# dafyomi

lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MISHNAH: PREPARING THE KOHEN GADOL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Seven days before Yom Kippur we segregate the Kohen 
          Gadol.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  A substitute Kohen is designated.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> A substitute wife is also designated.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Chachamim):</font></b> There would then be no limit.
<br>
<b><font>2) PREPARING THE KOHEN FOR THE PARAH ADUMAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Seven days prior to the burning of the Parah Adumah we 
          segregate the Kohen who will burn it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  He is brought to the Lishkah in the Northeast corner 
          facing the Birah, called the Lishkas Beis ha'Even.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is it called that?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Because the activities there were conducted in 
          utensils which cannot become Tamei, such as stone.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is this stringency needed?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Owing to the leniency of T'vul Yom.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We learnt that this leniency became a point of 
               contention with the Tzedukim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> As such, we would make the Kohen Tamei.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> This stringency (of the utensils) was instituted to 
               prevent the Parah Adumah from being treated lightly.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why was the Northeast selected?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> A Chatas (so the Parah is called) is in the North 
          and P'nei Ohel Moed brings us to the East (thus alerting 
          the Kohen to aspects of his upcoming Avodah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is Birah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> A place on Har ha'Bayis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> The entire Mikdash is called Birah (based on 
          the Pasuk).
<br>
<b><font>3) THE SOURCE FOR SEGREGATING THE KOHEN GADOL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for a seven day separation?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is learned from the seven days of Miluim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> 'La'asos' refers to the Parah Adumah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> 'Lechaper' refers to the Avodah of Yom ha'Kipurim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Given that the Pasuk cannot be entirely 
          referring to Parah Adumah; but may it not all refer to 
          Yom ha'Kipurim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Gezeirah Shavah of 'Tzivah-Tzivah'.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: 'SEVEN DAYS BEFORE YOM KIPPUR...'</b></font><b>
<br>AGADAH:</b> Maseches Yoma begins with the words, 'Seven days before Yom Kippur we separate the Kohen Gadol from his family....'
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARSHA</b> suggests that when Rebbi compiled the Mishnah, he opened Maseches Yoma with these words as an allusion to Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year, is unique among all of the days of the year. The name of the Maseches, 'Yoma' -- '[the] Day,' alludes to the uniqueness of the day.
</p><p>
The number seven alludes to holiness, as the seventh day of the week is Shabbos. Similarly, the Pesikta explains that Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur occur in the seventh month because of the holiness of these days. (See also the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> in Kol Eliyahu, Parshas Emor.)
</p><p>
There are a total of seven festivals mid'Oraisa. The seven festivals correspond to the seven days of the week. The first six festivals (the first and last days of Pesach, one day of Shavuos, one day of Rosh Hashanah, the first and last days of Sukos) correspond to the first six days of the week. The seventh festival, Yom Kippur, corresponds to the seventh day of the week, Shabbos. The Torah compares the holiness of Yom Kippur to the holiness of Shabbos when it refers to Yom Kippur as, 'Shabbos Shabbason' (Vayikra 16:31). The holiness of Yom Kippur is expressed in its unique prohibition of Melachah. While the prohibition of Melachah on all other festivals is lenient in some respect (for example, Melachah for the sake of food preparation is permitted), on Yom Kippur there is no allowance to perform any Melachah. Just as Shabbos is the holiest of the days of the week, Yom Kippur is the holiest of the festivals.
</p><p>
Based on the Maharsha's words, an even more profound relationship between the seven festivals and the seven days of the week is evident. Each of the successive festivals parallels its corresponding weekday in remarkable ways.
</p><p>
1. The first day of Pesach parallels the first day of Creation, the day that is called by the Torah 'Yom Echad' -- 'day one.' Rashi explains (based on the Midrash) that the first day of Creation is called 'Yom Echad' because it was the singular day in history on which Hash-m was truly the only Being in this world ('Yom Echad' is thus interpreted as 'the day of the One'). Even the angels were not created until the second day.
</p><p>
On Pesach, too, it was Hash-m Himself, without the medium of any divine or worldly agent, Who went forth to strike the Egyptians and free His people from bondage, as it says, ''Thus says Hash-m: At midnight I am going out into the midst of Egypt, and every firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die...' (Shemos 11:4). 'I' and not an angel; 'I' and not a seraph...' (Hagadah Shel Pesach).
</p><p>
Moreover, on the first day of Creation, Hash-m created light. The Midrash (as cited by Rashi to Bereishis 1:4) teaches that the primordial light was deemed too holy for this material world, and thus it was 'hidden away' and reserved for the time when Hash-m would reveal Himself to the righteous. On the night of the Exodus, the divine light of the first day of Creation shined brightly (Zohar 2:38a; see also Parasha Page, Pesach 5756).
</p><p>
2. On the second day of Creation, Hash-m made the 'firmament' ('Raki'a') to 'divide between water [on earth] and water [in the heavens].' This parallels the second festival, the seventh day of Pesach, which commemorates the splitting of the Sea. (The <b>RAMBAM</b> draws this parallel in his commentary to Avos 5:6. See also Rashi to Megilah 31a, DH Vayehi.)
</p><p>
3. On the third day of Creation, Hash-m created the fruit-bearing trees (Bereishis 1:11). The Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (16a) teaches that on Shavuos, the third festival, Hash-m judges and determines the quality of the fruit harvest of the coming year. For this reason, Shavuos is the first day of the year on which the Bikurim, the first-fruit offerings, are brought to the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
In addition, the Torah, which was given at Har Sinai on Shavuos, is called the 'tree of life' (Mishlei 3:18). Moreover, the third day of Creation is the only day described <i>twice</i> with the phrase 'Ki Tov' ('it was good'). The Gemara in Berachos (5a) teaches that 'Tov' refers to the Torah (as derived from Mishlei 4:2).
</p><p>
4. On the fourth day of Creation, Hash-m created the celestial bodies -- the sun, moon, stars, etc. That day marked the beginning of the lunar and solar cycles. Rosh Hashanah, the fourth festival, marks the beginning of the annual lunar cycle (Rosh Hashanah 2a; see also Parasha Page, Rosh Hashanah 5756).
</p><p>
5. The fifth day of Creation is thematically related to Sukos, the fifth Yom Tov. It was on the fifth day that Hash-m commanded the waters to 'swarm with crawling living things and birds to fly in the heavens' (Bereishis 1:20). All of that day's creations issued forth from the waters. The festival of Sukos comes at the beginning of the rain season, and a central theme of the festival is the supplication for rain. It is on Sukos that Hash-m judges the world with regard to the amount of rain which will fall during the coming year (Rosh Hashanah 16a). Special water-libations are performed, special prayers are recited, and branches are waved exclusively on Sukos to beseech Hash-m to provide an adequate supply of water, the life-giving elixir that will preserve all of the creatures of the world during the coming year.
</p><p>
Moreover, the Torah gives special mention to one creature of the sea that was created on the fifth day: the Leviathan (Bereishis 1:21, and Rashi there). The Gemara in Bava Basra (75a) relates that at the time of Mashi'ach, Hash-m will 'make a <i>Sukah</i> out of the hide of the Leviathan for the righteous' (Bava Basra 75a).
</p><p>
6. The sixth day of Creation is the day on which man was created. Rashi (Bamidbar 29:35) writes that the central theme of Shemini Atzeres (which is also Simchas Torah) is the uniqueness of the Jewish people. On Simchas Torah we celebrate with the Torah and express our joy that Hash-m gave us the Torah and the Mitzvos. On this day we celebrate the creation of the 'spiritual man,' for it is the Torah that sets the Jew apart from all the other peoples and gives him his unique role in the world.
</p><p>
In addition, all of the other days of Creation are referred to as 'Yom Sheni' -- '*a* second day,' 'Yom Shelishi' -- '*a* third day,' and so on. The sixth day, however, is called 'Yom ha'Shishi' -- '*the* sixth day.' Rashi comments that this alludes to the fact that the Torah would be given on the <i>sixth day</i> (of the month of Sivan) many centuries later. Hash-m stipulated with all of creation that its existence was conditional upon the acceptance of the Torah by the Jewish people at Sinai. Accordingly, it is appropriate that the sixth festival of the year is dedicated to the celebration of the Jewish people's possession of the Torah.
