabah in Pesachim. Rav Chisda maintains that the Torah permits one to cook on Yom Tov for Shabbos (since Yom Tov and Shabbos are considered one Kedushah), even without the principle of 'Ho'il.' (The only reason an Eruv Tavshilin is necessary is in order to prevent people from thinking that one is permitted to cook on Yom Tov for an ordinary weekday.)
</p><p>
(b) The Midrash (Bereishis Rabah 64:6) records the statement differently. The Midrash says that Avraham Avinu observed all of the Mitzvos, even Eruv <i>Chatzeros</i>. Shlomo ha'Melech prohibited carrying an object from one Reshus ha'Yachid (private domain) to another on Shabbos, lest one mistakenly assume that he is permitted to carry from a Reshus ha'Yachid to a Reshus ha'Rabim (public domain) as well. In order to permit one to carry from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another, Shlomo ha'Melech instituted Eruv Chatzeros, which transforms all of the private domains into a single Reshus ha'Yachid. In a similar manner, Avraham Avinu taught the people of the world not to attribute the world and its contents to multiple entities, but to attribute it to the sole Creator, Hash-m, Who is One. (<b>SEFER YUCHASIN</b>, Erech 'Avraham Avinu')
</p><p>
(c) According to the <b>RASHBA's</b> text of the Gemara, Avraham Avinu observed even Eruv <i>Techumin</i> (Teshuvos 1:94). The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (Kol Eliyahu #26) explains that this is the most accurate text, because the verse itself implies that Avraham Avinu observed the law of Eruv Techumin. The verse says, 'Ekev Asher Shama...' (Bereishis 26:5), which implies that with his 'Ekev,' his heels, Avraham Avinu observed the Mitzvos and did not walk beyond the permitted limit. 
</p><p>
According to this text as well, the Gemara alludes to the fact that Avraham Avinu taught people that Hash-m does not remain in His lofty abode in the heavens with no awareness or interest of what happens in the world. Rather, Hash-m supervises both this world and the heavens; the two 'Techumin' of heaven and earth are combined under the dominion of Hash-m. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<b><font>3) WHO CALLED OUT WHAT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  There are five opinions cited (each implying a later 
          time) as to what was called out.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The last opinion was that the people have gone out to 
          their labors.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But that is a <i>very</i> late time!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We meant the employers have gone out to hire 
          laborers.
<br>
<b><font>4) LEARNING FROM AVRAHAM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Safra):</font></b> One should pray Minchah (called here the 
          Prayer of Avraham) when the (East side of the) walls 
          become dark.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Do we learn Halachos from Avraham?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We find that the Tana does so (regarding 
          Zerizus).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Should we then (in contradiction to the Mishnah 
          which mandates 6.5 hours) slaughter the Tamid right at 
          Chatzos?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> What a question, perhaps (even though Avraham 
          prayed at midday) the walls of the Mikdash only darkened 
          at 6.5 (given their construction, narrowing as they 
          rose)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer:</font></b> Perhaps Avraham was particularly 
          familiar with the skies and time?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Third Alternate Answer:</font></b> Perhaps Avraham was unique owing 
          to his being an elder, studying in Yeshivah (as we know 
          that from the Avos onward, the Jews never ceased intense 
          study)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Mentioned are Avraham, the Jews in Mitzrayim, 
               Yitzhok, Ya'akov, and Eliezer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Eliezer was Moshel, meaning he was completely 
               familiar with the Torah of Avraham.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> He was Damesek, teaching the Torah of Avraham to 
               others.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> Avraham Avinu fulfilled all of the Torah (proof 
          text).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Maybe he only fulfilled the seven Noahide laws?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> But surely he also fulfilled B'ris Milah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We meant the seven plus B'ris Milah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Mitzvosei ve'Sorosei' implies more than only the 
          Mitzvos B'nei Noach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  (Rava or R. Ashi):</font></b> Avraham Avinu fulfilled even Eruv 
          Tavshilin, as 'Sorosei' implies both the written and oral 
          Torah.
<br>
<b><font>5) ANNOUNCING THE DAWN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who said 'Hen'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The one on the roof should not say it, lest he both 
               dream and interpret!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The one on the ground is in no position to say it!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It could have been either one.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> For the one on the roof, he called out the dawn; the 
               one on the ground asked about Hevron, and the one on 
               the roof said 'Hen'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The one on the ground would say 'Hen' to confirm 
               that, indeed, he was asking about Hevron.
<br>
<b><font>6) CONFUSING MOONLIGHT WITH SUNLIGHT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The diffusion of sunlight is broader than 
          moonlight, precluding such an error!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It was a cloudy day, and the moonlight diffuses 
          broadly through the cracks between the clouds.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  We learn from here that a cloudy day is all sunlight.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What difference does that statement make?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One can spread the skins to dry anywhere.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer:</font></b> Everywhere outdoors is considered in 
          the sun to prohibit kneading the Matzah dough there.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) SOME SURPRISING COMPARISONS (and their Simanim)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The heat of a cloudy day is more severe than of a sunny 
          day (a hole in a vinegar bottle).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The broken rays of the sun through the clouds are more 
          blinding than the direct rays of the sun (a drip).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Thoughts of an Aveirah are worse than the Aveirah (the 
          aroma of meat).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The heat of Elul is worse than mid-summer (a pre-heated 
          oven).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  A fever in the winter is worse than in the summer (a cold 
          oven).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  That which was learned and forgotten is more difficult to 
          acquire than that which is first learned (re-used 
          mortar).
<br>
<b><font>2) THE RAYS OF THE SUN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is Rebbi's source (to differentiate 
          between the rays of the sun and those of the moon).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Ayeles ha'Shachar- the sun diffuses like the 
          horns of an Ayil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is Esther compared to an Ayalah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The shape of her womb endears her to her husband.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is Esther compared to the morning?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The morning terminates the night, and Esther is 
          the terminus of miracles.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But there was still Chanukah?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Esther is the last to be written.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But what of the opinion that Esther is not 
          considered a written Sefer?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Then Ayeles teaches the comparison between the 
          Tefilos of Tzadikim and the branching horns of the Ayal.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE ERROR IN MISTAKING THE MOON FOR THE SUN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> When did this error take place?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it was during the year, then why did they then 
               immerse the Kohen Gadol?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If it was on Yom Kipur, there is no visible moon at 
               pre-dawn during that time of the month?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It was during the year, and the immersion of the 
          Kohen Gadol is a separate clause (after the call of 
          Barkai).
<br>
<b><font>4) SHECHITAS HATAMID AND OTHER NIGHTTIME ERRORS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Avuhah b'R. Avin):</font></b> Along with the Shechitas ha'Tamid 
          (which causes the Tamid to be burnt) there are Melikas 
          ha'Of and Kemitzas ha'Minchah).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: ESTHER AND THE DOE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites the verse in Tehilim (22:1), 'la'Menatze'ach Al Ayeles ha'Shachar.' The Gemara explains that David ha'Melech recited this psalm as a prayer for Esther.
</p><p>
Rebbi Zeira explains why David ha'Melech compares Esther to an Ayeles, a doe: just as an Ayeles is beloved to its mate at every moment just like the very first moment, so, too, Esther was beloved to Achashverosh at every moment just like the first moment that he met her.
</p><p>
Why is it important for David ha'Melech to mention this quality of Esther in his prayer and to relate Achashverosh's love for her?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Gemara (Berachos 58a) teaches that 'Malchusa d'Ar'a k'Ein Malchusa d'Raki'a' -- the qualities of an earthly, corporeal king reflect the qualities of the heavenly King. This theme is also expressed in the Midrash (Esther Rabah 3:15) when it says that every time the word 'ha'Melech' ('the King') appears in Megilas Esther (and refers, in the simple sense, to King Achashverosh), it is an allusion to the King of Kings, Hash-m.
</p><p>
When David ha'Melech relates the love that Achashverosh had for Esther, he alludes to the relationship between Hash-m and the Jewish people. As a result of the virtuous deeds of Esther during the time of Purim, the relationship of Hash-m to the Jewish people changed. Hash-m expressed His love for them in a way that showed that He loves them with the same love as when they first became His people at the time the Torah was given.
</p><p>
This love is mutual. The Jewish people are the 'Ayeles Ahavim' of Hash-m. The Gemara in Eruvin (54b) derives from the verse, 'Ayeles Ahavim v'Ya'alas Chen' -- 'a doe of love and a roe of grace' (Mishlei 5:19) -- that the words of Torah are compared to a doe: just as a doe is beloved to its mate as when they were first together, so, too, Divrei Torah are precious and beloved to the person who learns them as when he learned them for the first time.
</p><p>
This theme underlies the miracle of Purim. At that time of miraculous delivery from destruction, the Jewish people renewed their love for the Mitzvos, just as they felt when they received the Torah and Mitzvos at Sinai. Hash-m responded measure for measure and showed them that He loved them as much as when they first became His people.
</p><p>
The Jewish people's renewed love for Mitzvos, and Hashem's display of love for the Jewish people, has further implications. When Haman presented to Achashverosh his plan for the destruction of the Jews, he argued, 'Yeshno Am Echad' -- 'there exists a certain nation' (Esther 3:8). The Gemara (Megilah 13b) explains that Haman said, 'There is a certain nation which is sleeping (Yeshno) from the Mitzvos.' Haman reasoned that his attempts to destroy the Jewish people would be successful, because the Jews' fulfillment of the Mitzvos had become so heartless; their apathy towards the Mitzvos would forfeit any Divine protection they might otherwise have been entitled to receive. Hash-m responded to their indolent performance of the Mitzvos measure for measure by acting as though He was sleeping, and He did not reveal His presence to them. Indeed, the Midrash relates that Haman claimed that Hash-m was 'sleeping from protecting His people,' and it cites the verse (Tehilim 44:24), 'Arouse! Why should You sleep, Hash-m!' (See Esther Rabah 7:12, 10:1.)
</p><p>
The verse later in the Megilah says, 'ba'Lailah ha'Hu Nadedah Shenas ha'Melech' -- 'on that night, the king's sleep was disturbed' (Esther 6:1). The Midrash (Esther Rabah 10:1) comments that this verse refers to Hashem's sleep. When the Jews realized the imminent danger that faced them, they repented and turned to Hash-m in fervent prayer and fasting. They aroused themselves from their slumber, and in return Hash-m aroused Himself from His slumber, so to speak -- 'va'Yikatz k'Yashen Hash-m' -- 'and Hash-m woke up as one who sleeps' (Tehilim 78:65, Esther Rabah 7:12). When the Jews repented sincerely and accepted upon themselves to fulfill the Torah as though it was the first time they received it -- as the verse says, 'Kiyemu v'Kiblu' (Esther 9:27; Shabbos 88a) -- Hash-m responded accordingly and treated the Jews with a display of renewed love.
</p><p>
David ha'Melech refers to Esther as an 'Ayeles,' a symbol of her role as the one who prompted the reconciliation in the relationship between Hash-m and the Jewish people, so that they were as beloved to each other as they were at the time the Torah was given.
</p><p>
This theme is reflected in other elements of Purim. The Gemara (Megilah 7b) states that a person should become inebriated on Purim 'Ad d'Lo Yada Bein Baruch Mordechai l'Arur Haman,' until he does not know the difference between 'Blessed is Mordechai' and 'Cursed is Haman.' The <b>REMA</b> (OC 695:2) rules that the Gemara does not mean that one should get drunk, but rather that one should drink a little more than usual and then go to sleep. Perhaps the reason why a person should fulfill the Halachah of 'Ad d'Lo Yada' in this way is to commemorate the events of Purim. The Jews were 'sleeping from the Mitzvos,' and Hash-m reacted as though He was asleep. Through the miraculous events of Purim, the Jews were inspired to do Teshuvah and to awaken themselves from their slumber, and they thereby became worthy of Hash-m awaking from His slumber, so to speak.
</p><p>
In addition, the Gemara (Megilah 10b) says that the name 'Mordechai' comes from the words 'Mor Deror' (or 'Mor Dachi' in Aramaic). 'Mor Deror' was the first of the spices and herbs used in the Shemen ha'Mishchah and the Ketores (Shemos 30:23). Just as the aroma of the ingredients of the Ketores continually stimulated the senses and no one ever tired of the smell, so, too, Mordechai aroused the people to renew their love for Hash-m to such a degree that their love would never become dull.
</p><p>
The Mishnah earlier (26a) alludes to this quality of the Ketores when it says, 'Chadashim la'Ketores' (only 'new' Kohanim who had never before offered the Ketores were permitted to participate in the Payis for the Ketores). A characteristic of the aromatic Ketores is that its sweet smell arouses people to renew their love for Hash-m. Perhaps this quality is reflected in the enactment that only 'new' Kohanim ('Chadashim') may offer the Ketores. New Kohanim, who have never performed the Avodah of the Ketores, will perform the Mitzvah with great zeal and love.
</p><p>
Like Esther, who is compared to the Ayeles, Mordechai was able to bring his people to renew their love for Hash-m and His Torah. (M. Kornfeld) (See Insights to Megilah 13:4.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) AGADAH: PURIM -- THE END OF THE NIGHT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites the verse in Tehilim (22:1), 'La'Menatze'ach Al Ayeles ha'Shachar.' The Gemara explains that David ha'Melech recited this psalm as a prayer for Esther.
</p><p>
Rebbi Asi asks why David ha'Melech compares Esther to the 'Shachar,' the break of dawn. He answers that just as daybreak marks the end of the night, so, too, Esther marked the end of miracles.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara compare the <i>end</i> of miracles to the <i>beginning</i> of the day? The occurrence of miracles grants man a glimpse of Hashem's omnipresent involvement in the events of history. As such, it would be far more appropriate to compare the end of miracles to the <i>end</i> of the day, when darkness descends upon the world and man no longer has a clear view of Hashem's direct involvement in the world.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that the Gemara means that Purim is the end of the 'miracles that occur in Galus.' Such miracles are like flashes of light in the dark of night which encourage the Jew that Hash-m has not forsaken him. The Gemara does not mean that the miracles themselves are like the nighttime; rather, it refers to 'miracles <i>of</i> the nighttime,' miracles that occur during times of Galus. At the time of Purim, the darkness of the night of Galus began to wane and give way to daybreak, rendering flashes of light, or open miracles, unnecessary.
</p><p>
The Maharsha bases this explanation on the Midrash which says that all of the miracles in this world occur at night, but when the final Ge'ulah comes the miracles will occur during the day. Purim is the last of the miracles to occur during the night of Galus.
</p><p>
'Esther marked the end of miracles' means that after the miracle of Purim, no more miracles were necessary to remind the Jew that Hash-m is still with him, despite the apparent concealment of His presence. No 'flashes of light' were necessary after the miracle of Purim, because it became clear at that time that Hash-m would always be with the Jewish people and protect them. The miracles that happened before Purim showed only that Hash-m was with the Jewish people when they lived in Eretz Yisrael and merited to have open miracles. When they were sent into Galus, however, the fear arose that Hash-m might not stay with them, as they did not have the merit to be worthy of open miracles outside of Eretz Yisrael. The miracle of Purim showed that Hash-m remains with His people even when they are in Galus. Even though Hash-m does not send open miracles like those that occurred when the Beis ha'Mikdash stood, He sends miracles disguised in natural occurrences in order to give the Jewish people the confidence that He will protect them through whatever they might endure until the final Ge'ulah.
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes that Purim was the last of the miracles that was 'given over to be recorded in writing.' There were other miracles after Purim (such as Chanukah), but those miracles did not have to be committed to writing. Only miracles that pertain to all future generations are formally committed to writing (Megilah 14a). It was not necessary to record the others, because the Jews already had the knowledge from the miracle of Purim that Hash-m would be with them until the final Ge'ulah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MESHECH CHOCHMAH</b> (beginning of Parshas Bechukosai) explains that the entire process of nature itself is a miracle. However, a person becomes accustomed to it and fails to give adequate praise to Hash-m. The open miracles that Hash-m performs serve to remind man about the miracles constantly present and inherent in the natural order of the world.
</p><p>
Man's ideal state of awareness of Hash-m is when he sees Hashem's involvement in the normal functioning of the world, without open miracles. Open miracles are a crutch that enable a person to recognize Hash-m during a time when the darkness of night clouds his vision and blocks his view. A person, however, should ideally recognize Hash-m in the world without open miracles. At the time of the final Ge'ulah, the world will reach a state in which the knowledge and awareness of Hash-m in the natural course of the world will become evident to everyone, without open miracles. Purim initiated this state of awareness of Hashem's involvement in the natural course of the world. It is appropriate, therefore, for the Gemara to compare the end of open miracles to the beginning of the day. (Heard from Rav Kalman Weinreb, shlit'a.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But why not just put the Kemitzah back in (if 
          it was removed too early) and re-take it during daylight?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> A K'li Shares sanctifies that which comes into 
          it, even at the wrong time.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa teaches that [only] that which is 
          to be offered by day becomes Kadosh by day (but not at 
          night)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Perhaps the Beraisa only speaks of becoming 
          Kadosh to be offered, but it would still be Kadosh for 
          Pesul.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But how come the Lechem (placed after Shabbos, 
          and may not be removed until the second Shabbos) does not 
          become Pasul through having been placed at the wrong 
          time?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> That is a good question, and must be dealt 
          with in light of the fact that Avuhah d'R. Avin was 
          citing a Beraisa.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa teaches that night is <i>not</i> deemed as a 
               Mechusar Z'man, while day <i>is</i>.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Thus placing the Lechem ha'Panim during the <i>day</i> 
               before Shabbos will not allow it to have any 
               Kedushah at all.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But then it will become Kadosh/Pasul once 
               night falls!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa is speaking where he took the 
               Lechem off the Shulchan Erev Shabbos and replaced it 
               in the morning.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Alternate Answer:</font></b> If one arranges the Lechem at the 
               wrong time it is a meaningless act (like a monkey) 
               and it thus will not become Kadosh/Pasul.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WASHING HANDS AND FEET UPON ENTERING THE MIKDASH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why wash the hands as well?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This implies a Mitzvah to wipe off (with the 
          hands) the drops from one's legs (so as to prevent his 
          being thought of as a K'rus Shafchah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Excrement in its place prohibits a person from saying 
          Sh'ma.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Under what circumstances are we speaking?
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  If it is visible, the Halachah is obvious. 
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> If it is not visible, we are not angels!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The prohibition applies when it is visible 
               when seated, and not when standing.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How is this law different from Tzo'ah on his 
          body?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> R. Huna:</font></b> If there is Tzo'ah on his body or his hands 
               are in the privy it is permitted to recite Sh'ma.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> R. Chisda:</font></b> It is prohibited.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Tzo'ah in its place is more malodorous.
<br>
<b><font>2) ONE WHO STEPS AWAY FROM A MEAL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  One who leaves the table to urinate need only wash the 
          soiled hand (from wiping drops off his leg).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If he tarried away from the table a long time, he must 
          wash both hands before returning to the table.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  He should wash inside, lest he be suspected of not 
          washing.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The Shamash would make a point of his having washed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (R. Chisda):</font></b> The requirement to wash inside is restricted 
          to where he will only be drinking at the table.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If, however, he will continue eating, then he may 
               wash outside (since all know that a person is 
               careful not to eat with dirty hands).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Nachman b. Yitzhok added that all know that <i>he</i> 
               is especially careful, and he could even wash 
               outside for drinking.
<br>
<b><font>3) MISHNAH: TEVILAH BEFORE ENTERING THE MIKDASH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  One may not enter the Azarah [to perform Avodah] without 
          prior immersion (even if he is Tahor).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Kohen Gadol immersed five times and washed his hands/ 
          feet 10 ten times.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  All of the immersions were in the Kodesh (above the Beis 
          ha'Parvah) except the first, upon entry.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  When the Kohen Gadol immersed a sheet of linen was held 
          up for modesty.
<br>
<b><font>4) THE RATIONALE FOR THE ENTRY IMMERSION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why should a Tahor person immerse himself?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Ben Zoma):</font></b> It is a Kal va'Chomer from the Kohen 
          Gadol on Yom Kipur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yehudah):</font></b> It is a Chumrah to prompt the person 
          to recall that he might be Tamei (and forbidden to 
          enter).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is their dispute?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: PERSONAL HYGIENE AFTER GOING TO THE BATHROOM</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says that after a Kohen goes to the bathroom to urinate ('Mei Raglayim'), he must do only Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim (wash his hands and feet). After urinating, one is required to remove any droplets of Mei Raglayim that might have fallen on his legs, so that he not be suspected of being a Kerus Shafchah (a man with an anatomical disorder which disqualifies him from marrying into the Jewish community; Devarim 23:2). Since he must rub off any droplets, he is required to wash his hands afterwards for cleanliness. This reason obligates not only a Kohen to wash his hands (Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim) after urinating, but every Jewish male (Netilas Yadayim).
</p><p>
The Gemara implies that if not for this reason, there would be no obligation to wash the hands after urinating. Does this mean that if one does not rub off any droplets, he does not need to wash his hands? Does a woman, to whom the law of Kerus Shafchah does not apply, need to wash her hands? 
</p><p>
Moreover, since one is obligated to wash his hands after urinating, must he recite the blessing of 'Al Netilas Yadayim'?
</p><p>
(a) The Tosfos Yeshanim cites <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who rules that just as a Kohen does not need to do Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim if he did not touch the Mei Raglayim, so, too, a non-Kohen does not need to wash his hands if he did not touch the Mei Raglayim. The requirement to wash one's hands is solely in order to clean them if they became soiled. The act of urinating itself does not obligate one to wash his hands. For this reason, even if one's hands touched the Mei Raglayim, he does not recite a blessing of 'Al Netilas Yadayim,' because the act of washing is not a Mitzvah unto itself, but rather a means of hygiene. It is no different from anyone else who washes his dirty hands in order to clean them.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> agrees with Rabeinu Tam that one who does not touch the Mei Raglayim does not need to wash his hands. However, he argues with Rabeinu Tam and says that if one does touch the Mei Raglayim and must wash his hands, he must also recite a blessing of 'Al Netilas Yadayim' for that washing. The Tosfos ha'Rosh compares this act of washing to the Mitzvah to wash the hands in the morning upon arising. The Halachah requires that one recite a blessing when he washes his hands in the morning, even though that act of washing is done only because he might have touched an unclean part of his body. That Halachah implies that whenever the Rabanan instituted an act of washing, even for the sake of cleanliness, the act of washing requires a blessing.
</p><p>
However, the Rosh limits the requirement to recite a blessing to one who washes his hands in order to pray (Shemoneh Esreh). It does not apply to one who washes in order to learn Torah.
</p><p>
The argument between the Tosfos ha'Rosh and Rabeinu Tam with regard to washing one's hands with a blessing may be based on another argument with regard to washing the hands. The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 4:1) rules that upon arising in the morning, one must wash his hands. The Rishonim give different reasons for this requirement.
</p><p>
The <b>ROSH</b> maintains that one must wash his hands upon arising because the hands might have touched an unclean part of the body. As mentioned above, the Rosh understands from this Halachah that one should recite a blessing when he washes his hands after urinating if his hands become soiled.
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b>, however, maintains that the reason for washing the hands in the morning is similar to the reason for why a Kohen must wash before he enters the Beis ha'Mikdash in the morning: it is for the purpose of Kedushah, to sanctify himself. Similarly, before one begins to pray at the start of the day, he must wash his hands for the purpose of Kedushah (see Mishnah Berurah OC 4:1). Perhaps Rabeinu Tam maintains, like the Rashba, that the morning washing requires a blessing not because its purpose is to clean the hands, but because of Kedushah. In contrast, the washing done after urinating is not for the sake of Kedushah but in order to clean the hands, and thus one does not recite a blessing for that washing.
</p><p>
(c) The Tosfos Yeshanim cites <b>RABEINU ELCHANAN</b> who says that one must wash his hands after urinating even if he did not touch any droplets. He infers this from the Mishnah (28a) which states that 'a rule in the Beis ha'Mikdash was that <i>every</i> Kohen who urinated requires Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim' and does not differentiate between one who touched the droplets and one who did not. The enactment that the Kohanim wash their hands was an all-inclusive enactment. Similarly, every person is required to wash his hands after urinating even if he did not touch the droplets.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> suggests another reason for why one must wash his hands even if he did not touch any droplets. The verse says, 'Erchatz b'Nikayon Kapai' -- 'I shall wash my hands with purity' (Tehilim 26:6), which teaches that one should prepare for Tefilah by sanctifying himself with the washing of his hands (see Berachos 15a). (This reason applies only when one washes before prayer.)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 7:1-2) rules that one must wash his hands even if he did not rub off any droplets. One does not recite a blessing of 'Al Netilas Yadayim,' but only the blessing of 'Asher Yatzar.'
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE KEDUSHAH OF THE MIKVAH ATOP THE BEIS HA'PARVAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that the Kohen Gadol would immerse in the Mikvah which was in a 'sanctified area' atop the Beis ha'Parvah. Rashi says that the Mikvah was on the roof of the Beis ha'Parvah.
</p><p>
How could the roof be a sanctified area? The Gemara in Pesachim (86a) teaches that the roofs above the Azarah were not sanctified.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (31a, DH v'Chulan) answers that the Beis ha'Parvah was built underground, and its rooftop was level with the ground of the Azarah. Rooftops which are level with the ground of the Azarah <i>are</i> sanctified, as the Gemara in Pesachim says. (See Insights to Yoma 25:1:b.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (Tamid 30b-31a) says that the reason why the rooftops in the Azarah were not sanctified is because when the structures were built initially, prior to the sanctification of the area, the roofs served as Mechitzos, partitions that prevented the Kedushah of the Azarah from reaching the area above the rooftops. The rest of the airspace of the Azarah (inside the rooms that had roofs, and in the outside areas that had no roofs) was sanctified.
</p><p>
When the Beis ha'Parvah was built, the airspace above it had already become sanctified (since it was built some time after the rest of the Beis ha'Mikdash was built), and thus the roof did not serve as a Mechitzah. Consequently, the area above the Beis ha'Parvah remained sanctified. (Alternatively, when the Azarah was initially built, the builders had positive intent to leave the rooftops unsanctified. All other areas, though, became sanctified, including the airspace. As a result, when any structure was built later the airspace above its roof remained sanctified.)
</p><p>
This approach explains why the Beis ha'Parvah was named for the person who built it (see Insights to Yoma 35:1), while no other part of the Azarah was named for a particular person. Since the Beis ha'Parvah was built later and was not part of the original construction of the Azarah, it had an independent identity and assumed the name of the person who built it. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>EZRAS KOHANIM</b> (Midos 5:3, DH Shalosh #1 and DH v'Al Gago) suggests that the roof of the Beis ha'Parvah was sanctified because it contained a door which led to the sanctified area of the Azarah. Since the roof opened into the sanctified Azarah, the roof itself became sanctified.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Whether (Ben Zoma) or not (R. Yehudah) his Avodah 
          would be invalidated if he did not immerse.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we have a Beraisa teaching that only the 
          omission of the hand/feet makes Avodah Pesulah?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, the immersion would not invalidate, 
          rather they are arguing whether (Ben Zoma) or not (R. 
          Yehudah) there is an Asei to immerse before entering in 
          the morning.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we have a Beraisa teaching that, according 
          to R. Yehudah (dealing with the Metzora), one need <i>not</i> 
          immerse prior to the Avodah of the thumbs.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> As stated clearly in the Beraisa, R. Yehudah 
          relies on the immersion from the previous evening.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why was this Beraisa even introduced?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer and Question:</font></b> It is introduced because it 
          contradicts another Beraisa which implies that, according 
          to R. Yehudah, the Metzora <i>must</i> immerse before his 
          Avodah (the Beraisa says that the Lishkah was not <i>only</i> 
          for Metzoraim)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One Beraisa is speaking where he <i>did</i> immerse 
          the previous evening, and one where he did not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But if he did not immerse, he requires waiting 
          until nightfall (and he does his Avodah the next day)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, one Beraisa speaks where is was Masi'ach 
          Da'as, and one where he was not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But if he was Masi'ach Da'as, then he requires 
          a new sprinkling on the third and seventh days!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, one Beraisa speaks where he immersed the 
          previous evening intending to come into the Mikdash, the 
          other speaks where he did not have that intention.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa does not have the word 
          '*only'*.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah was speaking within the 
          opinion of the Rabanan, with whom he argues, saying that 
          <i>everyone</i> and not only the Metzora should require 
          Tevilah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b></b>  The Rabanan do not accept R. Yehudah's contention, since 
          the Metzora, unlike others, is used to being Tamei and a 
          special Tevilah is required lest he had not been careful.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Do the Chachamim here (differ from the 
          Chachamim in the first Beraisa and) follow the opinion of 
          Ben Zoma (and here they require all to immerse) and they 
          spoke of the Metzora only to highlight the opinion of R. 
          Yehudah; or is the Metzora just different?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(u)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They hold the Metzora is different since he is so 
          used to being Tamei.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE ENTRY IMMERSION (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Would a Chatzitzah invalidate this immersion 
          even according to R. Yehudah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> As by a d'Oreisa, so, too, a de'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Would partial entry constitute entry to 
          necessitate this Tevilah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Metzora teaches that it is.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Could one bypass this Tevilah by using a long 
          knife for Shechitah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The question is relevant to the position of Ben Zoma 
               (is the obligation even for one outside).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It is also relevant to the Rabanan who argue with R. 
               Yehudah (do we exempt only one not doing an Avodah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Teiku
<br>
<b><font>2) THE FIVE TEVILOS AND TEN KIDUSHIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Abaye learned from a Beraisa that Ein Eitam was 23 Amos 
          higher than the floor of the Azarah (the 20 Amos of the 
          gate plus the calculated three Amos height of a Mikvah).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) SHECHITAH WITH A LONG KNIFE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (30a) requires one to immerse himself in a Mikvah before he enters the Azarah. The Gemara asks whether this Tevilah is also necessary for a person who stands outside the Azarah and extends a long knife into the Azarah and performs Shechitah there. The Gemara's doubt is whether the person needs Tevilah because he is performing an Avodah inside the Azarah, or whether he is exempt because he is standing outside.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Mahu she'Ya'aseh) explains that the case involves a person who 'stands outside of the Azarah and stretches out his hand inside and slaughters.'
</p><p>
Why does Rashi say that the person's hand is inside the Azarah, and not simply that the person extends the knife (and not his hand) into the Azarah? The Gemara previously established that one needs Tevilah even if he extends just a small part of his body into the Azarah. Why, according to Rashi, is the Gemara now in doubt about such a case?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>SI'ACH YITZCHAK</b> explains that Rashi's words are inexact. Rashi means that the person stretched only the knife -- <i>which is in his hand</i> -- into the Azarah, but his hand remained outside.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHASH</b> adds that Rashi does not mean that the person actually extends his hand into the Azarah. Rather, he stretches his hand <i>toward</i> the Azarah in a motion of Shechitah. When Rashi writes the word 'inside' ('Lifnim'), he means 'toward' the inside, but not literally inside.
</p><p>
(c) Perhaps when Rashi says that the person extended 'Yado' into the Azarah, he does not mean that the person extended 'his hand' into the Azarah. Rather, Rashi means that the person extended '*its handle*' ('Yado') -- the handle of the knife -- into the Azarah!
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi intends to address another difficulty. Even if a person does not need Tevilah in order to stand outside and slaughter an animal that is inside, there is still a concern that he might perform the Shechitah with the part of the knife that is outside of the Azarah (for example, if the animal walks closer to him), and such a Shechitah invalidates a Korban. A similar decree is mentioned in Chulin (15b, and <b>ROSH</b> to Chulin 1:21), where the Gemara says that one may not slaughter an animal with one part of a knife when the other part of the knife has a nick lest he use the blemished side to slaughter the animal. Similarly, in the case of the Gemara here, the person outside of the Azarah should not be permitted to slaughter an animal inside the Azarah with a long knife lest he slaughter the animal, if it moves closer to him, with the part of the knife near the handle (which is outside of the Azarah).
</p><p>
Rashi answers that there is no such fear, because the person extends <i>the handle</i> of the knife itself into the Azarah as well, and thus the entire length of the blade is inside the Azarah. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE REQUIREMENT TO IMMERSE BEFORE ENTERING THE AZARAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (30a) requires one to immerse himself in a Mikvah before he enters the Azarah. The Gemara asks whether this Tevilah is also necessary for a person who stands outside the Azarah and extends a long knife into the Azarah and performs Shechitah there. Even the Rabanan in the Mishnah in Midos (cited on 30b) who normally do not require one to immerse before he enters the Azarah might require Tevilah in this case, because when the person performs the Shechitah he does an actual Avodah and is not merely walking into the Azarah. The Gemara leaves this question unanswered.
</p><p>
The Rabanan who do not require one to immerse before he enters the Azarah disagree with the Tana of the Mishnah here (Ben Zoma) who requires one to immerse. However, the Mishnah here says that one must immerse before he enters the Azarah only when he intends 'to do Avodah' ('la'Avodah'). Accordingly, the Rabanan who disagree must maintain that Tevilah is not required even when one intends to perform an Avodah inside the Azarah. Why, then, does the Gemara consider the possibility that the Rabanan agree that one must immerse when he intends to perform an Avodah inside the Azarah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> on the Mishnah (30a, DH la'Avodah) and <b>TOSFOS</b> (30a, DH Ein Adam; 31a, DH Chotzetz) answer that the term 'la'Avodah' in the Mishnah is inexact. The Mishnah means that one is required to immerse whenever he plans to enter the Azarah, even when he does not intend to perform an Avodah. Tosfos adds that according to the Mishnah (which expresses the opinion of Ben Zoma), a person who enters the Azarah in order to perform an Avodah is required <i>mid'Oraisa</i> to immerse in a Mikvah. One who enters the Azarah with no intention to perform an Avodah must immerse only mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> (30a, DH Ein Adam) says in the name of his Rebbi, Rabeinu Yehudah he'Chasid, that one needs Tevilah only when he enters the Azarah in order to perform an Avodah. The word 'la'Avodah' in the Mishnah is exact in that respect. However, 'la'Avodah' does not mean a full-fledged Avodah, but it refers to any act which must be done in the Mikdash (such as Semichah, or a Metzora's insertion of his fingers into the Azarah for the sake of Haza'ah). The Rabanan in Midos require Tevilah only when one performs an actual Avodah.
</p><p>
(c) The Tosfos Yeshanim (31a, DH Tiba'i) cites the opinion of <b>RABEINU YOSEF</b> who says that even according to the Tana of the Mishnah here, one needs Tevilah only when he enters to do an actual Avodah. (The Avodah, though, does not have to be the type that may be performed only by a Kohen. An Avodah which a Zar may perform, such as Shechitah, also requires Tevilah, as is clear from the Gemara.) The Rabanan in Midos argue and maintain that one needs Tevilah only when he performs an Avodah <i>immediately</i> upon entering the Azarah. (The Tosfos Yeshanim does not consider this explanation satisfactory.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But what of the additional Amos for the 
          thickness of the roof of the gate and the Ma'azivah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Marble may be very thin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Still, the height must be a bit more than 23 
          Amos?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We do not consider fractional Amos.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE PARTITION OF LINEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why linen?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> To remind the Kohen Gadol that the day's Avodah 
          is done in linen (as explained regarding the upcoming 
          Mishnah).
<br>
<b><font>4) MISHNAH: THE PROCEDURE OF THE TAMID</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Kohen Gadol disrobed, immersed, emerged and dried 
          himself, after which he donned the Bigdei Zahav which 
          were brought to him and he performed Kidush Yadayim and 
          Raglayim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  He began the Shechitah of the Tamid, which another Kohen 
          took over while the Kohen Gadol did Kabalas ha'Dam.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  He went into the Heichal to offer the Ketores, prepare 
          the Neiros, be Makriv the Rosh, Eivarim, Minchas Chavitin 
          and Yayin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  At Shacharis the Ketores came between the Zerikah and the 
          Haktaras Eivarim, while Bein ha'Arbayim it came between 
          the Eivarim and the Nesachim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  If the Kohen was sensitive then pre-heated water would be 
          added to the Mikvah.
<br>
<b><font>5) R. MEIR AND THE RABANAN ON THE FIRST SET OF KIDUSHIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Our Mishnah, which only lists one Kidush, must 
          argue with R. Meir who holds that two Kidushin are 
          required for donning the new set of Begadim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Papa):</font></b> No, both the Rabanan and R. Meir agree 
          that one Kidush is for disrobing and one is for donning; 
          they only argue about the application of the Pasuk which 
          connects disrobing to donning.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa teaches that, according to R. 