</p><p>
7. The seventh day of the week parallels Yom Kippur in several ways. As the Maharsha writes, Yom Kippur is the only one of the festivals on which <i>all</i> manner of Melachah is forbidden (even work necessary for food preparation). This cessation of creative activity mirrors the laws of the Shabbos, the day on which Hash-m 'rested' from creating the world.
</p><p>
In addition, it was on the seventh day that Hash-m forgave Adam for his sin of eating the forbidden fruit. When Adam repented, Hash-m pardoned him and allowed him to live. This was the first -- and hence archetypal -- case of atonement for sin. The Midrash teaches that it was Adam who composed the 'Psalm for the Shabbos Day' (Psalm 92). The Midrash interprets the opening verse as saying, 'It is good to <i>confess one's sins</i> before Hash-m' (Midrash Shocher Tov). Similarly, Yom Kippur was the first time that Hash-m granted forgiveness to the Jewish people as a nation. Rashi (Devarim 9:18) teaches that Yom Kippur was the day on which Hash-m forgave the Jewish people for the sin of the Golden Calf, and this is why Yom Kippur was singled out as the Day of Atonement for all times.
</p><p>
The underlying idea represented by the parallelism between the festivals and the days of the week seems to be that the seven festivals represent seven aspects of the formation of the <i>spiritual</i> world, just as the seven days of the week represent seven stages in the creation of the <i>physical</i> world. When the Jewish people observe the seven festivals, they elevate the mundane and material world of the seven days of creation to a higher spiritual plane. Accordingly, when a Jew observes the Torah's festivals properly, he creates a unique, spiritual dimension in his life.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But perhaps the connection is only to Yom 
          ha'Kipurim, not to Parah at all?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Tzivah' before the performance is the more 
          reliable connection (over a different Tzivah <i>after</i> its 
          Avodah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps we connect to the Tzivah of communal 
          offerings (and the Kohen must separate seven days prior).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Tzivah' does not match 'Tzavoso'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we find that topical connections <i>are</i> 
          used?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That is only where no identical word connection 
          is to be found.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps 'Lechaper' refers not to the Avodah of 
          Yom ha'Kipurim but to all Korbanos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We would not know which Kohen it will be.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We should require segregation of the entire 
          Beis Av!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is more logical to connect to Yom ha'Kipurim 
          whose time/date is fixed (unlike daily Korbanos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then connect to the Korbanos of the Regalim!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is more logical to connect with that which 
          takes place once a year.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then perhaps we should choose one Regel!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> However we would not know which.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Pesach has the advantage of being first in the 
               Parshah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Sukos has the most Mitzvos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Connect a seven day separation for a one day 
          Avodah with another of the same (not seven for seven).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then connect to Shemini Atzeres (seven for 
          one)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Connect to that which does not have Kedushah 
          preceding it (Yom ha'Kipurim) and not to that which does.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(u)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But one which does should all the more so 
          require segregation!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(v)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Hazeh teaches that only a similar day requires 
          segregation.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(w)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Shemini Atzeres (the Tafel) could not require 
          more than the (Ikar) Regel itself!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Even according to the opinion that Shemini Atzeres 
               is a separate Regel, that is only regarding <b>PEZER</b> 
               <b>KESHEV</b>.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Regarding Tashlumin, however, Shemini Atzeres still 
               serves Sukos (as we have learned in the Mishnah).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE SOURCE FOR 'PERISHAH' ON YOM KIPPUR</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara (2a) derives the law of Perishah ('separation') for the Kohen who performs the procedure of the Parah Adumah from the word 'La'asos' in the verse, 'Tzivah Hash-m La'asos' (Vayikra 8:34), in the Parshah of the Milu'im. The Gemara asks that perhaps the verse does not refer to Parah Adumah at all. Rather, it teaches only that the Kohen Gadol who performs the Yom Kippur Avodah requires Perishah, because the word 'Tzivah' appears in this verse and in the verse that discusses the Avodah of Yom Kippur (Vayikra 16:34). What, then, is the source that the Kohen who handles the Parah Adumah requires Perishah?
</p><p>
What is the Gemara's question? If the law of Perishah for the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur is derived from the word 'Tzivah,' then the word 'l'Chaper' is no longer necessary to teach Perishah for the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur, and it may be used as the source for Perishah for the Kohen who handles the Parah Adumah!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> suggests that once 'Tzivah' teaches that the verse refers to Yom Kippur, it is simply the style of the verse to say the word 'l'Chaper' with regard to Yom Kippur. It is not intended to teach anything else.
</p><p>
(b) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b> HA'LAVAN</b> explains that if 'Tzivah' refers to Yom Kippur, then 'l'Chaper' refers to Korbanos (and not to Parah Adumah), as the Gemara later asks. (See also <b>TOSFOS</b> DH v'Eima Tzivah.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> suggests that if the verse would have said only 'l'Chaper,' one might have thought that only on the very first Yom Kippur in history did the Kohen Gadol need to do Perishah. Therefore, another phrase is required to teach that every Kohen Gadol, on all subsequent years, also needs Perishah. (The Gemara makes a similar suggestion later on 4a.)
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RITVA</b> says in the name of <b>TOSFOS</b> that if the verse would have said only 'Tzivah,' we would have assumed that it refers to both Yom Kippur and Parah Adumah; since one is not more implicit in the verse than the other, we would have derived both of them. The word 'l'Chaper' teaches that 'Tzivah' refers <i>exclusively</i> to Yom Kippur.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) WHY 'PERISHAH' IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ALL KORBANOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara (2a) says that a Gezeirah Shavah teaches that just as Perishah is required for the Milu'im (the inauguration of the Kohanim), so, too, Perishah is required for the Kohen who prepares the Parah Adumah. The word 'Tzivah' is written in the Parshah of the Milu'im in the verse, 'Tzivah Hash-m La'asos...' (Vayikra 8:34), and the word 'Tzivah' is also written in the Parshah of Parah Adumah (Bamidbar 19:2).
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that perhaps the Gezeirah Shavah from the verse in the Parshah of Milu'im, 'Tzivah Hash-m La'asos,' does not refer to Parah Adumah, but rather to all Korbanos, since a form of the word 'Tzivah' is written with regard to all Korbanos (Vayikra 7:38). <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Gemara's question is that every Kohen who offers a Korban Tzibur should need to perform Perishah for seven days before he offers the Korban.
</p><p>
(a) Why does Rashi explain that the Gemara's question is that Perishah should be required whenever a Kohen offers a Korban <i>Tzibur</i>? The verse which mentions 'Tzivah' in the Parshah of Korbanos (Vayikra 7:38) refers to Korbenos <i>Yachid</i>.
</p><p>
(b) The Gemara discusses its earlier teaching (2a) that the requirement of Perishah for the Kohen Gadol prior to Yom Kippur is derived from the word 'l'Chaper' in the verse, 'Tzivah Hash-m La'asos l'Chaper Aleichem' (Vayikra 8:34). The Gemara again asks that perhaps that verse does not refer to Yom Kippur, but rather to all Korbanos, because the verse says the word 'l'Chaper' in the Parshah of Korbanos. Rashi there explains that the Gemara's question is that a Kohen who offers a Korban <i>Yachid</i> should need Perishah. Why does Rashi now explain that the Gemara's question refers to Korbenos Yachid, while earlier he explains that the Gemara's question refers to Korbenos Tzibur?
</p><p>
(c) After the Gemara asks its second question, that 'l'Chaper' should teach that Korbanos (and not Yom Kippur) require Perishah, the Gemara rejects that suggestion and says that Korbanos cannot require Perishah because we do not know which Kohen will perform the Avodah with each Korban. Why does the Gemara not reject its earlier question with the same logic? (<b>GEVURAS ARI</b> and others)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Gemara's suggestion that 'l'Chaper' should teach that a Kohen needs Perishah whenever he offers Korbanos bothered Rashi for a number of reasons.
</p><p>
1. The Gemara asks that 'l'Chaper' should teach that the Kohen requires Perishah before he offers the Korbanos, and not that the Kohen Gadol needs Perishah before Yom Kippur. This teaching, however, will include the Kohen Gadol in the requirement of Perishah anyway, because of the Korbanos of Yom Kippur that he offers! (<b>TOSFOS</b> asks this question.)
</p><p>
2. Second, the Gemara answers that we do not know which Kohen will perform the Avodah of each Korban, and therefore Perishah cannot be a requirement for offering Korbanos. The Gemara's answer is not clear. A Korban Tzibur is offered at a specific time, and thus seven days before that time we should separate a Kohen who will perform the Avodah!
</p><p>
Even if the Gemara refers to a rare case of a Korban Tzibur that does not have a set time (such as the Se'irei Avodah Zarah or the Par He'elem Davar), it is still possible to choose a Kohen on the day that it becomes known that such a Korban must be offered and have him do Perishah for seven days before he offers the Korban.
</p><p>
3. The third question that bothered Rashi is that the Gemara answers that Perishah cannot be necessary for Korbanos, because Korbanos are not similar to the Milu'im. The Milu'im had a set time ('Kavu'a Lo Zeman'), while the Korbanos have no set time but are brought every day. Rashi explains that the Gemara's question refers only to Korbanos which are described by the word 'l'Chaper' (or a form thereof). However, there is no Korban Tzibur which is offered every day which is described by the word 'l'Chaper'! (It does not say 'l'Chaper' with regard to the Korban Tamid. It says 'l'Chaper' only with regard to the Chata'os of Rosh Chodesh and of the Mo'adim, but those Korbanos indeed have a set time, and thus the Gemara's answer does not apply to them.)
</p><p>
(According to an alternate Girsa in the Gemara's answer, the Gemara says, 'It is not brought on a set basis; sometimes it is brought and sometimes it is not brought.' According to this Girsa, too, the Gemara cannot be referring to the Korban Tamid or the Korbanos of the Mo'adim, because they are always brought at their given times. To what Korban Tzibur, then, does the Gemara refer?)
</p><p>
Because of these questions, Rashi has no choice but to explain that when the Gemara asks that 'l'Chaper' should teach that Korbanos require Perishah, it refers to Korbenos <i>Yachid</i>. This explains why the Kohen Gadol will not need Perishah before Yom Kippur; the Korbanos of Yom Kippur are Korbenos Tzibur (see Rashi to 6b, DH Hutrah, and Insights there). This answers the first question that bothered Rashi. 
</p><p>
This explanation also answers the second question. The Gemara says that we do not know which Kohen will bring the Korban, because the Gemara is referring to a Korban Yachid. It is never known in advance whether a Korban Yachid will be brought (for it is up to the individual who brings the Korban), and thus it is not possible to choose a Kohen seven days in advance.
</p><p>
With regard to the third question, when the Gemara says that the Korbanos are brought every day and thus they have no set time, it is referring to Korbenos Yachid and it means that they <i>could</i> be brought every day. (According to the other Girsa, the Gemara says this explicitly, 'sometimes it is brought and sometimes it is not brought.')
</p><p>
This approach explains how Rashi answered the three questions that bothered him, and it also resolves the three questions that the Acharonim ask on the Gemara and on Rashi:
</p><p>
(a) Rashi explains that the Gemara's question from the word 'Tzivah' refers to Korbenos Tzibur, because the Gemara does not answer, as it does later in response to another question, that we do not know which Kohen will perform the Avodah such that he could do Perishah. Since we know when a Korban Tzibur will be brought, it is possible to select the Kohen early and have him do Perishah. The Gemara asks only from Korbenos Tzibur at this point because it assumes that there is no question from Korbenos Yachid, as no one knows when a Korban Yachid will be brought and thus Perishah cannot be done for it.
</p><p>
(b) However, when the Gemara later asks that 'l'Chaper' should teach that Korbanos need Perishah, it refers to Korbenos Yachid because the Torah does not say 'l'Chaper' with regard to the basic Korban Tzibur, the Tamid. This is also evident from the Gemara's answer which says that we do not know which Kohen will offer the Korban; in the case of a Korban Tzibur, it <i>is</i> known which Kohen will offer the Korban because we can select the Kohen seven days before the Korban is to be offered. In the case of a Korban Yachid, though, we indeed do not know when a Yachid will need his Korban to be offered.
</p><p>
(c) When the Gemara first asks that 'Tzivah' should teach that Korbanos require Perishah, it does not answer that we do not know which Kohen will bring the Korban, because the question still would remain in the case of Korbenos Tzibur. Since we know when Korbenos Tzibur will be brought, we <i>would</i> be able to select a Kohen and separate him for seven days prior to the offering of the Korban Tzibur. The Gemara does not ask the question from 'l'Chaper' on the case of a Korban Tzibur, because the word 'l'Chaper' is not used with reference to the Tamid. As for the other Korbenos Tzibur which <i>are</i> described by the word 'l'Chaper' (those of the Mo'adim), the Gemara indeed asks immediately afterwards that the verse may be referring to the Mo'adim (because of the Korbanos that are brought on those days).
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) ESTABLISHING YOM KIPPUR AS THE ONLY DAY WITH PERISHAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps the day is Shavuos (one to seven)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We connect a day with one Ayil (Miluim) with 
          another (Yom ha'Kipurim), not with two Aylim (by 
          Shavuos).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But what of the opinion of R. Elazar b. R. 
          Shimon that Yom ha'Kipurim has two Aylim?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Even so, one is an obligation of the day, and one 
          is a Musaf, as opposed to Shavuos where both are Chovas 
          ha'Yom.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps the day is Rosh ha'Shanah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> We connect the days where the animals come 
          from the pocket of the one offering (Miluim and Yom 
          ha'Kipurim), not where they come from communal coffers 
          (Rosh ha'Shanah).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AN AMORA WHO ARGUES WITH A TANA </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes Rebbi Yochanan who says that the Torah requires Perishah only for the Avodah of Yom Kippur, but not for preparing the Parah Adumah. The Perishah of Parah Adumah is merely a 'Ma'aleh b'Alma.' The Gemara asks that earlier (2a) Rebbi Yochanan said that <i>both</i> Yom Kippur and Parah Adumah require Perishah. The Gemara answers that the earlier statement of Rebbi Yochanan was said in the name of his teacher, Rebbi Yishmael. Rebbi Yochanan himself, however, maintains that only Yom Kippur needs Perishah.
</p><p>
How can Rebbi Yochanan, an Amora, argue with Rebbi Yishmael, a Tana? (<b>TOSFOS</b> in Kesuvos 8a, DH Rav, proves that Rebbi Yochanan was a full-fledged Amora and cannot argue with a Tana, unlike Rav who had the status of a Tana and was entitled to argue with a Tana.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH d'Rabei) explains that the Gemara (4a) cites proof from a Beraisa for Rebbi Yochanan's opinion that the requirement for Perishah is derived from the Milu'im. The text of that Beraisa in our edition of the Gemara says that both the Perishah of Yom Kippur and the Perishah of Parah Adumah are derived from the Milu'im. Tosfos points out that from Rashi's words it appears that the text of the Beraisa should <i>omit</i> the Perishah of Parah Adumah and say only that one Perishah is derived from the Milu'im (the Perishah of Yom Kippur). Accordingly, Rebbi Yochanan's opinion has support from a Tana in a Beraisa. Rebbi Yochanan sides with that Tana when he argues with Rebbi Yishmael.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos gives a second answer. From the fact that Rebbi Yochanan earlier quotes Rebbi Yishmael as saying that the Torah requires Perishah for both Yom Kippur and Parah Adumah, it is evident that Rebbi Yochanan had a Beraisa (which is not quoted explicitly in the Gemara) which recorded the view of Rebbi Yishmael. That Beraisa apparently recorded the view of Rebbi Yishmael, who said that the Torah requires two Perishos, as well as the view of the Rabanan, who said that the Torah requires only one Perishah (that of Yom Kippur). Rebbi Yochanan here relies on the view of the Rabanan of that Beraisa when he argues with Rebbi Yishmael. 
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But what of the opinion that the Miluim 
               came from communal funds?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa teaches that Kach L'cha and Asei L'cha 
               mean from your personal funds.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b><font>  (R. Yoshiyah):</font></b> ve'Yikchu Elecha means communal 
                    funds.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> (R. Yochanan) Kach Lecha and ve'Yikchu Elecha 
                    mean communal funds. When it says 'Kach L'cha 
                    by the Ketores,' it does not mean communal 
                    funds. Rather, it means that so to speak, 
                    Hash-m prefers the personal Ketores of Moshe 
                    Rabeinu to that of Bnei Yisrael.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> There seem to be contradictory Pesukim 
               regarding the funding source of the Aron?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> When Yisrael does His will, the Aron is 
               credited to them; if not (after the Egel) it is 
               credited to Moshe.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The dispute pertains to unspecified Kichos 
               (like by the Ketores) and Asiyos (like the 
               Chatzotzros), not by specified Kichos like the 
               Miluim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> The source for personal funds by Miluim is Vayikra 
               9:3.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b></b> The source by Yom ha'Kipurim is Vayikra 16:3.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> We connect days with one Chatas and one Olah 
          and not days (Shavuos and Rosh ha'Shanah) where both are 
          Olos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #3 (Ravina):</font></b> We connect days where the Avodah is 
          done by the Kohen Gadol (excluding all other days).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer #3:</font></b> We connect Avodah Techilah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What is Techilah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The first Avodah is done by the Kohen Gadol.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But that is the same as Answer #3?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It means the Kohen enters the first time.