          Meir, there were two Kidushin for the first Tevilah!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Papa):</font></b> If it is explicit in the Beraisa, then 
          it must be, indeed, that R. Meir argues with our Mishnah!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE MISSING FLOUR</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah lists the Avodos of the Korban Tamid which the Kohen Gadol performs on Yom Kippur. It says that he brings the Evarim (limbs) of the Tamid up to the Mizbe'ach 'along with the Chavisin and the wine.'
</p><p>
Why does the Mishnah make no mention of the flour of the Minchas Nesachim which is also brought with the Korban Tamid? The Mishnah earlier (25a) mentions it together with the Chavisin of the Kohen Gadol and the wine. Why does the Mishnah here omit it?
</p><p>
The answer cannot be that the Mishnah includes the flour when it mentions the Tamid brought on the Mizbe'ach, because the Mishnah itself lists wine separately even though it is also brought with the Tamid. The flour of the Minchah should be listed separately as well.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>SI'ACH YITZCHAK</b> cites the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 2:1; Perush ha'Mishnayos, introduction to Menachos) who writes that the word 'Nesachim' includes both the wine and the flour that are brought with the Korban Tamid. When the Rambam (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 4:1) quotes the Mishnah here which mentions wine but not flour, he omits the word 'wine' and writes 'Nesachim' instead, and thereby includes the wine and flour together.
</p><p>
Similarly, when the Mishnah mentions the 'wine' of the Nesachim it also intends to include the flour, just as the word 'Nesachim' includes both the wine and flour. The only reason the earlier Mishnah mentions the flour separately is because that Mishnah enumerates all of the Kohanim involved in the Avodos of the Tamid. Since one Kohen brought the flour up to the Mizbe'ach and a different Kohen brought the wine, the Mishnah there needs to mention them separately.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHASH</b> suggests a different reason for why the Mishnah here does not mention the flour of the Nesachim. The Halachah is that the flour of the Nesachim and the wine do not need to be brought concurrently with the Korban Tamid. The flour and wine may be brought later, even after several days have passed. The Rashash points out that <b>TOSFOS</b> in Rosh Hashanah (30b) implies that even l'Chatchilah the flour of the Nesachim may be brought at a later time. However, there is reason to say that the wine must be brought l'Chatchilah on the same day as the Korban, because the Shir Shel Yom (the Song of the Day), which is part of the Avodah of the Korban Tamid, must be recited when the wine of the Korban is brought.
</p><p>
Since the flour does not need to be brought with the Korban even l'Chatchilah and it may be brought on a later day, perhaps the bringing of the flour for the Korban on Yom Kippur is not considered an Avodah unique to the day of Yom Kippur. Consequently, it is not necessary for the Kohen Gadol himself to bring it, and it may be brought by any Kohen. For this reason, the Mishnah, which discusses the Kohen Gadol's tasks on Yom Kippur, does not mention it. (This answer is based on the proposition of the <b>RITVA</b> (12b) that any part of the Avodah not unique to Yom Kippur does not need to be done by the Kohen Gadol. See Insights to Yoma 22:1:c).
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE RABANAN AND TEN KIDUSHIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to Rabanan, there are only nine 
          Kidushin?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There is a last one when he changes to Bigdei 
          Chol.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE SECOND ENTRY INTO THE OHEL MOED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why does the Kohen enter a second time?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> To remove the Kaf and Machtah which he left 
          there.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  This Pasuk, then, is out of order.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is this so?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Chisda):</font></b> We have a tradition regarding the 
          five Tevilos and ten Kidushin, and keeping the Pesukim in 
          their order would leave only three Tevilos and six 
          Kidushin.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE SOURCE FOR THE TEVILOS AND KIDUSHIN (THE BERAISA)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa teaches the sources for the Tevilos and 
          Kidushin provided by R. Yehudah ('u'Va Aharon... ') and 
          Rebbi ('Kesones Bad Kodesh... ').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah learns from the cited Pasuk that Tevilah is 
          needed when going from Lavan to Zahav.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Rebbi learns from his Pasuk that Tevilah is needed when 
          going from Zahav to Lavan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa reports an additional Pasuk ('Bigdei Kodesh 
          Hem') which the Gemara will explain.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  All agree on the five Avodos under discussion.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Tamid Shel Shachar - Zahav.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Avodas ha'Yom (inside) - Lavan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> The two Eilim - Zahav.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Removing the Kaf and Machtah - Lavan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> Tamid Shel Bein ha'Arbayim - Zahav.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Whence that each Tevilah requires two Kidushin?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'u'Fashat ve'Rachatz... ' (Rebbi)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer b. R. Shimon learns it from a Kal va'Chomer 
          (like R. Yehudah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Lest you think that, like the rest of the year, that 
               there is only one Kidush on Yom Kipur...
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Pasuk says 'u'Va Aharon...Asher Lavash' to 
               connect the disrobing to the donning (both require 
               Kidush).
<br>
<b><font>4) THE ANALYSIS OF THE BERAISA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How, according to R. Yehudah, do we know the 
          Tevilah when going from Zahav to Lavan?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A VERSE OUT OF SEQUENCE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the Torah's description of the Avodos which the Kohen Gadol must perform on Yom Kippur, one of the Avodos seems to be out of sequence. The Torah (Vayikra 16:23) states that Aharon (the Kohen Gadol) is to return to the Kodesh ha'Kodashim to remove the incense shovel (Kaf u'Machtah), and only afterwards does the Torah describe the sacrifices that Aharon is to offer on Yom Kippur.
</p><p>
The Gemara points out that while all of the other verses that describe the Avodah of Yom Kippur are in the correct order, this verse is not. According to the correct order of the Avodah, Aharon is to bring the Musaf offering and the afternoon Tamid first, and only afterwards is he to don the linen garments again and return to the Kodesh ha'Kodashim to remove the Kaf u'Machtah. This order of events is based on a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai which says that five Tevilos and ten Kidushin must be done by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur. Only if the Avodah of this verse (the removal of the Kaf u'Machtah) is placed after the offering of the Korbanos will there be five Tevilos and ten Kidushin.
</p><p>
If the correct order of the Avodah requires that the Korbanos be offered before the removal of the Kaf u'Machtah, then why does the Torah itself place the verse out of the proper sequence?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> explains as follows. The Midrash (Vayikra Rabah 21:6) relates that Hash-m told Moshe that Aharon shall not be prohibited from entering the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. Rather, he may enter whenever he wants. However, when he does enter he must perform the Avodos just as they are performed on Yom Kippur. Although no other Kohen Gadol is permitted to enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim at any time other than Yom Kippur, Aharon was permitted to enter on any day of the year, provided that he perform the Avodah as it is done on Yom Kippur. (This is in contrast to the words of Rashi to Vayikra 16:3 and 32.)
</p><p>
The Vilna Ga'on explains that if Aharon chose to enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim on any other day of the year, he was required to remove the incense shovel from the Kodesh ha'Kodashim immediately <i>before</i> he performed the Avodah of the afternoon Tamid. The words of the Torah here do not describe the Avodah specific to Yom Kippur, but rather it describes the Avodah that is performed on <i>any</i> day that Aharon chose to enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. 'This is how <i>Aharon</i> shall enter the Sanctuary' (Vayikra 16:3) -- any day of the year.
</p><p>
(This also may explain why the Torah makes no mention of the Musaf offerings of Yom Kippur in this Parshah. Those offerings were brought only on Yom Kippur and not on any day that Aharon chose to enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim.)
</p><p>
Therefore, the Torah lists the removal of the Kaf u'Machtah immediately after the Avodah of the Ketores and the sprinklings of Dam in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and Heichal. The verse is out of sequence only insofar as the services of <i>Yom Kippur</i> are concerned; on that day, the Kohen Gadol must remove the Kaf u'Machtah at a later time in the day, after he brings the offerings. (<b>KOL ELIYAHU</b> #83. A similar idea is proposed by the <b>NETZIV</b> in <b>HA'AMEK DAVAR</b> to Vayikra 16:2, 23, and 34.)
</p><p>
The logic for this sequence is clear. The Gemara teaches that there is a specific reason for why the Divine will on Yom Kippur requires that the Kaf u'Machtah remain in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim until later: the Kohen Gadol must perform five Tevilos on Yom Kippur, each accompanied by a change of clothing. If the Kohen Gadol must remove the Kaf u'Machtah from the Kodesh ha'Kodashim (which he does while he wears the linen garments) immediately after he performs the Avodah of the Ketores and the sprinklings of Dam in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and Heichal (which he also does while he wears the linen garments), then he misses one opportunity to change from the linen garments into the gold garments. He changes clothing only three times (gold-linen-gold) and misses two Tevilos.
</p><p>
In order to perform an additional two changes of clothing, he is commanded to don the gold garments after he performs the Avodah of the Ketores and the sprinklings of the Dam, offer the Korbanos in those garments, and then don the linen garments again later and perform the Avodah of the removal of the Kaf u'Machtah. He then changes back to the gold garments, so that he has a total of five changes of clothing (and five Tevilos).
</p><p>
This requirement, however, is unique to Yom Kippur. The reason for why five Tevilos and ten Kidushin are required on Yom Kippur is <i>not</i> because of the Kohen Gadol's entry into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. Rather, they are performed in order to arouse Hashem's mercy to forgive the Jewish people on the Day of Atonement ('Mikveh Yisrael Hash-m, Mah Mikvah Metaher...'; Yoma 85b). Accordingly, when Aharon chose to enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim on any other day of the year, when five Tevilos and ten Kidushin are not necessary, there was no need for him to change clothing five times. Therefore, the Torah commands him to remove the Kaf u'Machtah from the Kodesh ha'Kodashim immediately after he offers the Ketores and sprinkles the Dam.
</p><p>
Why was Aharon, and no other Kohen Gadol, given the special privilege of entering the Kodesh ha'Kodashim whenever he wanted? The <b>MESHECH CHOCHMAH</b> (Vayikra 16:3) offers an insight based on the words of the <b>SEFORNO</b>. The Seforno (Vayikra 24:3) explains that while the Jewish people were in the Midbar, only the Kohen Gadol was allowed to perform the Avodos of lighting the Menorah and offering the incense. The reason for this was because the holiness that the Jewish people experienced in the years of wandering through the desert was comparable to the holiness of Yom Kippur. The holiness of Yom Kippur comes from the unique occurrence on that day, when Hash-m 'appears in a cloud upon the Kapores' (the cover of the Aron ha'Kodesh). During the Jewish people's sojourn in the desert, 'Hashem's Presence rested upon the Mishkan by day, and there was fire therein by night' (Shemos 40:38). Just as all parts of the Avodah of Yom Kippur must be done by the Kohen Gadol (Yoma 32b), so, too, the lighting of the Menorah and the incense offering performed in the Mishkan in the desert had to be performed by the Kohen Gadol, Aharon ha'Kohen. 
</p><p>
(Even during that period, Aharon's sons were allowed to participate in Avodos that were performed in the courtyard of the Mishkan, such as the offering of private sacrifices, because those Korbanos were not part of the obligations of the <i>Mishkan</i> but were done for the benefit of those who offered them. Avodos that were not integral to the Mishkan did not require a Kohen Gadol even on Yom Kippur. See Insights to Yoma 22:1.)
</p><p>
This explains why Aharon was permitted to enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim on any day of the year. Every day in the Midbar during which the Divine Presence rested on the Mishkan was as holy as Yom Kippur. Consequently, on every day of the year Aharon experienced the same sanctity that any other Kohen Gadol experienced only on Yom Kippur itself.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Kal va'Chomer (since Bigdei Lavan are even more 
          Kadosh [they are used to go Lif'nim] they certainly 
          require Kidush).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Bigdei Zahav have the strength that 
          they are used for much more Kaparah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, the D'rashah of Rebbi is the source for 
          the Tevilah when going from Zahav to Lavan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How, according to Rebbi, do we know Tevilah 
          when going from Lavan to Zahav?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Kal va'Chomer (the reverse of the above).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Bigdei Lavan have the strength...?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That is why Rebbi cited an additional Pasuk in 
          the Beraisa (3.d. above) to connect all Bigdei Kodesh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  (After citing 3.e.,f.,and g., above, the Gemara asks on 
          g.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Pasuk of 'u'Fashat ve'Rachatz' speaks 
          of Tevilah (not Kidush)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is not needed for Tevilah and so it is 
          transferred to Kidush.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then the Pasuk should use the language of 
          Kidush?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It teaches that the Kidush must also be 
          ba'Kodesh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Whence will R. Yehudah learn Kidush (since he 
          uses 'u'Fashat ve'Rachatz' for Tevilos)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> From the D'rashah of R. Elazar b. Ya'akov.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  (R. Chidsa):</font></b> Rebbi (who holds that the Kidushin are both 
          while disrobed) disagrees with both R. Meir (the second 
          Kidush is while already robed) and Rabanan (the first 
          Kidush is while still robed).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  (R. Acha b. Ya'akov):</font></b> No, all agree that the second 
          Kidush is while already robed, since the Pasuk instructs 
          that there be nothing to do after the Kidush other than 
          the Avodah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  (R. Acha b. Rava):</font></b> R. Chisda and R. Acha b. Ya'akov must 
          disagree, since together they would end up with 15 
          Kidushin.
<br>
<b><font>5) THE (PARTIAL) SHECHITAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is 'Kartzo'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It means slaughter, as proved from the Targum of 
          R. Yosef on the Pasuk in Yirmeyahu [46:20].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How much is needed for Kartzo?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The majority to two Simanim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan said this, as well.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It appears that Resh Lakish would also agree (the 
               extra discussion in the Mishnah in Chulin teaches 
               that the Kohen only slaughters it is sufficient, 
               even if another Kohen does not complete [Meirak] the 
               cutting).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How could we have <i>thought</i> that another 
               Kohen <i>must</i> complete the cutting, since that would 
               make it an Avodah, which only the Kohen Gadol can 
               do?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Resh Lakish only meant to consider the 
               possibility that without Meirak it would be Pasuk 
               mide'Rabanan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> If it is not Pasul at all, then why do it?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Meirak is a Mitzvah (Lechatchilah).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE FIRST OF THE FIVE 'TEVILOS' OF THE KOHEN GADOL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the Beraisa, Rebbi derives from the words, 'u'Pashat... v'Rachatz,' 'v'Rachatz... v'Lavash' (Vayikra 16:23-24), that before and after each change of clothing the Kohen Gadol must perform Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim. Even though the word 'v'Rachatz' normally refers to Tevilah and not to Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim, here it refers to Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim, and it teaches that just as Kidush must be done in a sanctified area ('b'Makom Kadosh'), so, too, the Kohen Gadol's Tevilah must be done in a sanctified area.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Mah Kidush) asks that the first of the five Tevilos of the Kohen Gadol is performed in a non-sanctified area. According to Rebbi's understanding of the verse, the first Tevilah should also be performed in a sanctified area.
</p><p>
Rashi answers that the first Tevilah is not mid'Oraisa, since it is not done between changes of clothing of Bigdei <i>Kodesh</i>, but only after the Kohen Gadol changes from non-sanctified garments to sanctified garments.
</p><p>
Rashi implies that the Gemara here follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah (30a), who maintains that the obligation of Tevilah before entry into the Azarah is only mid'Rabanan (because of 'Serach Tevilah'; see also Rashi to 32a, DH Mah Makom). 
</p><p>
Rashi's words are difficult to understand. The Gemara earlier (32a) says that the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches that there must be five Tevilos on Yom Kippur (and, consequently, the removal of the Kaf u'Machtah must be done in an order different from the order mentioned in the Torah; see previous Insight). Even if the obligation of Tevilah before entry into the Azarah is mid'Rabanan, on Yom Kippur it certainly is mid'Oraisa. Why does Rashi say that the first Tevilah on Yom Kippur is not mid'Oraisa? (<b>TOSFOS REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> on the Mishnayos)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> suggests an answer based on his understanding of the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> (32a, DH Gemiri). He explains that the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai does not mention the number of Tevilos. It says only that the Kaf u'Machtah must be removed from the Kodesh ha'Kodashim after the ram offerings are brought. The number of Tevilos (the four that are mid'Oraisa) is derived as a <i>consequence</i> of that order of the Avodah. Since the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai does not explicitly address how many Tevilos are to be done, it is possible that only four Tevilos are mid'Oraisa.
</p><p>
This answer is difficult to understand, because the Gemara's wording clearly implies that the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches the number of Tevilos, and that number is five.
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps Rashi does not mean that the first of the five Tevilos of Yom Kippur is mid'Rabanan. He certainly agrees that it is mid'Oraisa as the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches. When Rashi says that the first Tevilah is not mid'Oraisa, he means that it is not derived from the verse ('u'Pashat... v'Rachatz...') like the other four Tevilos, for the verse discusses only the Tevilos performed between changes of clothing of Bigdei Kodesh. It is, however, a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.
</p><p>
When the verse teaches that the Tevilos are like Kidush and must be done in a sanctified area, it refers only to the Tevilos mentioned in the verse. The first Tevilah, even though it is mid'Oraisa, does not need to be done in a sanctified area because it is not included in the verse. (The comparison that the verse makes between Tevilah and Kidush does not apply to a Tevilah derived from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.)
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> (30a, DH u'Mah) argues with Rashi and says that even the first Tevilah (when the Kohen Gadol changes from Bigdei Chol to Bigdei Kodesh) is required mid'Oraisa. The reason why that Tevilah may be done in a non-sanctified area is because it is logical that before the Kohen becomes 'Niskadesh' (sanctified) by wearing the Bigdei Kodesh, there is no need for him to immerse in a sanctified area. The verse that requires Tevilah in a sanctified area does not refer to that type of Tevilah. The verse refers only to the Tevilos which the Kohen Gadol performs after he has already donned the Bigdei Kodesh.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) ABAYE REPORTS THE ORDER OF THE DAILY AVODAH </font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Abaye transmits the tradition according to Aba Shaul.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  He reports 14 steps of the Avodah, starting with the 
          Ma'arachah Gedolah and concluding with the evening Tamid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Each step in his order is justified in the subsequent 
          Gemara.
<br>
<b><font>2) JUSTIFYING THE ORDER OF THE AVODAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  That the Ma'arachah Gedolah comes first is inferred from 
          a Beraisa which draws from the Pasuk that there are two 
          Ma'arachos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Perhaps the Ma'arachah Sheiniyah should 
               come first?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> We should give first priority to that which 
               has more Kaparah (the Ma'arachah Gedolah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Perhaps we should give priority to the 
               Ma'arachah from which we take coals within for the 
               Ketores?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Still, more Kaparah takes precedence.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Alternate Answer:</font></b> In the absence of coals from the 
               second Ma'arachah, we would bring in coals from the 
               first.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  That the Ma'arachah Sheiniyah precedes the Sidur two 
          Gezirei Eitzim is derived from 'Alehah' which singles out 
          one Ma'arachah, thus inferring the existence of two 
          Ma'arachos already.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But 'Alehah' is needed for its own 
               Halachah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 'Alehah' appears twice in the Pasuk.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  That the two Gezirei Eitzim precede the Dishun Mizbe'ach 
          Penimi is derived in spite of the presence of 'ba'Boker 
          ba'Boker' by both the Dishun and the two Gezirei Eitzim 
          as we give precedence to a Machshir.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How are the Gezirei Eitzim a Machshir for 
               the Ketores, given that the coals for the Ketores 
               were taken from the Ma'arachah Sheiniyah, not the 
               Ma'arachah Gedolah?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> Eitzim have the status of Machshir.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer #2:</font></b> Once involved with the Ma'arachah, we 
               complete it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer #3:</font></b> In the absence of coals from the second 
               Ma'arachah, we would bring in coals from the first.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  That the Dishun precedes the Hatavah of the five Neiros 
          is part of Abaye's tradition, for which he did not know a 
          reason.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rava taught the reason for the precedence is in 
               order not to pass over Mitzvos (based on Resh 
               Lakish) since he encounters the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav 
               first upon entry into the Heichal.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) RECITING ABAYE'S ORDER OF THE KORBANOS IN THE DAILY PRAYERS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Abaye teaches the Seder ha'Ma'arachah, the order of the daily Avodah, according to Aba Shaul. He lists fourteen steps of the Avodah, starting with the Ma'arachah Gedolah and concluding with the afternoon Tamid. The Gemara goes on to justify each step in his order. The Gemara concludes that the actual order is not the order that Abaye teaches.
</p><p>
Although the Gemara does not clearly state what the Halachah is, the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin 6:3) rules like the Rabanan who say that the Ketores separates between the Hatavah of the first five Neros and the Hatavah of the last two Neros, which is not like Abaye's order according to Aba Shaul, who puts the Zerikas ha'Dam between the two Hatavos.
</p><p>
In the daily prayers, Abaye's Seder ha'Ma'arachah, as recorded in the Gemara here, is recited before Shacharis to conclude the description of the daily Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Why is Abaye's Seder ha'Ma'arachah recited if the Halachah does not follow his opinion?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (OC 48) answers that perhaps the Chachamim who arranged the prayers in the Sidur understood that the Halachah follows Abaye, since Abaye provides a clear description of the order of the Ma'arachah. The Beis Yosef may intend to say that the Rambam's ruling is not accepted as the Halachah, but rather the Halachah follows Abaye who taught the order 'mi'Shmei d'Gemara' --'according to the tradition.' <b>RASHI</b> explains that these words refer to 'the entire Yeshivah of the Rabanan.'
</p><p>
Why, then, does the Rambam not rule like Abaye? The <b>PERISHAH</b> writes that perhaps the Rambam understands the words 'mi'Shmei d'Gemara' like the <b>ARUCH</b>, who explains that they mean that Abaye related his teaching <i>anonymously</i>, without quoting any source. It is interesting to note that in the Rambam's own description of the prayer service (printed in the end of Sefer Ahavah), he makes no mention of the Seder ha'Ma'arachah of Abaye.
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps there are grounds to recite Abaye's Seder ha'Ma'arachah even according to the Rambam. The <b>TUR</b> explains that the reason why the Seder ha'Ma'arachah is included in the daily prayers is because of Hashem's assurance that 'whenever they recite the Seder ha'Korbanos, I consider it as if they offered Korbanos before Me, and I forgive them for their sins' (Ta'anis 27b). Accordingly, it suffices to 'recite' and learn the order of the Korbanos, and it is not necessary to recite the <i>exact</i> order of every Avodah to earn the merit of having offered Korbanos.
</p><p>
Therefore, even if the Halachah does not follow Abaye, his Seder ha'Ma'arachah certainly qualifies as a valid recitation of the order of the Avodah. (Since Abaye arranged a clear, organized list of all of the Avodos in their proper order, it is preferable to recite his words than to list the Avodos by citing one statement from one place and another statement from a different place.)
</p><p>
The <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> (beginning of OC 48) writes that the point of reciting the Seder ha'Korbanos in the daily prayers is to <i>understand</i> it and to delve into it, and not merely to recite it by rote. It has the status of 'Talmud Torah,' and thus it must be learned and understood. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa teaches the positions of each of the 
               Keilim in the Heichal.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Let the Mizbe'ach be in line between 
                    the Shulchan and the Menorah (and not slightly 
                    off- line to the East)? 
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk teaches that there must be a 
                    direct line of sight between the Menorah and 
                    the Shulchan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Rava learned from Resh Lakish an application to 
               Tefilin, requiring a person to place the Shel Yad 
               first.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  That the Hatavas Chamesh Neiros precedes the Tamid, and;
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  That the Tamid precedes the Hatavas Sh'tei Neiros is 
          derived from the (otherwise superfluous) words 'ba'boker 
          ba'Boker' which appear by the Hatavas Chamesh Neiros.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> There are three 'Boker' references by the Hatavas 
               Chamesh Neiros, whereas the Tamid has two (giving 
               the Hatavah precedence).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Even though both the Tamid and the Hatavas Sh'tei 
               Neiros each have two 'Boker' references, we give 
               precedence to the Tamid since it is Mechaper.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Perhaps one 'Boker' should be sent to 
               Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi and it will then precede 
               the Tamid and a second 'Boker' should be sent to the 
               Tamid, placing it before the five Neiros (precedence 
               given to the Mechaper)?
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  This (which will result in the five Neiros 
                    being prepared right before the two Neiros with 
                    no intervening Avodah) can work according to 
                    Resh Lakish. 
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> However, it will not work according to R. 
                    Yochanan (given his D'rashah to separate the 
                    Hatavos)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> The 'ba'Boker is not superfluous (to place 
               the Gezirei Eitzim before the second Ma'arachah)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 'Alehah' has already taught us that both 
               Ma'arachos precede the Ketores!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why do the five Neiros before the two?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Once we begin, we do the majority.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> The let us do six?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The second Hatavah is spoken of in the 
               plural.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  That the two Neiros precede the Ketores is seen in the 
          Pasuk.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  That the Ketores precedes the Eivarim is based on the 
          presence of two words 'Boker' over the presence of one.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  That the Eivarim precede the Minchah is derived from the 
          prefix <i>'ha'</i>Olah', meaning that the Olas ha'Tamid is 
          offered first.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) WHAT GIVES ONE AVODAH PRECEDENCE OVER ANOTHER?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the order of the Avodos on Yom Kippur according to the opinion of Aba Shaul as presented by Abaye. According to Aba Shaul, the Kohen Gadol prepares the first five Neros of the Menorah for lighting (Hatavas ha'Neros), after which he does the Shechitah of the Korban Tamid and the Zerikah of its blood, and then he prepares the last two Neros for lighting.
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that the source for this order is the repetition of the word 'ba'Boker' in the verse that discusses the Hatavas ha'Neros. This repetition teaches that the acts of Hatavah (the Hatavah of the first five Neros and the Hatavah of the last two Neros) are performed 'very early' (signified by the two words, 'ba'Boker'). In contrast, in the verse of Zerikas ha'Dam only one word 'ba'Boker' is written, which implies that the Zerikas ha'Dam is performed 'early' but not 'very early.' This teaches that the Zerikas ha'Dam is performed <i>after</i> the Neros have been prepared.
</p><p>
However, the Gemara points out that in the earlier verse that discusses the Shnei Gezirei Etzim, the word 'ba'Boker' appears twice. Since that word is not appropriate in the context of the Shnei Gezirei Etzim, one 'ba'Boker' is allotted to the Zerikas ha'Dam, and the other 'ba'Boker' is allotted to the Hatavah of the five Neros. As a result, the Hatavah of the five Neros has three words 'ba'Boker,' and thus it is performed first. Zerikah has two words 'ba'Boker,' which puts it on an equal standing with the Hatavah of the last two Neros. Since the Zerikah has the additional advantage of being a 'Mechaper' (it attains atonement), it deserves precedence and is performed before the Hatavah of the last two Neros (that is, it is performed between the Hatavos of the first five Neros and the last two Neros).
</p><p>
This reasoning seems to contradict the reasoning of the Gemara earlier. The Gemara (33a) implies that a logical advantage alone, such as 'Mechaper,' is sufficient to give precedence to one Avodah over another. When the Gemara discusses which is performed first -- the Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi or the Shnei Gezirei Etzim, the Gemara concludes that the Shnei Gezirei Etzim is done first because that Avodah is a 'Machshir' for the Ketores. Even though the word 'ba'Boker' appears twice in the verse of Shnei Gezirei Etzim, the Gemara says that those words are not used to establish the precedence of the Shnei Gezirei Etzim (but instead are given to the Hatavas ha'Neros and the Zerikas ha'Dam, as mentioned above), since it already has the advantage of being a Machshir. That advantage overrides the two appearances of the word 'ba'Boker' in the verse of Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
Similarly, why does the advantage of being a Mechaper not override the repetition of the words 'ba'Boker' and give the Zerikas ha'Dam precedence over the Hatavas ha'Neros, just as the advantage of being a Machshir gives the Shnei Gezirei Etzim precedence? If the Zerikas ha'Dam has the advantage of being a Mechaper, then it should be performed first even <i>without</i> an extra 'ba'Boker.' Why is it necessary to manipulate the number of instances of the word 'ba'Boker' in the verse, when Zerikas ha'Dam already has an advantage that should place it before the Hatavas ha'Neros? In fact, Zerikas ha'Dam should come before <i>all</i> of the Neros because of its advantage as a Mechaper.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> and <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> answer that the advantage of Machshir is stronger than that of Mechaper. An Avodah which is a Machshir has precedence over other Avodos. In contrast, an Avodah which is a Mechaper does not have precedence over other Avodos unless it first has an equal standing with the other Avodos. It obtains an equal standing with the word 'ba'Boker.'
</p><p>
(The logic behind this distinction may be that when an Avodah is a Machshir, it is part of a logical progression from one act to another. The advantage of being a Mechaper, though, is unrelated to the logical progression of acts. See <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> DH Afilu.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> and <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> (in his second answer) explain that a logical advantage (such as Machshir or Mechaper) has the ability to put one Avodah before another only in one of two circumstances: either when both Avodos are already of equal standing (with the same number of words 'ba'Boker'), or when the Avodah with the logical advantage has <i>no</i> 'ba'Boker' at all. In the case of Zerikas ha'Dam, the Torah writes one 'ba'Boker.' By writing one 'ba'Boker' with regard to this Avodah, the Torah intends to teach that this Avodah is supposed to come <i>after</i> an Avodah which has more words 'ba'Boker.' Therefore, the advantage of being a Mechaper does not give Zerikas ha'Dam precedence.
</p><p>
In the case of the Shnei Gezirei Etzim, for which two words 'ba'Boker' are written, the Gemara seeks to determine whether or not it has precedence over Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi which also has two words 'ba'Boker.' The advantage of being a Machshir would work whether Shnei Gezirei Etzim has two words 'ba'Boker' or no words 'ba'Boker.' (The only circumstance in which the advantage of being a Machshir would not work is if the Torah had written a single 'ba'Boker' for Shnei Gezirei Etzim. By writing just one 'ba'Boker,' the Torah would have taught that it must come after the Avodah of Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach which has two words 'ba'Boker.') Therefore, the two words 'ba'Boker' of Shnei Gezirei Etzim are unnecessary and are allotted to other Avodos.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) THE NECESSITY TO SPLIT THE AVODAH OF 'HATAVAS HA'NEROS' INTO TWO</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara suggests that instead of one of the extra words 'ba'Boker' being attributed to the Zerikas ha'Dam and one to the Hatavah of the first five Neros, one 'ba'Boker' should be attributed to the Zerikas ha'Dam and the other 'ba'Boker' to the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach. The Zerikas ha'Dam should then be performed <i>before</i> the Hatavah of all of the Neros. (Zerikas ha'Dam has two words 'ba'Boker' and is on equal standing with the Hatavah of the five Neros, <i>and</i> it has the advantage of being a Mechaper.)
</p><p>
The Gemara rejects this suggestion because the Torah writes 'ba'Boker ba'Boker' with regard to the Hatavas ha'Neros. These words teach that the Hatavah must be split into two parts, and that there must be another Avodah between them to separate them. The only Avodah that is available to be placed between the Hatavah of the first five and last two Neros is the Zerikas ha'Dam.
</p><p>
(a) If it is clear from the verse that the Zerikas ha'Dam must be done between the two Hatavos, then why does the Gemara need to give an additional 'ba'Boker' (from the Shnei Gezirei Etzim) to the Zerikas ha'Dam in order to give it precedence over the Hatavah of the last two Neros? Even without the extra 'ba'Boker,' the Zerikas ha'Dam should come between the Hatavos because the verse requires that there be a separation between the Hatavos.
</p><p>
(b) Why does the Gemara assume that the only Avodah which is available to separate the Hatavos is Zerikas ha'Dam? The Avodah of bringing the Evarim of the Tamid to the Mizbe'ach is also available to separate between the Hatavos.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Gemara assumes that the Derashah ('ba'Boker ba'Boker') that teaches that another Avodah should be placed between the Hatavah of the first five and last two Neros is <i>not</i> sufficient reason to put the Zerikas ha'Dam there, because <i>another</i> Derashah teaches otherwise. The Zerikas ha'Dam has only one word 'ba'Boker' while the Hatavah of the last two Neros has two words 'ba'Boker.' The only way to advance the Zerikas ha'Dam ahead of the last two Neros is by giving it an additional word 'ba'Boker.'
</p><p>
This explains why the two Hatavos are not separated by the Avodah of the Evarim of the Tamid. There is only one 'ba'Boker' in the verse of the Evarim, and thus that Avodah cannot be placed before the Hatavah of the last two Neros, which has two words 'ba'Boker.'
</p><p>
(However, it still should be possible to take one of the extra words 'ba'Boker' of the Shnei Gezirei Etzim and give it to the Avodah of the Evarim of the Tamid, so that the Hatavah of the last two Neros and the Avodah of the Evarim each have two words 'ba'Boker' and thus are on an equal standing with each other. The verse that teaches that an Avodah must separate between the two Hatavos will then teach that the Avodah of the Evarim should be placed there. The remaining extra word 'ba'Boker' may be given to Zerikas ha'Dam, so that it is on an equal standing with the first Hatavah, and its advantage of Mechaper will then place it before the Hatavah of all of the Neros. Why does the Gemara not use this method to place the Avodah of the Evarim between the two sets of Hatavah of the Neros, and to place the Avodah of the Zerikas ha'Dam before the Hatavas Neros?
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Yukdam) explains that this method is implausible, because if the Gemara gives one 'ba'Boker' to the Avodah of the Evarim and the other 'ba'Boker' to the Zerikas ha'Dam of the Tamid, it will be giving <i>both</i> extra words 'ba'Boker' to <i>one</i> Avodah (that is, the general Avodah of the Korban Tamid). It is not logical to give both extra words 'ba'Boker' to the same general Avodah.)
</p><p>


<font><b>4) TWO WORDS 'BA'BOKER' AND TWO 'HATAVOS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara suggests that instead of one of the extra words 'ba'Boker' being attributed to the Zerikas ha'Dam and one to the Hatavah of the first five Neros, one 'ba'Boker' should be attributed to the Zerikas ha'Dam and the other 'ba'Boker' to the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach. The Zerikas ha'Dam should then be performed <i>before</i> the Hatavah of all of the Neros. (Zerikas ha'Dam has two words 'ba'Boker' and is on equal standing with the Hatavah of the five Neros, <i>and</i> it has the advantage of being a Mechaper.) (See previous Insight.)
</p><p>
The Gemara says that this is a valid question according to Reish Lakish, who maintains that there is no strict requirement to split the two Hatavos apart from each other, and the questions remains unanswered. According to Rebbi Yochanan, however, who says that the Torah requires that the two Hatavos be separated, this is not a question, because there must be an Avodah between the two sets of Hatavos. The only Avodah available to be put between the Hatavah of the first five Neros and the Hatavah of the last two Neros is the Zerikas ha'Dam. 
</p><p>
Rebbi Yochanan derives that the two Hatavos must be separated from the words 'ba'Boker ba'Boker' in the verse that discusses the Hatavas ha'Neros; one 'ba'Boker' is given to each set of Hatavos.
</p><p>
Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation of the verse contradicts the Gemara earlier, which says that each set of Hatavos has <i>two</i> words 'ba'Boker.' Why does Rebbi Yochanan say that each of the two Hatavos -- the Hatavah of the five Neros and the Hatavah of the two Neros -- has only <i>one</i> 'ba'Boker'?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> and <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> (in the name of 'the Ga'on,' as cited by the Ritva) argue with Rashi's interpretation of the Gemara. They explain that the Gemara does not mean that there is no question according to Rebbi Yochanan. Rather, the Gemara means the opposite: according to Reish Lakish there is no question, but according to Rebbi Yochanan there <i>is</i> a question.
</p><p>
The Gemara's question is the very question that we asked above. Rebbi Yochanan, who maintains that the phrase 'ba'Boker ba'Boker' teaches that the Hatavos must be separated, attributes only one 'ba'Boker' to each set of Hatavos. The Gemara earlier, however, attributes two words 'ba'Boker' to each set of Hatavos. The Gemara's conclusion, according to Rabeinu Chananel, is that Rebbi Yochanan's opinion remains difficult.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> explains the Gemara like Rashi. He explains that the phrase 'ba'Boker ba'Boker' teaches two things. First, the phrase teaches that the Hatavos should be divided into two sets (as Rebbi Yochanan says). Second, it teaches that <i>each</i> set of Hatavos should have two words 'ba'Boker' (as the Gemara earlier teaches), since the <i>simple</i> meaning of the verse is that the phrase 'ba'Boker ba'Boker' refers to both the Hatavah of the five Neros <i>and</i> the Hatavah of the two Neros.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) JUSTIFYING ABAYE'S ORDER OF THE AVODAH (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  That the Minchah precedes the Chavitin is based on the 
          Pasuk where Olah and Minchah are in uninterrupted 
          succession.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  That the Chavitin precede the Nesachim of wine is owing 
          to the fact that Chavitin also are considered a Minchah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  That the Nesachim precede the Musafin is owing to the 
          uninterrupted proximity of Zevach and Nesachin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The Musafin precede the Bazichin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa teaches the opposite 
               order?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is a Machlokes Tana'im.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Abaye defends his order because of the repetition of 
               'ba'Yom' (implying delay) by the Bazichin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the rationale for the opposite 
               order?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Gezeirah Shavah from Chavitin (just as it 
               precedes the Musafin, so, too...).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Then learn from there that the Bazichin 
               should precede the Nesachim, as well!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> That delay is the role of 'ba'Yom'.
<br>
<b><font>2) KETORES BETWEEN THE DAM TAMID AND ITS EIVARIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This statement of the Mishnah does not concur 
          with either Rabanan or Aba Shaul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Rabanan would have the Mishnah read between the 
               Dam and the Neiros.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Aba Shaul would have the Mishnah read between the 
               Neiros and the Eivarim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is the Rabanan and the Mishnah is not being 
          precise regarding order.
<br>
<b><font>3) KETORES BEIN HA'ARBAYIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for placing the Ketores 
          between the Eivarim and the Nesachim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk compares the Bein ha'Arbayim to 
          Shacharis, where the Ketores precedes the Nesachim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If this comparison is made, then the Ketores 
          Bein ha'Arbayim should precede its Eivarim!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The comparison is made by Minchah, not Eivarim.
<br>
<b><font>4) NESACHIM FOR THE TAMID OF SHACHARIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Tana Kama of the Beraisa):</font></b> The Tamid of Shacharis should 
          be derived from the later Tamid and also have Nesachim!?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE PLACE OF THE 'KETORES' IN THE ORDER OF THE AVODOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara questions the order of the Avodah described by the Mishnah (31b). The Mishnah says that the Avodah of the morning-Ketores is done between the Zerikas ha'Dam of the Tamid and the placing of the Evarim of the Tamid upon the Mizbe'ach (Zerikah, Ketores, Evarim). However, at least part of the Hatavas ha'Neros is done immediately before the Ketores. Why does the Mishnah make no mention of the Hatavas ha'Neros?
</p><p>
This question applies both to the opinion of the Rabanan and the opinion of Aba Shaul. According to the Rabanan, who say that the Ketores is burned between the Hatavah of the first five Neros and the Hatavah of the last two Neros, the Mishnah should say that the Hatavas ha'Neros (of the last two Neros) is done after the Ketores, and not that the Avodah of the Evarim is done after the Ketores (Zerikah, Hatavah of five Neros, Ketores, Hatavah of two Neros, Evarim).
</p><p>
According to Aba Shaul, who says that the Zerikas ha'Dam is done between the two sets of Hatavos, the Mishnah should say that the Hatavah of the last two Neros is done before the Ketores, and not that the Zerikas ha'Dam is done before the Ketores (Hatavah of five Neros, Zerikah, Hatavah of two Neros, Ketores, Evarim).
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the Mishnah follows the opinion of the Rabanan who say that the Avodah of the Ketores is done before the Hatavah of the last two Neros, and that the Mishnah is 'not precise' with regard to the specific order. The Mishnah omits the Avodos done immediately before and immediately after the Ketores (i.e., the Hatavos of the five and two Neros).
</p><p>
If the Mishnah's words are not precise, then why does the Gemara say that it follows the Rabanan? The Mishnah could also follow Aba Shaul, and it is not precise when it omits the Hatavah of the two Neros which is done before the Ketores. <b>RASHI</b> alludes to this question when he explains that it is 'preferable' to say that the Mishnah is the Rabanan. Why, though, is it preferable?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> says that it is preferable to say that the Mishnah is the Rabanan because the Rabanan are the majority opinion.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH l'Olam) explains that it is preferable to say that the Mishnah is the Rabanan because the first part of the Mishnah mentions the Ketores before the Hatavah of the two Neros, and the Gemara earlier (14a) proves from here that the Mishnah follows the opinion of the Rabanan and not Aba Shaul. Therefore, it is preferable to say that this part of the Mishnah, too, follows the Rabanan.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rebbi):</font></b> Let the Nesachim of Arvis be derived from 
          Shacharis!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> While the Rabanan are understandable (the Pasuk 
          of Nesachim is speaking by the later Tamid), what is the 
          rationale of R. Yehudah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The word 'Echad' by Nesachim points us to the 
          Tamid of Shacharis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How will Rabanan interpret the pointer of 
          'Echad'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It means the finest of his flock.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How will Rebbi learn this requirement?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> From the explicit Pasuk, 'Mivchar Nidreichem'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why, according to Rabanan, are there two 
          Pesukim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One speaks of Chovos and one of Nedavos, and both 
          are needed.
<br>
<b><font>5) WARMING THE WATER FOR THE SENSITIVE KOHEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa teaches that thick pieces of metal were 
          warmed before Yom Kipur for this purpose.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But that constitutes Metzaref on the metal?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Bibi):</font></b> They did not reach the heat of Tziruf.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> It is a Davar she'Ein Miskaven and is 
          Mutar.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we see in the Beraisa regarding removing a 
          Baheres (through performing a B'ris Milah) that Abaye 
          holds that a Davar she'Ein Miskaven is Asur!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That holds in general, but here, since the 
          prohibition is de'Rabanan, the Chachamim permitted it.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) WHERE DOES THE KOHEN GADOL WASH HIS HANDS AND FEET</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah describes the procedure of the Kohen Gadol's changing of the garments. First, he is brought to the Beis ha'Parvah, a sanctified area. Second, a linen sheet is raised between him and the people. Third, he washes his hands and feet (Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim). Fourth, he removes his garments.
</p><p>
Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim (the third step in the procedure) is normally done in the Azarah next to the Kiyor. Why, then, is the Kohen Gadol first brought to the Beis ha'Parvah? He should do Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim in the Azarah first, and then be brought to the Beis ha'Parvah.
</p><p>
The Mishnah later (43b) answers this question. The Mishnah says that although during the rest of the year the Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim is done at the Kiyor (not near the Beis ha'Parvah), on Yom Kippur the Kohen Gadol does the Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim 'from the Kiton Shel Zahav,' a golden vessel which is filled with water from the Kiyor and brought to the Beis ha'Parvah.
</p><p>
However, when the Mishnah earlier discusses the Kohen Gadol's first Tevilah, <b>RASHI</b> (31b, DH v'Kidesh) says that the Kohen Gadol washes his hands and feet 'from the Kiyor.' Why does Rashi say that, if the Mishnah later (43b) says that he washes from the 'Kiton Shel Zahav'? (The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> points out that the <b>ROSH</b> here writes explicitly that the Kohen washes 'from the <i>Kiton</i>.')
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Apparently, Rashi does not mean that the Kohen Gadol washes his hands and feet directly from the Kiyor, but rather that he washes from the <i>water</i> of the Kiyor. Rashi is teaching that the 'Kiton Shel Zahav' is filled with water 'from the Kiyor' and not with other water that is not sanctified.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHASH</b> suggests that perhaps there is a difference between the Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim done at the time of the first Tevilah and that which is done at the time of the other Tevilos. Indeed, there is an explicit opinion in the Yerushalmi (4:5) that the Kidush done after the first Tevilah is done with water from the Kiyor and not with water from the Kiton.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MISHNAH (34b): CHANGING INTO THE BIGDEI 'LA'AV'AN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Kohen Gadol is brought to the Beis ha'Parvah (in the 
          Azarah) where a linen sheet is held up so that he might 
          do Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim and disrobes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Meir holds that he first disrobes and then does the 
          Kidush.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  He immerses, emerges and dries himself and dons the 
          Bigdei Lavan he is brought.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Meir):</font></b> The first set of Bigdei Lavan came from Egypt 
          and were valued at 12 Maneh; while the second set, from 
          Ethiopia, were valued at 800.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Chachamim):</font></b> The first set was worth 18 Maneh and the 
          second was 12, totalling 30 Maneh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  These garments were purchased at public expense, and the 
          Kohen may add of his own funds.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE PARVAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is 'Parvah'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It was named for a sorcerer who built it.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE LINEN DRAPE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why did they specifically use a linen drape?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> To remind him of the Avodah of the day with 
          linen.
<br>
<b><font>4) THE SUMMATIVE NUMBER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why does the Mishnah add up the Maneh of the 
          Bigdei Lavan?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The total is meant to teach us the minimum total 
          value (with less stress on the value of each set, so long 
          as the first set is more valuable than the second).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How do we know this?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The multiple occurrence of 'Bad' teaches us Bad 
          Muvchar.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE 'BEIS HA'PARVAH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah (34b) says that in the next stage of the order of the day, the Kohen Gadol was brought to the Beis ha'Parvah for his second Tevilah. The Gemara here says that this chamber was named after Parvah the 'Amgusha,' the 'magician.'
</p><p>
Why was part of the holy Beis ha'Mikdash named after a sorcerer?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> writes that it was Parvah who built this chamber. The <b>ROSH</b> (Midos 5:3) adds that Parvah must have been a Jew, because a non-Jew would not have been allowed to build a part of the Beis ha'Mikdash (see Shekalim 4a, Erchin 6a). 
</p><p>
Why, though, did they name this chamber after its architect, something they did not do for any other part of Beis ha'Mikdash? Perhaps it was given the name of the person who built it in order to show that it was built <i>after</i> the rest of the Azarah was built. This fact has Halachic ramifications: since the Beis ha'Parvah was not part of the original construction of the Azarah, even its roof was sanctified, as explained earlier (see Insights to Yoma 30:2).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASH</b> (Midos 5:3) points out that the Mishnah in Midos says that the Beis ha'Parvah was used as the place in which the hides of Kodshim were salted. Accordingly, it was called 'Parvah' because of the hides of <i>cows</i> ('Parim') that were salted there. (Although the hides of all animals were salted there, the word 'Parvah' was chosen presumably because it also happened to be the name of the person who designed it. Thus, the Rash's explanation does not contradict the Gemara here.)
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Parvah) relates an incident recorded by the <b>ARUCH</b>. This particular sorcerer clandestinely dug an underground tunnel from outside the Beis ha'Mikdash in order to be able to see the Kohen Gadol perform the Avodah. The Kohanim discovered him as he dug the tunnel and captured him, and they named the place where they caught him, 'Beis ha'Parvah.' The <b>RAMBAM</b> (in Perush ha'Mishnayos to Midos 5:3) says that he dug a hole through the wall of the Azarah, and that the Kohanim killed him at that spot. Apparently, they name that place 'Beis ha'Parvah' in commemoration of the miracle that Parvah was caught in time, before he entered the Azarah.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>TIFERES YISRAEL</b> in Midos suggests that this chamber was named in honor of Parvah because he developed an ingenious system, which seemed almost magical, for transporting water to the Mikvah on its roof. 
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE VALUE OF THE KOHEN GADOL'S HOLY GARMENTS ON YOM KIPPUR</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara asks why everyone (Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim) agrees that the Begadim the Kohen Gadol wears in the morning of Yom Kippur are worth more than the Begadim he wears in the afternoon (when he removes the Kaf u'Machtah from the Kodesh ha'Kodashim). The Gemara answers with the verse that mentions 'Bad' four times with regard to the morning Begadim (Vayikra 16:4).
</p><p>
The Gemara then relates incidents in which mothers of Kohanim Gedolim made for their sons extravagant garments to wear for 'Avodas Yachid.' Rashi says that this means 'Hotza'as Kaf u'Machtah,' which was the afternoon Avodah. According to Rashi's explanation, the afternoon Begadim were worth <i>more</i> than the morning Begadim! (See <b>SEFER SHEMU'AS CHAIM</b>, p. 422, and <b>CHONEN DE'AH</b>, p. 223, for a very novel approach to this question.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>CHAFETZ CHAIM</b> (in <b>ZEVACH TODAH</b>) answers that perhaps the requirement that the morning Begadim be worth more than the afternoon Begadim applies only when the Begadim are purchased from the public funds. When the money of Hekdesh is used to buy the Begadim, the morning Begadim must be worth more than the afternoon Begadim. However, this requirement does not apply when <i>private</i> donations are used to buy the Begadim. The Kohen Gadol may use private funds to make extravagant afternoon Begadim even though they will be worth more than the morning Begadim. (See also Milu'im of the <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> to Yoma 34b.)
</p><p>
However, the Chafetz Chaim questions this approach. Since the privately-donated, expensive Beged must be dedicated to the Tzibur, it becomes public funds and is considered as though the public donated it.
</p><p>
(b) The Chafetz Chaim concludes that this question is not difficult according to the Girsa and explanation of the <b>ME'IRI</b>, who explains that 'Avodas Yachid' does not refer to an Avodah done on Yom Kippur. The Begadim contributed by the Kohen's mother were worn only during the weekday service and not on Yom Kippur, as the Chafetz Chaim proves from a Tosefta. The Chafetz Chaim favors this explanation of the Gemara over Rashi's explanation.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 8:3) writes that the Kohen Gadol may add to the value of the Begadim as much as he wants. The Rambam makes no mention of the limitation that the morning Begadim must be worth more than the afternoon Begadim. Similarly, <b>RABEINU YEHONASAN MI'LUNIL</b> explains that the Gemara means that the Kohen Gadol may add to the value of the afternoon Begadim even if he makes them worth more than the morning Begadim.
</p><p>
How do they understand the statement of the Gemara that the morning Begadim must be worth more than the afternoon Begadim?
</p><p>
The <b>SI'ACH YITZCHAK</b> explains that when the Mishnah and the Gemara say that the morning Begadim are worth more, they mean merely that the <i>common practice</i> of the Kohanim is to spend more on the morning Begadim, but not that there is any obligation to do so. (When the Gemara says that for 'Kulei Alma' the morning Begadim were worth more, it does not mean 'according to all of the Tana'im in the Mishnah,' but rather it means 'for all (i.e. most) of the <i>Kohanim Gedolim</i>.')
</p><p>
However, the Si'ach Yitzchak does not explain how the Rambam understands the Gemara's source that the morning Begadim must be worth more. According to his explanation, there is no verse that teaches that the morning Begadim must be worth more.
</p><p>
Perhaps the answer is as follows. The <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> asks what the source is for the Mishnah's teaching that the total minimum value of all of the Bigdei Kodesh worn on Yom Kippur according to the Chachamim is 30 Manah. The Gemara brings no source for that requirement. The Gevuras Ari answers that it must be a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.
</p><p>
Perhaps the Rambam understands that when the Gemara asks, 'Mena Lan,' it is not seeking a source for the requirement that the morning Begadim be worth more than the afternoon Begadim. Rather, it is seeking a source for the requirement that the total value of the Begadim be at least 30 Manah. The Gemara answers that the word 'Bad' ('linen') appears four times in the verse that discusses the morning Avodah of the Kohen Gadol. The word 'Bad' appears one more time in the verse that discusses the afternoon Avodah, for a total of five times. The Gematriya of the word 'Bad' is six, and since the word 'Bad' appears five times, the total value is 30. This is the source that the Begadim must be made of the finest linen, and that the two sets of Begadim together must be worth at least 30 Manah. The verse does not teach that the morning Begadim must be worth more than the afternoon Begadim.
</p><p>
How, though, does the Rambam understand the next question of the Gemara? The Gemara asks that the verse in Yechezkel implies that the afternoon Begadim are <i>more</i> distinguished than the morning Begadim. If there is no requirement that the morning Begadim be worth more, what is the Gemara's question?
</p><p>
The answer is that in the Rambam's text of the Gemara, this question appeared later, as a question on Rav Huna's statement that when a Kohen performs an Avodas Yachid, he may wear the Ketones that his mother made for him. This indeed was the original Girsa before Rashi emended it. The <b>ME'IRI</b> explains this Girsa in detail. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Pasuk in Yechezkel seems to imply that the 
          other (second) Begadim which the Kohen Gadol wears are 
          <i>more</i> distinguished than the first?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, other implies <i>less</i> distinguished.
<br>
<b><font>5) PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN THE BEGADIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa teaches that for the private component of his 
          Avodah, the Kohen Gadol may wear privately prepared 
          Begadim, provided that they are turned over to the 
          public.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But this is obvious!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, we might have suspected that the donation to 
          the public was incompletely felt and is not to be relied 
          upon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  In one incident the private Begadim were valued at 100 
          Maneh and turned over to the public; in another they were 
          worth 20,000 Maneh, but the other Kohanim would not let 
          him wear it since it was see-through.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But if the threads had to be six-ply, how could 
          he be seen through them?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Like wine through thick glass.
<br>
<b><font>6) THE POOR, THE RICH AND THE SINFUL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The poor person will be judged for forsaking the Torah, 
          given the example of Hillel whose dedication to Torah 
          study led him to freeze on the rooftop of the Beis 
          Medrash of Shemaya and Avtalyon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The rich person will be similarly judged, given the 
          example of R. Elazar b. Charsom who abandoned his 
          enormous holdings (and was even mistaken for a citizen of 
          his holdings) to learn Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The sinful person will be similarly judged, given the 
          example of Yosef who withstood the temptation to sin with 
          the wife of Potifar, as related.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MISHNAH (35b): VIDUI OF THE KOHEN GADOL ON HIS CHATAS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Parah stood between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Its head was to the South, and it was facing West.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The Kohen stood facing West when he did Semichah and 
          Vidui.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The text of his Vidui was 'Avisi, Pashati, Chatasi... '
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  When the people heard the Name, they (bowed and) 
          responded with 'Baruch Shem... '
<br>
<b><font>2) BETWEEN THE ULAM AND THE MIZBE'ACH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who called this region North?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Elazar b'R. Shimon in the Beraisa:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi b'R. Yehudah- from the Mizbe'ach to the 
               North wall is considered North.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar b'R. Shimon adds between the Ulam and the 
               Mizbe'ach as part of North.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Rebbi adds the North<i>east</i>ern side of the Mizbe'ach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> All agree not to include the far Northwestern side 
               (by the Ulam-Beis ha'Chalifos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Must our Mishnah only follow R. Elazar b'R. 
          Shimon and not Rebbi?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Surely Rebbi <i>adds</i> to R. Elazar b'R. Shimon!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We meant to ask why, according to Rebbi, do we 
          only locate the Parah between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Just as you will admit for R. Elazar b'R. Shimon 
          that we minimize the exertion of the Kohen, so, too, we 
          will say for Rebbi.
<br>
<b><font>3) HEAD TO THE NORTH FACING WEST</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How can this be so (body N-S yet its head 
          West)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He tilted its head to the West.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then stand the Parah facing West?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We are concerned for the honor of the Mizbe'ach 
          if its tail is to the East.
<br>
<b><font>4) SEMICHAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How is the Semichah done on Kodshei Kodshim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The animal is in the North, facing West, as is the 
               Somech.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He places both hands between its horns and there 
               must not be anything intervening between him and the 
               animal.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> For a Chatas and an Asham he confesses the Avon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  For an Olah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Yosi ha'Gelili):</font></b> He confesses transgressing 
               Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Akiva):</font></b> No, he confesses over an Olah an Asei or 
               a Lav which is tied to an Asei.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is their dispute?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE TYPE OF SIN FOR WHICH THE KORBAN OLAH ATONES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Akiva says that the Korban Olah atones for the failure to observe Mitzvos Aseh, and for transgressions of Mitzvos Lo Ta'aseh which are Nitak l'Aseh (transgressions which are correctable by performing an Aseh). <b>RASHI</b> says that the source for this is a Tosefta which states that in lieu of any explicit mention in the Torah of what the Olah atones for, it must be that it atones for Mitzvos Aseh and Mitzvos Lo Ta'aseh she'Nitak l'Aseh. The Olah cannot atone for transgressions which are Chayav Kares, Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim, or Misas Beis Din, because the punishments (i.e. atonement) for those are already known. Likewise, it cannot atone for an ordinary Lo Ta'aseh, because the atonement for that is Malkus. It must be, therefore, that the Olah atones for transgressions which have none of those punishments: Mitzvos Aseh and Mitzvos La Ta'aseh she'Nitak l'Aseh. Rashi on the Chumash (Vayikra 1:4) also cites this Midrash (from Toras Kohanim, Dibura d'Nedavah, Perek 4:8).
</p><p>
The <b>RASHASH</b> questions this statement. The Tosefta's process of elimination seems flawed; there seems to be another type of transgression for which the Olah could atone, besides Mitzvos Aseh and Mitzvos La Ta'aseh she'Nitak l'Aseh. We know that punishments such as Misas Beis Din and Malkus are administered only when the transgressor was given Hasra'ah (he was forewarned by witnesses). If there was no Hasra'ah, these punishments are not administered. Perhaps the Korban Olah atones for transgressions for which a person is Chayav Misas Beis Din or Malkus (when done intentionally), when he commits them <i>without</i> Hasra'ah. Why does the Tosefta not suggest that the Olah atones for such transgressions?
</p><p>
Moreover, perhaps the Korban Olah atones for any type of transgression which was done <i>b'Shogeg</i> (inadvertently), for which a person is not liable to punishment. Accordingly, it could atone for transgressions of Misas Beis Din or Malkus when those transgressions were committed b'Shogeg, for there is no punishment or atonement written with regard to such sins done b'Shogeg (except for a sin punishable with Kares when committed intentionally, in which case a Chatas must be brought when it is committed b'Shogeg).
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> The questions of the Rashash are raised by the Rishonim. The <b>RASH MI'SHANTZ</b> on the Toras Kohanim writes that it is not logical that the Torah would require that a Korban be brought as atonement for a transgression committed b'Mezid without Hasra'ah, while such a Korban does not atone for the same transgression committed with Hasra'ah. There is no precedent for this distinction among all of the other Korbanos, and thus it is unlikely that the Korban Olah atones for such a transgression.
</p><p>
Why, though, does the Toras Kohanim not consider the possibility that the Olah atones for transgressions committed b'Shogeg? There <i>is</i> a precedent for Korbanos atoning for Shogeg transgressions.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RASH</b> answers that 'it is not logical that the Olah is brought for a Lo Ta'aseh committed b'Shogeg.'
</p><p>
The Rash's intention is not clear. Perhaps he means to say the same thing as the <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Vayikra 1:4). The Ramban writes that the Chachamim understood from the fact that the Torah lists the punishment for a Chiyuv Kares, whether the act is done b'Mezid (in which case one is Chayav Kares) or b'Shogeg (in which case one is Chayav to bring a Korban Chatas), yet it does not list any punishment for a Shogeg violation of a Chiyuv Misas Beis Din or of an ordinary Lo Ta'aseh, that an inadvertent transgression of a Lo Ta'aseh does not need 'Ritzuy' (appeasement). That is, more severe transgressions distance a person from Hash-m even when he transgresses b'Shogeg, and thus he needs an act of Ritzuy, besides the normal requirement of repentance, to attain atonement. A Lo Ta'aseh, though, is not considered so severe as to require Ritzuy when one transgresses it b'Shogeg, and thus it does not need the Olah to atone for it. For what, then, does the Olah atone? It must be that the Olah atones for a Mitzvas Aseh that one transgressed b'Mezid, in which case he certainly needs Ritzuy (because he sinned intentionally) even though the Torah does not mention any specific punishment in such a case.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> suggests further that the Torah's usage of the words 'v'Nirtzah Lo l'Chaper Alav' with regard to the Korban Olah implies that the sinner is one who transgressed b'Mezid and consequently is 'Eino Merutzah' to Hash-m, he is presently not in Hashem's favor (and thus he needs a Korban in order to be 'Nirtzah Lo'). In contrast, a transgression committed b'Shogeg does not cause a person to be in disfavor in Hashem's eyes such that he would be called 'Eino Merutzah.'
</p><p>
(c) The <b>MAHARAL</b> (in <b>GUR ARYEH</b>) suggests that the Olah cannot atone for a Lav committed b'Shogeg, because a Shogeg-violation of a Chiyuv Kares requires only a Korban Chatas. A Chatas is partially eaten by the Kohanim and is thus a less severe form of atonement than an Olah, which is completely burned. An Olah, therefore, provides a greater degree of atonement, and thus it is not logical to assume that it provides atonement for a lesser transgression. It must be that it atones for an intentional violation of a Mitzvas Aseh.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>MAHARAL</b> answers further that the Midrash (Vayikra Rabah 7:3) teaches that the Olah atones for sinful thoughts ('Hirhurei ha'Lev'), as the verse alludes to when it says, 'ha'Olah Al Ruchachem' (Yechezkel 20:32), which refers to one's thoughts. Accordingly, it must atone only for a sin committed with intent (thought), and not for a sin committed b'Shogeg.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> Whether the Lav regarding Neveilah 
          is a regular Lav (R. Akiva) or not a regular Lav (R. Yosi 
          ha'Gelili) since there is also an Asei relating to it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Whether 'Ta'azov' means only before the 
          Aveirah (R. Akiva) or is it an instruction even for after 
          the offense is committed (R. Yosi ha'Gelili).
<br>
<b><font>5) THE ORDER OF THE VIDUI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Meir):</font></b> The order is as in our Mishnah, based on the 
          Pasuk by the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach as well as in the 13 
          Midos which Moshe confessed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Chachamim):</font></b> The order is 'Chatasi, Avisi, Pashati' since 
          the other order has him confessing lighter transgressions 
          later.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But what of the order in Moshe's plea?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He asked that Hash-m consider Zedonos as Shegagos 
          when the people to Teshuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rabah b. Shmuel citing Rav):</font></b> The Halachah follows the 
          Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> That is obvious (Yachid ve'Rabim)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We might have been in doubt seeing that R. Meir 
          finds support from the Pasuk.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  In the reported incident, Rabah corrected the Sh'liach 
          Tzibur who followed R. Meir, however the Sh'liach Tzibur 
          insisted on following R. Meir.
<br>
<b><font>6) VECHIPER (Vayikra 16:6)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  This Kaparah is with words (Vidui).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A Gezeirah Shavah to Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach shows me 
               that it cannot mean with the blood (but must be 
               words).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> And if you insist, I will demonstrate from 16:10 
               that the Kaparah is referenced even before the 
               Shechitah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is this  'If you insist'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> If you would wish to learn from the Sa'ir of 
               a Chatas that Kaparah means its blood (which is 
               sprinkled), I'll demonstrate from the Par itself.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE VIDUI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for the plea 'Ana'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Gezeirah Shavah from the plea of Moshe.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for including the Shem?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Gezeirah Shavah from Eglah Arufah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Why isn't Eglah Arufah informed by the 
          plea of Moshe (to include 'Ana')?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Perhaps it is!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But the Mishnah cites the Vidui by Eglah 
               Arufah and it does <i>not</i> include 'Ana'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Good question.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE SOURCES FOR THE RESPONSE: BARUCH SHEM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rebbi):</font></b> The source for their response is 'Ki Shem 
          Ekra... '
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Chananyah the nephew of R. Yehoshua):</font></b> 'Zecher Tzadik 
          li'Verachah'
<br>
<b><font>3) MISHNAH: THE LOTTERY OVER THE SA'IRIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The lottery was held in the East of the Azarah, North of 
          the Mizbe'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The S'gan stood to his right; the Rosh Beis Av to his 
          left.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The Goralos (lots) were in a Kalfi (box).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The Goralos were made by Yehoshua b. Gamla, who is 
          praised for his contribution, along with:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Ben Katin who made 12 spouts for the Kiyor as well 
               as the device for lowering the Kiyor into the pit.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Munbaz who made the handles out of gold.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Hileni, his mother, who made a gold Menorah and a 
               gold tablet for the Parshas Sotah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Nikanor who made the doors which were miraculously 
               delivered.
<br>
<b><font>4) THE LOCATION OF THE MIZBE'ACH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  We may infer from the Mishnah that the Mizbe'ach was 
          located centrally, not to the North.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  This follows the opinion of R. Eliezer b. Ya'akov (that 
          the Mizbe'ach was entirely in the South, leaving the 
          entire North open).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Reisha follows R. Elazar b'R. Shimon 
          (that the Mizbe'ach was centered such that the Korban was 
          slaughtered Bein Ulam la'Mizbe'ach)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah is all R. Elazar b. Ya'akov, and Bein 
          Ulam la'Mizbe'ach means at the closest spot to there.
<br>
<b><font>5) PROPER ETIQUETTE FOR WALKING WITH ONE'S RAV</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> One who walks to the right of his Rav is a 
          boor.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Questions:</font></b> The Talmid <i>does</i> walk to the right!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Our Mishnah speaks of the Segan to the right of the 
               Kohen Gadol?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa teaches that the greater Talmid walks to 
               the right of his Rav when they are en route?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> The three angels greeted Avraham, again with Gavriel 
               to the right of Michael?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We mean to (the right in order to) conceal his 
          Rav (from behind).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we learned that one who walks behind his 
          Rav is haughty?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It means to conceal him from the sides (slightly 
          behind him to his sides).
<br>
<b><font>6) THE SOURCE FOR THE LOTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa understands the Pasuk Goralos that they may 
          be made of any material.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> One might think that two Goralos were placed on each 
               animal, thus the Pasuk clarifies, 'One Goral... '
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Perhaps we would put both Goralos on this animal and 
               then both on that, thus the Pasuk clarifies, 'One 
               Goral... '
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> The word 'Goralos', then, teaches that the two stubs 
               must be made of the same material.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But that is obvious?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We might have thought that the Goralos, like the 
          Tzitz bearing the Name, must be of gold.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Goral', 'Goral' comes to include.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It includes the poorest and the finest woods.
<br>
<b><font>7) BEN KATIN AND THE TWELVE SPOUTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why did he make this change?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> So that all 12 of his brethren doing the Avodah 
          would be able to wash at once, not as previously, when 
          there were only two spigots.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  In the morning the Kohanim would wash from the upper 
          spigot, and in the afternoon from the lower one.
<br>
<b><font>8) BEN KATIN AND THE MUCHANI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is 'Muchni'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b>  A wheel for immersing the Kiyor.
<br>
<b><font>9) MUNBAZ AND THE GOLDEN HANDLES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't he make the entire vessel out of 
          gold?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'SHEM HA'MEFORASH' -- THE INEFFABLE NAME OF G-D</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara teaches that when the Kohen Gadol recited Viduy on Yom Kippur, he uttered the Name of Hash-m. The requirement to utter the Name of Hash-m is derived from the procedure of the Eglah Arufah, for which the verse says that the Name of Hash-m is used in the request for atonement (Devarim 21:8).
</p><p>
When the Mishnah quotes the words of the Viduy which the Kohen Gadol recited, it does not refer to the Name of Hash-m in the usual manner. Normally, the Mishnah refers to the Name with an abbreviation, the letter 'Dalet.' This Mishnah, though, relates that the Kohen Gadol said 'ha'Shem' (Heh, Shin, Mem). The reason for this change is that the Name uttered on Yom Kippur by the Kohen Gadol was not the normal Name of Hash-m. On Yom Kippur, the Kohen Gadol used the Shem ha'Meforash, the 'ineffable Name.' When the Kohen Gadol uttered the ineffable Name, everyone who heard the Name bowed down (66a). The Gemara (39b) says that the Kohen Gadol uttered the Shem ha'Meforash ten times on Yom Kippur: three times in each of the three Viduyim, and one time when he selected the Sa'ir of Hash-m.
</p><p>
What exactly is the Shem ha'Meforash that the Kohen Gadol used on Yom Kippur?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>ROSH</b> (in <b>AVODAS YOM KIPPUR</b>, and in <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> to 39b, and as cited by the <b>TUR</b> OC 621) writes that the Kohen Gadol uttered the four-letter Name of Hash-m (the Tetragrammaton) and pronounced it as it is written (k'Kesivaso). He did not utter any of the other Names of Hash-m, such as the 42-letter Name. The Rosh proves this from the Gemara here which derives the requirement for the Kohen Gadol to say the Name of Hash-m from the procedure of Eglah Arufah, for which the verse mentions the four-letter Name of Hash-m. The Name which the Kohen Gadol used also must be the four-letter Name of Hash-m.
</p><p>
This is also the opinion of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 2:6).
</p><p>
(b) <b>RAV HAI GA'ON</b> (cited by the Tur) argues and says that the Kohen Gadol used the 42-letter Name of Hash-m and not the four-letter Name of Yud and Heh. This appears to be the opinion of the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> (39b) as well.
</p><p>
The Rishonim adduce a number of proofs for the opinion of Rav Hai Ga'on, who says that the Name used by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur was the 42-letter ineffable Name of Hash-m: 
</p><p>
1. The Gemara says that the Kohen Gadol mentioned the Name of Hash-m ten times on Yom Kippur. The <b>TOSFOS RID</b> (70a) asks that the Gemara in Sotah (38a) says that the Kohanim recited Birkas Kohanim in the Beis ha'Mikdash with the Name of Hash-m as it is written. Since the Kohen Gadol also recited Birkas Kohanim on Yom Kippur, he uttered the Name of Hash-m <i>more</i> than ten times.
</p><p>
This is a question only on the Rosh, who maintains that the Kohen Gadol uttered the four-letter Name of Hash-m. This is not a question according to Rav Hai Ga'on, who maintains that the Kohen Gadol uttered the 42-letter Name of Hash-m each of those ten times. During Birkas Kohanim, the Kohen Gadol used only the four-letter Name.
</p><p>
2. The <b>TOSFOS RID</b> asks further that the Gemara (Yoma 68b) teaches that the Kohen Gadol blessed the people with eight blessings after he completed the Avodah on Yom Kippur. In those blessings, he apparently used the Shem ha'Meforash as well. The Gemara in Berachos (63a) says that the people never said 'Amen' in the Beis ha'Mikdash at the end of a blessing. Rather, they said, 'Baruch Shem Kevod Malchuso....' The reason they said 'Baruch Shem' instead of 'Amen' is presumably because the public blessings in the Beis ha'Mikdash were said with the Shem ha'Meforash, to which the proper response is 'Baruch Shem' as the Mishnah here says (<b>RITVA</b> in Ta'anis 16a, <b>TZELACH</b> in Berachos 63a, <b>MAHARSHA</b> in Sotah 41a).
</p><p>
Since the Gemara says that the people responded to 'all' public blessings in the Mikdash with 'Baruch Shem,' it must be that these eight blessings recited by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur were also said with the Shem ha'Meforash. This is problematic according to the Rosh, who says that the Shem ha'Meforash is the four-letter Name, because the Kohen Gadol used the Shem ha'Meforash far more than ten times. It must be that the Kohen Gadol used the 42-letter Name ten times (as Rav Hai Ga'on maintains), while for all other blessings he used the four-letter Name.
</p><p>
3. The <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> (66a) points out that the Mishnah says that all the people who heard the Shem ha'Meforash bowed down. However, the Mishnah does not say that they also bowed down during Birkas Kohanim, even though the Kohanim uttered the Name of Hash-m as it is written (Sotah 38a). It must be that the Name for which they bowed was the 42-letter Name, while the Name used in Birkas Kohanim was the four-letter Name.
</p><p>
How does the Rosh, who says that the Kohen Gadol uttered the four-letter Name of Hash-m on Yom Kippur, understand these strong proofs against his opinion?
</p><p>
1. The <b>TOSFOS RID</b> answers that there was no obligation for the Kohen Gadol himself to participate in the Birkas Kohanim on Yom Kippur. Other Kohanim may have performed the Birkas Kohanim, and thus the Kohen Gadol himself did not recite the Name of Hash-m an additional time.
</p><p>
The <b>MIKDASH DAVID</b> (24:2) answers that perhaps when the Gemara says that the Kohen Gadol uttered the Name of Hash-m ten times, it refers to the era <i>after</i> Shimon ha'Tzadik. The Gemara (39b) says that after Shimon ha'Tzadik passed away, the Kohanim stopped saying the Birkas Kohanim with the Name of Hash-m. (The Tosfos Rid, who does not suggest this answer, follows his own opinion on 39b that even <i>after</i> Shimon ha'Tzadik passed away the Kohanim said the four-letter Name (as it is written) in Birkas Kohanim.)
</p><p>
2. <b>RASHI</b> (69b, DH b'Gevulin) writes that the Shem ha'Meforash was not used for blessings except for those recited in the Azarah itself. It was not used anywhere else on Har ha'Bayis. The eight blessings said by the Kohen Gadol after the Avodah of Yom Kippur were said in the Ezras Nashim (Yoma 69b) which did not have the sanctity of the Azarah, and thus those blessings were not said with the Shem ha'Meforash, the four-letter Name of Hash-m as it is written.