<br>
<b><font>2) ONE PERISHAH OR TWO?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Dimi citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> There is one Perishah (Yom 
          ha'Kipurim- 'La'asos Lechaper').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Dimi citing R. Yehoshua b. Levi):</font></b> There are two 
          Perishos (Parah- 'La'asos'; Yom ha'Kipurim- 'Lechaper').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Mishnah teaches that there are two?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is only a stringency by Parah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But R. Yochanan learned two Perishos from the 
          Pesukim!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That was his Rebbi's opinion, not his own (as we 
          find him elsewhere citing this position as R. 
          Yishmael's).
<br>
<b><font>3) R. YOCHANAN AND RESH LAKISH ON THE SOURCE OF PERISHAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Resh Lakish of R. Yochanan):</font></b> It appears that 
          the Perishah before Yom ha'Kipurim is Me'akev, as it is 
          by Miluim!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> And if so... why does our Mishnah speak of Mesaknin 
               a substitute Kohen, it should say Mafrishin!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> And if they both mean the same thing, then why does 
               the Mishnah switch words?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is Resh Lakish's source?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Moshe's segregation before going up to Har Sinai.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is found in Shemos 24:17.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Hash-m calls Moshe on the seventh day.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> This establishes a six day segregation before any 
               encounter with the Shechinah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But our Mishnah teaches <i>seven</i> days?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Our Mishnah is the opinion of R. Yehudah b. 
          Beseira who reckons with the possibility of <i>Tum'as</i> 
          Beiso.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE REASON FOR SEVEN DAYS OF 'PERISHAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Reish Lakish derives the obligation to do Perishah from the Torah's account of Moshe Rabeinu's ascent to Har Sinai. Just as Moshe Rabeinu was required to do Perishah for six days before he approached the Shechinah, so, too, the Kohen Gadol is required to do Perishah before he enters the Kodesh ha'Kodashim on Yom Kippur.
</p><p>
From where, though, is the <i>seventh</i> day of Perishah derived? The Gemara answers that the Rabanan decreed that the Kohen Gadol separate for an additional day due to a concern that he might have had relations with his wife when she was a Nidah (that is, she discovered that she was a Nidah immediately after they separated), in which case he would be Tamei for seven days (as Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah says later on 6a).
</p><p>
If this is the source for the seventh day of Perishah, then why does the Gemara need to derive the first six days from the Perishah of Moshe Rabeinu? <i>All</i> seven days of Perishah are necessary due to the concern that the Kohen Gadol is Tamei as a result of being with his wife while she was a Nidah. The requirement for Perishah is a practical concern, to ensure that the Kohen Gadol is Tahor.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> answers that, indeed, according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah no other source is needed to teach the requirement of Perishah. (Those who derive it from Sinai or from the Milu'im follow the view of the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah and are not concerned that the Kohen Gadol will be Tamei as a result of relations with a Nidah. Consequently, perhaps they require only six days of Perishah.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b>, and the Tosfos ha'Rosh in his second answer, explain that only six days of Perishah are required mid'Oraisa, as derived from Sinai. The <i>Rabanan</i> added a seventh day of Perishah because of a concern that the Kohen Gadol might have had relations with a Nidah.
</p><p>
Had there been no Torah-source for Perishah in the first place, the Rabanan would not have instituted seven days of Perishah merely because of a concern that the Kohen might have had relations with a Nidah.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> says that if Perishah is necessary only because of the concern that the Kohen Gadol might have had relations with a Nidah, then it would suffice to require him merely to leave his home and his wife for seven days. Why must he be sequestered specifically in the Lishkas Parhedrin for seven days? It must be that Perishah is done to prepare him for an act of <i>Kedushah</i> -- entry into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim -- and not merely to prevent him from becoming Tamei. The source that the Kohen Gadol must be prepared for an act of Kedushah is derived from Moshe Rabeinu at Har Sinai.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) R. YOCHANAN AND RESH LAKISH ON THE SOURCE OF PERISHAH (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> According to Resh Lakish (who learns Perishah 
          from Sinai) where was there sprinkling at Har Sinai?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> And is it better for R. Yochanan (Milu'im 
               was blood and Parah is water)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The water substitutes for the blood.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It was only a Ma'alah which Chazal added to 
          Parah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  One Beraisa supports R. Yochanan and another Resh Lakish.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa supporting R. Yochanan explains be'Zos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It refers to the Perishah of Aharon for seven days.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa mentions Moshe's role during that time.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> An extension of Moshe's role is carried out by two 
               'students of Moshe.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Chazal extended this Perishah to Parah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> Both Perishos involve sprinkling (and water takes 
               the place of blood).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa cites a second Pasuk, which is explained 
               as before, La'asos- Parah; Lechaper- Yom ha'Kipurim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the word 'be'Zos' is needed internally?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'be'Zos' (as opposed to ba'Zeh or be'Eileh) 
          teaches two lessons.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Why did the Beraisa need a second Pasuk?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> We might have erred, limiting the Perishah 
               to either the first Kohen or to the first Yom 
               ha'Kipurim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa supporting Resh Lakish shows (according to 
          Rashi) how R. Yosi ha'Gelili learns Perishah (for all 
          times) from Sinai.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> There is a dispute regarding which days had a 
               covering of a cloud (and what was being covered).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Yosi Ha'Gelili):</font></b> These six days are after the 
               Aseres ha'Dibros.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (R. Akiva):</font></b> These days are the first six days of 
               Sivan.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  The cloud covered not Moshe, but the mountain. 
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Moshe was called on the seventh day (for the 
                    Aseres ha'Dibros) and B'nei Yisrael stood and 
                    heard.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> (R. Noson):</font></b> Only Moshe needed Perishah, in order to 
               cleanse away his food (not required for all times).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> (R. Masia b. Cheresh):</font></b> The Perishah was to instill 
               trepidation in Moshe (the proper mood to receive 
               Torah).
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Rejoice with trembling seems contradictory. 
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Where there is joy (receiving Torah) there 
                    should be trembling.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the basis of the dispute between R. 
          Yosi ha'Gelili and R. Akiva?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Their dispute parallels a dispute over which day 
          the Torah was given (sixth or seventh of Sivan).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi ha'Gelili aligns with the Tana Kama who 
               holds the sixth (since the Tana Kama cannot agree 
               with R. Akiva, as the Gemara explains).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva aligns with R. Yosi who holds the seventh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How does the 40 day count to 17 Tamuz work 
          according to R. Yosi ha'Gelili (who has the Perishah 
          <i>after</i> the Aseres ha'Dibros)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The forty days includes these six of Perishah.
<br>
<b><font>2) HEARING THE VOICE OF HASH-M</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva (in 1.g.3.ii. above) supports R. Elazar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar also taught that Moshe heard as did the 
               people.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Pasuk singles out Moshe only to honor him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa teaches that only Moshe heard?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> They all heard Sinai; whereas only Moshe heard 
          the voice at the Ohel Moed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Keriah was heard by all; Dibur was heard only 
          by Moshe.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE IMPENETRABLE CLOUD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> One Pasuk has the cloud being impenetrable, and 
          another has Moshe walking right into it!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Hash-m grabbed Moshe, bringing him into the 
          cloud.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> The cloud parted as did the sea.
<br>
<b><font>4) LESSONS IN DERECH ERETZ</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is Keriah before Dibur?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> To teach the Derech Eretz of calling a person 
          before speaking to him (supported by R. Chanina).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Also from these Pesukim we learn to protect 
          confidentiality.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE SOURCE FOR 'HAZA'AH' DURING THE PERIOD OF 'PERISHAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that just as Haza'ah with blood was performed on Aharon ha'Kohen for seven days in the Mishkan at the time of the Milu'im, so, too, Haza'ah with water is performed on the Kohen Gadol before Yom Kippur, and on the Kohen who prepares the Parah Adumah, for all seven days of their Perishah. Even though the original Haza'ah was done with blood, 'water comes and takes the place of blood' ('Nichnas Mayim Tachas Dam').