</p><p>
The <b>RASHASH</b> points out that the people in the Ezras Nashim certainly did not answer 'Amen' to the blessings, but they answered 'Baruch Shem' as the Gemara (69b) says. Why did the people say 'Baruch Shem' even when the Shem ha'Meforash was not used?
</p><p>
The <b>CHONEN DE'AH</b> (Rav Nechemya Friedlander of Bnei Brak) explains that perhaps this point is the basis of a dispute among the Rishonim here. <b>RASHI</b> says that the eight blessings were recited without the Shem ha'Meforash, and yet the people still answered 'Baruch Shem.' Rashi maintains that the response 'Baruch Shem' does not depend on the Shem ha'Meforash; 'Baruch Shem' may be said even when the Shem ha'Meforash is not said. Rashi's opinion explains how it was that the people responded 'Baruch Shem' to all of the blessings, even though the Kohen Gadol said the Shem ha'Meforash only ten times. The other Rishonim, who maintain that the Name used by the Kohen Gadol in the Viduy was the 42-letter Name, maintain that the Kohen Gadol <i>did</i> say the four-letter Name in the eight blessings in the Ezras Nashim, and that is why the people answered 'Baruch Shem.' Accordingly, the argument whether the Shem ha'Meforash was said in the Ezras Nashim, and whether 'Baruch Shem' may be said even when the Shem ha'Meforash is not, depends on whether the Kohen Gadol uttered the 42-letter Name or the four-letter Name in the Viduyim.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> (39a-b), however, maintains that the Kohen Gadol used the four-letter Name of Hash-m during the Viduyim, even though he also maintains that the Kohen Gadol used the four-letter name as it is written <i>wherever</i> 'Baruch Shem' was said, even in the Ezras Nashim (Ritva to Ta'anis 16a). According to the Ritva, why does the Gemara say that the Shem ha'Meforash was uttered on Yom Kippur only ten times?
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> himself (in Berachos 63a) and the <b>RASHBA</b> (ibid.) quote the <b>RA'AVAD</b>, who asserts that neither the Shem ha'Meforash nor 'Baruch Shem' were said except in the <i>prayers</i> in the Beis ha'Mikdash. When the Kohen Gadol recited a blessing over the reading of the Torah, the normal Shem Hash-m was used. Perhaps the eight blessings of the Kohen Gadol, which were recited after he read from the Torah, were also not considered part of the prayers and thus did not require the Shem ha'Meforash.
</p><p>
3. Perhaps the reason why the people did not bow down during Birkas Kohanim was not because the Kohanim did not use the Shem ha'Meforash, but because the blessing of Birkas Kohanim must be done 'face to face' -- 'Panim k'Neged Panim' (Sotah 38a). The people needed to face the Kohanim during Birkas Kohanim and thus they could not bow down. In contrast, when the Kohen Gadol said the Viduy he was not blessing the people, so they could bow down when he said the Shem ha'Meforash.
</p><p>
It should be noted that according to <b>TOSFOS</b> in Sotah (38b), the people <i>did</i> bow down during Birkas Kohanim. Moreover, the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> emends the text of the Mishnah (66a) based on the text as it appears in the Yerushalmi, such that it makes no mention of bowing down on Yom Kippur (just as the earlier Mishnayos (35b, 41b) make no mention of bowing when the Shem Hash-m was said). According to his Girsa, no proof may be adduced from the wording of the Mishnah. (See Insights to Yoma 66:1.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> We are speaking of the handles of the 
          knives.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa lists the handles of the 
          vessels and the handles of the knives <i>separately</i>?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We are speaking of the handles of the cutting 
          tools.
<br>
<b><font>10) HILENI AND THE GOLDEN MENORAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  When the sun rose this Menorah would sparkle and all 
          present would know to recite the Shema at the proper 
          time.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we learned that the members of the Mishmar 
          said Sh'ma early, and the Anshei Ma'amad said it late?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It refers to other bystanders.
<br>
<b><font>11) HILENI AND THE GOLDEN TABLET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> May we infer from here that it is permitted to 
          write a section of the Torah as a separate scroll (for a 
          child)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, it only contained the initials of the words.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa teaches that the Kohen wrote 
          just what was written on the tablet.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It was written alternating words and initials.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) NIKANOR AND THE MIRACULOUS DOORS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Nikanor went to Mitzrayim to bring the doors.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Upon his return there was a storm and the sailors threw 
          one of the doors overboard.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Nikanor laid down on the second door to prevent its loss.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Upon his arrival in Ako, the second door miraculously 
          appeared.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  This was alluded to in the Pasuk in Shir ha'Shirim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  These were the only doors which were not later gilt, 
          either to remind all of the miracle, or because of the 
          quality of the copper.
<br>
<b><font>2) MISHNAH: THESE WERE NAMED FOR DISCREDIT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Beis Garmu did not wish to teach others the procedure for 
          making the Lecham ha'Panim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Beis Avtinas did not teach the making of the Ketores.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Hugras b. Levi did not share his unusual vocal talents.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Ben Kamtzar did not teach how to write four letters at 
          once.
<br>
<b><font>3) BEIS GARMU AND THE LECHEM HAPANIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Rabbis were unsuccessful in their attempt to replace 
          the members of Beis Garmu with Alexandrian bakers (they 
          could bake just as well, but they could not do the 
          Rediyah properly).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Rabbis saw that the honor of Hash-m would be raised 
          through the knowledge granted to Beis Garmu (proof text).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The Beis Garmu only returned when their wages were 
          doubled (either 12-24 or 24-48).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  They explained themselves on the grounds of protecting 
          this secret from would-be idolaters.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  To their credit, they would never allow clean flour in 
          their homes, to be above suspicion of benefiting from the 
          Lechem ha'Panim.
<br>
<b><font>4) BEIS AVTINAS AND THE KETORES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Rabbis were unsuccessful in their attempt to replace 
          the members of Beis Avtinas with Alexandrian craftsmen 
          (they could not cause the smoke to rise as straight).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Rabbis saw that the honor of Hash-m would be raised 
          through the knowledge granted to Beis Avtinas (a 
          different proof text).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  As above, they returned when their wages were doubled, 
          and justified themselves on the same grounds.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  To their credit, they would never allow a bride to be 
          perfumed, to remain above suspicion of benefiting from 
          the Ketores.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Yishmael remarked that justice had been done in that 
          the honor of Hash-m was maintained and that of Beis 
          Avtinas was reduced.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Yishmael b. Luga reported of the descendant who cried 
          and laughed, but did not give over the secret.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan b. Nuri reported that one of their 
          descendants gave over the secret, and R. Akiva indicated 
          that they are not to be discredited any longer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Ben Azai learned from these incidents that a person 
          should not be concerned, that he will surely receive that 
          which was designated for him, for none can impinge on 
          another, even an instant of one monarchy upon another.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) OMITTING THE INGREDIENT THAT MAKES THE SMOKE OF THE KETORES RISE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that the Chachamim once commissioned a group from Alexandria to prepare the Ketores in place of the artisans of Beis Avtinas. The Alexandrians did not know what ingredient causes the smoke of the Ketores to rise straight up, and the smoke of their Ketores rose and dispersed. The Chachamim decided that since the smoke of the Ketores made by Beis Avtinas rose straight up and was much more beautiful, it must be that their knowledge was a gift from Hash-m, and therefore they asked Beis Avtinas to return to make the Ketores.
</p><p>
The <b>HAGAHOS HA'BACH</b> asks why the Gemara says that the Chachamim re-commissioned Beis Avtinas only because of the beauty of the smoke of their Ketores. The Ma'aleh Ashan is one of the essential ingredients of the Ketores. If one omits the Ma'aleh Ashan from the Ketores which is brought in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, the Ketores is invalid and the one who made it is Chayav Misah. That should have been the reason why the Chachamim re-commissioned Beis Avtinas, and not merely because the smoke of their Ketores was more beautiful.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> (DH Hachi Garsinan) and the <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> answer that anything that causes smoke to rise and is called 'Ma'aleh Ashan' is valid for use in the Ketores. As long as it has the name 'Ma'aleh Ashan' it is valid, even though it is a different species and does not cause the smoke to rise straight up. The Alexandrians used a Ma'aleh Ashan in their Ketores, but it did not cause the smoke to rise straight up. (A similar answer is given by the <b>SHA'AR EFRAIM</b> #16.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>REBBI ELAZAR LANDAU</b> explains that there is a general species of Ma'aleh Ashan which was well known and which had a number of sub-species. The Alexandrians knew about only one sub-species which worked to make the smoke rise straight up but not as well as other sub-species.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (OC 133) writes that the Ma'aleh Ashan differs from the other main ingredients of the Ketores. Since it is included only in order to make the smoke rise and not to add to the aroma, the Ketores is valid, even l'Chatchilah, if it is omitted. He proves this from the Gemara here which says that the Chachamim re-commissioned Beis Avtinas merely because the smoke of the Ketores of the Alexandrians was not as beautiful, but not because their Ketores was invalid altogether.
</p><p>
However, the <b>BE'ER SHEVA</b> (Kerisus 6a) strongly rejects the assertion of the Beis Yosef. He cites the Gemara later (53a), the Yerushalmi (Yoma 1:1), and the Rambam (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 5:25) who explicitly state that one is Chayav Misah for omitting the Ma'aleh Ashan from the Ketores used on Yom Kippur. The <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 2:3) answers that the Beis Yosef distinguishes between the Ketores of Yom Kippur, of which the verse states that its smoke must rise, and the daily Ketores of the Heichal. The Mishneh l'Melech cites support for this answer from the words of the Rambam in Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash (2:8). (See Insights to Yoma 53:1.)
</p><p>
(d) The <b>MAHARATZ CHAYOS</b> writes that one is Chayav Misah for omitting the Ma'aleh Ashan only if he has Ma'aleh Ashan and leaves it out. If he does not have it all, he is not Chayav Misah for omitting it.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<b><font>5) HUGRAS BEN LEVI AND BEN KAMTZAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  He would insert his thumb... and the Kohanim, upon 
          hearing the sound, would tilt back their heads.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Ben Kamtzar could write a four-lettered word at once, 
          using a quill between each finger.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  All found a defense for themselves except Ben Kamtzar.
<br>
<b><font>6) THOSE HONORED AND THOSE DISCREDITED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Those mentioned in the earlier Mishnah are credited with 
          the Pasuk 'Zecher Tzadik li'Verachah' while these are 
          discredited with the end of the Pasuk, 've'Shem Resha'im 
          Yirkav'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar explained 'Yirkav' as spoiling of their names 
          such that fathers will not use them for their sons.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Do'eg b. Yosef...?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> You see what happened to him in the end 
          (slaughtered and eaten).
<br>
<b><font>7) OTHER AGADIC DISCOURSES OF R. ELAZAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The righteous are recalled upon mention of their good 
          deeds while the evildoers are even recalled upon mention 
          of the ill-deeds of their peers (proof  text).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Ravina asked of, and heard from his student regarding the 
          Torah source for 'Zecher Tzadik li'Verachah' (by Avraham) 
          and 'Shem Reshaim Yirkav' (by S'dom).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  A righteous person (Ovadyah) can succeed in maintaining 
          his righteousness even dwelling among evil people and the 
          reverse (Eisav).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  From the blessing of the righteous (Avraham) we can learn 
          the curse of the evildoers (S'dom) and the reverse (S'dom 
          and Avram).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  The world is created even for one Tzadik...(Tov is 
          Tzadik).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  One who forgets his learning causes exile to his sons 
          (proof text) and (R. Avahu) is reduced from his 
          greatness.
<br>
<b><font>8) OTHER AGADIC TEACHINGS (R. Chiya b. Aba citing R. Yochanan)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  A new Tzadik rises before the previous Tzadik dies (Eili 
          and Shmuel).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Hash-m saw that the Tzadikim are rare and so He spread 
          them through the generations.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The world endures even for one Tzadik (proof text) [R. 
          Chiya himself cites an alternate proof text (Chasidav 
          without a vav)].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  After the majority of one's years have passed without 
          sin...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Beis R. Shila):</font></b> After one has overcome temptation 
          twice...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Resh Lakish):</font></b> From the Pasuk we learn that one who 
          wishes to corrupt is allowed, and one who comes to purify 
          is assisted.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) BEN KAMTZAR'S TALENT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah relates that Ben Kamtzar was able to write four letters with one hand simultaneously by placing four quills between his fingers. In this way he wrote the four letters of the Name of Hash-m at one time.
</p><p>
What was so great about this feat? The letters of the Name of Hash-m must be written in successive order. They may not be written in the wrong order, and presumably they also may not be written all at one time.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>TESHUVOS MAS'AS BINYAMIN</b> (Rav Binyamin Aharon Selnik of Krakow, 1633) writes that the Gemara here provides proof that printing or stamping the Name of Hash-m in such a way that all of the letters are written at one time is not considered writing the letters of the Shem Hash-m out of order. Only writing them backwards is considered out of order. Therefore, he concludes that the use of a printing press to write a Sefer Torah is permitted, provided that one verbally is Mekadesh the Shem (by saying, 'l'Shem Kedushas ha'Shem') before he imprints it on the parchment with the press. In addition, he rules that printed Sefarim have the same Kedushah as a Sefer Torah. (The Halachah does not follow his opinion.)
</p><p>
(See <b>MAHARATZ CHAYOS</b>, who suggests that Ben Kamtzar developed some sort of rudimentary printing press which enabled him to write many letters at one time.)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) AGADAH: A TZADIK IN THE MIDST OF EVIL PEOPLE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says, 'When Hash-m blesses the Tzadikim, he punishes the sinners at the same time. When he punishes the sinners, he rewards the Tzadikim.'
</p><p>
What is the reason for this system of reward and punishment?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Gemara here can be understood based on the words of the <b>SHELAH HA'KODESH</b>. The verse says, 'Then I shall remember My covenant with Yakov, and also My covenant with Yitzchak, and I will remember My covenant with Avraham, and I will remember the land. The land will be deserted...' (Vayikra 26:42-43). This verse is written in the middle of the Parshah of the Tochechah (rebuke) which depicts the punishments that will befall the Jewish people if they fail to follow the word of Hash-m. This hopeful verse seems out of place, as it is preceded and followed by prophecies of gloom.
</p><p>
The <b>SHELAH HA'KODESH</b> explains that this verse is not intended to be an isolated statement of consolation surrounded by curses (as Rashi and most other commentators seem to understand it). Rather, it is intended to be an additional component in the series of curses that comprise the Tochechah: Hash-m will recall that He made a covenant with the forefathers of the Jewish nation, and that recollection will cause His anger with them to <i>grow</i> rather than to abate. Hash-m will say, 'The Jewish people had such illustrious ancestors from whom to learn the ways of Torah and righteousness, and they nonetheless veered from the proper path and pursued lives of sin. This is cause for greater punishment.'
</p><p>
Hash-m expects more of a person who was raised in a home in which a high priority was given to spiritual values than He expects from a person who was raised in a home where corruption and immorality were common. If the person raised in a virtuous home decides to pursue a life of sin, he will be held more culpable than the person who was raised in a home devoid of moral values.
</p><p>
A similar concept is related in the incident of Lot. Lot told the angels who escorted him from Sedom to safety, 'I cannot escape to the mountain, lest evil reach me there and I will die' (Bereishis 19:19). Rashi explains that Lot pleaded with the angels not to take him back to live in proximity to Avraham (where he lived before he moved to Sedom). Lot was concerned that if he would live in proximity to such a great Tzadik, then 'evil will reach me, and I will die.' When he lived in Sedom, Lot felt that Hash-m judged him favorably because he was compared to the other citizens of Sedom who were notorious for their wickedness. Lot feared that if he took up residence near Avraham, he would be judged according to a much stricter standard, one which he was sure he would not be able to withstand (see Bereishis Rabah 50:11). When a person is exposed to an environment of virtue, he is expected to assimilate the holiness of that environment and he is punished if he fails to do so. Less is expected of one who lives among wicked people and still manages to maintain an average standard of decency; such a person is judged favorably.
</p><p>
This is the intention of the Gemara here. When Hash-m sees the righteousness of a Tzadik who lives in proximity to evil people, He becomes even more upset with the evil people because they did not learn from the Tzadik to correct their ways. In this sense, the righteousness of the Tzadik causes the wicked to be punished. Conversely, the evil deeds of the wicked accentuate the righteousness of the Tzadik in their midst who did not learn from their evil deeds. Thus, Hash-m rewards the Tzadik at the same time that He punishes the evil.
</p><p>
Perhaps Avraham Avinu realized that to some degree he was responsible for the annihilation of Sedom. This might be the reason why he offered such a lengthy and impassioned plea on behalf of the people of Sedom, begging Hash-m to spare them (Bereishis 18:23-33). He knew that it was his exemplary behavior and virtuous way of life that reinforced the verdict of guilt for Sedom, and thus he felt a personal responsibility to intercede on their behalf. (M. Kornfeld, heard in part from Reb Yisrael Dissin of Chicago and Jerusalem)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) OTHER AGADIC TEACHINGS OF REBBI YOCHANAN (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  This is explained by the Mashal of Tana Bei R. Yishmael 
          (merchant wishes to measure the spices, but lets the 
          buyer measure his own unrefined oil).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  They also taught that an Aveirah stops up one's heart 
          (proof text).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  One who sullies himself a bit, is sullied a great deal; 
          one who is sullied below is sullied above; sullied in 
          this world, carries over to the next.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  By contrast, one who sanctifies himself a bit is 
          sanctified a great deal; as below, so above; in the world 
          so, too, in the next.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>*****<b>PEREK</b> #4 <b>TARAF BEKALFI</b>*****
</b></font></center><p>
<br><br><b><font>2) MISHNAH: THE PROCEDURE FOR DRAWING THE LOTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Kohen Gadol grabbed the two Goralos out of the Kalfi 
          while the S'gan stood to his right and the Rosh Beis Av 
          to his left.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Whichever hand was holding the Goral la'Shem, the 
          corresponding dignitary would call upon the Kohen Gadol 
          to raise that hand.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  He would place the two Goralos on the Sa'irim and 
          proclaim 'la'Shem Chatas'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Yishmael):</font></b> He need only say la'Shem.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Those hearing responded with 'Baruch Shem... '
<br>
<b><font>3) DETAILS OF THE LOTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why did he have to grab them?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> So that he would not have time to differentiate.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> The Kalfi was made of wood, not Kadosh, and could 
          only accommodate two hands.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why not make it Kadosh?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We do not make a K'li Shareis of wood.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then make it of gold or silver?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Torah is solicitous of Jewish funds.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah disputes the opinion of R. Yehudah in the 
          Beraisa that the lots were drawn by the right hands of 
          the Kohen Gadol and the S'gan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the Kohen Gadol drew la'Shem, the S'gan would 
               call upon him to raise his hand.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If the S'gan drew la'Shem, the Rosh Beis Av would 
               call upon the Kohen Gadol to proclaim the Kedushah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why doesn't the S'gan do this?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> So as not to distress the Kohen Gadol.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the basis for their dispute?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Whether the right hand of the S'gan is better 
          than the left hand of the Kohen Gadol.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana who argues with R. Yehudah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is R. Chanina as cited in the Beraisa (who 
          maintains that the S'gan has no role unless he is needed 
          to substitute for the Kohen Gadol).
<br>
<b><font>4) THE GLORIOUS ERA OF SHIMON HATZADIK</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  During his 40 year reign as Kohen Gadol...
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Goral la'Shem always came up in his right 
               hand...
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The scarlet thread always turned white...
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> The western lamp was always lit...
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> No additional wood was needed to maintain the 
               Ma'arachah...
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> There was B'rachah in the Omer, Sh'tei ha'Lechem and 
               the Lechem ha'Panim...
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  It satisfied wondrously. 
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> When it was cursed, the modest Kohanim would 
                    withdraw... unlike the Chamtzanim, who grabbed.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MAKING THE LOTS OUT OF GOLD </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that the reason why the box that was used for the lots of the two goats (Se'irim) on Yom Kippur was not made of gold and sanctified as a Kli Shares was because of the principle that 'the Torah cares for the money of Yisrael' ('ha'Torah Chasah Al Mamonam Shel Yisrael'). (For a discussion of the source for this principle, see Insights to Menachos 76:2.)
</p><p>
The Mishnah earlier (37a) teaches that Ben Gamla made the lots out of gold in place of wood. Why did he do this if the Torah discourages one from spending money unnecessarily?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RITVA</b> answers that the use of a box for the lots is not required mid'Oraisa. Even when a box is used, it is used only once a year. In addition, the use of a box for the drawing of the lots is not a real Avodah. Because of these reasons, there is no Mitzvah to beautify the Mitzvah ('Hidur') by making the box out of gold. The lots themselves, however, are part of an Avodah d'Oraisa. Moreover, since the Name of Hash-m is written on one of the lots, it is a Hidur to make them out of gold.
</p><p>
The same applies to the handles of the vessels used on Yom Kippur which Munbaz made out of gold. Even though their use is not mid'Oraisa, it is a Hidur to make them out of gold because they are used for the Avodah.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE REASON FOR DRAWING LOTS ON YOM KIPPUR</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah and Gemara describe the procedure of the selection of the goats on Yom Kippur as commanded by the Torah (Vayikra 16:8). Lots were drawn to select which goat would be offered as a Korban Chatas (the 'Sa'ir la'Shem') and which goat would be dispatched ('Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach') to Azazel (a rocky cliff). Two lots were placed in a box. One of the lots was inscribed with the word 'la'Shem' and the other with the word 'la'Azazel.' The Kohen Gadol stood between the two goats and reached into the box and chose the lot for each goat.
</p><p>
No other Korban is chosen in this unusual manner. Why was a lottery used to select the goats on Yom Kippur?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The reason for the unusual manner of choosing the goats on Yom Kippur touches upon basic fundamentals of faith. The basis of Emunah is the belief in Hashem's personal supervision of and involvement in all activities of mankind, and that nothing in the world occurs outside of Hashem's will. That knowledge is the basis for the belief in reward and punishment, and for the Jew's obligation to fulfill the Mitzvos.
</p><p>
On Yom Kippur, the entire nation repents and asks Hash-m to forgive the sins of the past year. The most important part of this process of Teshuvah is the strengthening of one's Emunah in Hash-m. One strengthens his Emunah by becoming aware that every act that he performed during the year was seen and scrutinized by Hash-m, and that everything that occurred to him during the year was orchestrated by Hash-m.
</p><p>
It is the Goral, the lottery, that demonstrates most powerfully Hashem's Hashgachah Pratis in every detail of the world's existence. When a Goral is conducted, one has no input or influence on the outcome of the Goral. When the Kohen Gadol chooses the goats in this manner, he proclaims on behalf of the people the conviction that Hash-m, and not 'chance,' determines the outcome of all events, even ones that seem random. When the people rely on the outcome of the Goral they show the belief that every experience is a direct result of Hashem's will. A Goral shows that what seems entirely random actually demonstrates the exclusive involvement of Hash-m.
</p><p>
Moreover, the Goral demonstrated the Hashgachah of Hash-m with particular clarity. As the Beraisa here explains, during the era of Shimon ha'Tzadik when the Jewish people were worthy the Goral la'Shem always came up in the Kohen Gadol's right hand, and during the era when they were unworthy it did not. The people's belief that Hash-m watches over them at all times was strengthened through the Goral.
</p><p>
It is especially appropriate that these particular Korbanos, the Sa'ir la'Shem and the Sa'ir la'Azazel, be selected in a manner which engenders Emunah in Hash-m. These are the Korbanos which effect atonement for the Jewish people on Yom Kippur, and thus it is fitting that they be selected in a manner which engenders Emunah, a primary element of Teshuvah.
</p><p>
The Tikunei Zohar calls 'Yom ha'Kippurim' a 'day which is like Purim' ('Yom k'Purim'). In what way is Yom Kippur similar to Purim? The common theme of both days is the understanding that everything is determined by Hash-m, even the seemingly random outcome of the drawing of lots.
</p><p>
When the Jews begin to waver in their faith that Hash-m is intimately involved in their every action, Hash-m sends Amalek to 'wake them up' (Rashi to Shemos 16:8). The verse describes Amalek's attack on the Jews as they traveled in the desert as 'Asher Karcha ba'Derech' (Devarim 25:18). Rashi there explains that 'Karcha' means 'they <i>chanced</i> upon you' (from the word 'Mikreh,' or 'chance'). Amalek's goal is to convince the world that everything that happens is random and due to chance. They attacked the Jewish nation as they left Egypt in order to show that the nation's good fortune in being freed from bondage was merely happenstance; some nations are enslaved, and some are free, it is all random.
</p><p>
The only way the Jewish people are able to defeat Amalek is by directing their attention to Hash-m and strengthening their belief that He, and only He, controls everything in the world. This is the meaning of the verse that describes Moshe Rabeinu's actions during the war against Amalek: 'And his [raised] hands were Emunah' (Shemos 17:12). When the Jewish people saw Moshe Rabeinu's arms raised towards the heavens in prayer, they understood that salvation comes only from Hash-m (see Rosh Hashanah 29a). When the Jews realize that everything is directed by Hash-m, they successfully defeat the forces of Amalek.
</p><p>
Amalek is the leading descendant of Esav, whose spiritual counterpart is none other than 'Sama'el,' who is identified as the Satan (Rashi to Sukah 29a and Sotah 10b, based on the Tanchuma, Parshas Vayishlach 8; the Midrash Rabah (end of Devarim) identifies Sama'el with the Satan and the Mal'ach ha'Maves). The Midrash (cited by the Ramban to Vayikra 16:8) says that the Sa'ir la'Azazel is offered to 'appease the Satan,' to silence him from his accusations against the Jewish people. The Jews silence the Satan the same way they silence Amalek (the people of Sama'el) by showing that there is no coincidence and that everything is directed by the hand of Hash-m. The Sa'ir la'Azazel is chosen <i>specifically</i> by way of a Goral in order to show that 'chance' is orchestrated by the active guidance of Hash-m.
</p><p>
The Chachamim teach that Haman is descended from Amalek (see Rabeinu Bachye to Shemos 16:17). Haman plotted to destroy the Jewish people with the same strategy that Amalek used centuries earlier. He conducted a lottery, or a 'Pur,' to choose a day on which to attack the Jews. He chose to use a lottery in order to show that the forces of nature, of chance, are powerful enough to destroy the Jewish people.
</p><p>
Mordechai recognized Haman's intentions. He told Esther, 'Kol Asher Karahu' (Esther 4:7). The Midrash says that Mordechai told Esther, 'The one about whom it is written 'Ashar <i>Karcha</i> ba'Derech' is plotting to attack us!' Mordechai described Haman this way to show that Haman's strategy was the same as Amalek's. Haman, like his predecessor Amalek, intended to take advantage of the Jews' vulnerability as a result of their weakened Emunah in the Hashgachah of Hash-m.
</p><p>
The appropriate response to such a threat is to regain the realization that Hash-m guides every detail of the world, and to recognize the hidden hand of Hash-m even in a time of 'Hester Panim,' when Hash-m 'hides His face' as it were, as the verse says, 'Haster Astir Panai ba'Yom ha'Hu' -- 'I will hide My face on that day' (Devarim 31:18; Chulin 139b).
</p><p>
This is alluded to in Megilas Esther, in which the Name of Hash-m does not appear. Even when we do not openly see Hashem's involvement in the world, He still is the One behind everything that happens.
</p><p>
The festival is named 'Purim' in recognition of the 'Pur' which Haman conducted (Esther 9:26). The Jews realized that the real cause of their troubles was their lack of Emunah and their mistaken belief that things happen as a result of Mikreh, chance, as represented by a Pur or Goral. Their victory was assured when they did Teshuvah and came to the realization that even a Goral is directed by Hash-m. In that sense, 'the Pur of Haman was turned into <i>our</i> Pur' (as we recite in the prayer after the reading of the Megilah). The force of randomness was shown to be non-existent, and the Jewish people saw that everything indeed is guided by Hash-m. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b></b>He was called this until his death. 
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iv. </font></b></b> The word derives from two Pesukim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  He knew the year of his death, as he reported that his 
          escort had changed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  When he died the Kohanim refrained from blessing the 
          people with the Shem ha'Meforash.
<br>
<b><font>5) FORTY YEARS PRIOR TO THE CHURBAN...</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Goral la'Shem did not come up in the right hand.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The thread did not turn white.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The western lamp did not remain lit.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The doors of the Heichal opened on their own.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan b. Zakai rebuked them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> 'How long will you frighten yourselves with the 
               prediction of the Navi...'
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Why is it called 'Levanon ... '
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Why is it called 'Ya'ar... ' (as we have been taught 
               regarding the golden fruit tress planted by Shlomoh, 
               which will ultimately be restored).
<br>
<b><font>6) TEN UTTERANCES OF THE SHEM HAMEFORASH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  There were a total of 10 utterances of the Name:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Three by each of the two Vidu'im.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Three by the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> One by the Goralos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Name was heard in Yericho.
<br>
<b><font>7) THE SPECIAL KEDUSHAH OF YERICHO AND THE KETORES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The hinges of the Heichal doors could be heard at eight 
          Techumei Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The goats in Yericho were affected by the aroma of the 
          Ketores.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The women of Yericho did not need perfume on its account. 
          (Even the Kalos of Yerushalayim did not need additional 
          perfume.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Other reports of the Ketores come from Arei Michmar and 
          from Shiloh.
<br>
<b><font>8) THE REQUIREMENT OF LIFTING AND PLACING THE GORALOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yanai):</font></b> Taking the Goralos out of the Kalfi is 
          critical, but placing them upon the animals is not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Even taking them out is not Me'akev.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  First Lashon:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> There is no dispute, within the opinion of R. 
               Yehudah (that anything done in Bigdei Lavan ba'Chutz 
               is not Me'akev), that the Goralos are not Me'akev,
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Their dispute is only within the opinion of R. 
               Nechemyah (that such activity <i>is</i> Me'akev) as to 
               whether the Goral is (R. Yanai) or is not (R. 
               Yochanan) an Avodah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Second Lashon*:*
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> There is no dispute within the opinion of R. 
               Nechemyah, that the Goral is Me'akev.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Their dispute is only within the opinion of R. 
               Yehudah as to whether the Goral is singled out 
               (through the Pasuk's repetition of 'Alah') to be 
               Me'akev.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) 'BEN CHAMTZAN' (OR 'BEN CHIMTZAN')</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa relates many of the miracles that occurred in the Beis ha'Mikdash during the forty years that Shimon ha'Tzadik served as Kohen Gadol and the significant changes that occurred after his passing. The Beraisa relates that 'the Lechem ha'Panim and Shtei ha'Lechem were blessed and each Kohen received a k'Zayis. Some ate and were satisfied, others even left some over.' When Shimon ha'Tzadik passed away, this blessing came to an end, and 'each Kohen received only the size of a <i>bean</i>' of the Lechem ha'Panim. 'The modest Kohanim refrained from taking at all, while the gluttonous ones would grab and eat. It happened once that a Kohen grabbed his portion and his friend's portion. From then on they called him 'Ben Chamtzan.''
</p><p>
The term 'Chamtzan' does not appear anywhere else in the Gemara. What is the implication of this appellation?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b>, based on the continuation of the Gemara here, explains that the root of this word is 'Chamotz,' which he relates to 'Chamas' or 'thievery.' (In fact, the Girsa of the text of <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> seems to have been 'Chamsan.')
</p><p>
(b) <b>RAV REUVEN MARGOLIYOS</b> (in <b>CHEKER SHEMOS V'KINUYIM B'TALMUD</b>) points out that there may be another meaning to the word 'Chamtzan.' The Yerushalmi (Yoma 6:3) relates a similar incident, but it concludes that the Kohen who grabbed was called thereafter 'Ben ha'Afun' ('son of the bean'). The Gemara in Yevamos (63a) refers to a bean as a 'Chimtzah,' which is related to the word 'Chamtzan.' Thus, it is likely that the Yerushalmi and the Gemara here refer to the same incident and to the same appellation. That appellation alluded to the size of the portions of Lechem ha'Panim which each Kohen was supposed to take (the size of a 'Pul,' or bean).
</p><p>
The Latin term for bean is 'faba.' The Gemara in Pesachim (57a) relates that Aba Shaul ben Botnis, in the name of Aba Yosef ben Chanin, prayed that he not come in contact with certain people who had certain undesirable characteristics. He said about the children of Yishmael ben Fi'abi, 'Woe unto me from the family of Yishmael ben Fi'abi, woe unto me from their fists, for they are Kohanim Gedolim, their sons are treasurers [of the Beis ha'Mikdash], their sons-in-law are the ones who give all the orders, and their servants smite the people with their clubs!' Perhaps the Kohen who grabbed his portion and his friend's portion was a descendant of Yishmael ben Fi'abi (or, as Josephus writes the name, 'Fabi'), whose descendants ruled with arrogance and took what was not theirs. In a play on words, the Kohanim called the person who grabbed his bean-size portion and his friend's bean-size portion 'Ben Faba' ('Ben ha'Afun,' or 'Ben Chimtzah,' all of which refer to 'bean') to allude to his improper conduct with regard to the Lechem ha'Panim. (Although the Gemara indicates that the name comes from the root 'Chamotz,' that is part of the allusion of the word 'Chamtzan.')
</p><p>
Rav Reuven Margoliyos adds that the Tosefta (Kelim Kama 1:6) relates that 'the Ba'al ha'Pul would club to death any Kohen who walked between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam without performing Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim (washing of the hands and feet).' Who was this unidentified 'Ba'al ha'Pul'? Perhaps he was a descendant of Yishmael ben Fi'abi who was known as 'Ben ha'Afun,' since 'Ba'al ha'Pul' literally means 'master of the bean.' Despite the fact that he sometimes expressed his zealousness in terms of greed, nevertheless -- like his grandfather -- he zealously guarded the sanctity of the Beis ha'Mikdash. (See also Insights to Pesachim 57:2 and Kerisus 28:2.)
</p><p>


<font><b>4) HEARD AS FAR AS YERICHO</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes Rabah bar bar Chanah who says that the sound of the hinges of the door of the Heichal was heard for a distance of eight Techumei Shabbos. Since each Techum Shabbos is 2000 Amos, the sound of the hinges was heard for a distance of two Parsa'os (16,000 Amos).
</p><p>
However, the Mishnah in Tamid (30b) seems to contradict Rabah bar bar Chanah's statement. The Mishnah there gives a list of sounds and scents that reached Yericho from the Beis ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim. Among the sounds that reached Yericho was the sound of the hinges of the door of the Heichal as it opened. However, the distance from Yerushalayim to Yericho is far more than two Parsa'os.
</p><p>
Similarly, the Gemara earlier in Yoma (20b) quotes a Beraisa that says that the voice of Gevini, who heralded the start of the day's Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash, was heard for a distance of three Parsa'os. However, the Mishnah there in Tamid says that his voice was heard even in Yericho. How are these contradictions to be reconciled?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ROSH</b> in Tamid (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes of Rav Yakov David Ilan) answers that the tunnel dug by Chizkiyahu extended from Yerushalayim until Yericho. The sounds traveled through the tunnel of Chizkiyahu until Yericho, while in other directions they traveled a much shorter distance as described by the Gemara here.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> explains that the terrain between Yerushalayim and Yericho was much less mountainous than the terrain in other directions around Yerushalayim, and thus sound traveled farther in that direction.
</p><p>
(c) The Ra'avad cites his Rebbi who suggests that it was through a miracle that these sounds were heard in Yericho. Yericho was singled out for this miracle because it was the first place the Jews conquered upon their arrival in Eretz Yisrael, and its conquest eventually led to the building of the Beis ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim. The capture of Yericho, therefore, is considered to be the beginning of Kedushas Yerushalayim. This is why Yehoshua prohibited the people from taking the spoils of Yericho. He wanted to sanctify them and give them a special status in the same way that one sanctifies his first fruits as Bikurim and the first part of his produce as Terumah. Hash-m caused the sounds and scents of Yerushalayim to be perceived in Yericho to show that Yericho had a certain degree of Kedushah. (See also Insights to Tamid 30:5.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) TWO LESHONOS AS TO WHETHER THE GORAL IS ME'AKEV (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa teaches that Hagralah is a Mitzvah 
          which is <i>not</i> Me'akev?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This fits nicely according to the first Lashon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> According to the second Lashon, however, there is an 
               opinion which maintains that Hagralah <i>is</i> Me'akev!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa is correctly taught that <i>Hanachah</i> 
          is a Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa teaches that it is a Mitzvah to do both Goral 
          and Vidui, but that neither are Me'akev, and here the 
          Goral <i>cannot</i> mean Hanachah!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon disagrees and holds that Vidui <i>is</i> 
               Me'akev.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This reading implies that R. Shimon concurs that the 
               Goral is <i>not</i> Me'akev.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If the Goral here means Hanachah, then R. 
          Shimon would hold that our Goral (Aliyah) <i>is</i> Me'akev 
          (Yet, R. Shimon holds that it is <i>not</i> Me'akev as we see 
          from the case where one of the Se'irim died)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Shimon was unsure of the position of the 
          Rabanan and taught his position that both Hagralah and 
          Vidui are Me'akev regardless of what the Rabanan mean by 
          Hagralah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  We see the positions of R. Shimon and R. Yehudah as two 
          alternate explanations for the Beraisa regarding the 
          order of the Par and Sa'ir.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa teaches that preempting the Par with 
               Avodah of the Sa'ir is Me'akev that Sa'ir, but the 
               reverse is not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> What is being referred to as the Par before the 
               Sa'ir? 
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> It cannot be the Matanos of the Par in the Heichal 
               before the Matanos bi'F'nim, since 'Chukah' does not 
               allow for error there.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> It must be the Matanos of the Par bi'F'nim before 
               the Goralos, thus indicating R. Shimon's position 
               that the Goralos are not Me'akev.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> Alternately, it could be R. Yehudah's position, and 
               while the order is not Me'akev, Hagralah is.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE NECESSITY TO SELECT THE GOATS WITH LOTS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses whether the process of Hagralah (or Goral), the drawing of lots to select the Sa'ir la'Shem and the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, is Me'akev or not. Must the Kohen Gadol perform the Goral to select the goats, or does it suffice if he verbally designates each goat?
</p><p>
The Gemara attempts to answer this question from a statement made by Rebbi Akiva in response to his students' question. If, during the Goral, the lot of 'la'Shem' comes up in the left hand of the Kohen Gadol, may he move it to his right hand (and thereby designate the Sa'ir to his right as the one la'Shem)? Rebbi Akiva answered that he may not move the lot to his right hand, because the Tzedukim will use that act as an excuse to deride the Torah and the sages.
</p><p>
Rebbi Akiva's words imply that mid'Oraisa the Kohen Gadol may move the lot from his left hand to his right hand. In practice he is not permitted to do so only because of the concern that the Tzedukim will use it as an opportunity to deride the Torah.
</p><p>
If the Goral is absolutely necessary (it is 'Me'akev'), then why, me'Ikar ha'Din, may the lot be moved to the other hand? The Goral already determined that the Sa'ir to the left side of the Kohen Gadol is the one which is Kodesh la'Shem. It must be that the Goral is not Me'akev.
</p><p>
Why is the Gemara bothered by Rebbi Akiva's answer only if the Goral is Me'akev? Even if the Goral is not Me'akev, when the Goral <i>is</i> performed it certainly determines which Sa'ir is la'Shem, and the determination of the Goral cannot be retracted! Consequently, when the Kohen Gadol performs the Goral and the lot of la'Shem comes up in his left hand, the Sa'ir to his left should irrevocably be the Sa'ir la'Shem, even if the Goral is not Me'akev. (<b>GEVURAS ARI</b>, <b>RASHASH</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> answers that if the Goral is not Me'akev, then there is a way for the Kohen Gadol to avoid the lot of the Sa'ir la'Shem from coming up in his left hand. Prior to the Goral, the Kohen Gadol should stipulate that the Sa'ir to his right will be Kodesh la'Shem <i>now</i> on the condition that the lot of 'la'Shem' comes up in his left hand when he makes a Goral. Consequently, if the lot comes up in his right hand, then the Sa'ir to his right becomes Kodesh la'Shem as a result of the Goral. If it comes up in his left hand, then the Goral does not take effect at all because the goat to the right becomes Kodesh retroactively from the time that he pronounced it as such. (According to the Gevuras Ari's explanation, Rebbi Akiva must maintain that 'Bereirah' works. See Insights to Eruvin 36:2.)
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps if the Goral is not Me'akev, then the outcome of the Goral does not <i>automatically</i> determine which goat will be la'Shem. Rather, after the Goral is performed the Kohen must <i>pronounce</i> which goat is la'Shem, based on the Goral's outcome. The Mitzvah to perform a Goral l'Chatchilah is to perform a Goral <i>and</i> pronounce that the goat is la'Shem based on the Goral's outcome. Until he makes that pronouncement, the goats are not yet designated. If, however, the Goral <i>is</i> Me'akev, then the Goral itself determines which goat will be la'Shem even without the pronouncement of the Kohen Gadol, since the Torah requires no input of the Kohen Gadol to designate the goats.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TCHEBINER REBBE</b> (in <b>DOVEV MEISHARIM</b>) suggests that if the Goral is not Me'akev, then the Kohen Gadol may <i>annul</i> (be 'Sho'el' on) the outcome of the Goral and revoke it, just as one may annul his pledge to Hekdesh or Terumah and revoke its status as Hekdesh or Terumah (Nedarim 59a). If the lot of the Sa'ir la'Shem comes up in his left hand, he may be 'Sho'el' to remove the Kedushah of the Goral, and he may declare instead the goat to his right side as the one that is Kodesh la'Shem.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  We see the positions of R. Shimon and R. Yehudah 
          regarding the indispensable nature of Vidui inferred from 
          the Beraisa.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Pasuk 'Yo'omad Chai' is understood by R. Yehudah 
               to mean until the Matan Dam of the other Sa'ir, 
               while R. Shimon takes it to mean until the Vidui.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah learns that the Kaparah of the Pasuk is 
               Kaparas Damim while R. Shimon learns that the 
               Kaparah is Devarim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> From R. Akiva's response to his students it 
          seems that (had it not been for our concern over the 
          Tzedukim that) the Goral is <i>not</i> Me'akev (contrary to 
          what we have been taught)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They actually asked about moving the left Sa'ir 
          and the Goral to his right side, and to that R. Akiva 
          said no, because of the Tzedokim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> From the Beraisa (explaining the word '*Alav*') 
          it seems that Hagralah is Me'akev and that Hanachah is 
          not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, '*Alav*' teaches that once we know which 
          animal is which, it is purely a Mitzvah to place the 
          Goral on the animal, and still, both Aliyah and Hanachah 
          may not be Me'akev.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa (a Sifra-Toras Kohanim) teaches 
          that the <i>Goral</i> makes the Kedushah, and not the Kohen's 
          words?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is taught to counter the effect of a Kal 
               va'Chomer which one might encourage us to learn that 
               the Name <i>should</i> make it a Chatas.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Pasuk thus teaches that it is the Goral creating 
               the Chatas, and not the Name.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  An unnamed Sifra is the position of R. Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  We thus resolve conclusively in favor of the those who 
          hold that Hagralah <i>is</i> Me'akev.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) SPECIFYING A KORBAN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Chisda):</font></b> Kinin can only be differentiated by Lekichah 
          or Asiyah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Shimi b. Ashi):</font></b> The rationale of R. Chisda derives 
          from the words in the Pesukim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa (cited at the bottom of 40b) 
          teaches that the Goral, not the Name, makes the Kedushah 
          (but the Name should not have been under consideration 
          since it is neither Lekichah or Asiyah)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> The Kal va'Chomer of the Beraisa is 
          understood to include the factor of Asiyah and Lekichah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We learn in a Beraisa (regarding the Korban 
          Chatas of a poor person) that there is Keviyah at times 
          other than Lekichah or Asiyah?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa must be amended to read that he 
          became wealthy <i>after</i> setting aside the funds, which is 
          akin to Lekichah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What about the position of R. Chaga (citing R. 
          Yoshiyah) that Bedi'eved the newly-wealthy person <i>is</i> 
          Yotze with the Korban Ani (the designation is neither at 
          a time of Lekichah nor of Asiyah)?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE 'LASHON SHEL ZEHORIS'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah teaches that after the two Se'irim were selected, a 'Lashon Shel Zehoris' (a strip of crimson wool) was tied to the head of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, the goat designated by the lots to be sent out to the wilderness. The Gemara quotes Rav Yosef who says that another Lashon Shel Zehoris was tied to the neck of the Sa'ir la'Shem, the goat designated by the lots to be offered as a Korban Chatas.
<br> 
<br>How many Leshonos of Zehoris were there?
</p><p>
(a) Even though the Mishnah says that one Lashon Shel Zehoris was tied to the head of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach and the Gemara says that another was tied to the neck of the Sa'ir la'Shem, the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 4:1) makes no mention of the second Lashon Shel Zehoris. Apparently, he understands the words in the Mishnah differently from the Gemara's conclusion. When the Mishnah says that 'ul'Nishchat k'Neged Beis Shechitaso,' it does not refer to where on the body of the second goat a Lashon Shel Zehoris was tied (as the Gemara concludes), but it describes where (and how) that goat must stand.
</p><p>
Why does the Rambam not accept the Gemara's conclusion?
</p><p>
The <b>SI'ACH YITZCHAK</b> and <b>PRI CHADASH</b> (in Mayim Chaim on the Rambam) suggest that the Rambam is bothered by the question of <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Shalosh). Tosfos asks why Rebbi Yitzchak and Rav Dimi, who enumerate the number of Leshonos Shel Zehoris, count only one that was used on Yom Kippur -- the one tied to the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, and not the one tied to the Sa'ir la'Shem. The Rambam understands that Rebbi Yitzchak and Rav Dimi argue with the conclusion of Rav Yosef in the Gemara earlier, and they maintain that no Lashon Shel Zehoris was tied to the Sa'ir la'Shem.
</p><p>
(b) The straightforward reading of the Gemara clearly implies that a second Lashon was tied to the Sa'ir la'Shem. The Mishnah later (67a) discusses the Lashon Shel Zehoris that was tied to the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. The Mishnah says that immediately before the Kohen pushed the Sa'ir off the mountain, he tore the Lashon Shel Zehoris into two pieces and tied one between the horns of the Sa'ir and the other to a nearby rock. The Lashon on the rock would turn white when Hash-m forgave the sins of the Jewish people.
</p><p>
The Mishnah later (68b) states that a Lashon Shel Zehoris was tied to the door of the Heichal. It, too, would turn white when the Sa'ir was pushed down the mountain. Is this a third Lashon Shel Zehoris?
</p><p>
The Gemara (67a) cites a Beraisa which clarifies the latter practice. Originally, a Lashon Shel Zehoris was tied to the outer door of the Ulam. This Lashon would turn white as a sign that Hash-m forgave the sins of the Jewish people. In the event that it did not turn white (an unfavorable sign for the Jewish people), the people would become ashamed and depressed. Therefore, the Chachamim instituted that the Lashon be tied to the inside of the door of the Ulam so that it would not be visible to the people. Nevertheless, the people still peeked through and were able to see whether it turned white or not. The Chachamim then instituted that part of the Lashon be tied to a rock near the place where the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach was pushed off the cliff, and part of it be tied between the horns of the Sa'ir. <b>TOSFOS REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> explains (apparently based on the Gemara's description) that the Lashon that was tied to the door of the Heichal was the other half of the one that was tied to the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. Later it was instituted that this Lashon be tied to a rock near the cliff.
</p><p>
(The <b>TIFERES YISRAEL</b> here suggests that perhaps the Lashon that was tied to the neck of the Sa'ir la'Shem was removed after the Sa'ir was slaughtered, and it was then tied to the door of the Ulam. Later, the Chachamim instituted that this Lashon not be used at all after the Sa'ir has been slaughtered. Instead, the Lashon on the neck of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach was tied to a rock, and that was the Lashon that would turn white.)
</p><p>
(c) The Mishnah in Shekalim (4:1) discusses how the money of the Terumas ha'Lishkah was spent and how the money of the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah was spent. The Mishnah (according to the Girsa of our text) says that 'the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach and the Lashon Shel Zehoris come from the Terumas ha'Lishkah,' and 'the Lashon she'Bein Karnav comes from the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah.'
</p><p>
What is the 'Lashon Shel Zehoris' that the first part of the Mishnah there mentions? There seems to be no Lashon to which it can refer other than the Lashon she'Bein Karnav, the Lashon that was tied between the horns of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. However, the second part of the Mishnah there clearly contradicts this when it says that the Lashon she'Bein Karnav is purchased with money of the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah.
</p><p>
Even more difficult is the Girsa of some Rishonim in the first part of the Mishnah there. Their Girsa reads 'Lashon Shel Zehoris <i>sheb'Rosh Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach</i>,' the 'Lashon Shel Zehoris <i>on the head of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach</i>.' How can both the Reisha and the Seifa refer to the same Lashon (that of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach) and say that it was purchased with money from two different Lishkos?
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> (67a) explains that two Leshonos were tied to the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. One Lashon, as the Mishnah here mentions, was tied to its head when it was selected. A second Lashon was brought, before Yom Kippur (so that it would not be carried on Yom Kippur), to the place where the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach would be brought. That second Lashon was the one which was tied between the Sa'ir's horns just before it was pushed down the mountain. The first Lashon was removed as the Sa'ir was taken out of the Azarah (so that the animal would not be carrying it on Yom Kippur). Accordingly, there were <i>three</i>, and not two, Leshonos Shel Zehoris.
</p><p>
(The <b>BARTENURA</b> in Shekalim does not have the text, 'sheb'Rosh Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach,' in the Reisha of the Mishnah there. He explains that the Lashon Shel Zehoris mentioned in the Reisha of the Mishnah refers to the Lashon that was used during the burning of the <i>Parah Adumah</i>. The <b>RAMBAM's</b> text does not have the words 'Lashon Shel Zehoris' <i>at all</i> in the Reisha of that Mishnah.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa should be understood to mean he then 
          took the birds and said...
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How could he and add to the value of the 
               birds, as we know that there is no Pidyon by birds?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It means adding to the <i>remaining</i> funds.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  He had only purchased one bird (which becomes a 
                    Nedavah)  with part of the money designated for 
                    Olah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> He must bring new funds for the Chatas, 
                    however, and the one bird already bought as a 
                    Chatas must be killed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we have a Beraisa which says that a wealthy 
          Metzora who brings the Korban of an Ani is <i>not</i> Yotze?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Metzora is unique given the word 'Zos'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then it should not work for an Ani who brings 
          the Korban of an Ashir either?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Torah so indicates by the word 'Toras' (as 
          found in the supporting Beraisa).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then learn from Metzora to Tamei Mikdash?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Torah restricts the rules of Metzora, 
          allowing that elsewhere the Ashir may be able to bring 
          the Korban Ani.
<br>
<b><font>2) MISHNAH: VIDUI OF THE SA'IR HAMISHTALE'ACH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  A scarlet thread was tied between its horns and it stood 
          by the gate of its departure.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Sa'ir la'Shem was by its Beis ha'Shechitah (see 
          Gemara).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The Kohen recited the Vidui for the Kohanim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The people respond to the Shem with 'Baruch Shem'.
<br>
<b><font>3) MARKING THE SA'IR LASHEM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Does the Mishnah mean that the Sa'ir la'Shem 
          was also tied with a string (around its neck) or also 
          stood in its place (to be slaughtered)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> From the Beraisa (which gives the reason as to 
          prevent mixing this animal with others) we come to 
          understand that it means a string was also tied (around 
          its neck) since standing it near the place os Shechitah 
          would not prevent it from being mixed with others.
<br>
<b><font>4) TWO SCARLET THREADS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yitzhok):</font></b> I have learned about the scarlet threads on 
          the Parah Adumah and on the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, and I 
          do not know which one requires a minimum Shiur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosef):</font></b> The fact that the thread on the Sa'ir 
          ha'Mishtale'ach must be cut in half indicates that it is 
          the one requiring a minimum Shiur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the thread on the Parah must have heft?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> The requirement of Koved is a Machlokes 
          Tana'im.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> But it seems from the Beraisa that the 
          thread of the Parah must be cut, since it refers to the 
          Sheyarei Lashon?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That means the narrowing end (like the tail).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  (R. Chanin citing Rav):</font></b> If the flame caught the thread it 
          is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa teaches that if the thread was 
          Nis'havhev it must be replaced with another?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One speaks of a standing flame, which burnt the 
          thread at a distance from its source, where R. Chanin 
          spoke of a bent flame, who burning is still considered 
          within.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Rava cites his source that the requirement of Koved is a 
          Machlokes Tanaim (Rebbi and R. Elazar b. R. Shimon). 
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE WEIGHTS OF THREE THREADS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Dimi (citing R. Yochanan) was uncertain which weight 
          (10 Zuz, two Sela'im and one Shekel) applies to which 
          thread (that of the Parah, the Sa'ir and the Metzora).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Ravin (citing R. Yonasan) attributed the 10 Zuz to the 
          Parah, two Selah to the Sa'ir and one Shekel to the 
          Metzora.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> There is a dispute between R. Shimon b. 
          Chalafta and the Rabanan regarding the Parah (is it 10 
          Zuz or one Shekel) and the mnemonic is One who is 
          Marbeh...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> No, the dispute is over the Sa'ir and the 
          memory aid comes from the passing of Ravya b. Kisi...
<br>
<b><font>2) SHECHITAH B'ZAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yitzhok):</font></b> I was taught two Shechitos, one Kosher 
          be'Zar, and one not ('Parah' and 'Paro'), and I do not 
          know which is which.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  We are taught that the P'sul of Shechitas Zar is a 
          Machlokes Rav and Shmuel (does it apply to 'Parah' or to 
          'Paro').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Rav's response to R. Zeira ('Elazar' plus 'Chukah') leads 
          us to conclude that Rav holds that '*Parah* 'is Pesulah 
          be'Zar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But by 'Paro' we <i>also</i> find 'Elazar' and 
               'Chukah'!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Shechitah is not an Avodah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Then 'Parah' should also allow for a Zar!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It is different since it is Kodeshei Bedek 
               ha'Bayis.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Then <i>certainly</i> 'Paro' should be Pasul 
               be'Zar!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The model is Maros Negaim (not Avodah yet 
               requires a Kohen).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Shmuel, then, holds that 'Paro' is Pesulah be'Zar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But by 'Parah' <i>also</i> find 'Aharon' and 
               'Chukah'!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk ('ve'Shachat Oso Lefanav') teaches 
               that Elazar may watch the Shechitah of a Zar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What will Rav then do with the Pasuk of 
               've'Shachat Oso Lefanav'?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> To forbid Hesech ha'Da'as.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Whence will Shmuel learn that Halachah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> From 've'Saraf... '
<br>       <b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What will Rav do with that Pasuk?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> One Pasuk for Shechitah and one for 
               Sereifah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  We need both, since Shechitah is the start of 
                    the Avodah, and possibly the only part where a 
                    Kohen is required; and,
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Sereifah is what makes the Parah effective.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is excluded (that Hesech ha'Da'as 
               would <i>not</i> invalidate)?
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Collecting the ashes and pouring the water over 
                    them are not good candidates;
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE RED RIBBON</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that ribbons of crimson wool of different weights were used for different purposes. The Gemara suggests that for the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, a piece of wool that weighed <i>two</i> Sela'im was used, so that after it was torn in half each half weighed one Sela (Rashi).
</p><p>
Why must each half of the ribbon weigh a Sela after it is torn, and not a Shekel (a half-Sela)?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> answers that since the ribbon would miraculously turn white when Hash-m granted atonement to the Jewish people, a large amount of wool was required so that the miracle would be more apparent.
</p><p>
(b) <b>HA'GA'ON RAV YEHOSHUA LEIB DISKIN</b> offers another insight into the reason for why the ribbon had to weigh two Sela'im. The Gemara in Shabbos (10b) says that Yakov gave to Yosef 'two Sela'im' of silk more than he gave to Yosef's brothers. This apparent display of favoritism caused the brothers to become jealous of Yosef and to sell him as a slave. The Midrash says (about the Sa'ir Chatas that the Jewish people offered during the Milu'im) that when the nation offers a goat as a Chatas, it atones for the brothers' sale of Yosef and for dipping his cloak in the blood of a goat (Yalkut Shimoni Shemini #521; see also Moreh Nevuchim 3:46). Accordingly, perhaps the ribbon of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach weighed two Sela'im in order to allude to the fact that when it turned white, it showed that the people had achieved atonement for the sin of the sale of Yosef which was brought about by a piece of material that weighed two Sela'im.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) SLAUGHTERING AHARON'S BULL</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara teaches that the Avodah of Yom Kippur is valid only when performed by the Kohen Gadol. Rav and Shmuel argue whether this rule applies to the Shechitah of the bull of Aharon (the Kohen Gadol) on Yom Kippur. Rav rules that the Shechitah of the bull of Aharon may be performed even by a non-Kohen. Since Shechitah is not an Avodah that must be done by a Kohen, the Torah's requirement that Aharon (i.e. the Kohen Gadol) perform the Avodah of Yom Kippur does not apply to it. 
</p><p>
Shmuel argues and asserts that the bull of Aharon must be slaughtered by the Kohen Gadol, just as the other Avodos of the day must be done by the Kohen Gadol. Not only is the bull invalid if a non-Kohen slaughters it, but it is invalid even if a Kohen other than the Kohen Gadol slaughters it because the Torah says that 'Aharon' must slaughter it (<b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b>, based on Yevamos 33b).
</p><p>
How does Shmuel respond to Rav's reasoning? If Shechitah is not an actual Avodah, why is its performance limited to the Kohen Gadol?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Shechitah) cites <b>RABEINU YOSEF</b> of Clisson who suggests that the requirement that the Kohen Gadol slaughter his bull differs from the requirement that the Kohen Gadol perform the other Avodos of the day. The Torah requires that the Kohen Gadol perform the other Avodos because they are <i>Avodos</i>, and any part of the Avodah of Yom Kippur must be performed by the Kohen Gadol. In contrast, the Shechitah of the Kohen Gadol's bull must be performed by the Kohen Gadol simply because he is the <i>owner</i> of the bull, and the Torah requires that the owner of the bull perform the Shechitah. Although the Gemara in Menachos (19b) teaches that, b'Di'eved, the Shechitah of other Korbanos does not need to be performed by the owner of the Korban (the owner must perform Shechitah only l'Chatchilah; see Rashi to Pesachim 7b, DH Pesach), on Yom Kippur if the owner of the bull does not perform its Shechitah, it is an invalid Korban.
</p><p>
Tosfos implies that the Shechitah of the bull of Aharon, like every other Shechitah, does not require Kidush Yadayim or Bigdei Kehunah, because it is not an Avodah (<b>GEVUROS ARI</b>). Similarly, if a non-Kohen -- or a Kohen Hedyot -- performs the Shechitah of the bull, he is not punished with Misah b'Yedei Shamayim and Malkus, the punishment given to a non-Kohen who performs an Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. At worst, he transgresses only an Isur Aseh by not letting the Kohen Gadol perform the Shechitah (<b>SHA'AR HA'MELECH</b>, Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 1:2).
</p><p>
Tosfos proves this assertion from the Gemara in Menachos (6b) which implies that <i>no</i> Shechitah of a Korban is considered an Avodah such that it requires a Kohen.
</p><p>
(b) According to one opinion in the Yerushalmi (Yoma 3:7), even the <i>Sa'ir</i> of Yom Kippur must be slaughtered by the Kohen Gadol. It is evident from this view that the reason it must be done by the Kohen Gadol is <i>not</i> because he is the owner of the Korban -- the Sa'ir is brought from public funds and not from the Kohen Gadol's private funds (<b>BRISKER RAV</b>, Chidushim to Yoma).
</p><p>
Does this mean that the Shechitah of the bull of Aharon and the Sa'ir is considered an Avodah and requires Kidush Yadayim and Bigdei Kehunah? Would a non-Kohen be Chayav Misah if he performs their Shechitah?
</p><p>
The Brisker Rav suggests that perhaps the Shechitah of even these Korbanos is not an Avodah (as the Gemara in Menachos implies), but nevertheless the Torah requires that the Kohen Gadol perform the Shechitah. The requirement for a Kohen in this case is similar to the Torah's requirement that a Kohen must rule on Mar'os Nega'im, even though such rulings involve no Avodah (as Rav says with regard to the Shechitah of the Parah Adumah; this may be the intention of Tosfos in Menachos 5a, DH Shechitah).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>SHA'AR HA'MELECH</b> proposes that the Shechitah of the bull of Aharon must be performed by the Kohen Gadol because it <i>is</i> considered a full-fledged Avodah. Consequently, if a non-Kohen performs the Shechitah, he is punished with Misah b'Yedei Shamayim and Malkus, just as he is punished when he performs any other Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Similarly, its Shechitah requires Kidush Yadayim and Bigdei Kehunah.
</p><p>
The Sha'ar ha'Melech proves this from the Gemara in Yevamos (33b). The Gemara there first proposes that there is no case in which a non-Kohen is liable for both performing Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash and Chilul Shabbos together. The only Avodah that involves Chilul Shabbos is Shechitah, and a non-Kohen <i>may</i> perform Shechitah. The Gemara retracts this assertion and says that a non-Kohen -- and even a Kohen Hedyot -- is liable for both Chilul Shabbos and for performing an Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash when he slaughters the bull of Aharon, according to Shmuel in the Gemara here who insists that the Shechitah must be done by the Kohen Gadol. It is clear from the Gemara in Yevamos that anyone other than the Kohen Gadol <i>is</i> liable (for serving in the Beis ha'Mikdash as a Zar) if he slaughters the bull of Aharon.
</p><p>
However, the Gemara in Menachos (6b) seems to contradict this view. The Gemara there implies that no Shechitah is considered an Avodah.
</p><p>
Apparently, the Gemara in Yevamos does not mean that the non-Kohen, or Kohen Hedyot, is liable for <i>Malkus</i> for slaughtering the bull of Aharon. Rather, it means that he is liable for transgressing an <i>Aseh</i>. (Indeed, the Gemara in Yevamos eventually concludes that the word 'Chayav' in this case does not refer to a Chiyuv Malkus at all. Apparently, even before the Gemara reaches its conclusion, the Gemara considered this possibility. That is why it suggested that the statement refers to the bull of Aharon: when a non-Kohen slaughters it, he is punished with Malkus for Chilul Shabbos, but he is not punished for performing an Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash, because his transgression involves only an Aseh.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> The Pasuk insists on their Shemirah.
<br>        <b>  <b><font>10. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Throwing in the additional ingredients (not 
               part of the actual Parah).
<br>        <b>  <b><font>11. </font></b></b> We were taught that there is a Machlokes regarding 
               the P'sul of a Zar by Parah between R. Ami 
               (Kesheirah), R. Yitzhok Nafcha (Pesulah) and Ula 
               (two versions regarding his position).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Yehoshua b. Aba asked from a Beraisa (regarding parts 
          of the Avodah which are invalid if performed by a woman) 
          in support of Rav.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the challenge to Shmuel from this 
          Beraisa?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the assumption is that anything which is Pasul if 
               done by a woman would be Pasul if done by a Zar, 
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We see from sprinkling the water that this is not 
               so.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer(Abaye):</font></b> A woman is excluded because of 'Elazar', 
          and <i>that</i> should also exclude a Zar from Parah.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE PESUKIM BY PARAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Ula):</font></b> When analyzed, some of the Pesukim correct a 
          mis-impression of the previous or following Pasuk; while 
          other Pesukim retain the impressions of the surrounding 
          Pesukim:
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  'Unesatem...Elazar', implies Elazar and not le'Doros.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Some say this implies that future generations will 
               require a Kohen Gadol (not a S'gan, as was Elazar).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Others say that future generations will allow for a 
               Kohen Hedyot.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> On what basis would we insist on a Kohen 
               Gadol in the future?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 'Chukah', 'Chukah' from Yom Kipur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  've'Hotzei Osah... ' not to bring another out with it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is taught in a Mishnah that neither a black or 
               another red Heifer may be used to coax the Parah 
               out.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Each has its reason to prevent people from erring.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi says that the reason is simply the commandof 
               the Pasuk ('Osah').
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How will the Tana Kama understand 'Osah'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> This Tana is R. Shimon, who learns the 
               rationale of the Pesukim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> When will their approaches result in a 
               difference in Halachah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> In a case where a donkey is brought out with 
               the Parah.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE PESUKIM BY PARAH WHICH RECTIFY OR MAINTAIN (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  've'Shachat Osah... ' another may not be slaughtered with 
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  'Lefanav... ' to forbid Hesech ha'Da'as (Rav); that a Zar 
          may slaughter under Elazar's supervision (Shmuel).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  've'Lakach Elazar ha'Kohen... ' to bring the Avodah back 
          to Elazar (Shmuel); a second Mi'ut to include a Kohen 
          Hedyot.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  've'Lakach ha'Kohen Eitz Erez... ' even a Kohen Hedyot 
          (Shmuel); to require a Kohen (Rav).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  've'Chibes Begadav ha'Kohen... ' dressed as a Kohen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  've'Tamei ha'Kohen...' future Paros require Bigdei 
          Kehunah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> According to the one who requires a Kohen 
               Gadol for future Paros, need we be told this 
               elementary requirement?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Yes, the Torah may spell out that which 
               could be derived logically.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  've'Asaf Ish Tahor...ve'Hiniach... Ish' - to permit a 
          Zar; Tahor- to permit a woman; 've'Hini'ach' - He who has 
          Da'as Lehani'ach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah cites a Machlokes regarding whether a 
               Katan and a woman may be Mekadesh.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> A Katan may and a woman may not. 
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> (Rabanan):</font></b> A woman may and a Katan may not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is the rationale for the Rabanan?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk links Aseifah to Kidush.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What will R. Yehudah do with that link?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The plural 've'Lakchu' comes to include the 
               Katan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Whence does R. Yehudah exclude a woman?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The masculine form of 've'Nasan'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How will the Rabanan understand this?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> 've'Lakchu' and 've'Nasan' teach the proper 
               number of Kohanim to be involved.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  've'Lakach Eizov...Ish' - excludes a woman and Tahor to 
          include a Katan (Rabanan); 'Ish'- to exclude a Kohen and 
          'Tahor' to include a woman (R. Yehudah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa teaches that a woman is 
               excluded and R. Yehudah does not argue there?!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE FOURTH ROW OF TILES IN THE AZARAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that after the Kohen Gadol slaughtered the Sa'ir la'Shem and performed Kabalas ha'Dam, he would give the blood to another Kohen who would stir it 'on the fourth row of tiles in the Heichal.' The Kohen Gadol would ascend to the top of the Mizbe'ach and take hot coals from there and place them in a shovel, and then he would descend and place the shovel 'on the fourth row of tiles in the Azarah.'
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that when the Mishnah says that a Kohen would stir the blood on the fourth row of tiles in the Heichal, it refers to the fourth row of tiles in the Azarah, <i>outside</i> of the Heichal, as it is forbidden for him to be in the Heichal. 
</p><p>
If both the first and second parts of the Mishnah refer to the fourth row of tiles in the Azarah (where the blood was stirred, and where the coals were placed), then why does the Mishnah refer to the same place with two different terms? The Mishnah first calls that row 'the fourth row of tiles in the Heichal,' and then it calls that row 'the fourth row of tiles in the Azarah.'
</p><p>
(It does not suffice to say that 'the fourth row of tiles 'in the Heichal'' refers to the fourth row of tiles in the Ulam right outside the Heichal, because one opinion later (44b) maintains that the Heichal and Ulam had the same Kedushah, and thus the Kohen who stirred the blood was not allowed to enter the Ulam just as he was not allowed to enter the Heichal (see <b>RITVA</b>).)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The text of the Mishnayos of the <b>RAMBAM</b> and other Rishonim reads that the Kohen stirred the blood on 'the row in the Azarah' and not on 'the fourth row in the Azarah.' This is also the text of many earlier printings of the Mishnayos and Gemara. According to this text, the Mishnah apparently refers to a row of tiles located in the middle of the Azarah, or right near the Mizbe'ach. (Similarly, the Girsa of the <b>DIKDUKEI SOFRIM</b> reads 'the fourth row' and leaves out the words 'in the Azarah.') According to these texts, the second part of the Mishnah does not refer to the same place mentioned in the first part of the Mishnah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> says that the second part of the Mishnah refers to the fourth row of tiles as counted from the Mizbe'ach towards the Ulam. The first part of the Mishnah refers to the fourth row of tiles as counted from the Ulam towards the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TIFERES YISRAEL</b> suggests that perhaps the Kohen stirred the blood on the same row of tiles on which the Kohen Gadol placed the shovel of coals. However, the Kohen who stirred the blood stood on the side of the row closer to the Heichal. The shovel of coals was placed on the side of the row closer to the Mizbe'ach. This positioning was arranged to show that the coals were no more than a Machshir for the burning of the Ketores and were not as holy as the blood of the Sa'ir which would be brought into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and sprinkled there.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) WHO WALKED ON THE CENTER OF THE RAMP</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah lists the differences between the way certain components of the Avodah are done on Yom Kippur and the way they are done the rest of the year. Two of the differences involve how the Kohanim ascend and descend the ramp of the Mizbe'ach, and how they perform Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim.
</p><p>
The Mishnah says that during the rest of the year, 'the Kohanim ascend the Mizbe'ach by walking up the east side of the ramp, and they descend by walking down the west side of the ramp,' while on Yom Kippur 'the Kohen Gadol ascends and descends in the center of the ramp.'
</p><p>
The Mishnah then says that during the rest of the year, 'the Kohen Gadol performs Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim from the Kiyor,' while on Yom Kippur 'the Kohen Gadol performs Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim from the Kiton Shel Zahav (the golden vessel).'
</p><p>
When the Mishnah discusses the ascent up and descent down the ramp, it contrasts how the <i>Kohanim</i> walk during the rest of the year with how the <i>Kohen Gadol</i> walks on Yom Kippur. Why does the Mishnah not contrast the way the <i>Kohen Gadol</i> walks on the ramp during the rest of the year with the way he walks on Yom Kippur? Indeed, when the Mishnah discusses Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim, it contrasts how the Kohen Gadol performs Kidush the rest of the year with how he performs Kidush on Yom Kippur.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 2:5, as cited here by the <b>BACH</b>) and the <b>RITVA</b> have a different Girsa in the Mishnah. Their text contrasts how the Kohanim ascend the ramp during the rest of the year with how the <i>Kohanim</i> ascend on Yom Kippur. The Mishnah teaches that on Yom Kippur <i>all</i> of the Kohanim ascend and descend at the center of the ramp. The Mishnah is consistent when it contrasts the Kohanim's actions during the rest of the year with their actions on Yom Kippur, just as it is consistent when it contrasts how the Kohen Gadol performs Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim during the rest of the year with how he performs it on Yom Kippur.
</p><p>
Why, though, do all of the Kohanim ascend the ramp of the Mizbe'ach on Yom Kippur, if no one but the Kohen Gadol performs Avodah on Yom Kippur?
</p><p>
The Gemara later (45a) says that all of the Kohanim ascend the middle of the ramp on Yom Kippur 'Mishum Kevodo d'Kohen Gadol' -- for the honor of the Kohen Gadol. The Rambam explains that Kohanim give honor to the Kohen Gadol by walking in front of him and behind him as he ascends the middle of the ramp to perform the Avodah.
</p><p>
(b) The text of the Mishnah according to <b>RASHI</b> (in the Mishnah here and Gemara later (45a)) is the same as the text of our printing. According to this text, why does the Mishnah compare how the Kohen Gadol ascends the ramp on Yom Kippur with how the <i>Kohanim</i> ascend the rest of the year, and not with how the Kohen Gadol himself ascends the rest of the year?
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that the reason why the Kohen Gadol ascends in the middle of the ramp is 'because of his honor.' On Yom Kippur, the Kohen Gadol is given much honor because he enters the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. Ascending the middle of the ramp demonstrates that the Kohen Gadol has attained such great authority that he is considered to be 'at home' in the Mikdash. Thus, his honor is a result of two factors: first, the day is Yom Kippur, and second, he is the Kohen Gadol. This is in contrast to other days of the year, and to other Kohanim. Therefore, the Mishnah contrasts these two factors.