</p><p>
Why is the Haza'ah of water comparable to the Haza'ah of blood, such that one can be learned from the other? Water is used to be Metaher the Kohen from Tum'as Mes, a process entirely unrelated to the Haza'ah of blood.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> explains that although the two Haza'os are not similar to each other, the Gemara derives merely the general requirement to perform a Haza'ah during Perishah from the Haza'ah of the Milu'im. It does not derive the specific type of Haza'ah from there.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Nichnesu) suggests that according to this Tana, the source from the Milu'im is only an Asmachta. The simple meaning of the verse is that the procedures which are done on the first day of the Milu'im must also be done <i>all seven</i> days of the Milu'im; the verse does not refer to Yom Kippur or Parah Adumah. The verse is merely an Asmachta upon which the Rabanan relied as a support for the requirement of Perishah for Yom Kippur and Parah Adumah.
</p><p>
Tosfos proves this from the Gemara later (8a) which gives a different reason for the Haza'ah during Perishah. The Gemara there says that each day of the Perishah might be the third or seventh day after the Kohen touched a corpse. Accordingly, the reason for Haza'ah is unrelated to the verse of the Milu'im. It must be that the verse is only an Asmachta. (It appears that Tosfos says this only according to the Tana who authored the Beraisa that mentions only one Perishah (see Insights to Yoma 3:1). According to the Tana who mentions two Perishos, the requirement of Perishah is mid'Oraisa, as is clear from the discussion at the beginning of the chapter about how to explain the verse.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) DERIVING 'PERISHAH' FOR YOM KIPPUR FROM MOSHE RABEINU'S 'PERISHAH' AT SINAI</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites support from a Beraisa for Reish Lakish's opinion that the Kohen Gadol's requirement of Perishah before Yom Kippur is derived from Sinai. Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili in the Beraisa says that a cloud covered Moshe Rabeinu for six days, and only on the seventh day did Moshe Rabeinu ascend the mountain to the place of the Shechinah (Machaneh Shechinah).
</p><p>
How does Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili's statement in the Beraisa about the Perishah of Moshe Rabeinu at Sinai teach the requirement for Perishah of Yom Kippur?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Tanya) answers that the Gemara later (4b) quotes Rebbi Elazar, a student of Rebbi Yochanan, who agrees with Rebbi Akiva's opinion that the six-day Perishah at Sinai was done <i>prior</i> to Matan Torah. It is likely, therefore, that Rebbi Elazar's teacher, Rebbi Yochanan, also followed the view of Rebbi Akiva (as the Gemara says in Shekalim 7b).
</p><p>
Why, though, did Rebbi Yochanan follow the view of Rebbi Akiva if Rebbi Akiva's opinion is less consistent with the verses than Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili's opinion? Moreover, two other Tana'im in the Beraisa disagree with Rebbi Akiva and maintain that Moshe Rabeinu's Perishah <i>followed</i> Matan Torah, and thus Rebbi Yochanan should have agreed with the majority opinion and not with Rebbi Akiva. It must be that Rebbi Yochanan sided with Rebbi Akiva only because he had a tradition that the Milu'im is the source for Perishah. If Moshe Rabeinu practiced Perishah before he ascended Har Sinai, then it is much more logical to derive Perishah of the Kohen Gadol from the Perishah at Sinai, as Reish Lakish says, than to derive it from the Milu'im. Moshe Rabeinu's Perishah at Har Sinai was done in preparation for his entry into the Machaneh Shechinah, similar to the purpose for which the Perishah of the Kohen Gadol before Yom Kippur is done. 
</p><p>
Accordingly, Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili's opinion serves as support for Reish Lakish. (This appears to be the intention of Tosfos. See the <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> who discusses Tosfos at length.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> and <b>SI'ACH YITZCHAK</b> explain that it is clear from the Beraisa that Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili maintains that the Perishah at Sinai is the source for the Kohen Gadol's Perishah before Yom Kippur. Rebbi Nasan in the Beraisa argues with Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili and says that the Perishah of Moshe Rabeinu was done to 'digest the remains of food in his intestines.' Since both Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili agree that Moshe Rabeinu's Perishah was done after Matan Torah as Rashi explains, in what respect do Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili disagree?
</p><p>
It must be that they disagree about whether the Kohen Gadol needs Perishah every year before Yom Kippur. Rebbi Nasan maintains that only Moshe Rabeinu needed Perishah, since he would have no food for forty days while in Shamayim and would live like an angel (as Rashi explains). Rebbi Yosi asserts that Moshe Rabeinu's Perishah was a preparatory act for entry into the Machaneh Shechinah, and thus the Kohen Gadol similarly needs to do Perishah before every Yom Kippur.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) BACK TO RESH LAKISH AND R. YOCHANAN (bottom of 4b)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  We may infer that they both hold that whatever is written 
          in the Parshas Miluim is Me'akev (aligning with one side 
          in the Machlokes below).
<br>
<b><font>2) R. YOCHANAN AND R. CHANINA ON WHAT IS ME'AKEV BY MILUIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  There is a Machklokes whether all details of the Miluim 
          are Me'akev, or only those details which are normally 
          Me'akev.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  We may conclude that R. Yochanan is of the opinion that 
          all the details are Me'akev.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is based on the question which Resh Lakish 
               asked on R. Yochanan (that if Perishah is learned 
               from Miluim then it should be Me'akev by Yom 
               ha'Kipurim, as well).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan, by not responding, showed his 
               agreement.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Of what (Halachic) difference is their dispute?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> Semichah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How do we know that Semichah is normally 
               not Me'akev?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> From a Beraisa which speaks of Semichah as 
               the Kaparah of the Korban, but in the end teaches 
               that its absence does not prevent the Kaparah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> Tenufah (same Q&amp;A sequence follows as above).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> Perishas Shiv'a.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Whence that Perishah is normally not 
               Me'akev?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Because the substitute Kohen is not 
               segregated.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #4:</font></b> Ribui Begadim and Meshichah during the seven 
          days.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Whence that these are normally not 
               Me'akev?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa learns it from 'Asher Yimshach 
               Oso va'Asher Yemalei Es Yado'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Then whence that Meshichas Shivah is even 
               a Mitzvah Lechatchilah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer #1:</font></b> The Pasuk in Tetzaveh links Meshichah to 
               Ribui Begadim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason for saying that all details 
          of the Miluim are Me'akev?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The word 'Kachah' in Parshas Tetzaveh implies 
          Ikuv.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE PARTS OF THE 'MILU'IM' SERVICE WHICH ARE 'ME'AKEV'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Chanina disagree about which parts of the Avodah of the Milu'im were Me'akev (that is, without them, the Milu'im service would have been invalid). Rebbi Yochanan (according to the Gemara's conclusion on 4b) maintains that all of the parts of the Avodah that are written in the Torah in the Parshah of Milu'im (in Parshas Tetzaveh) were Me'akev. Rebbi Chanina maintains that only the parts that are Me'akev in the Beis ha'Mikdash for all future Avodos ('Me'akev l'Doros') were Me'akev the Milu'im. The Gemara asks what the practical difference is between the two opinions. Several Amora'im suggest various parts of the Avodah which are not Me'akev l'Doros but which are written in the Parshah of Milu'im and thus might have been Me'akev the Milu'im, depending on the two opinions. The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> points out that all of the differences are correct and that the Amora'im are not arguing with each other.
</p><p>
The <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> asks that the Gemara should have mentioned another part of the Avodah which is not Me'akev l'Doros but which is written in the Parshah of Milu'im. The Gemara says that the source for Rebbi Yochanan's opinion that all parts of the Avodah that are written in the Parshah of Milu'im were Me'akev is the verse, 'You shall do unto Aharon and his sons <i>as such</i> (Kachah)' (Shemos 29:35). The Gemara says that 'Kachah' means that all of the parts of the Avodah were Me'akev. The Gemara asks that while this verse teaches that everything written in the Parshah of Milu'im was Me'akev, what is the source that parts of the Avodah of the Milu'im that are <i>not</i> written in the Parshah were also Me'akev? The Gemara answers by citing several verses that teach that any part of the Milu'im, even those that are not written in the Parshah of Milu'im, were Me'akev.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that when the Gemara asks about the parts of the Milu'im that are not written in the Parshah, it refers to the act of placing the Urim v'Tumim into the Choshen. There is no command about the Urim v'Tumim in Parshas Tetzaveh, but in Parshas Tzav the Torah says that they placed the Urim v'Tumim into the Choshen. This part of the Milu'im was also Me'akev, as the Gemara teaches.
</p><p>
The Gevuras Ari asks that when the Gemara looks for parts of the Avodah which are not Me'akev l'Doros but which were Me'akev the Milu'im, why does it not mention the act of placing the Urim v'Tumim into the Choshen? The Urim v'Tumim is not Me'akev l'Doros (as there was no Urim v'Tumim in the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash (21b)), but it was Me'akev in the Avodah of the Milu'im.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> explains that perhaps the Urim v'Tumim <i>is</i> Me'akev l'Doros. <b>TOSFOS</b> (21b) says that without the Urim v'Tumim, the Kohen Gadol is considered 'Mechusar Begadim,' he lacks the garments which he is required to wear. The reason why the Kohen Gadol was permitted to perform the Avodah in the second Beis ha'Mikdash was because he <i>wore</i> the Urim v'Tumim. When the Gemara says that there was no Urim v'Tumim during the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash, it means that they did not seek divine guidance through the Urim v'Tumim. This is also the opinion of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 4:1), in contrast to the view of the <b>RA'AVAD</b> who says that the Urim v'Tumim was not present at all during the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
This answer is problematic. If the Urim v'Tumim indeed is Me'akev l'Doros (because the Kohen is Mechusar Begadim without it), then obviously it was also Me'akev the Milu'im. The Gemara discusses only whether there are parts of the Avodah which are <i>not</i> Me'akev l'Doros which were done in the Milu'im. However, the parts of the Avodah which <i>are</i> Me'akev l'Doros certainly are Me'akev the Milu'im! Why, then, does the Gemara need a verse to prove that the Urim v'Tumim is Me'akev the Milu'im? Perhaps the Gevuras Ari understands that the Gemara, when it discusses whether the Urim v'Tumim is Me'akev, is no longer discussing the specific laws of the Milu'im. Rather, the Gemara has changed subjects and is now attempting to prove that the Urim v'Tumim is Me'akev l'Doros. It is Me'akev because it is considered a garment ('Beged'), and without it the Kohen is Mechusar Begadim. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps the Amora'im do not mention the Urim v'Tumim as a difference between the two opinions because it is obvious that the two opinions argue about it. Since the Amora'im here (5b) cite additional verses to prove that the Urim v'Tumim is Me'akev the Milu'im according to the opinion that everything mentioned in the Parshah is Me'akev, it is obvious that the two opinions argue about the Urim v'Tumim. The practical differences (mentioned on 5a) between the two opinions are in <i>addition</i> to the Urim v'Tumim.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> in the name of <b>RABEINU TAM</b> explains the Gemara here differently from Rashi. When the Gemara asks for the source that parts of the Avodah which are not written in Parshas Tetzaveh nevertheless are Me'akev the Milu'im, it does not refer to the Urim v'Tumim. Rather, it refers to the requirement of Perishah, separating for seven days, which is not written with the other directives for the Milu'im in Parshas Tetzaveh, but is written in Parshas Tzav (Vayikra 8:33). That part of the Avodah <i>is</i> mentioned as one of the differences between the two opinions (as stated by Rav Papa on 5a). Accordingly, perhaps the Gemara maintains that the placing of the Urim v'Tumim in the Choshen is <i>not</i> Me'akev even according to the opinion that <i>everything</i> in the Parshah of Milu'im is Me'akev, because there is no specific commandment to place the Urim v'Tumim in the Choshen for the Milu'im.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But what about the details in Parshas Tzav 
          where the word 'Kachah' does not appear?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> A Gezeirah Shavah connects the two Parshios.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> 'Mishmeres' in Parshas Tzav implies Ikuv.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer #3:</font></b> 'Ki Chen Tziveisi' means that it is all 
          l'Ikuva.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa explores the meaning of the repetition 
               of 'Tziveisi, Tziveisi' and 'Tzivah Hash-m'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The first, that the Korban should be eaten 
               ba'Aninus; the second was the (erroneous) ruling in 
               this case; the third was to indicate that this 
               ruling is not in error, but rather the commandof 
               Hash-m.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  The Michnasayim and Asiris ha'Eifah are not written in 
          the Parshah, but are included with a D'rashah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Unlike the Michnasayim, Asiris ha'Eifah is not 
          written here at all, so where do we learn it as an 
          obligation during the Miluim
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Gezeirah Shavah from 'Zeh Zeh'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Whence that even reading the Parshah is 
          Me'akev?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'ha'Davar Asher Tzivah Hash-m'.
<br>
<b><font>3) DONNING THE BIGDEI KEHUNAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> In what order did Moshe dress Aharon and his 
          sons?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Whatever was, was!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But how <i>will</i> they Kohanim be dressed?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> In the days to come we will see how Moshe dresses 
          Aharon!!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> We wish to know the order to understand the 
          Pasuk.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Pesukim seem to contradict, were they dressed 
               together or separately?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It is a dispute whether he dressed Aharon first or 
               both together.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (Abaye):</font></b> The dispute is only regarding the Avnet.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) AHARON AND HIS SONS DONNING THE BIGDEI KEHUNAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How can he maintain that Moshe dressed Aharon 
          and his sons together, given that the Pesukim clearly 
          refer to two donnings, one singular and one plural?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They are different not in the donning, but in 
          their composition (linen with wool vs. linen alone).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How can he maintain that they were donned in 
          succession given the Pasuk written in the plural?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That Pasuk teaches that their composition is the 
          same.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then why do we have the singular and then 
          plural donnings in the Pasuk?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It must be that they were donned in succession.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How can he maintain that Moshe dressed Aharon 
          and his sons Begadim together, a feat that seems 
          impossible!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There was sequence (but no interruption).
<br>
<b><font>2) SEGREGATING THE KOHEN GADOL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is he segregated?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> What do you mean! It has been completely dealt with!
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  According to R. Yochanan- it is learned from 
                    Miluim. 
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Resh Lakish- Sinai.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We meant why can't he remain at home?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Lest he cohabit with his wife in a state of 
          doubtful <i>Tum'ah</i>.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Are we dealing with evildoers!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We mean that he might cohabit and then discover 
          doubtful <i>Tum'ah</i>.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This follows the opinion of R. Akiva that a Nidah 
               generates retroactive <i>Tum'ah</i>.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This implies that one who cohabits with a Nidah 
          is not as stringent as the Nidah herself (since she can 
          immerse only on the night <i>after</i> her seventh day, 
          whereas he immerses <i>on</i> the seventh day, [otherwise the 
          Kohen would need eight days, not seven].
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, they may be the same, and we separate the 
          Kohen just prior to the onset of the first day.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa teaches that there <i>is</i> this 
          difference?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa means to include in Nidah all related 
          <i>Tum'ah</i>.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa equates the Bo'el Nidah with a 
          Tamei Mes (apparently to allow immersion during the day)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, they are equated regarding the duration of 
          their <i>Tum'ah</i>.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the duration of both is explicit in the 
          Pasuk (It must be as we assumed, immersion by day)!?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) LETTING THE KOHEN GADOL STAY WITH HIS WIFE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara asks why the Kohen Gadol must separate from his wife during his Perishah before Yom Kippur. She should be permitted to remain in isolation together with him.
</p><p>
How can the Gemara suggest that the Kohen Gadol remain together with his wife when he isolates himself in the Lishkas Parhedrin? The Lishkah is located in the Azarah (11a), and a Ba'al Keri is prohibited not only from entering the Azarah but also from entering any part of Har ha'Bayis altogether (Pesachim 67b). How, then, could the Kohen Gadol be permitted to remain there with his wife?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH mi'Beiso) proves that the Lishkas Parhedrin does not have the Kedushah of the Azarah. If it did, the Kohen Gadol would be required to stand there for all seven days without sitting down at all, because one is forbidden to sit in the Azarah. Therefore, a Ba'al Keri is also permitted to be there.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH mi'Beiso) rejects this answer. He argues that even if the Lishkah does not have the Kedushah of the Azarah because it opens into Har ha'Bayis and not into the Azarah (and as a result it is considered part of Har ha'Bayis and not part of the Azarah, and thus sitting there is permitted), it still has the Kedushah of <i>Har ha'Bayis</i>, and a Ba'al Keri is not permitted to enter Har ha'Bayis.