</p><p>
With regard to the Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim which is performed with the golden vessel on Yom Kippur, the Mishnah does not contrast how the other <i>Kohanim</i> perform Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim the rest of the year with how the Kohen Gadol performs it on Yom Kippur. Rather, it contrasts how the Kohen Gadol performs Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim in both cases, because the reason why the golden vessel is used is <i>not</i> in order to give the Kohen Gadol honor. Rather, it is used because of utility; since the Kohen Gadol performs Tevilah atop the Lishkas Beis ha'Parvah, and each time he performs Tevilah he must also perform Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim before and after the Tevilah, to require him to wash directly from the Kiyor would constitute a great inconvenience for him. He would have to go down to the Kiyor in the Azarah and then back up to the Lishkas Beis ha'Parvah numerous times. Since the use of the golden vessel is not to give him honor, the Mishnah contrasts how he washes during the rest of the year with how he washes on Yom Kippur, because the difference is due solely to the day. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
However, according to this explanation, what does the Gemara later (45a) mean when it says that the reason why the Kohen Gadol uses a golden Kiton on Yom Kippur is 'because of the honor of the Kohen Gadol'? It seems that Rashi's text of the Gemara did not include those words. This also explains why Rashi makes no mention of this reason in his comments on the Mishnah. The <b>DIKDUKEI SOFRIM</b> indeed omits those words from the text of the Gemara there. (However, Rashi in Sukah 50a (DH Gezeirah) implies that his text of the Gemara included those words.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Since we were taught that all of the Pesukim 
               either maintain the previous position or rectify it, 
               he must argue (since he cannot be maintaining).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  've'Hizah ha'Tahor al ha'Tamei...'  'ha'Tahor' implies 
          one who would otherwise be considered Tamei (a T'vul 
          Yom).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  No consistent pattern could be found in the Pesukim 
          (rather some are Motze Miyad and some are Mekayem).
<br>
<b><font>2) SHECHITAH B'ZAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  A Tana taught that a Parah may not be slaughtered by a 
          Zar.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan discarded that teaching (and even that of his 
          own Rebbi) and insisted that <i>all</i> Shechitah may be done 
          by a Zar.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE SECOND VIDUI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't he mention others (e.g. the Kohanim) 
          in his first Vidui?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is proper for a Zakai to atone for a Chayav.
<br>
<b><font>4) MISHNAH: KABALAH AND CHITUI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The blood is collected and given to one who (on the 
          fourth row of the Heichal) stirs it to prevent 
          coagulation.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  He does Chitui from the inner ashes, and places them on 
          the fourth row in the Azarah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Differences between this Avodah and others during the 
          year:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Gold Machtah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It stayed in three Kavin (Machlokes what was done 
               all year).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Lighter Machtah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Longer handle.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> Redder gold.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> A Chafnayim-full more.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b></b> Extra fine flour.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b></b> Walking in the center of the Kevesh (Machlokes 
               regarding the practice of the Kohen Gadol all year).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b></b> Kidush from the gold Kiton (Machlokes regarding 
               year- round practice of the Kohen Gadol).
<br>        <b>  <b><font>10. </font></b></b> An additional Ma'arachah (three-way Machlokes 
               regarding the actual number).
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE FOURTH ROW OF THE HEICHAL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b>  But the Pasuk teaches that no person may be in 
          the Ohel Mo'ed at the time of the Ketores?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah means <i>from</i> the Heichal, into the 
          Azarah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa provides the sources for the Halachos of 
          staying out of the Ohel Moed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Lest we think that the prohibition also applies to 
               the Azarah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> To apply the restriction to Shiloh and to the Beis 
               ha'Mikdash.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> To extend the prohibition from Ketores to Matan 
               Damim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> To extend the prohibition to the time of his 
               departure.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> To teach the order of atonement (himself, his wife 
               and Shevet, Klal Yisrael).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How does the time of Haktarah come to be 
          assumed in the Beraisa?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Since the Pasuk speaks of that which brings 
          Kaparah to all.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Does the Ketores bring Kaparah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Yes, as we find that it did so in the Midbar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It atones for Lashon Hara.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> A private offering for a private transgression.
<br>
<b><font>2) BETWEEN THE ULAM AND THE MIZBE'ACH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Mishnah teaches that during the Ketores we must 
          remove ourselves from the area between the Ulam and the 
          Mizbe'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> This restriction applies only while the 
          Ketores is brought in the Heichal  (not while it is 
          brought in the Kodesh Kodshim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But from the Beraisa we see that we are Poresh 
          from between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach while the Ketores 
          is brought, and presumably this is the Ketores in the 
          Kodesh Kodshim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, the Beraisa is speaking of the Ketores in the 
          Heichal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> In that case there should have been no question 
          looking for Ma'alos of the Heichal over the area between 
          the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This, indeed, is the difference which the Beraisa 
          intended (and the Beraisa referred to the time that the 
          Ketores is brought in the Kodesh Kodshim as the time it 
          is not being brought in the Heichal).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) ENTERING THE AREA BETWEEN THE ULAM AND MIZBE'ACH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses Perishah, the requirement that everyone stay away from a certain part of the Beis ha'Mikdash while the Kohen performs a certain Avodah. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Ma'alos d'Oraisa) explains that according to all opinions, the only Perishah required mid'Oraisa on days other than Yom Kippur is the requirement to stay out of the Heichal while the Ketores is offered inside the Heichal on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi. The requirement to stay away from any place outside of the Heichal, such as the area between the Ulam and Mizbe'ach, is only a Gezeirah mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
Why did the Rabanan enact a Gezeirah that one not enter the area between the Ulam and Mizbe'ach while the Ketores is being offered in the Heichal? Rashi explains that the Rabanan feared that if one would be permitted to enter the area between the Ulam and Mizbe'ach, he might accidentally walk into the Heichal (an Isur d'Oraisa) while the Ketores is being offered. Therefore, they decreed that one must stay far away from the Heichal.
</p><p>
If the Rabanan enacted a Gezeirah in order to prevent a person from accidentally entering the Heichal, then why did they not make such a Gezeirah on Yom Kippur as well? On Yom Kippur, the Torah forbids any person from entering the Heichal while the Ketores is being offered in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim (44a). Nevertheless, there is no prohibition, not even mid'Rabanan, against entering the area between the Ulam and Mizbe'ach. Why did the Rabanan not enact the same Gezeirah for Yom Kippur that they enacted for the rest of the year when the Ketores is being offered in the Heichal?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> (44a) points out that Rashi (DH Aval b'Sha'as Haktarah) addresses this question when he says that since the outer Mizbe'ach is 'far from where the Ketores is burned on Yom Kippur' (i.e. the Kodesh ha'Kodashim), there is no need to prohibit entry into the area between the Ulam and Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
Why is there no need to enact such a prohibition? Even though that area is far from the Kodesh ha'Kodashim where the Kohen Gadol burns the Ketores, it is <i>not</i> far from the Heichal, which one is still forbidden to enter mid'Oraisa!
</p><p>
The Ritva explains that the only fear is that one will attempt to peer into the Heichal in order to see the Avodah of the Ketores, and as he does so he will inadvertently enter the Heichal. On Yom Kippur, though, when the Ketores is burned in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, a person will not attempt to peer into the Heichal because he knows that there is nothing there to see. Since he will not try to peer inside, there is no fear that he will accidentally enter the Heichal.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> understands that Rashi means that nobody will enter the Heichal when the Kohen Gadol offers the Ketores on Yom Kippur, because everybody stands with much greater awe of the offering of the Ketores in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. When Rashi writes that it is far away from the place of the Haktarah, he is explaining why the Rabanan did not prohibit one from entering the area between the Ulam and Mizbe'ach on Yom Kippur as a preventative measure for the <i>rest</i> of the year (if one is permitted to go there on Yom Kippur, perhaps he will mistakenly think that he is permitted to go there on other days). Rashi is saying that people will not confuse Yom Kippur with any other day, because on Yom Kippur the Ketores is offered far away from the Ulam, and thus there is no reason for people to confuse it with the offering of the Ketores in the Heichal during the rest of the year.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> and <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> suggest another answer. On Yom Kippur, the Rabanan preferred not to prohibit one from standing between the Ulam and Mizbe'ach, because they wanted other Kohanim to stand there as sentinels to watch the Kohen Gadol in the Heichal. This was done so that the Kohen Gadol would know that his actions were being observed and, if he was a Tzeduki, he would be afraid to place the Ketores on the coals before his entry into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But there is another Ma'alah of the Heichal, as 
          regards the Perishah at the time of Matan Damim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That is considered part of the same Perishah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Whence do we know the Perishah at the other 
          times (Matan Damim of the Kohen Mashu'ach, etc.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They are derived through a Gezeirah Shavah from 
          Yom Kipur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This implies that the Ma'alos listed in the 
          Mishnah in Keilim are d'Oreisa (and the rest of the 
          Azarah is distinct from the area Bein ha'Ulam 
          la'Mizbe'ach), since if the distinctions are de'Rabanan, 
          then the same concern of trespassing should apply 
          throughout the Azarah!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> While the Kedushah is the same throughout the 
          Azarah, the Mizbe'ach serves as a reminder in the rest of 
          the Azarah, unlike past the Mizbe'ach where there is no 
          reminder.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE KEDUSHAH OF THE ULAM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> We see from the above that the Ulam has the same 
          Kedushah as the Heichal, for otherwise the Gezeirah 
          regarding Bein ha'Ulam la'Mizbe'ach is a Gezeirah 
          li'Gezeirah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  No, the Ulam has the same Kedushah (and is subject to the 
          same Gezeirah) as Bein ha'Ulam la'Mizbe'ach.
<br>
<b><font>4) THE GOLDEN SHOVEL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is this Machtah of gold, rather than the 
          usual silver?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Torah has compassion on Jewish funds.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is the Kohen Gadol not required to transfer 
          the coals to the gold Machtah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> In deference to his weakened state.
<br>
<b><font>5) THE SURPLUS KAV OF COALS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> A Beraisa teaches that there were <i>two</i> Kavim 
          of leftover coals (this seems too large or too small to 
          match the differentials mentioned by either Rabanan or R. 
          Yosi)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is the opinion of R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan 
          b. Berokah (who learns that he went in with two Kavim).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Ashi):</font></b> It could even be the opinion of R. Yosi, if we 
          understand the switch from Midbar measures to 
          Yerushalayim measures.
<br>
<b><font>6) THE LIGHTER MACHTAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Tana taught that it's walls were normally thicker, 
          and thus it was heavier than the one for Yom Kipur, also 
          its handle was normally shorter than this one.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why the need for the longer handle?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> So that the Kohen Gadol might use his arm to 
          support it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  A Tana also taught that it normally did not have a noise- 
          making ring, which (the Ben ha'S'gan reported) it <i>did</i> 
          have on Yom Kipur.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE COLOR OF THE GOLD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Chisda):</font></b> There are seven types of gold, each listed 
          with its name derivation.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Ashi):</font></b> There are five types, each comes in regular 
          and Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  A Beraisa is cited to affirm that the gold called 
          Parva'im derives its name from its similarity to the 
          blood of Parim.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE EXTRA FINE FLOUR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The extra word 'Dakah' teaches us a finer ground over the 
          already fine ground normally required.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE KOHANIM GOING UP ON THE RIGHT SIDE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  As we were taught, that all turns in the Mikdash are to 
          the right, eastward.
<br>
<b><font>4) TODAY THE KOHEN GADOL GOES UP THE MIDDLE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  This is to honor the Kohen Gadol.
<br>
<b><font>5) TODAY THE KOHEN GADOL DOES KIDUSH FROM THE GOLD KITON</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  This, too, is to honor the Kohen Gadol.
<br>
<b><font>6) FOUR MA'ARACHOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa lists the opinions of R. Yehudah (two 
          Ma'arachos), R. Yosi (three) and Rebbi (four) and what 
          purpose each one would serve (all opinions add one for 
          Yom Kipur to the following):
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Ma'arachah Gedolah (all opinions)
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Ma'arachah Ketanah for Ketores (all opinions)
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Kiyum ha'Eish (R. Yosi and Rebbi)
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> For incompletely burnt Eivarim and Pedarim (Rebbi 
               only)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The source Pesukim for the two Ma'arachos (upon which all 
          agree) are cited.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The source for Kiyum ha'Eish is cited (R. Yosi).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What will R. Yehudah do with this Pasuk?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah will learn that the Alisa must be lit 
          on the Mizbe'ach (as we find the opinions of both R. 
          Yehudah and R. Yosi in the Beraisa).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Whence will R. Yosi learn the rule regarding 
          igniting the Alisa?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The same way R. Shimon learns it in the Beraisa 
          (applying the Pasuk to Alisa since it could not be 
          teaching us the obvious Halachah that a Zar cannot go on 
          the Mizbe'ach).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then why doesn't R. Yehudah use the same 
          source?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That source could allow a Zar to ignite the Alisa 
          on the Mizbe'ach using a blower while standing on the 
          ground.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for the Ma'arachah of 
          Eivarim and Pedarim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Vav of 've'Eish'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What will the Rabanan do with that Vav?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is not subject to interpretation.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What will the Rabanan do with those unburnt 
          Eivarim and Pedarim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk indicates that we should put them back 
          on the Ma'arachah Gedolah (as cited in the Beraisa).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE SOURCE FOR HOW TO LIGHT THE FLAME UPON THE MIZBE'ACH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the verses from which the requirement for the various Ma'arachos on the Mizbe'ach are derived, according to the different opinions (Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Yosi, and Rebbi Meir).
</p><p>
Rebbi Yosi maintains that in addition to the Ma'arachah Gedolah and the Ma'arachah for the Ketores, there was a third Ma'arachah of 'Kiyum ha'Esh,' which he derives from the verse, 'veha'Esh Al ha'Mizbe'ach Tukad Bo' (Vayikra 6:5). Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that there was no third Ma'arachah of 'Kiyum ha'Esh,' says that the verse instead teaches 'Hatzasas Alyasa' -- when the fire of the Mizbe'ach is kindled, the splinters must be ignited on the top of the Mizbe'ach (and not brought from below). The verse, according to Rebbi Yehudah, does not refer to a new Ma'arachah, but to how to light the fire on the main Ma'arachah on the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
Rebbi Yosi, on the other hand, derives the law of 'Hatzasas Alyasa' from a different source, the verse expounded by Rebbi Shimon, 'v'Nasnu Bnei Aharon ha'Kohen Esh Al ha'Mizbe'ach' (Vayikra 1:7), which teaches that the fire must be kindled on the top of the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> asks that if this verse teaches 'Hatzasas Alyasa,' why does it mention that the Kohanim ('Bnei Aharon ha'Kohen') must do it? It is obvious that the fire must be kindled by Kohanim, because it must be done on top of the Mizbe'ach, and, as Rebbi Shimon argues in the Gemara, a non-Kohen is not allowed on the Mizbe'ach. Why, according to Rebbi Shimon, does the verse need to say that a Kohen must kindle the flame if the verse specifies that the kindling must be done atop the Mizbe'ach?
<br> 
<br>Rashi answers that if the verse would have made no mention of the Kohanim, one might have understood it to mean that a non-Kohen may light the fire at the base of the Mizbe'ach and throw it onto the Mizbe'ach. The verse therefore teaches that a Kohen must light it.
</p><p>
Rashi's answer is problematic. In the Gemara, Rebbi Shimon rejects the interpretation of Rebbi Yehudah, who says that the verse teaches that a Kohen must light the fire on top of the Mizbe'ach, because 'there is no reason to think that a non-Kohen is permitted to approach the Mizbe'ach.' Although Rebbi Yehudah responds that the verse teaches that a non-Kohen may not kindle with a bellows from below, Rebbi Shimon does not accept this argument. Now, however, Rebbi Shimon himself says the same thing! That is, although the verse already teaches that 'Hatzasas Alyasa' must be done on top of the Mizbe'ach, Rebbi Shimon finds it necessary to bring an additional source to teach that a <i>Kohen</i> must perform 'Hatzasas Alyasa,' and that a non-Kohen may not throw the flame up to the top of the Mizbe'ach. Why is Rebbi Shimon bothered with Rebbi Yehudah's interpretation of the verse if he eventually interprets the verse the same way?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Chi) answers that when Rebbi Shimon says that the fire must be lit by a Kohen on the Mizbe'ach (and not by a non-Kohen below and thrown up to the Mizbe'ach), he does not refer to the act of 'Hatzasas Alyasa,' the <i>kindling</i> of the burning splinters to make the fire strong. It is not possible to perform 'Hatzasas Alyasa' anywhere except on top of the Mizbe'ach, unless one stands below the Mizbe'ach and uses a bellows to strengthen the flame above. Rebbi Shimon maintains that the use of a bellows from below is not an option and thus no verse is needed to exclude it.
</p><p>
However, one might have thought that since there is a Mitzvah to bring a flame to the Mizbe'ach (despite the fact that a heavenly flame always burns there), the initial act of <i>bringing</i> the flame to the Mizbe'ach may be done by a non-Kohen below and <i>thrown</i> onto the Mizbe'ach. That is why this verse, which discusses <i>bringing</i> the fire and not <i>kindling</i> the fire, must specify that the act must be done by a Kohen. Rebbi Shimon understands that although <i>kindling</i> a fire from below with a bellows is not a practical option, throwing a fire to the top of the Mizbe'ach is a practical option. (The <b>RITVA</b> gives a similar explanation.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What will R. Meir do with this D'rashah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It teaches that only unburnt parts of an <i>Olah</i> 
          are returned to the fire, not those of the Ketores.
<br>
<b><font>7) ADDING A MA'ARACHAH FOR YOM KIPUR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for this (universally 
          agreed) extra Ma'arachah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is learned from '*ve'ha'*Eish' (which is 
          significant even according to those who do not learn a 
          Vav alone).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is taught by 'Eish Tamid'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> As in the Beraisa, it teaches that the Ma'arachah 
          for the Ketores is to be made on the Mizbe'ach 
          ha'Chitzon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Whence do we know the Eish, Machtah and Menorah 
          come from there as well?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The word/concept 'Eish' connects them all to the 
          Ketores (and a Pasuk is cited to prevent us from learning 
          the connection in the reverse).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Whence that the fire for the Machtah comes from 
          the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, as well as the fire for the 
          Menorah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They are connected, again, by 'Eish' (and the 
          Pasuk prevents us from reversing the connection).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is identifiable in the 
               Pasuk as the one which is only partially Lifnei 
               Hash-m.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is learned from the redundant 'Me'al 
               ha'Mizbe'ach' and 'mi'Lifnei Hash-m'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Each are needed to protect us from 
               misidentifying the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon and the 
               location on the Mizbe'ach.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE SEPARATE MA'ARACHAH FOR EIVARIM AND PEDARIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  (R. Elazar citing b. Kapara reporting that R. Meir 
          taught): The leftover Eivarim of the Olos were brought on 
          a specially lit Ma'arachah, even on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Our Mishnah already mentioned that Ma'arachah?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We would not have known that the Pesulin are also 
          treated likewise.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is providing they had been somewhat burnt.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Alternately, both Kosher and Pasul Eivarim are 
               treated alike.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Our Mishnah already taught that the Ma'arachah 
          was made on Yom Kipur (the fifth Ma'arachah)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We would not have known to do so on Yom Kipur 
          which falls during the week.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What!? The Mishnah says every day?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Good question.
<br>
<b><font>2) A SEPARATE MA'ARACHAH ON SHABBOS FOR FRIDAY'S KORBANOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The teaching of R. Elazar above argues with R. Huna who 
          taught that the <i>end</i> of the Tamid is <i>not</i> Docheh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the end not Docheh, <i>Tum'ah</i> or 
          Shabbos?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Chisda holds it is Docheh Shabbos but not 
          <i>Tum'ah</i> while Rava holds the opposite.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Whichever D'rashah teaches one should teach the 
          other (a question on both Rava and R. Chisda)!?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE TWO 'CHIDUSHIM' OF REBBI MEIR</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Elazar quotes Bar Kapara who taught two Halachos in the name of Rebbi Meir. First, he taught that Evarei Olah (the limbs of a Korban Olah) that were left over from the burning of the Olah must be burned on a separate Ma'arachah. Second, he taught that Evarei Olah that were left over from a weekday Korban may be burned on Shabbos.
</p><p>
The Gemara inquires what new Halachah Bar Kapara intends to teach. Both Halachos that he mentions are written explicitly in a Beraisa (45a) in which Rebbi Meir states that there is a separate Ma'arachah for the Evarim that are left over (the first Halachah quoted by Rebbi Elazar). In the same Beraisa, Rebbi Meir states that on Yom Kippur (a day comparable to Shabbos), the Ma'arachah for the leftover Evarim may be used (the second Halachah quoted by Rebbi Elazar). The Gemara answers that each statement is necessary for various reasons.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI's</b> comments here are difficult to understand. Rashi (DH Hachi Garsinan) writes that the text that apparently was printed in some editions of the Gemara is incorrect. What was the variant text of the Gemara, and why does Rashi change it? (A word seems to have been omitted from the end of Rashi's comments. Before the words 'd'Hadar Parich,' the word 'Leisa' should be added so that Rashi's comment reads, '*Leisa*, d'Hadar Parich' -- '*that is incorrect*, because the Gemara then asks....')
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>BACH</b> explains that in Rashi's edition of the Gemara, Rebbi Elazar says that the Evarim of an Olas <i>Shabbos</i> that are left over are burned on a separate Ma'arachah.
</p><p>
However, if this was the variant text that Rashi rejects, then Rashi should have rejected this text for a more basic reason. It is clear from the continuation of Rebbi Elazar's statement in which he says 'and even on Shabbos' that the first part of his statement does <i>not</i> refer to Shabbos.
</p><p>
The <b>SI'ACH YITZCHAK</b> explains the words of Rashi based on the explanation of <b>TOSFOS</b> in Menachos (40b, DH Techeles). In the text of Rashi's edition of the Gemara, the first part of Rebbi Elazar's statement, in which he says that a separate Ma'arachah is made for leftover Evarim even on Shabbos, includes the words 'the Evarim of an <i>Olas Chol</i>.' According to that text, however, the first and second parts of Rebbi Elazar's statement comprise only one Halachah -- that the leftover Evarim of a weekday Korban may be burned even on Shabbos. His statement does not teach that there is a fourth Ma'arachah. What, then, is the Gemara's question when it asks, 'What is he teaching us? We already learned that there is a separate Ma'arachah according to Rebbi Meir.' According to this Girsa, Rebbi Meir (as quoted by Rebbi Elazar) is not teaching that there is a separate Ma'arachah!
</p><p>
Therefore, Rashi says that the proper Girsa is 'the Evarim of <i>an Olah</i>' (and not 'the Evarim of an <i>Olas Chol</i>') have their own Ma'arachah, and even on Shabbos. Accordingly, the first part of Rebbi Elazar's statement is separate from the second part, and it teaches that a separate Ma'arachah is made. The second part of his statement teaches that the separate Ma'arachah is made even on Shabbos. According to this Girsa, the continuation of the Gemara (in which it asks why each Halachah is necessary) is clear.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> in Menachos (40b) and <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> here defend the original Girsa of 'Olas Chol,' even though according to that Girsa Rebbi Meir is not teaching that there is an additional Ma'arachah. Tosfos says that the letter 'Vav' added to the word 'v'Afilu' makes it evident that Rebbi Meir's statement includes two Halachos. The words 'v'Afilu b'Shabbos' imply that he is adding to a <i>previously stated</i> Halachah.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava for himself):</font></b> The concluding Avodah 
          (Haktaras Eivarim) is learned from the starting Avodah 
          (Shechitah and Zerikah which can be done be'*Tum'ah* but 
          not on Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava for R. Chisda):</font></b> Shabbos is <i>Hutrah</i> 
          (creating greater Heter) whereas <i>Tum'ah</i> is <i>Dechuyah</i> 
          by Korbanos Tzibur (creating minimal Heter [only the 
          starting Avodah]).
<br>
<b><font>3) EXTINGUISHING COALS REMOVED FROM THE MIZBE'ACH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Abaye says one is Chayav for extinguishing, Rava says one 
          is Patur (speaking when the coals have been taken down 
          from the Mizbe'ach, not when they are still on the 
          Mizbe'ach, where one is certainly Chayav).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Abaye still considers it Eish ha'Mizbe'ach while Rava 
          sees it as separated from its source.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is the Halachah of R. Nachman (citing Rabah b. 
          Avuhah that one is Chayav for extinguishing a removed 
          coal) then only according to Abaye?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Even Rava could subscribe to R. Nachman since 
          <i>those</i> coals were not removed for their Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Alternate Rendition:</font></b> Rava and Abaye agree that one is 
          Patur for extinguishing a removed coal, they argue when 
          one extinguishes the coal on the Mizbe'ach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Abaye still considers it Eish... Rava sees it as 
               separated.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> R. Nachman is then not like Abaye or 
               Rava?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Those coals were not removed for their 
               Mitzvah.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MISHNAH: THE KETORES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  They bring out the Kaf and the Machtah, from which Kohen 
          Gadol removes a M'lo Chofnav and places it in the Kaf.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Chafnayim varied according to the size of the Kohen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  This was its measure.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  He then took the Machtah of coals in his right hand and 
          the Kaf of Ketores in his left (to the Kodesh 
          ha'Kodoshim).
<br>
<b><font>2) THE KAF AND MACHTAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We learned in the previous Mishnah that he went 
          up to the Mizbe'ach with the Machtah (already in hand)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That was the Machtah for the coals, and now they 
          brought him a Machtah of Ketores (as in the Beraisa).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why does he need a Kaf on Yom Kipur?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It was otherwise impossible.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He cannot make two trips.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He would have no hands free to put down the Machtah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> It is inappropriate for him to use his teeth.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Thus we learn from the Nesi'im who used a Kaf.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How can he place the less important stranger 
          (Machtah) in his right hand and the citizen (Ketores) in 
          his left?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Machtah was heavier than the Ketores (and we 
          continue to do so even in the exceptional case that the 
          Kohen was large enough to scoop a very large Chafnayim).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  R. Yishmael, the son of Kimchis, would scoop four Kav of 
          Ketores and boast that his mother excelled the others 
          (either the cereal she ate or the 'select' Zera [as R. 
          Avahu taught by resolving the two different occurrences 
          of va'Tazreini]).
<br>
<b><font>3) THE SONS OF KIMCHIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  One Yom Kipur R. Yishmael b. Kimchis became Tamei from 
          the spittle of a gentile, and his brother, Yeshvav took 
          his place, thus two of the sons of Kimchis merited the 
          office.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The next time this happened, his brother Yosef took his 
          place.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  In the end all seven of her sons served as Kohanim 
          Gedolim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  She credited her success to her modesty, while the 
          Chachamim indicated that others had done similarly but 
          had not merited such honor.
<br>
<b><font>4) THE SIZE OF THE KOMETZ</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  'be'Kumtzo' teaches us not to make a fixed measure for 
          the Kometz.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What about making such a measure for the 
          Chafinah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Does 'be'Kumtzo' only apply to the Kometz; or
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Does 'M'lo' connect the Chafinah to the Kometz?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah teaches so is its measure.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This appears to permit making a measure for 
               Chafinah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> No, it means that he measured it the same way 
               (again) inside the Kodshei Kodshim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then it seems that he repeated the Chafinah?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It could mean to permit making a measure (and the 
          interpretation could be pushed back and forth).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer:</font></b> 'Its measure' means that he must take 
          precisely a Chafnayim-full, not more nor less.
<br>
<b><font>5) TAKING THE KOMETZ</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa understands M'lo Kumtzo to teach that:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It may not be full to overflowing.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It may not be only on his fingertips.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> It must be a full fistful in his hand, closing three 
               fingers around it.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE FLOUR BETWEEN THE KOHEN GADOL'S FINGERS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yehoshua ben Uza'ah asked about the status of the flour that gets stuck between the fingers of the Kohen Gadol when he performs Kemitzah (the act of scooping up a handful of flour from the Minchah offering to burn on the Mizbe'ach). Is that flour considered part of the Kometz (which is burned upon the Mizbe'ach) or part of the Shirayim (the leftover flour which is eaten and not burned upon the Mizbe'ach)?
</p><p>
The Gemara relates that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Uza'ah answered his own question after he asked it. He concluded that the status of the flour between the fingers of the Kohen Gadol remains uncertain, a Safek.
</p><p>
What sort of answer is that? When he asked his question in the first place, the status of the flour was also uncertain.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Hadar) explains that perhaps at one point Rebbi Yehoshua ben Uza'ah thought that there was an answer to his question and that the flour between the Kohen's fingers was either certainly Kometz or certainly Shirayim. Upon further thought, however, he concluded that no such answer can be given and that his original question remains, and thus the status of the flour remains in doubt.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers further and says that the original question of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Uza'ah was not whether the flour is considered Kometz or Shirayim. His question was whether the flour that remains between the fingers of the Kohen has the status of flour of Kometz/Shirayim or whether it has the status of a Minchah offering for which Kemitzah was not performed ('Tevel'). The reason why the flour would be considered Tevel even though an act of Kemitzah was performed with it is because flour inside the Kohen's fist is fit to become the flour of Kometz only if the Kohen <i>intends</i> for it to become the Kometz. Since a person normally does not consider the substance between his fingers to be part of what he is holding in his fist, it is possible that the Kohen did not intend to sanctify the flour between his fingers as Kometz and thus it cannot have the Kedushah of Kometz. On the other hand, it cannot be considered Shirayim, because it was actually taken within the fist. For this reason, it should retain its previous status of Tevel -- flour of a Minchah offering for which Kemitzah was not performed.
</p><p>
In summary, there were three possible answers to the question with regard to the status of the flour between the Kohen's fingers. Rebbi Yehoshua ben Uza'ah concluded that the flour cannot be considered Tevel. Rather, it is considered Minchah with which Kemitzah was done, and thus it can be only Kometz or Shirayim.
</p><p>
However, since Rebbi Yehoshua ben Uza'ah concludes that the status of the flour is still in doubt (the doubt being whether it is Kometz flour or Shirayim flour), what practical difference does it make whether the doubt involves two possibilities (Kometz or Shirayim) or whether it involves three possibilities (Kometz, Shirayim, or Tevel)? Tosfos answers that if it is possible that the flour is Tevel, then if it falls into a permitted food it will forbid that food and will <i>not</i> become Batel even if there is a quantity of food many times greater than the flour, because Tevel does not become Batel. If the doubt is only whether the flour is Kometz or Shirayim, then if the flour falls into a permitted food it will be Batel and the food will be permitted.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> answers that when the Gemara says that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Uza'ah concluded that the status of the flour is a Safek, he concluded that it is definitely not Kometz alone and not Shirayim alone, but rather it consists of <i>both</i> Kometz and Shirayim. The only doubt that remains is the exact point at which the flour between the fingers ceases to be Kometz and begins to be Shirayim. The Ritva compares this doubt to the doubt of Bein ha'Shemashos in Shabbos (33b); Bein ha'Shemashos is part day and part night, but the point during Bein ha'Shemashos that separates between day and night is unknown.
</p><p>
According to the Ritva's explanation, the continuation of the Gemara seems problematic. The Gemara says that the flour left between the Kohen's fingers may not be burned before the Minchah, because 'perhaps the flour is Shirayim.' Why does the Gemara say 'perhaps' it is Shirayim? According to the Ritva, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Uza'ah concluded that it <i>definitely</i> contains Shirayim! Apparently, the Ritva understands that the word 'Dilma' ('perhaps') here means 'certainly' and not 'perhaps,' as the Ritva himself indeed explains the meaning of the word elsewhere (Eruvin 3a and 48a).
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  When he must take the Kometz from the Minchas Machavas 
          and Marcheshes he must use his thumb and pinky to clear 
          the overflow from Birutzin (this is the most difficult 
          Avodah to get precisely correct).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we learned that Melikah and (the second) 
          Chafinah are the most difficult!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This is <i>one of</i> the most difficult.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the status of the flour found between 
          his clenched fingers (that which is not clearly within or 
          without)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is a Safek and he offers the Kometz first, and 
          then he offers the flour between his fingers.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He cannot offer the doubtful flour first since it 
               might impair the proper measure of the Kometz.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We learned that such impaired Shirayim do not allow 
               for the Kometz to be brought.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But it is prohibited to bring the doubtful 
          flour after the proper Haktarah was done!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He brings the doubtful flour as though it were 
          wood.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is supported by the teaching of R. Eliezer:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> After an offering the leftovers cannot be brought as 
               that Korban, but they may be brought as wood.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But according to Rabanan (who prohibit bringing 
          the leftovers even as wood), how will he offer the 
          doubtful flour after?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Let the Kemitzah then be performed by heavy 
          Kohanim whose fleshy fingers do not create this doubtful 
          flour.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  If that were so, R. Eliezer would then require the same.
<br>
<b><font>6) RAV PAPA'S QUESTIONS ABOUT KEMITZAH AND CHAFINAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the status of the inter-finger flour of 
          a M'lo Chafnav (perhaps Birutzin are acceptable by 
          Chafinah)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This would seem to hinge on the same Gezeirah Shavah 
               ('M'lo' 'M'lo') that prohibits Birutzin by Kemitzah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> His question, rather, was whether unintended taking 
               is valid and may be brought ('M'lo Chafnav') or not 
               ('ve'lakach-ve'Heivi').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Teiku.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Would a fingertip or upward Kemitzah be 
          considered as a common person would scoop a Kometz?  What 
          of a sideways Kemitzah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer to all three:</font></b> Teiku.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Would a fingertip, upward or sideways Chafinah 
          be considered its usual manner? What if he scooped with 
          each hand separately and then brought his hands together?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer to all four:</font></b> Teiku.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) RAV PAPA'S QUESTIONS ABOUT KEMITZAH AND CHAFINAH (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Would the K'li Shareis be Mekadesh if he stuck 
          the Kometz to its inner walls (fulfilling Toch) or must 
          it fall to the bottom (a proper Hanachah)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Teiku.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Mar b. R. Ashi):</font></b> What if he turned over the 
          K'li Shareis and stuck the Kometz into its base (a proper 
          Hanachah but not Toch? 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Teiku.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is the Chafinah a heaping or level hands-full?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa teaches that it is in between.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Question (after citing the Halachos of collecting and 
          spilling blood and their sources R. Papa asks): If the 
          Ketores spilled on the floor from the M'lo Chafnav:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Do we say that his hand is like the neck of the 
               animal (and the Ketores would be Pesulah like the 
               blood which spilled from the animal's neck) or;
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Are his hands like a K'li Shareis and the Ketores is 
               not Pesulah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Teiku.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If he thought (as he did the Chafinah) to be 
          Maktir the Ketores the next day, do we learn from 'M'lo' 
          to connect it to the Minchah or not?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We see from R. Akiva's addition to the Mishnah in 
          Iduyos that since Linah creates a P'sul, so, too, does 
          Machshavah.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AN ACT OF 'KEMITZAH' WITH DOUGH STUCK TO THE SIDES OF THE VESSEL </b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses a number of questions concerning the Kemitzah and the Chafinah. Rav Papa asks what the status of the Kemitzah is in a case in which the Kometz was affixed to the sides of the vessel and not placed on the bottom of the vessel. Mar bar Rav Ashi asks a similar question with regard to the status of the Kemitzah in a case in which the vessel was turned over and the Kometz was affixed to the bottom of the upturned vessel. (According to one Girsa of Rashi in Menachos (11a) as cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes there, this question refers to a normal bowl which was turned upside down and the Kometz was placed on the outer side of the floor of the upturned bowl. According to the Girsa of Rashi in our texts, this question refers to a bowl that is attached to a stand shaped like a small inverted bowl. The bowl was turned upside down and the Kometz was placed in the inverted stand.) These questions are left unanswered.
</p><p>
Which vessel is the subject of the questions of the Gemara? Two different vessels are used during the Kemitzah of the Minchah. The first vessel holds the dough of the Minchah from which the Kohen takes the Kometz. The second vessel is the one into which the Kohen places the Kometz when he separates it from the rest of the Minchah. The placing of the Kometz into the second vessel sanctifies the Kometz. (The second vessel corresponds to the vessel used for Kabalas ha'Dam into which the blood of a Korban is placed at the time it is slaughtered.)
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Gemara's questions refer to the second vessel, into which the Kometz is placed and which is Mekadesh the Kometz. Rav Papa and Mar bar Rav Ashi ask whether a Kometz affixed to the wall or bottom of the vessel is considered as though it has been placed inside of it.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 11:25) apparently understands the Gemara differently, as the <b>CHAFETZ CHAIM</b> (in <b>ZEVACH TODAH</b>) points out in Menachos (11a). The Rambam understands that the Gemara's questions refer to the first vessel, the one in which the Minchah is brought and from which the Kometz is taken. Rav Papa and Mar bar Rav Ashi ask whether the Kemitzah is acceptable if the Kohen sticks some of the dough of the Minchah onto the side of the vessel, or onto the bottom of an upturned vessel, and then takes that part of the Minchah as the Kometz.