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi means that the Lishkah does not have Kedushah at all because it is built on the roof of another structure. The Gemara in Pesachim (86a) teaches that the roofs of the structures on Har ha'Bayis do not have Kedushah at all.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> and the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> explain that the Gemara's question is why the Kohen Gadol must isolate himself in the Azarah in the first place; let him go to a place which has no Kedushas Azarah, such as the underground chambers (Mechilos) beneath Har ha'Bayis (which have no Kedushah, as the Gemara says in Pesachim 86a).
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> adds that the Kohen Gadol does not have to be in seclusion for the entirety of the seven days. He is permitted to go out for short periods of time to take care of his needs, just as Aharon ha'Kohen went out of the Machaneh Leviyah during his Perishah at the time of the Milu'im (his Perishah was in the Mishkan, and the Mishkan was dismantled every night and had no Kedushah when it was dismantled). The Gemara's question is that even though the Kohen Gadol is isolated in the Azarah, he should be allowed to go out to meet his wife in the underground chambers during the short periods that he goes out of seclusion.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) SEPARATING THE KOHEN GADOL FROM A 'SAFEK NIDAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that the Kohen Gadol must separate from his wife during the seven days of Perishah, because if he is allowed to be with her she might discover that she is a Nidah a short time after they have relations. Consequently, she had the status of a Safek Nidah at the time they were together.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara not say simply that she might discover <i>immediately</i> afterwards that she is a Nidah, and thus she had the status of a <i>Vadai</i> Nidah at the time they were together?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Nidah (15a) and the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> here explain that there is no concern that she will discover that she is a Nidah immediately after relations, because such a case is very unusual. The only concern is that she will discover that she is a Nidah a short time afterwards, in which case she had the status of a Safek Nidah at the time they were together.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS RID</b> says that the Gemara's intention is to emphasize how important it is that the Kohen remain Tahor on Yom Kippur. In order to ensure his Taharah, the Rabanan instituted an enactment that will prevent the Kohen Gadol from inadvertently living even with a Safek Nidah, and not only with a Vadai Nidah. 
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, the comparison of the Beraisa is for the 
          Seifa (to differentiate regarding <i>Tum'as</i> Mishkav and 
          Moshav).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> A Beraisa explicitly teaches the difference of 
          day and night between the Bo'el Nidah and the Nidah 
          herself!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This is, indeed, a Tiyuvta on R. Shimi.
<br>
<b><font>3) 'TUM'AS' HAMES HUTRAH OR DECHUYAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps we should segregate him from all people 
          (lest he become Tamei Mes)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Rava):</font></b> The fact that we do not seems to imply 
               <i>Tum'as</i> Mes is Hutrah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Ravina):</font></b> It could still be Dechuyah, and we do not 
               concern ourselves with such an unlikely scenario.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The matter is a Machlokes, which can be understood two 
          ways.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Nachman- Hutrah; R. Sheishes- Dechuyah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  First Lashon:</font></b> 
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> When a Tahor Kohen from that Beis Av is available, 
               all agree that he (not the Tamei) does the Avodah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Machlokes is whether, if all the Kohanim of that 
               Beis Av are Tamei, to get a Tahor Kohen from a 
               different Beis Av (Dechuyah), or not (Hutrah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Second Lashon:</font></b> The Machlokes is even when a Tahor Kohen 
          from that Beis Av is available whether (Hutrah) or not 
          (Dechuyah) the Kohen Tamei may serve.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE PRIVATE KORBAN OF THE KOHEN GADOL OVERRIDES 'TUM'AH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara points out that the Kohen Gadol is isolated only from his wife to prevent him from becoming Tamei with Tum'as Bo'el Nidah (or Safek Nidah). He is not isolated from all other people to prevent him from becoming Tamei with Tum'as Mes. The Gemara proves from here that 'Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur': even if the Kohen Gadol becomes Tamei, he may perform the Avodah, even l'Chatchilah, for a Korban Tzibur while he is Tamei with Tum'as Mes.
</p><p>
However, besides the Korbanos that the Kohen Gadol offers on Yom Kippur on behalf of the Tzibur, he also brings a Korban Yachid for himself (the Par and Ayil of the Kohen Gadol). The principle of 'Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur' applies only to a Korban of the Tzibur, but not to an individual's private Korban. The Gemara (7a) teaches that the 'Ayil of Aharon' of Yom Kippur is a Korban Yachid. (Although that Korban is similar to a Korban Tzibur in that it has a set time ('Zeman Kavu'a'), it is not considered a Korban Tzibur because it is not owned by the Tzibur.) Why does the Gemara here assume that the Kohen Gadol may offer all of the Korbanos of Yom Kippur while he is Tamei with Tum'as Mes?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> explains that the Par of Aharon, although privately owned, is considered a Korban Tzibur (so that Tum'ah is Hutrah for it). It is considered a Korban Tzibur because the atonement of the Tzibur depends on it, since its blood must be sprinkled in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim together with the blood of the Sa'ir (the Korban which provides atonement for the Tzibur). The Acharonim (see <b>SI'ACH YITZCHAK</b>) explain that this is also the intention of Rashi (DH Hutrah) when he says that 'the Korban [of the Jewish people] depends on it' (on the Par of Aharon).
</p><p>
However, this explains only why the Kohen Gadol's Par is considered a Korban Tzibur. Why, though, is his <i>Ayil</i> considered a Korban Tzibur, such that Tum'ah is Hutrah for it?
</p><p>
The Ritva explains that the principle of 'Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur' means that every effort must be made to avoid offering a Korban in a state of Tum'ah. The Gemara here is not discussing the actual offering of the Korban in a state of Tum'ah. Rather, the Gemara is discussing whether the Rabanan were so stringent as to require that the Kohen Gadol separate from all people for seven days to avoid becoming Tamei with Tum'as Mes. He is <i>not</i> actually Tamei with Tum'as Mes now. With regard to the extent of effort that must be exerted in order to ensure that the Ayil is not offered in a state of Tum'ah, the Rabanan said that Tum'ah is Hutrah and did not require that such extreme measures be taken to prevent the Kohen Gadol from becoming Tamei with Tum'as Mes.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, the Ritva in the name of <b>TOSFOS</b> says that the fact that the Ayil of Aharon cannot be offered in a state of Tum'ah (since it is not a Korban Tzibur) is <i>not</i> a reason to require that the Kohen Gadol separate from all people for seven days. Since it is only a single Korban, and it is only a Korban Yachid, the Rabanan did not find it necessary to separate the Kohen Gadol from all people merely to ensure that he brings his Ayil in a state of Taharah. (If he becomes Tamei, he will not bring his Ayil.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> (DH v'Tisbera) and the <b>SHA'AGAS ARYEH</b> (#38) answer that mid'Oraisa anything that has a set time (Zeman Kavu'a) is <i>Hutrah</i> b'Tzibur, even if it is a Korban Yachid. When the Gemara later says that the Ayil of Aharon is not offered in a state of Tum'ah because it is a Korban Yachid, it means that the <i>Rabanan</i> decreed that it not be offered. The Rabanan decreed that Tum'ah be avoided because the Ayil is a private Korban. Since mid'Oraisa it may be offered in a state of Tum'ah because it has a set time, the Rabanan did not require that the Kohen Gadol separate for seven days from all people to avoid becoming Tamei with Tum'as Mes. (See also <b>TOSFOS</b> to 8a, DH Iy Savar.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) 'TUM'AS' HAMES HUTRAH OR DECHUYAH (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Sheishes taught that his source is a Beraisa.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If possible, we replace a Tamei Omer with a Tahor 
               one.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This establishes <i>Tum'ah</i> as Dechuyah, not Hutrah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Nachman responds that all agree by that which would be 
          eaten (if Tahor) that we attempt to bring Tahor.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But a Beraisa teaches the same regarding non- 
          edible offerings?!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa lists the Minchas Parim, Eilim and 
               Kevasim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We assume these to be the Menachos of Musfei 
               ha'Chag.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, each item has an alternate explanation for 
          why we seek to replace it with a Minchah Tehorah:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Parim- of Avodah Zarah (Tzibur but not time-set).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Eilim- Aharon's Korban on Yom ha'Kipurim (Yachid).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Kevasim- Minchas Keves ha'Omer (edible parts).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But why should the Beraisa penalize one who 
          brings Dam Tamei be'Meizid (if <i>Tum'ah</i> is Hutrah)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That is by a Korban Yachid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do we need Ritzui Tzitz if <i>Tum'ah</i> is 
          Hutrah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> For Korbenos Yachid.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> For Korbenos Tzibur without a set time.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa says explicitly that <i>Tum'ah</i> is 
          Hutrah!