</p><p>
The basis of the argument between Rashi and the Rambam appears to be as follows. According to Rashi, the Amora'im ask that in order for the vessel to be Mekadesh the Kometz, perhaps it does not suffice for the Kometz to enter the vessel, but rather the Kohen must perform a 'Ma'aseh Hanachah' in the vessel -- he must <i>place</i> the Kometz in such a way that it is considered resting in the vessel. If the Kohen affixes the Kometz to the side of the vessel or to the bottom of the upturned vessel, does this act constitute an act of Hanachah, and even if it does not constitute an act of Hanachah, is an act of Hanachah necessary or does it suffice for the Kometz merely to enter the vessel?
</p><p>
The Rambam, on the other hand, maintains that it certainly is not necessary for the Kohen to perform an act of Hanachah in the vessel in order for the vessel to be Mekadesh the Kometz. It suffices for the Kometz merely to enter the vessel. Rather, the questions concern the act of <i>Kemitzah</i>. Does the act of Kemitzah require that the Kohen specifically <i>sink</i> his hand into the dough in the vessel and grasp a handful, or does it suffice to lift out dough that is stuck to the sides of the vessel or to lift out dough from the bottom of the upturned vessel? The Amora'im ask whether such acts are considered valid acts of Kemitzah. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is the Chatiyah of the coals an Avodah, such 
          that a Machshavah could make it Pigul, or is a Machshir 
          not considered like the Mitzvah itself?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Teiku.
<br>
<b><font>2) R. SHEISHES AND HOLACHAH WITH THE LEFT HAND</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (asked of R. Sheishes):</font></b> What if the Holachah of 
          the blood of a Korban is performed with the left hand?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We see from our Mishnah (where the Kaf is carried 
          in his left hand) that carrying with the left is Kosher.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why didn't R. Sheishes learn directly from 
               the Mishnah in Tamid where Holachah (of the Eivarim) 
               is done with the left hand?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> We might have differentiated since the 
               Eivarim are not integral to the Kaparah as the 
               Zerikah (and its associated Holachah) are.
<br>

sjt:
<br> 
<br><font><b>2) 'PIGUL' DISQUALIFIES THE COALS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Papa asks whether a Machshavah of Pigul, an invalidating thought, disqualifies the Ketores if the Kohen has such a thought while he performs the Chafinah of the Ketores. The Gemara proves from a Beraisa that a Machshavah of Pigul <i>does</i> disqualify the Ketores. The Beraisa states that when a person who is Tamei as a Tevul Yom touches part of the Ketores he invalidates it. This implies that the degree of sanctity of the Ketores is great enough that it can become disqualified with Linah (being left overnight) as well. Accordingly, the degree of sanctity of the Ketores is also great enough that it can become disqualified through a Machshavah of Pigul (intent at the time of the Chafinah to leave it overnight).
<p>
Rav Papa asks another, related question. Does a Machshavah of Pigul disqualify the coals on which the Ketores is burned if the Kohen has such a thought while he shovels them from the Mizbe'ach? Are the coals, which are Machshirei Mitzvah, considered like the Mitzvah (the Ketores) itself and a thought of Pigul disqualifies them, or are they not considered like the Mitzvah itself and a thought Pigul does not disqualify them?
</p><p>
What is Rav Papa's question? The same Beraisa that states that the Ketores becomes disqualified when a Tevul Yom touches it (from which the Gemara infers that the Ketores also becomes disqualified with Linah and Pigul) states that coals become disqualified when a Tevul Yom touches them! The Gemara should infer that the coals also become disqualified through Linah and Pigul, just as it infers that Linah and Pigul disqualify the Ketores!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> apparently addresses this question. In his first explanation of the Gemara, Rashi writes that Rav Papa's question is not whether the <i>coals</i> become disqualified by a Machshavah of Pigul. Rather, his question is whether the <i>Ketores</i> becomes disqualified if the Kohen, as he shovels the coals for the Ketores, thinks about leaving the Ketores overnight. Is the shoveling of the coals considered the beginning of the procedure of the Ketores, such that a Machshavah of Pigul during the shoveling of the coals disqualifies the Ketores? The answer to that question cannot be inferred from the Beraisa.
</p><p>
(b) In his second explanation, Rashi writes that Rav Papa's question indeed is whether the coals themselves become disqualified with Pigul. Nevertheless, the answer to his question cannot be inferred from the Beraisa. When the Beraisa teaches that the coals are holy and become disqualified when touched by a Tevul Yom, this implies only that the coals can become disqualified with <i>Linah</i> as well, but not with Pigul. To become disqualified with Pigul, the Kohen must have the Machshavah of Pigul during an <i>Avodah</i>, but the act of shoveling the coals is <i>not</i> an Avodah. Even though the coals have Kedushah (and therefore can become disqualified when touched by a Tevul Yom or through Linah), perhaps they cannot become disqualified with Pigul because the act of shoveling the coals does not constitute an Avodah. (<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Chishav) accepts this explanation as well.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> and <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> explain that when the Beraisa states that a Tevul Yom's touch disqualifies the coals, it does <i>not</i> imply that Linah and Pigul also disqualify the coals. Linah is equivalent to the Pesul of Tevul Yom only in the case of an object which itself is offered ('b'Etzem ha'Davar ha'Karev'), such as the Ketores. The coals, though, are not offered themselves (they are used only to offer the Ketores), and therefore Linah and Pigul might not affect them even if they have Kedushah.
</p><p>
(d) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> groups the two questions together (does Pigul disqualify the Ketores, and does Pigul disqualify the coals). He writes that the Gemara indeed proves from the Beraisa that Pigul disqualifies both. He apparently had a different text in the Gemara, according to which the Beraisa is cited <i>after</i> the question of the coals. (This indeed was the Girsa in an early edition of the Gemara, as cited by the Dikdukei Sofrim, note #400.)
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 5:27) rules that Pigul <i>does</i> disqualify the coals. The commentators question why the Rambam gives a conclusive ruling in the matter when the Gemara itself leaves the matter unresolved (and as the Rambam himself rules with regard to the other questions). (With regard to the other questions in the Gemara which are left unanswered, the Rambam rules that one may be lenient b'Di'eved.)
</p><p>
The <b>DIKDUKEI SOFRIM</b> and the <b>CHAFETZ CHAIM</b> (in <b>ZEVACH TODAH</b>) suggest that the Rambam had the same Girsa as Rabeinu Chananel, according to which the Gemara itself rules that Pigul disqualifies the coals.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) R. SHEISHES AND HOLACHAH WITH THE LEFT HAND</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa specifically teaches that 
          Holachah (together with Kabalah and Zerikah) with the 
          left hand is Pesulah!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Tiyuvta.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we know that R. Sheishes was aware of this 
          Beraisa, as he cited this very Beraisa as a question on 
          R. Chisda!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He asked R. Chisda from this Beraisa after it had 
          been pointed out to him by the questioners.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But R. Chisda supported himself from a Pasuk 
          (that Holachah is Kesheirah be'Zar)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Zar only served to hold the blood, not to 
          carry it at all.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Papa):</font></b> Would it be permitted for one Kohen 
          to do the Chafinah and place it into the hands of the 
          Kohen Gadol (are both 've'Lakach' and 've'Heivi' 
          required, or is a Chafnayim-full enough)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Teiku.
<br>
<b><font>2) USING THE CHAFINAH AFTER THE KOHEN DIES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Yehoshua b. Levi):</font></b> If the Kohen Gadol dies 
          after placing the flour into the Kaf, may his replacement 
          use his Chafinah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Chanina):</font></b> See the questions of the earlier ones!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But it seems that R. Chanina was older than R. 
          Yehoshua b. Levi (since the latter turned to the former 
          who permitted drinking Shachalayim on Shabbos)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Drinking should be clearly permitted (as we learned 
               from the Mishnah)?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Rather, he is permitted to pound it and drink it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If we are speaking of danger, then 
                    this is not news; if not, then how could it be 
                    permitted?
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It was a situation of danger, but he 
                    was asking for medical advice.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iii. </font></b><font>Question:</font></b> Why ask this of R. Chanina?
<br>             <b>  <b><font>iv. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> He was an expert, as indicated by his 
                    claim regarding the fatality rate of an injury 
                    from a mule.
<br>            <b>   <b><font>v.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But there are survivors!?
<br>             <b>  <b><font>vi. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> He was speaking of the live wound.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>vii. </font></b><font>Question:</font></b> But we see those injuries heal!?
               viii.Answer: He was referring to a red mule with 
                    white hooves whose injury does not heal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We see from R. Yehoshua's use of the title 
          'Rebbi' that R. Chanina must have been his senior (and R. 
          Chanina meant to point out that the later scholars asked 
          like the earlier ones).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we find that R. Chanina was <i>not</i> in doubt 
          regarding the use of the Chafinah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He taught that the replacement Kohen must slaughter 
               a new Par as the Pasuk implies 'be'Par' 've'Lo 
               be'Damo Shel Par'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He also taught that the Chafinah done before the 
               Shechitah is meaningless (thus clearly implying that 
               the replacement Kohen may not use the dead Kohen's 
               Chafinah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We must explain R. Chanina's comment regarding R. 
          Yehoshua's question as making two points:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua's question implies that he holds (not 
               like me, R. Chanina) even with the Dam Par.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> His question also echoes those (earlier) who argue 
               with me.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Answer (R. Papa relating to R. Yehoshua's original 
          query): It depends on whether the Kohen Gadol must make a 
          second Chafinah inside.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If he does, then reusing the previous Kohen's 
               Chafinah should be fine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If not, then it is a good question!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (R. Huna):</font></b> The opposite is the case since then it is 
          <i>surely</i> lacking a Chafinah since his hands are not 
          identical (and the question of reusing the Chafinah is 
          only if there is <i>not</i> a second Chafinah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  We see from our Mishnah (ve'Kach Hi Midasah) that there 
          is a second Chafinah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Not necessarily (the phrase in the Mishnah may only 
          permit making a Midah or require an exact measure).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE DIFFICULTY OF THE ACT OF CHAFINAH</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara describes Chafinah as one of the most difficult Avodos performed in the Beis ha'Mikdash. When the Kohen Gadol entered the Kodesh ha'Kodashim to burn the special incense of Yom Kippur, he carried the Kaf containing the Ketores in his left hand and a pan of burning coals in his right hand. He placed the pan of coals on the floor, poured the Ketores from the Kaf into his palms and spread the Ketores on the coals, as the verse instructs (Vayikra 16:12-13). 
</p><p>
The difficulty is the act of pouring the Ketores into the hands. Since the Kohen Gadol held the Kaf with one hand, how did he pour the Ketores from there into <i>both</i> of his hands?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (as explained in more detail by the <b>ME'IRI</b> on the Mishnah) explains that the Kohen Gadol held the Kaf in his hands and used his thumbs to slide the handle of the Kaf back towards his body until it was positioned between his elbows, with the edge of bowl-part of the Kaf in his fingertips (and the bowl resting on the fleshy part of the palm). Then, with the help of his elbows, he rotated the bowl above his hands and emptied the Ketores into his palms, all the while being careful not to spill any of it.
</p><p>
(b) According to the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 4:1), whose text of the Gemara here was slightly different, the Kohen Gadol tilted the Kaf up above his hands with his fingertips or teeth, and then swept the Ketores into his palms with his thumbs.
</p><p>
(c) Both Rashi's description and the Rambam's description of the act of Chafinah are based on the words of the Gemara here. The Yerushalmi (Yoma 5:2), however, records two other suggestions for how the Chafinah was done. Rebbi Chaninah says that the Kohen Gadol threw the Kaf into the air so that it flipped over, and he caught the falling Ketores in his two hands. Shmuel says that he placed the handle of the Kaf between his legs and then rotated it so that the Ketores emptied into his hands. (This is similar to Rashi's explanation, except that the Kohen Gadol used his legs instead of his elbows to help rotate the Kaf.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  We see, then, from a Beraisa which details the procedure 
          (and its difficulty!) of the second Chafinah that, 
          indeed, there is are two.
<br>
<b><font>3) USING THE BLOOD OF THE PAR AFTER THE KOHEN DIES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> May the replacement Kohen use the Dam Par of 
          the first (based on how to interpret 'Par')?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Chanina holds <i>not</i> with its Dam; Resh Lakish 
          holds <i>even with</i> its Dam; R. Ami holds <i>not</i> and R. 
          Yitzchak Nafcha holds <i>even with</i>.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Ami of R. Yitzhok Nafcha):</font></b> If you were 
          correct, then the appointees to a Korban Pesach should be 
          able to withdraw until Zerikah (not Shechitah as in the 
          Mishnah)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Korban Pesach is different (based on the Pasuk).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question (on the <i>even with</i> position):</font></b> If you were 
          correct, then the Mishnah should allow Pidyon even with a 
          slaughtered Seh (yet the Mishnah restricts this along 
          with other marginal sheep, e.g. Tereifah, Kilayim, 
          etc.)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Pidyon is different (it is linked to Pesach).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then the link should extend to all details of 
          the Pesach applying to Pidyon Peter Chamor!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The repetition of 'Tifdeh' gives more options by 
          Pidyon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then the options should include those things 
          which the cited Mishnah had just restricted!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> If we would be <i>that</i> inclusive, then the link of 
          'Seh' would lose its function.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE PAR AND NOT ITS BLOOD OR EVEN WITH ITS BLOOD (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Pasuk refers to the Par after Zerikah as a 
          Par!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That means the requirement to take out the entire 
          Par.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Par ha'Chatas is called a Par!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Papa):</font></b> There is no argument that the Torah 
          refers to the entirety of the animal as Par; the argument 
          is whether the blood alone can be called Par.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Ashi brought an indication from the Par of the 
               Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur that the blood is called 
               Par.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Perhaps it means that the Par (once live and offered 
               properly) is what enables Aharon to enter.
<br>
<b><font>2) USING THE BLOOD OF THE PAR AFTER THE KOHEN DIES (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> It should be a Chatas whose owners have died 
          (which must be killed as one of the five Chatos 
          ha'Meisos)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Answer (Ravin b. R. Ada speaking to Rava citing the 
          latter's student, R. Amram): It is a Chatas ha'Tzibur 
          which is not le'Misa.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Meir in the Mishnah asserts that it is a Korban 
               Yachid [and yet is Docheh Shabbos and <i>Tum'ah</i>].
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> From R. Meir we infer the existence of an opposing 
               opinion, i.e. that it is a Korban Tzibur.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> If you make such an inference, then you 
               would have to infer from R. Ya'akov (in that 
               Mishnah) the existence of an opinion that Par 
               He'elam, Sa'irei Avodas Kochavim and Chagigah are 
               Korbanos Yachid!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Rather, both R. Meir and R. Ya'akov are addressing 
               the Tana Kama who holds that being Docheh Shabbos 
               and <i>Tum'ah</i> depends on being a Korban Tzibur (and 
               not a Korban Yachid).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> They are asserting that neither is a determinant, 
               but rather a fixed time for the Korban determines 
               whether or not it is Docheh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye to Rava):</font></b> We find that the Par of Yom 
          Kipur is a Chatas ha'Tzibur and yet there is a doubt 
          whether the second Kohen may enter with the blood of the 
          first!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> No, it is a Korban Yachid and the Par 
          being referred to is the Par He'elam of the Tzibur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But it says <i>of Yom Kipur</i>?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It refers to the Sa'ir (but the Par is Par 
          He'elam).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa explicitly lists both!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> It is not a Chatas ha'Tzibur, but rather a 
          Chatas ha'Shutfin, which does not go le'Misah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why fuss over the difference?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We need to be precise so that Kohanim should not 
          bring a Par He'elam because they are Shutfin, not a 
          Tzibur. 
<br>
<b><font>3) TEMURAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The above establishes that there <i>is</i> an opinion that Par 
          of Yom Kipur is a Korban Tzibur as indicated by the 
          question asked by R. Elazar, as to whether, according to 
          R. Meir, it can create a Temurah?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) OFFERING A PUBLIC CHATAS AS A KORBAN AFTER ITS OWNER DIED</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Some Amora'im maintain that if the Kohen Gadol dies on Yom Kippur after his bull has been slaughtered, the Kohen who replaces him may offer the blood of the same bull and he does not need to slaughter his own bull. The Gemara challenges this view from the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that teaches that when the owner of a Korban Chatas dies, the Korban that he designated (or its blood) may no longer be offered on the Mizbe'ach and instead must be put to death (or spilled, in the case of blood). Since the Kohen Gadol's bull is a Korban Chatas, how can it be offered after his death?
</p><p>
The Gemara answers in the name of Rav Amram that the Kohen Gadol's bull is a 'Chatas Tzibur,' a public Chatas offering, and the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that requires the animal to be put death applies only to a privately-owned Chatas, and not to a public Chatas.
</p><p>
The Gemara later cites a source for this distinction from a Beraisa in which Rebbi Yehudah argues with Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon with regard to what must be done with a public Chatas when another animal was offered in its place. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that the leftover Chatas is put to death because of the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that once the owner of a Chatas has offered another animal in its place, the remaining animal is put to death. Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon argue that the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai does not apply to a public Chatas; in such a case, the remaining animal is left to graze until it develops a Mum (blemish) and its value is used to buy an Olah offering. The opinion expressed by Rav Amram reflects that of the latter two Tana'im, who teach that a Chatas Tzibur is <i>not</i> put to death when another animal is offered in its place. For the same reason, a Chatas Tzibur is not put to death when the owner of the Chatas Tzibur dies.
</p><p>
How, though, does the Beraisa justify offering the blood of the previous Kohen Gadol's Chatas, l'Chatchilah? Even Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon require that the animal be left to graze until it develops a Mum. They do not permit a Chatas Tzibur to be offered on the Mizbe'ach l'Chatchilah if another animal was already offered in its place. The same restriction should apply to a Chatas Tzibur whose owner died.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Temurah (15b, DH Ka Karvah), <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b>, and the <b>RITVA</b> here suggest that the only reason why the Chatas is left to graze according to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon is because there is no other way to offer it on the Mizbe'ach. In that case, the proper Korban was already offered, and the Tzibur no longer has a need to offer this animal as a Korban. (A Chatas may not be offered as a Nedavah, a voluntary offering.) The reason why it is left to graze is <i>not</i> because the Chatas is <i>disqualified</i> from being offered once another Korban has been offered in its place. For this reason, a Chatas Tzibur whose owner died is not left to graze, because the Tzibur still needs to offer a Korban Chatas. Therefore, the new Kohen Gadol may offer the blood of the previous Kohen Gadol's bull.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> here (DH Chatas) suggests that a Chatas Tzibur <i>does</i> become disqualified when another one was offered in its place, and that is why it must be left to graze. However, this requirement is only a rabbinical enactment made to ensure that one not mistakenly offer a Chatas <i>Yachid</i> after its owner offered another animal in its place. Mid'Oraisa, the Chatas Tzibur may be offered on the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
Tosfos suggests that the rabbinical enactment applies only when another animal was offered instead of the Chatas Tzibur. When the owner (i.e. the Kohen Gadol) of the Chatas Tzibur dies, no one will confuse this case with a case in which the owner of a Chatas Yachid dies, and thus there is no reason for the Rabanan to enact that the Chatas Tzibur may not be offered on the Mizbe'ach and must be left to graze. The reason for this distinction is that the Kohen Gadol who died was only <i>one</i> of its owners (the other Kohanim are also owners of the bull, as the Gemara explains on 50b), and the other owners are still alive. It is not entirely comparable to a case in which the sole owner of a Chatas Yachid dies and the animal is left without <i>any</i> of its original owners. Moreover, in the case of the Kohen Gadol's death, another Kohen Gadol is appointed in his place, and thus the bull still has its owner in a sense.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> (DH u'Mai) suggests another answer in the name of his Rebbi. In the case of the death of the Kohen Gadol, even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that this Chatas Tzibur is not put to death. The Gemara (Horayos 6a) teaches that 'Ein Tzibur Mes,' a collective group does not 'die,' as there are always other members in the group. Hence, there is no such thing as a Chatas Tzibur whose owner has died. Even if the Kohen Gadol dies, his bull -- the Chatas Tzibur -- still has owners. (The owners of the Kohen Gadol's bull are all of the Kohanim, and a collective group such as the Kohanim does not 'die'; see also Bava Basra 115b.)
</p><p>
The other Rishonim, who reject this straightforward approach, apparently maintain that a partnership is not comparable to a Tzibur. A partnership (such as all of the Kohanim) is defined as merely the sum of its parts, while a Tzibur (such as all of the Jewish people) is more than the sum of its parts. A Tzibur cannot die, since the people who comprise it are not the 'Tzibur' itself; the Tzibur is a new, collective entity which is not affected by the deaths of specific members. In contrast, a partnership is simply the sum of its parts, and thus if any of the partners die, the partnership itself has died to a certain extent. Therefore, according to the Gemara's conclusion here that the Kohen Gadol's bull is a jointly-owned Korban, the death of the Kohen Gadol indeed should render the bull a 'Chatas whose owner died.' (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He refers to R. Meir as holding that the Par of Yom 
               Kipur is a Korban Yachid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This infers the existence of an opinion that it is a 
               Korban Tzibur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  No, this may infer the opinion that it is a Korban 
          Shutfin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What was R. Elazar's doubt?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The doubt may not relate to the question of whether 
               we consider the donor (the Kohen Gadol) or the ones 
               atoned (the Kohanim).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Such a doubt is not legitimate since it would be 
               clear that we follow the ones atoned.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> This is true, given the Halachos regarding Temurah 
               and Terumah which R. Avahu cited in R. Yochanan's 
               name.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> As to whether or not the Kohanim, his brethren, 
          fully take ownership of the Korban (Keviyusa) or does the 
          atonement hover over them (Kufia), thus affecting 
          Temurah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa lists the Chumros of Zevach over Temurah and 
          the opposite.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What type of Zevach does the Beraisa speak of?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It cannot be a Zevach Yachid, since we speak of it 
               being Docheh Shabbos and <i>Tum'ah</i>.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It cannot be Tzibur, since we speak of it creating a 
               Temurah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  It must be speaking of a Par Yom Kipur which is Docheh 
          (since it is time-specific), and it makes a Temurah 
          (since it is considered owned by an individual).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Thus we see that it can make a Temurah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (R. Sheishes):</font></b> No, it may well speak of the Ayil of 
          Aharon on Yom Kipur (not the Par Chatas).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is indicated by the reference to Zevach having 
               the Chumrah of Dechiyah over a Temurah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> A Temurah of a Chatas is <i>never</i> brought (not only 
               on Shabbos) since it is le'Misah!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Not necessarily, since it may not speak of the Temurah of 
          <i>that animal</i> but rather of general Temuros.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If so, then Zevach may also be generic!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa does not say the generic Zevach, 
          rather it is specific.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it meant a generic Zevach then its Chumrah would 
               not hold given Bechor and Ma'aser Beheimah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Those do apply to Ba'al Mum, and they do not go out 
               le'Chulin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why does the Beraisa speak of a specific Zevach 
          and yet use the term Temurah generically?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Because all Temuros have like Halachos, whereas 
          Zevachim have the exceptional Bechor and Ma'aser.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) WHEN PUBLIC PROPERTY IS PRIVATE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Elazar discusses the opinion (of Rebbi Meir on 50a, as Rashi here explains) which considers the Kohen Gadol's bull to be a private Korban and not a public one. According to that opinion, may a Temurah be made with the Kohen Gadol's bull? Perhaps the atonement that the Korban provides for other Kohanim is considered direct ('mi'Kiv'a'), and thus the Korban is considered a jointly-owned Korban for which a Temurah cannot be made. On the other hand, perhaps the Korban atones primarily for the Kohen Gadol alone, and the other Kohanim attain atonement only incidentally along with him ('mi'Kufya'), and thus it is considered a privately-owned Korban and a Temurah may be made with it.
</p><p>
Why does Rebbi Elazar entertain the possibility that 'the opinion that calls the bull a privately-owned Korban' considers it jointly-owned? The Gemara earlier makes it clear that when the Tana calls it a privately-owned Korban, the Tana means to <i>exclude</i> the possibility that it is a jointly-owned Korban. Accordingly, it is obvious that this opinion would allow a Temurah to be made with the bull.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH l'Divrei) explains that although Rebbi Meir calls the bull a 'privately-owned Korban,' Rebbi Elazar is in doubt about Rebbi Meir's true intention. Does Rebbi Meir mean that the bull is literally a private Korban and is the exclusive property of the Kohen Gadol, or does he mean that it is not the public property of <i>the entire nation</i>, but it is not literally a privately-owned Korban as it is owned by all of the Kohanim? (Rebbi Meir's statement was made in response to the Tana Kama, who maintains that the bull is treated like a Korban owned by the entire nation.)
</p><p>
Rebbi Elazar's question is whether Rebbi Meir means that the Kohen Gadol's bull is literally a 'privately-owned Korban,' or whether he means that it is a jointly-owned Korban.
</p><p>
(b) The words of <b>RASHI</b> (DH b'Kevi'usa) imply that there are two types of ownership: the monetary ownership of the animal that is offered, and ownership of the animal insofar as <i>atonement</i> is concerned. Rebbi Meir considers the bull to be the property of the Kohen Gadol, since the bull was purchased with his private funds and no other Kohen contributed towards the purchase of the bull. However, perhaps Rebbi Meir agrees that as far as <i>atonement</i> is concerned, the other Kohanim are also considered owners of the bull. The laws of Temurah depend on whether the Korban atones for one person or for multiple people. Therefore, if the bull atones for more than one person, it may be considered a jointly-owned Korban as far as Temurah is concerned.
</p><p>
This approach answers a different question posed by the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b>. The Tosfos Yeshanim (DH Oseh Temurah) asks why Rebbi Elazar inquires only whether a <i>Temurah</i> may be made with the bull. Why does he not also ask whether it must be put to death if the Kohen Gadol dies, as is done to a privately-owned Korban whose owner dies, or whether it may be offered even after his death, as is done with a publicly-owned Korban (see previous Insight)?
</p><p>
According to Rashi, the answer to this question may be that the bull is certainly put to death (and its blood spilled) if the Kohen Gadol dies, because it is unquestionably a privately-owned Korban (according to Rebbi Meir) as far as the ownership of the bull itself is concerned. Only with regard to the laws of Temurah might the bull be considered a jointly-owned Korban, because the laws of Temurah depend on who gains atonement from the Korban and not on the actual monetary ownership of the Korban. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) R. SHEISHES RENDERS ZEVACH AS EILO SHEL AHARON</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> R. Sheishes could have rendered Zevach as the 
          Korban Pesach, since it fits the criteria as well as does 
          Eilo Shel Aharon?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He holds, like R. Yehudah, that one may not 
          slaughter a Korban Pesach for one person alone.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Pesach Sheini fits the criteria!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Not so, since Pesach Sheini is not Docheh 
          <i>Tum'ah</i>.
<br>
<b><font>2) PESACH AND CHAGIGAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is Pesach grouped among the Korbanos Yachid 
          (on 50a) while Chagigah is grouped among the Korbanos 
          Tzibur (ibid) since the Tzibur gathers for both?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Tzibur is not gathered for Pesach Sheini.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Would Pesach Sheini otherwise fit the grouping 
          such that it is Docheh <i>Tum'ah</i> and Shabbos?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, this Tana holds that Pesach Sheini is 
          Docheh <i>Tum'ah</i>, as the cited opinion of R. Yehudah 
          indicates.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the rationale for the Tana Kama (that 
          Pesach Sheini is <i>not</i> Docheh <i>Tum'ah</i>?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is logical that since he is only bringing the 
          Pesach Sheini on account of his earlier <i>Tum'ah</i> that it 
          is not Docheh <i>Tum'ah</i>.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How will R. Yehudah respond?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk, 'ke'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach' allows it 
          to be brought be'*Tum'ah* (if it did not work out to 
          bring it be'Taharah, the Torah allows it to be brought 
          'be'*Tum'ah*).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE TEN SHULCHANOS IN THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa in which Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Meir, and Rebbi Yosi ('Yesh Omrim') argue with regard to the path the Kohen Gadol took as he walked from the entrance of the Heichal to the entrance of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. Rebbi Yehudah says that he walked between the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi and the Menorah (at a south-westerly angle). Rebbi Meir says that he walked between the Mizbe'ach and the Shulchan (at a north-westerly angle). Rebbi Yosi says that he walked along the northern wall, between the wall and the Shulchan. The Gemara explains that Rebbi Meir agrees with Rebbi Yosi that the entrance to the Kodesh ha'Kodashim was on the north side of the Heichal, but he maintains that it was not possible to walk along the northern side between the wall and the Shulchan because the Shulchanos of Shlomo ha'Melech blocked the way.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Shulchanos) quotes the verse in Divrei ha'Yamim II (4:8) which relates that Shlomo ha'Melech made ten additional Shulchanos which were placed in the Heichal, five to each side of the original Shulchan. Similarly, the verse (ibid. 4:7) relates that Shlomo ha'Melech made ten additional Menoros which were placed to the sides of the original Menorah.
</p><p>
If one Shulchan and one Menorah sufficed for the Mishkan of Moshe Rabeinu, why did Shlomo ha'Melech make ten Shulchanos and ten Menoros?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>EZRAS KOHANIM</b> (Midos 4:7) cites the <b>YALKUT CHADASH</b> (Erech 'Beis ha'Mikdash' and Erech 'David' 138, based on <b>MIDRASH TADSHEH</b>, ch. 2) who writes that in the times of Moshe Rabeinu the Mishkan had one Menorah with seven candles, because Moshe Rabeinu led the nation to Eretz Yisrael where they conquered seven nations, bringing the light of the Torah (symbolized by the Menorah) to the land of the seven nations. Shlomo ha'Melech, on the other hand, conquered all seventy nations (Megilah 11a). Therefore, he added an additional ten Menoros, with seventy candles, to show that he had brought the light of Torah to all seventy nations.
</p><p>
We know that the Shulchan, which held the Lechem ha'Panim, represented sustenance, Parnasah. Since Moshe Rabeinu led the people through the desert where very little agricultural activity was conducted, one Shulchan sufficed to bring the blessing of Parnasah. Shlomo ha'Melech, though, ruled over the people in Eretz Yisrael, the fertile land which had great potential for agricultural productivity, and therefore additional blessing was necessary for the land to provide its produce. (Perhaps he added specifically ten Shulchanos to represent the portions of the ten Shevatim that received land to cultivate, excluding Levi and Shimon who received only cities and not farmland.)
</p><p>
The Ezras Kohanim points out that according to this reasoning, there should have been no need for ten Menoros during the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash, when the Jewish nation did not have dominion over the seventy nations. Similarly, there should have been no need for ten Shulchanos during the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash, because the land was not as productive as it was during the era of the first Beis ha'Mikdash (see Nechemyah 9:35-37).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SHEVET YEHUDAH</b>, as cited by the Ezras Kohanim (ibid.), writes that Shlomo ha'Melech built ten Shulchanos to surround the Shulchan of Moshe Rabeinu and to give honor to it. (The Gemara in Berachos (51a) teaches with regard to 'Itur' of a Kos Shel Berachah that one shows honor to an object by surrounding it with other similar objects.) Similarly, Shlomo ha'Melech made ten Menoros to give honor to the Menorah of Moshe Rabeinu.
</p><p>
According to this reason, the additional Shulchanos and Menoros should have been present in the second Beis ha'Mikdash as well, to give honor to the Shulchan and Menorah of Moshe Rabeinu. This reason, therefore, is more consistent with the Gemara here which discusses the second Beis ha'Mikdash and says that the Shulchanos of Shlomo ha'Melech were present.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<b><font>3) TO WHOM BELONGS THE PAR YOM HAKIPURIM?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The words 'Asher Lo' should clearly indicate that the 
          Korban is his own (the three-fold repetition of 'Asher 
          Lo' indicates that he must bring it from his own funds 
          regardless of how is atoned by it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  But following that reasoning how are the Kohanim atoned 
          without any ownership at all?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Rather, the Torah allows the Kohanim access to Aharon's 
          Par, and, by extension, the Par Yom ha'Kipurim could 
          belong to all of them (be'Keviyusa, not only be'Kufia).
<br>
<b><font>4) MISHNAH: THE PAROCHES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Kohen Gadol proceeded (from the 4th row in the 
          Azarah) through the Heichal and walked along the Amah 
          between the two curtains until he entered the Kodesh 
          ha'Kodoshim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> There was only one curtain (based on the 
          singular language of the Pasuk).
<br>
<b><font>5) THE PAROCHES (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the response of the Rabanan to R. Yosi?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That Pasuk spoke of the Mishkan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The second Beis ha'Mikdash needed two curtains owing 
               to the doubt regarding the exact demarcation between 
               the Heichal and the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This area was once covered by the Amah Teraksin.
<br>
<b><font>6) WALKING TOWARDS THE KODSHEI HAKODOSHIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa teaches three opinions regarding the route of 
          the Kohen Gadol through the Heichal:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah- at the Southern side of the Heichal 
               between the Mizbe'ach and the Menorah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Meir- at the Northern side between the Shulchan 
               and the Mizbe'ach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Others- between the Shulchan and the Northern wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Who is the Others?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yosi (who holds that there is only one 
          Paroches) and he walked along the North to the entrance 
          there.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah holds that the entrance was in the South.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Meir's position does not seem to accept the entrance 
          at the North or at the South.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  He holds like R. Yosi (one Paroches) but the Shulchanos 
          were arranged such that they blocked his access.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Alternately, the Shulchanos were arranged East to West 
          (and he <i>could</i> have walked along the North wall, but he 
          holds like R. Meir that it is not Derech Eretz to walk 
          straight into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How will R. Yosi relate to this Derech Eretz?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Yisrael is precious, not needing an agent (see 
          Rashi and Rach).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to R. Yehudah, why did he not walk 
          along the Southern wall (behind the Menorah)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> To avoid blackening his garments there.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE AMAH TERAKSIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Noson):</font></b> It was not determined if the Amah T'raksin 
          was part of the Heichal or part of the Kodesh 
          ha'Kodoshim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> Why assume that it was part of either; 
          perhaps it was part of <i>neither</i>!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the measurements in the Pesukim are your 
               indication (40 + 20 = 60) thus leaving us unsure 
               where the Amah belongs...
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Perhaps the Pesukim are describing interior spaces 
               only, the Amah is part of neither.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> This is supported by the Mishnah which counts the 
               interior space (40 and 20) apart from the walls.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The doubt is rather about which Kedushah 
          prevailed in the Amah Teraksin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is indicated by the doubt raised by R. Yosef 
               Ish Hutzal.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He questioned how to divide the Pasuk 'u'Devir 
               be'Soch ha'Bayis mi'Penimah Heichin...'
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But Isi b. Yehudah taught only five 
               ambiguous words in the Torah (and 'mi'Penimah' is 
               not one of them)?
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  The Beraisa identifies Isi b. Yehudah with 
                    Yosef Ish Hutzal.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> It is thus he did not question 'mi'Penimah'!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> There are no others in the Torah, but there 
               are others in Nevi'im.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But we find another ambiguous word in the 
               Torah, 'Parim', as reported by R. Chisda!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> This was R. Chisda's doubt, not shared by 
               Isi b. Yehudah.
<br>
<b><font>2) MISHNAH: THE ENTRY INTO THE KODESH HAKODOSHIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The outer (Heichal) curtain was pinned (Perufah) outward 
          at the South, and the inner one was Perufah from the 
          North.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Kohen Gadol walked between them until reaching the 
          North.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Upon entry into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim he turned South 
          and walked with the Paroches to his left until the Aron.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Upon reaching the Aron he placed the Machtah with the 
          coals between the Badim, piled the Ketores on the coals 
          and (waited until) the room filled with smoke.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  He reversed himself to leave.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  He prayed briefly (so as not to arouse concern) in the 
          Heichal.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE KODESH HAKODOSHIM OF THE FIRST MIKDASH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Of which Mikdash is the Mishnah speaking?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If the first, there was no Paroches!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If the second, there was no Aron (which, the Beraisa 
               reports, was one of the items hidden by Yoshiyahu)!
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  The Beraisa lists and discusses the items 
                    placed in Genizah by Yoshiyahu.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> R. Elazar cites the sources for each of the 
                    items (Tzintzenes, Shemen, Makel).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We are speaking of the Mikdash Sheini and he came 
          not to the Aron but to its place.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Mishnah speaks of between the Badim?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It means as if it were...
<br>
<b><font>4) PILING OR SPREADING THE KETORES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah supports the opinion that the Kohen Gadol 
          piles (not spreads) the Ketores on the coals.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Beraisos seem to contradict one another regarding 
          upon which side of the Machtah he begins to pile the 
          Ketores.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> This is a Machlokes Tana'im and the cited 
          Mishnah (wherein the Kohen Gadol is given instructions) 
          seems to support the view that he began from the side 
          away from himself.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) BELOVED ARE THE JEWISH PEOPLE FOR THEY NEED NO 'SHALI'ACH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rebbi Yosi maintains that the Kohen Gadol walked along the northern wall of the Heichal in order to enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. The Gemara points out that the entrance to the Kodesh ha'Kodashim was on the northern side of the Heichal, directly in front of the Kohen Gadol as he walked towards it. Although gazing into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim while walking towards it would normally not be respectful, the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur was permitted to walk towards the opening. It was not considered disrespectful because the Kohen Gadol acted in the capacity as the representative of the Jewish people who are beloved to Hash-m, as is evidenced by the fact that 'they need no Shali'ach.'
</p><p>
In what way do the Jewish people need no Shali'ach?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> writes that Shlomo ha'Melech -- in the Tefilah he composed when he dedicated the Beis ha'Mikdash -- mentioned that every Jew is able to pray for himself in the Beis ha'Mikdash and be worthy of Hashem's kindness. A Jew does not need an agent, a Shali'ach, to pray on his behalf. Therefore, the Shali'ach who represents the Jewish people on Yom Kippur is most distinguished and may walk directly into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> and <b>RITVA</b> question Rashi's explanation. First, in his Tefilah, Shlomo ha'Melech prayed that Hash-m should answer the prayer of every non-Jew who calls out to Him, just as he answers the prayer of every Jew (Melachim I 8:43). Rashi there explains that he prayed that a non-Jew should be answered even <i>more</i> readily than a Jew is answered; even if the non-Jew himself is unworthy, Hash-m should answer his prayers. Accordingly, the fact that a Jew needs no Shali'ach to pray on his behalf is not unique to the Jew, for a non-Jew also needs no Shali'ach.
</p><p>
Second, the Gemara searches for grounds to permit the <i>Kohen Gadol</i> to walk directly towards the opening of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. Why does the Gemara emphasize the greatness of the Jewish people and not that of the Kohen Gadol? The greatness of the Jewish people is not directly relevant to the greatness of the Kohen Gadol.
</p><p>
Due to these questions, the Tosfos Yeshanim and Ritva prefer the explanation of <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b>: The 'Shali'ach' to which the Gemara refers are the golden bells on the hem of the Me'il of the Kohen Gadol. The sound of the bells herald the entrance of the Kohen Gadol into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, as the verse says, 'Its sound shall be heard (v'Nishma Kolo) when he comes into the sanctuary before Hash-m and when he leaves, so that he not die' (Shemos 28:35). Like a Shali'ach who announces the arrival of a distinguished person, the bells announce the arrival of the Kohen Gadol into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. When the Gemara says that the Jews do not need a Shali'ach, it means that <i>on Yom Kippur</i> the Torah does not require the bells to be worn when the Kohen Gadol enters the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. He must wear only the four Bigdei Lavan which do not include the bells of the Me'il. Since he is permitted to enter on Yom Kippur without the bells heralding his entrance, he is also permitted to walk directly towards the opening of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim.
</p><p>
The Acharonim point out that Rashi, who rejects this explanation, follows the opinion he expresses earlier (44b). The Gemara earlier states that the Kaf with which the Kohen Gadol carried the Ketores into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim had a 'Ni'ashtok' on it, which Rashi explains was a metal ring which clanged against the Kaf as a substitute for the sound of the bells of the Me'il which normally rang when the Kohen Gadol wore the Bigdei Zahav. Accordingly, the Kohen Gadol <i>was</i> required to make his presence known as he approached the Kodesh ha'Kodashim on Yom Kippur. (Although nothing heralded the Kohen Gadol's entry when he returned to the Kodesh ha'Kodashim to remove the Kaf and Machtah, apparently no such announcement was necessary since his entry was not to perform an Avodah but simply to remove the Kaf and Machtah.) Rabeinu Chananel there, in contrast, explains that a 'Ni'ashtok' is a leather casing with which the Kohen Gadol grasped the Kaf so that it would not burn his hand.
</p><p>
(Apparently Rashi understands that 'v'Nishma Kolo' is a separate requirement and is not related to the laws of the Me'il, and thus there is no reason to assume that this requirement does not apply even on Yom Kippur. Rabeinu Chananel, however, maintains that the requirement to have bells is part of the laws of the Me'il, and therefore when the Torah says that the Me'il is not worn on Yom Kippur, it means that there is also no requirement to wear bells. It is interesting to note that the <b>RAMBAM</b>, who explains 'Ni'ashtok' as Rabeinu Chananel does, does not count 'v'Nishma Kolo' as a separate Mitzvah.)
</p><p>
With regard to the question from the Tefilah of Shlomo ha'Melech, Rashi in Melachim explains that the reason why Shlomo ha'Melech prayed that a non-Jew's prayer should be answered was so that there should be no Chilul Hash-m. If the non-Jew's prayer would not be answered, he might say that Hash-m has no power. Accordingly, it is not his own merit that causes the non-Jew's prayer to be answered. In contrast, the prayer of the Jew is answered in his own merit.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE DISPUTE WITH THE TZEDOKIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa teaches that the Kohen Gadol puts the Ketores 
          on the coals only inside the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, not like 
          the Tzedokim who would have him do it prior to his entry.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the basis for the Tzedoki error?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk 'Ki be'Anan... '
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The Chachamim responded that the Pasuk already taught 
          'Lifnei Hash-m' (and the Pasuk 'Ki be'Anan' teaches that 
          he should add Ma'aleh Ashan to the Ketores).
<br>
<b><font>2) MA'ALEH ASHAN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How do we know that Ma'aleh Ashan must be 
          added?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 've'Chishah Anan ha'Ketores' (whence we learn 
          that one who omits Ma'aleh Ashan or another of the 
          ingredients is Chayav Misah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Chiyuv Misah should be obvious since he 
          would then be entering the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim without 
          cause!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He was a Shogeg regarding entering for naught, 
          but he intentionally omitted an ingredient.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer (R. Ashi):</font></b> He was Meizid by both, but 
          the Pasuk speaks where he went in with two Ketoros, one 
          proper and one defective.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do we need 've'Chisah' (to know that he 
          includes Ma'aleh Ashan) over and above 'Ki be'Anan'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> To teach that we may even include the root, not 
          only the leaf, of the Ma'aleh Ashan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa teaches that the root is 
          <i>superior</i> (causes the smoke to rise straight up).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The second Pasuk ('ve'Chisah') permits even the 
          leaf.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer (R. Sheishes):</font></b> 've'Chisah' teaches the 
          rule of Ma'aleh Ashan even beyond the Mishkan in the 
          desert.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But this extension is learned from 've'Chein 
          Ya'aseh!'
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, 've'Chisah' teaches that the requirement 
          of Ma'aleh Ashan is year-round (not only Yom Kipur).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer (R. Ashi):</font></b> One Pasuk is for the Mitzvah; 
          one is to teach that Ma'aleh Ashan is Me'akev.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer (Rava):</font></b> One Pasuk is for Onesh; one is 
          for Azharah (as cited in the name of R. Elazar in the 
          Beraisa).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa goes on to negate the possibility that 
               the prohibition is only prior to the incident of the 
               sons of Aharon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Similarly, the Pasuk is used to preclude the 
               suggestion that it is only <i>after</i> the incident.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How are these compatible?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The Azharah preceded the incident and the 
               Onesh followed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How is the Pasuk imply that the Azharah 
               preceded the incident?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The future 'Eira'eh'.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE SONS OF AHARON</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> (Given that the Onesh was not yet given,) why 
          were Aharon's sons punished?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They issued a ruling in the presence of their 
          teacher, Moshe.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> On what basis did they determine to bring the 
          fire from Hedyot?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk says 've'Nasnu B'nei Aharon Eish!'
<br>
<b><font>4) HE LEFT AS HE CAME</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for not turning around to 
          leave?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk 'mi'Givon Yerushalayim' teaches that he 
          left Givon the way he came (facing the Bamah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The same holds for the Levi'im and Yisre'elim in the 
          Mikdash as well as a student taking leave of his Rebbe 
          (e.g. R. Elazar leaving R. Yochanan).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> When R. Yochanan wished to leave, R. Elazar stood...
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> When R. Elazar wished to leave he would reverse his 
               steps...
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Rava would take leave of R. Yosef in like manner.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) TWO SOURCES FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF 'MA'ALEH ASHAN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa states that the verse, 'Ki b'Anan Era'eh...' -- 'for in a cloud [of smoke of the Ketores] I shall appear over the Kapores' (Vayikra 16:2), teaches that Ma'aleh Ashan, the ingredient that causes the smoke of the Ketores to rise straight up, must be included in the Ketores. The Beraisa continues and says that the source for the requirement to include Ma'aleh Ashan in the Ketores is the verse, 'v'Chisah Anan ha'Ketores Es ha'Kapores' -- 'the cloud of the Ketores shall cover the Kapores... so that he not die' (Vayikra 16:13).
</p><p>
The Gemara asks why two verses are needed to teach the same thing. Rav Sheshes answers that the first verse teaches only that Ma'aleh Ashan must be included in the Ketores offered on Yom Kippur in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. The second verse teaches that the Ketores offered during the rest of the year in the Heichal also needs Ma'aleh Ashan, and without Ma'aleh Ashan the Kohen who offers it is Chayav Misah.
</p><p>
The Gemara earlier (38a) says that the Ketores made by the people of Alexandria would have been acceptable if not for the fact that its smoke did not rise straight up, which made it less beautiful than the Ketores of Beis Avtinas. The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (OC 133) asks that the Ketores of Alexandria should not have been acceptable because of a more basic reason: it did not have Ma'aleh Ashan in it, as the Gemara there explains, and thus the Kohen would have been Chayav Misah for offering it. The Beis Yosef answers that Ma'aleh Ashan is not a necessary element of the Ketores and the Kohen is not Chayav Misah if he omits it.
</p><p>
What does the Beis Yosef mean? The Gemara here states explicitly that the Kohen is Chayav Misah if he offers Ketores that lacks Ma'aleh Ashan. It makes no difference whether he offers the Ketores of Yom Kippur or the daily Ketores without Ma'aleh Ashan, as Rav Sheshes says. (<b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b>, Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 2:3. See Insights to Yoma 38:1:c.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> answers that the other Amora'im quoted by the Gemara here apparently argue with Rav Sheshes and permit one to offer the daily Ketores in the Heichal without Ma'aleh Ashan. The Beis Yosef follows the opinion of those Amora'im.
</p><p>
The Mishneh l'Melech adds that the <b>RAMBAM</b> writes that a Kohen is Chayav Misah for offering an incomplete Ketores in two different ways. With regard to the Ketores of Yom Kippur the Rambam writes that 'if one omitted one of the ingredients <i>or Ma'aleh Ashan</i>,' he is Chayav Misah (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 5:25). However, with regard to the Ketores of the Heichal the Rambam writes only that 'if he omitted one of the ingredients of the Ketores he is Chayav Misah' (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 2:8) and he makes no mention of the Ma'aleh Ashan.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHOCHMAS ADAM</b> cites the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (see Insights to Yoma 32:1) who explains that Aharon ha'Kohen was permitted to enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim on any day of the year, provided that he performed the Avodah as it is done on Yom Kippur (as described in Vayikra 16). 
</p><p>
Perhaps the 'Ketores of every day' to which Rav Sheshes refers is the Ketores that Aharon ha'Kohen would offer when he entered the Kodesh ha'Kodashim on any day other than Yom Kippur. When Rav Sheshes teaches that Ma'aleh Ashan is a necessary part of the Ketores on any day of the year, he refers to the Ketores that was offered <i>in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim</i> by Aharon ha'Kohen on any day other than Yom Kippur. One might have thought that only on Yom Kippur must the smoke of the Ketores rise straight up so that the presence of the Shechinah will appear in the cloud of smoke (Vayikra 16:2). During the rest of the year, when Aharon ha'Kohen entered the Kodesh ha'Kodashim only to pray but not to have the Shechinah's presence descend, perhaps it was not necessary to have the smoke rise straight up. Therefore, another verse is needed to teach that even the Ketores offered on any day of the year, when Aharon ha'Kohen entered the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, included Ma'aleh Ashan. Rav Sheshes is not discussing the Ketores of the Heichal at all. (<b>NISHMAS ADAM</b>, in Kuntrus Matzeves Moshe)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE SIN OF NADAV AND AVIHU</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Eliezer states that Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aharon, were punished with death because they rendered their own Halachic decision to bring a fire on the Mizbe'ach, and they did not ask Moshe Rabeinu.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH she'Horu) points out that the Midrash (Toras Kohanim, Parshas Acharei Mos; Vayikra Rabah 20:6-10; Sanhedrin 52a) offers several opinions for why the sons of Aharon were punished. Some say that they were punished because they entered the Mishkan in a state of inebriation, or with unshaven hair. Others say that they were punished because they abstained from marrying wives and bearing children. Others explain that they were punished because they said, 'When will these old men (Moshe and Aharon) pass on so that we will become the new leaders of the nation!'
</p><p>
What is the point of dispute of these opinions? Why is the wrongdoing of Nadav and Avihu subject to such uncertainty? The verse itself (Vayikra 10:1) clearly states that they were punished because they brought an unsolicited fire on the Mizbe'ach and presented an incense offering with it. Why do the Chachamim seek other reasons for their death, and why do they suggest reasons that are unrelated to the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Torah (Shemos 24:9-11) relates when Moshe and Aharon took Nadav, Avihu, and the seventy elders up to Har Sinai at the time of the giving of the Torah, they 'beheld Hash-m, and they ate and drank.' Rashi there comments, based on the Midrash, that Nadav and Avihu beheld Hash-m haughtily, when they were satiated with food and drink, and they should have been punished immediately. However, Hash-m did not want to diminish the joy of the giving of the Torah by punishing them at that moment. Instead, He punished them on the day of the inauguration of the Mishkan.
</p><p>
Why did Hash-m choose the day of the inauguration of the Mishkan as the day on which to punish Nadav and Avihu? The answer is because the sin of Nadav and Avihu at the inauguration of the Mishkan was based on the same error as their sin at Har Sinai.
</p><p>
Hash-m revealed Himself at Sinai to a degree to which He had never revealed Himself at any other time in history. It was to this display of the Divine Presence that Moshe and Aharon brought Nadav, Avihu, and the seventy elders, as the verse describes. However, before Moshe 'ascended to the heavens' to encounter the Presence of Hash-m and to receive the Luchos, he abstained from food and drink for forty days (Shemos 34:28). Nadav and Avihu, however, did not conduct themselves with the necessary awe essential for so momentous an occasion. They believed that they were already spiritually prepared to behold the Divine Presence and had no need to abstain further from worldly involvement. In truth, however, they were not prepared to behold the Divine Presence. They were still bound to some degree to the physical world of eating and drinking, for 'their hearts were dense with food and drink' (Rashi). They did not realize the extent to which one must separate himself from the world of material pleasure in order to approach Hash-m in such an intimate manner.
</p><p>
The same attitude led to their second sin, when they entered the Mishkan with their own fire at the inauguration of the Mishkan. According to the Midrash, Nadav and Avihu offered incense in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim on their own initiative on the day that Hash-m first rested His Presence there. Having been chosen to serve in the Mishkan as Kohanim, they considered themselves to be on a spiritual level great enough to enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and to behold the Divine Presence through a spontaneous offering of Ketores. They repeated the mistake which they had made at Har Sinai.
</p><p>
The other opinions quoted by the Midrash and Gemara express other manifestations of the same mistake. Nadav and Avihu's comment, 'When will these old men (Moshe and Aharon) pass on so that we will become the new leaders of the nation,' was based on their mistake that they considered themselves to be on a spiritual level equal to, or even greater than, Moshe and Aharon. The two sons of Aharon thought that they were like Moshe Rabeinu, who was granted 'unlimited access' to the Kodesh ha'Kodashim (Toras Kohanim, Parshas Acharei Mos 1:6) and was in a constant state of preparedness to prophesy (Rashi to Bamidbar 12:4). They maintained that they were fit to serve in the sanctuary of Hash-m with the same cordiality as Moshe Rabeinu.
</p><p>
This attitude was the cause of their Halachic decision to bring a fire on the Mizbe'ach without first asking their teacher, Moshe Rabeinu. They felt that they were as competent as Moshe Rabeinu in matters of the Avodah in the Mishkan.
</p><p>
Nadav and Avihu's refusal to marry and bear offspring was rooted in the same mistake. They equated themselves with Moshe Rabeinu, who had to be in a state of constant preparedness to receive the word of Hash-m, and for this reason he separated from his wife, Tziporah (see Rashi to Bamidbar 12:4). Nadav and Avihu felt that they had attained a similar spiritual height, and thus they, too, abstained from marriage.
</p><p>
The Midrash also says that Nadav and Avihu entered the Mishkan while in a state of inebriation. This means that they entered the Mishkan at a time when their power of reason was not yet in full control over their worldly impulses. Their entry into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim with unshaven hair was another symbol of their attachment to worldly desires and impulses (as the Gemara in Nedarim (9b) describes).
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> When R. Yosef was informed of this he blessed Rava.
<br>
<b><font>5) STEPPING BACK FROM PRAYER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  One who has prayed must take three steps back and extend 
          Shalom.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  He must pause there, like a student taking leave of his 
          Rebbe (as supported by the Beraisa) as turning away 
          immediately would be an insult.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  He extends Shalom to the right, then left, as supported 
          by two Pesukim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do we need the second Pasuk?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Luchos might be carried in the right as that 
          is the common manner, while the second Pasuk underscores 
          the importance of the right.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Rava corrected Abaye by pointing out that right means the 
          right of Hash-m (our left).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  It was reported that Abaye and Rava bowed as they stepped 
          back.
<br>
<b><font>6) THE BRIEF PRAYER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What was his Tefilah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Yehi Ratzon... Geshumah u'Shechunah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is a hot year a good thing?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It should be balanced.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Acha b. Rava citing R. Yehudah added to the Tefilah of 
          the Kohen Gadol:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'Let not the rulership pass from the upright house 
               of Yehudah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Let not one Jew need to be sustained by another.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Let not the prayers of wayfarers be accepted'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Chanina b. Dosa was able to petition for rain to stop 
          and restart.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  The Tefilah of the Kohen Gadol was no contest for the 
          Tefilah of R. Chanina.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  In one incident the Kohen Gadol lengthened his Tefilah, 
          leading to the concern mentioned in the Mishnah.
<br>
<b><font>7) MISHNAH: THE ZERIKOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Even ha'Shesiyah stood where the Aron once stood.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  He went in (with the Dam which was being stirred) and did 
          the Zerikas Dam ha'Par in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The Haza'ah was one upward and seven downward (not on the 
          Paroches but on the ground below) while counting aloud.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  He brought that Dam out and went back in with the Dam 
          Sa'ir and repeated the Zerikah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  There is a Machlokes whether there was one or two 
          shelves.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  He did a set of Zerikos in the Heichal with each Dam as 
          well.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  He then poured the remaining Dam of the Par into the Dam 
          of the Sa'ir, and then poured its contents back.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) WAS THE ARON HIDDEN OR EXILED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Mishnah implies that the Aron was exiled.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  There are two opinions (R. Eliezer and R. Shimon b. 
          Yochai) which maintain that it was exiled (based on two 
          different Pesukim) and one which maintains that it was 
          hidden in its place, and remains so, based on the words 
          'Ad ha'Yom ha'Zeh'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> According to Ula, R. Shimon b. Yochai is of the 
               opinion that the Aron is hidden.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Ula reported an exchange between R. Masia b. Charash 
               and R. Shimon b. Yochai.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Are all occurrences of 'Ad ha'Yom ha'Zeh' meant 
          to be taken literally?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Pasuk speaks of the Yevusi living in 
               Yerushalyaim 'Ad ha'Yom ha'Zeh'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We know from Yirmeyahu that there were 52 years of 
               total desolation (like the numerical value of 
               'Beheimah').
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> We also know (from R. Yosi in the Beraisa) that 
               Gafris and Melach alone reigned in Eretz Yisrael for 
               seven years (compare 'B'ris'-'B'ris').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The word 'Sham' adds the real impression of 
          forever.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we find an instance of 'va'Yeishev Sham' 
          which was interrupted by Sancheriv?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Good question. 
<br>
<b><font>2) WHERE WAS THE ARON HIDDEN?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Chachamim (cited by R. Nachman) taught that the Aron is 
          beneath the wood-checking Lishkah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  A tragic incident reported in the Beraisa supports the 
          claim that the Aron is not beneath the Kodesh 
          ha'Kodoshim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> In the incident a Kohen, engaged in another 
               activity, died while trying to point out the place 
               of the Aron to the other Kohanim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What was that Kohen doing?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> He was using his ax (as confirmed by the 
               tragic incident reported by a Tana d'bei R. 
               Yishmael).
<br>
<b><font>3) THE VISIBLE/INVISIBLE BADIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The (cited) Pesukim seem to contradict one 
          another?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Badim were both visible and invisible.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Further, they miraculously extended in order to be 
               visible from without.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The refrained from extending too far (which would 
               tear the Paroches) and only pushed out slightly, 
               like a woman's breasts through her garment.
<br>
<b><font>4) THE INTIMATE BOND BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND HASH-M</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Katina):</font></b> The bond was revealed to the people by 
          opening the Paroches during Aliyas Regel (the embracing 
          Keruvim).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Pasuk teaches that the Keilim of the 
          Mishkan may not be seen!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishkan was likened to a Kalah before her 
          wedding while the Beis ha'Mikdash was like a Kalah after 
          her wedding.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we find that a Kohen was killed in order to 
          prevent the possible exposure of the Aron!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That was during the second Mikdash, when the 
          remarried wife is, again, like the Kalah before the 
          Chupah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then R. Katina's teaching cannot apply to 
          either Mikdash!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The first Beis ha'Mikdash did not have a Paroches.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The second Beis ha'Mikdash did not have Keruvim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He spoke of the first Beis ha'Mikdash and the 
          Paroches refer to the (many door) coverings (as 
          enumerated).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer:</font></b> He spoke of the second Beis ha'Mikdash 
          and they showed the people the Keruvim as part of the 
          wall decorations.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Those Keruvim were very noticeable as supported by 
               two Pesukim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The second of those Pesukim refers to the Keruvim as 
               being made 'ke'Ma'ar Ish ve'Loyos'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> What is 'ke'Ma'ar Ish ve'Loyos'?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE KERUVIM IN THE SECOND BEIS HA'MIKDASH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Katina states that on each of the three festivals, the Kohanim would pull back the Paroches so that the Jewish people would be able to see the Keruvim as they embraced each other in a display of Hashem's love for His people. The Gemara asks in which Beis ha'Mikdash was this done? It could not have been in the first Beis ha'Mikdash, because the Kodesh ha'Kodashim was not partitioned by a Paroches there, but rather by a wall (the 'Amah Traksin'). It could not have been in the second Beis ha'Mikdash, because there were no Keruvim in the second Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Mi Havu) explains that when the Gemara says there were no Keruvim in the second Beis ha'Mikdash, it refers to the Keruvim which Shlomo ha'Melech made and placed at each side of the Aron ha'Kodesh. There <i>were</i>, however, Keruvim atop the Aron ha'Kodesh. Those Keruvim were part of the Kapores (the cover of the Aron) itself.
</p><p>
Rashi's comments are difficult to understand. It is clear from the Gemara (21b, 52b) that the Keruvim of the Kapores also were not present in the second Beis ha'Mikdash. Why does Rashi say that the Gemara refers only to the Keruvim of Shlomo ha'Melech when it says that there were no Keruvim in the second Beis ha'Mikdash? (<b>YA'AVETZ</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RAV YEHUDAH LANDY</b> shlit'a (of Telzstone, Israel) proposes the following answer to this question. The <b>MAHARSHA</b> (Chidushei Agados) asks that the Gemara earlier discusses whether or not one is permitted to see the Aron ha'Kodesh inside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. The Gemara concludes that in the times of the first Beis ha'Mikdash one was permitted to see the Aron, but in the times of the Mishkan and in the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash one was not permitted to see the Aron, because the people during those times had not achieved the requisite degree of closeness with Hash-m. Why, then, does the Gemara question whether Rav Katina's statement refers to the first Beis ha'Mikdash or to the second? His statement clearly does not refer to the second Beis ha'Mikdash, because the Kohanim were not permitted to roll back the Paroches to show the Aron in the second Beis ha'Mikdash. The Maharsha leaves this question unanswered.
</p><p>
Rav Landy explains that Rashi addresses this question. When Rashi says that the Keruvim of Shlomo ha'Melech were not present in the second Beis ha'Mikdash, he means that there was also no Aron and no Kapores there (as the Gemara earlier says). The Gemara itself knew that there was no Aron and Kapores there when it suggested that Rav Katina's statement refers to the second Beis ha'Mikdash. However, if there was no Aron, then why did the Kohanim pull back the Paroches? What were they showing to the Jewish people?
</p><p>
Rashi explains that the Gemara thought that perhaps the Kohanim were showing the Keruvim of Shlomo ha'Melech to the people, and that they were permitted to see those Keruvim even during the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash (just as one may look at the Keruvim drawn upon the wall, as the Gemara concludes; see <b>GEVURAS ARI</b>). The Gemara rejects this suggestion, because even the Keruvim of Shlomo ha'Melech were not present in the second Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
Rav Landy's explanation also sheds light on Rashi's comments later (54b). The Gemara relates that at the time of the destruction of the first Beis ha'Mikdash, the Nochrim entered the Heichal and found the Keruvim embracing each other. They brought the Keruvim out to the public area in order to show everyone that the Jews themselves worshipped idols. Rashi explains that the Nochrim peeled off the images of the Keruvim that were drawn on the walls and showed those images to the people. Why does Rashi explain that the Nochrim brought out the images of the Keruvim that were drawn on the walls, and not the real Keruvim that were on the Kapores, or the Keruvim of Shlomo ha'Melech that stood next to the Aron?
</p><p>
The <b>SI'ACH YITZCHAK</b> points out that the Nochrim could not have taken out the Keruvim on the Kapores, because the Gemara earlier (52b) says that Yoshiyahu hid the Kapores along with the Keruvim years before the Churban. The Si'ach Yitzchak says that the Nochrim must have taken out other Keruvim. However, how does he know that the Keruvim that they took out were not the Keruvim of Shlomo ha'Melech?
</p><p>
According to Rav Landy's explanation, the Gemara (54a) explicitly states that the Keruvim of Shlomo ha'Melech were not present in the second Beis ha'Mikdash. Why is the Gemara so certain that the Keruvim of Shlomo ha'Melech were not present in the second Beis ha'Mikdash? The answer is that the Keruvim of Shlomo ha'Melech were made only to serve the Aron, and thus they were considered part of the Aron. When Yoshiyahu hid the Aron, he also hid Shlomo's Keruvim with it, just as he hid all the other contents of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim (52b). The only Keruvim left for the enemies to display at the time of the Churban were the ones drawn on the walls.
</p><p>
Perhaps this is the intention of the Gemara earlier when it says that in the second Beis ha'Mikdash there were 'no Aron, Kapores, and Keruvim.' It lists Kapores and Keruvim separately because the 'Kapores' refers to the actual Kapores and the Keruvim on top of it, while the 'Keruvim' refer to those of Shlomo ha'Melech.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Like a man embracing his wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  The destroyers of the Mikdash mocked the intimate Keruvim 
          (thus fulfilling the prophecy of 'Kol Mechabdehah 
          Hiziluhah').
<br>
<b><font>5) THE EVEN HASHESIYAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  It was called 'Shesiyah' because the world was founded on 
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  This is consistent with view of Chachamim that the world 
          was created from Tzion.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is a four-way Machlokes in the Beraisa.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer (it was created from its center), R. 
               Yehoshua (it was created from its sides), R. Yitzhok 
               (from the stone which Hash-m fired into the sea), 
               and the Chachamim (from Tzion).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer ha'Gadol taught that the Shamayim was created 
          from Shamayim and the Aretz from Aretz, while the 
          Chachamim say that they were both created from Tzion.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE EMBRACE OF THE KERUVIM</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that at the time of the destruction of the first Beis ha'Mikdash, the Nochrim entered the Heichal and found the Keruvim embracing each other. They brought the Keruvim out to the public area in order to show everyone that the Jews themselves worshipped idols.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Bava Basra (99a) relates that when the Jewish people fulfilled the will of the Almighty, the Keruvim miraculously faced each other. When the Jewish people did not fulfill the will of the Almighty, the Keruvim turned away from each other.
</p><p>
The nation was punished with the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash because of their failure to repent and follow the will of Hash-m. Why, then, at the time of the destruction were the Keruvim facing each other and embracing? They should have been facing away from each other in a display of Hashem's discontent with the nation. (<b>RITVA</b>, in the name of the <b><b><b>RI</b></b> MI'GASH</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> quotes those who answer that the Gemara in Bava Basra refers to the Keruvim on the Kapores and the Keruvim of Shlomo ha'Melech (see Divrei ha'Yamim II 3:13). The positioning of those sets of Keruvim depended on the conduct of the Jewish people. The Keruvim that were embracing each other at the time of the Churban were the Keruvim drawn upon the walls (which the Gemara here mentions), whose position never changed even when the Jews sinned.
</p><p>
Why, though, does the Gemara here say that the Keruvim on the wall displayed the love of Hash-m for His people, and why would they roll back the Paroches to display them during the festival (Ritva)? The <b>SI'ACH YITZCHAK</b> answers that the Keruvim drawn on the wall showed Hashem's <i>earlier</i> love for the people, since Hash-m originally instructed that they be drawn facing each other.
</p><p>
(b) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b> MI'GASH</b> (cited by the Ritva here and by the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> in Bava Basra 99a) answers that Hash-m caused the Keruvim in the Beis ha'Mikdash to face each other when the Jews fulfilled the will of Hash-m in order to show His love for the Jewish people. Just as that miracle served a purpose, the miracle of the Keruvim's embrace at the time of the Churban also served a purpose. The Ri mi'Gash writes that it was either to show the enemy how beloved the Jewish people <i>used</i> to be to Hash-m, or to give the enemy an opportunity to disgrace the Jews.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RAV CHAIM SHMUELEVITZ</b> zt'l suggests that the embrace of the Keruvim at the time of the Churban actually showed Hashem's love for His people as it usually did. The Keruvim's embrace showed the Jewish people that only after Hash-m aroused His profound love for the Jewish people did He empower His attribute of justice to destroy the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Midrash says that the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash was a manifestation of Hashem's mercy, for He vented His wrath on an inanimate building and thereby spared the people (Eichah Rabah 4:14, cited by Tosfos to Kidushin 31a).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>KORITZER REBBE</b> in <b>IMREI PINCHAS</b> says that the Jewish people repented at the moment of the Churban. At that moment they were fulfilling the will of Hash-m, and therefore the Keruvim embraced.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MATZLIF</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is Matzlif?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah demonstrated the motion of giving 
          lashes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The Haza'os (even the upper one) were not <i>on</i> the 
          Kapores (only the position of his hand differentiated 
          between the upper and lower Haza'os).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How do we know that the Haza'ah was not on the 
          Kapores itself?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> From the extra 'Lifnei' which modifies the 'Al'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps we should learn the reverse, where the 
          'Al' modifies the 'Lifnei' (and thus have the Haza'ah 
          <i>on</i> the Kapores)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Such a reversal would occupy the le'Ma'alah by 
          Par and leave le'Matah by Sa'ir unused.
<br>
<b><font>2) HAZA'OS LEMATAH BY SA'IR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How Many Haza'os le'Matah are there by Sa'ir?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> By inference (using Damim) from Par le'Matah we 
          know it is seven.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps we should derive Sa'ir le'Matah from 
          Sa'ir le'Ma'alah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is more logical to compare Matah to Matah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> To the contrary, it is more logical to derive 
          Sa'ir from Sa'ir!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> From 'Ka'asher Asah' we learn to compare Sa'ir to 
          Par.
<br>
<b><font>3) HAZA'OS LEMA'ALAH BY PAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How Many Haza'os le'Ma'alah by Par?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Damim' links Par to Sa'ir.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps derive Par le'Ma'alah from le'Matah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Ma'alah to Ma'alah is more logical.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> To the contrary...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Ka'asher Asah'.
<br>
<b><font>4) THE COUNTING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  There is a difference in the Beraisa between the counting 
          as described by R. Meir (one and the number below) versus 
          R. Yehudah (the number below and one).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The difference is based on each one's local counting 
          custom.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But why, according to all, must we count one 
          the one le'Ma'alah together with each one le'Matah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Either to prevent counting errors (R. Elazar, and 
          the requirement is de'Rabanan) or (according to R. 
          Yochanan) it is d'Oreisa based on 'Yazeh'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> When will their answers differ?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> In a case where he did not count the 
               le'Ma'alah but he also did not err.
<br>
<b><font>5) THE GOLD SHELF IN THE HEICHAL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  We learn from R. Yehudah that there was only one Shofar 
          for Kinei Nedavah, and none for Kinei Chovah, to prevent 
          mixing.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi asserts that our concern involves mixing Chovos 
          with Nedavos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Make two Shofros and mark them!?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'BEREIRAH' PERMITS A FORBIDDEN MIXTURE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the case of a Shofar (collection box) of coins which are designated for the purchase of Korbenos Chatas for the owners of the coins. If one of the owners dies, every set of coins in the box becomes a 'Safek Chatas she'Meisah Be'aleha,' because perhaps the one who died was the owner of that set of coins. According to the opinion that maintains 'Yesh Bereirah,' the doubt can be resolved simply by removing one set of coins and proclaiming that the owner of that set of coins was the one who died. Those coins then should be thrown into the sea, and all of the other coins become permitted to be used for Korbenos Chatas.
</p><p>
How does the removal of one set of coins permit all of the other sets of coins that remain in the box? 'Yesh Bereirah' means that although the status of an object is not clear at the present time, a future occurrence can determine its status retroactively. The principle of 'Yesh Bereirah' is usually applied in a case in which a condition is stated at the time of the original event and that condition is fulfilled only at a later time. In the case of the Gemara here, however, the removal of one set of coins does not clarify that the owner of that set was the one who died.
</p><p>
If, for some reason, the act of removing a set of coins from the rest indeed clarifies that those coins are the ones that belonged to the man who died, then is such an act effective in every other case of a forbidden mixture? Would it suffice to remove one item and declare it as the one that is forbidden, and thereby permit the rest of the mixture?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Temurah (30a, DH v'Idach) answers that in an ordinary case of a forbidden mixture, the forbidden item in the mixture was forbidden <i>before</i> it became mixed with the permitted items. Since it was prohibited when it was alone, its status of Isur cannot be transferred to a different item. In the case of the Gemara here, however, all of the items (coins) were permitted at the time they became mixed together. The Isur of one item took effect only <i>after</i> all of the items became mixed together. In such a case, the status of Isur can be removed by selecting one item and declaring it to be the one that is forbidden.
</p><p>
(Perhaps the logic behind this distinction is as follows. In every case of a mixture of a forbidden item with permitted items, the forbidden item should be Batel b'Rov, annulled in the majority. However, in certain cases the Rabanan instituted that the Isur in the mixture is not Batel b'Rov, such as in cases of a 'Davar Chashuv,' 'Davar she'b'Minyan,' and 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin.' In the case of an item that became forbidden only <i>after</i> it fell into the mixture, the Rabanan did not institute that the mixture remain forbidden, even when the forbidden item is included in one of the types of cases mentioned above ('Davar Chashuv,' etc.). The Rabanan required only that one remove and designate one item from the mixture as that which is forbidden in order that he not derive benefit from the forbidden item.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> and <b>RITVA</b> answer that when a person places money in the Shofar, he gives it with intent to grant the Kohanim the authority to use the money to buy a Chatas for anyone they choose. Therefore, according to the opinion that maintains 'Yesh Bereirah,' the Kohanim may determine retroactively which set of coins is the money of the person who died.
</p><p>
(According to the opinion that maintains 'Ein Bereirah,' every time the Kohanim purchase a Korban from the money of that Shofar they must stipulate that the Korban they purchase is 'for whoever put this set of coins into the Shofar.' This is because they are unable to determine retroactively through Bereirah that this set of coins was deposited in the Shofar by a particular person.)
</p><p>