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Pasuk teaches that the Tzitz carried the Avon.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The only possible Avon is <i>Tum'ah</i>, a leniency which 
               is likely since <i>Tum'ah</i> is <i>Hutrah</i> be'Tzibur!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: KEEPING ONE'S MIND ON THE TEFILIN</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara states that one may not remove his mind from his Tefilin while he wears them. This prohibition is derived from the Tzitz of the Kohen Gadol. The Torah commands that the Tzitz must be 'constantly (Tamid) on his forehead' (Shemos 28:37), which means that the Kohen Gadol may not remove his mind from the Tzitz while he wears it. The Gemara derives a Kal v'Chomer from the Tzitz to the Tefilin: if one must keep his mind on the Tzitz, which has only one name of Hash-m on it, then certainly one must keep his mind on the Tefilin, which has many names of Hash-m written in it. (According to Tosfos (8a, DH u'Ma), this Kal v'Chomer is only an Asmachta mid'Rabanan.)
</p><p>
What is considered a 'Hesech ha'Da'as,' a mental interruption, from one's Tefilin while he wears them?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>SHA'AGAS ARYEH</b> (#39) records two opinions. The first opinion is that of <b>RABEINU YONAH</b>, as cited by the <b>ROSH</b> in Berachos (3:28). Rabeinu Yonah points out that the Gemara in Sukah (26b) explicitly states that one is permitted to take a short nap ('Shinas Arai') while he wears Tefilin. Why is a short nap permitted? It should be considered a 'Hesech ha'Da'as,' as one cannot concentrate on his Tefilin while he is asleep.
</p><p>
Rabeinu Yonah answers that it must be that 'Hesech ha'Da'as' does not mean that one must keep his mind on the Tefilin constantly. Rather, it means that one may not act lightheadedly and frivolously while he wears the Tefilin. As long as one's mood is somber and he conducts himself with awe of his Creator, his lack of conscious focus on his Tefilin it is not considered a 'Hesech ha'Da'as.' One who dozes off with his Tefilin upon him is not acting frivolously. On the contrary, while he dozes he is less aware of the frivolities of this world, and thus dozing is not considered a 'Hesech ha'Da'as.'
</p><p>
Rabeinu Yonah adduces support from the words of the <b>RAMBAM</b> that a 'Hesech ha'Da'as' while one wears Tefilin is defined as a mood of lightheadedness ('Kalus Rosh'). The Rambam (Hilchos Tefilin 4:25) writes that while a person wears Tefilin, he stands in awe of Hash-m and is not drawn after gaiety and idle chatter.
</p><p>
(b) The second opinion cited by the Sha'agas Aryeh is that of the <b>RAMBAN</b> in <b>TORAS HA'ADAM</b> (and as cited by the <b>TUR</b> YD 388). The Ramban writes that a mourner may not wear Tefilin because his grief prevents him from focusing on the Tefilin and thus causes a 'Hesech ha'Da'as.' Similarly, the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Tefilin 4:13) writes that a person who is in distress and whose mind is not settled is exempt from the Mitzvah of Tefilin because he will not be able to concentrate properly on them.
</p><p>
The Sha'agas Aryeh points out that the Ramban and Rambam apparently argue with Rabeinu Yonah's understanding of a 'Hesech ha'Da'as,' because a person in mourning or in distress certainly is not in a frivolous mood. They define 'Hesech ha'Da'as' as a lack of focus on the Tefilin, unlike the way Rabeinu Yonah defines 'Hesech ha'Da'as.' Others point out that this also appears to be the opinion of <b>TOSFOS</b> in Shabbos (49a, DH she'Lo Yishan), who says that a person may not sleep in Tefilin because sleeping ('Shinas Keva') is a 'Hesech ha'Da'as.'
</p><p>
The Sha'agas Aryeh notes that these Rishonim do not mean that one must keep his mind on his Tefilin at all times, because that is impossible. Rather, they mean that one must not take his mind off of the Tefilin for more than a certain amount of time. The Sha'agas Aryeh asserts, based on the Gemara in Sukah (26a) cited by Rabeinu Yonah, that the maximum amount of time that one may remove his mind from his Tefilin is the time of a short nap ('Shinas Arai'), which is defined as the time in which person can walk one hundred Amos. Before that amount of time passes, one must return his attention to the Tefilin. Based on the assumption that the average person walks one Mil (2000 Amos) in eighteen minutes, the time in which a person walks one hundred Amos is 54 seconds. (According to the Chazon Ish's calculation that one walks four Amos in two to three seconds, the time of 'Shinas Arai' is 50 to 75 seconds.)
</p><p>
The Sha'agas Aryeh proves that 'Hesech ha'Da'as' is unrelated to frivolity from the fact that the prohibition of 'Hesech ha'Da'as' from one's Tefilin is derived from the Tzitz. If 'Hesech ha'Da'as' refers to a frivolous mood, then the verse which prohibits the Kohen Gadol from taking his mind off of the Tzitz is unnecessary, because the Tzitz is worn only in the Beis ha'Mikdash where lightheadedness is forbidden altogether (Berachos 54a). Moreover, even outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash lightheadedness is proscribed, as the verse states, 'Lest you forget Hash-m, your G-d' (Devarim 8:11; see also Avos 3:13).
</p><p>
(c) A third opinion not cited by the Sha'agas Aryeh appears to be that of the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> (8a) who says that the prohibition of 'Hesech ha'Da'as' with Tefilin refers to passing flatulence. He understands 'Hesech ha'Da'as' to mean an act that is disrespectful to the Tefilin.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> As mentioned above, the <b>TUR</b> (YD 388) cites the Ramban's opinion, that severe distress is considered a 'Hesech ha'Da'as.' However, the <b>SHA'AREI TESHUVAH</b> (OC 28:1) points out that it is nearly impossible to avoid removing one's concentration from his Tefilin for the amount of time the Sha'agas Aryeh mentions, and he quotes the Gemara that says that 'the Torah was not given to angels' (Berachos 25b, Yoma 30a). He concludes, therefore, that one may rely on the opinion of Rabeinu Yonah, who says that 'Hesech ha'Da'as' is defined as frivolousness. In fact, the Tur himself (in OC 44) cites the opinion of Rabeinu Yonah when he rules that one must be careful not to be frivolous while he wears Tefilin.
</p><p>
How, though, are the questions that the Sha'agas Aryeh asks on the opinion of Rabeinu Yonah to be resolved, and how can the apparently conflicting rulings of the Tur (who cites both the Ramban and Rabeinu Yonah) be reconciled?
</p><p>
Perhaps Rabeinu Yonah's intention is as follows. When the Torah commands that the Tzitz must be 'constantly (Tamid) on his forehead' (Shemos 28:37), it does not command the Kohen Gadol to avoid lightheadedness, because the requirement to avoid lightheadedness is obvious and needs no additional verse. Rather, the Torah commands that not only must the Kohen Gadol avoid all lightheadedness, he also must take precautionary measures to prevent himself from coming to lightheadedness. Focusing constantly on the Tzitz is one such precautionary measure. Similarly, when one wears Tefilin he must take precautionary measures to prevent himself from coming to lightheadedness. This requirement to take precautionary measures applies <i>only</i> to the Kohen Gadol while he wears the Tzitz and to a man while he wears Tefilin. It does not apply to someone who merely stands in the Beis ha'Mikdash (he must avoid lightheadedness, but he does not have to take precautionary steps to that effect).
</p><p>
With regard to the apparently contradictory rulings of the Tur, perhaps Rabeinu Yonah does not disagree with the Ramban. It is possible that he does not limit the prohibition of 'Hesech ha'Da'as' specifically to 'lightheadedness.' Rather, perhaps he means that one may not let his mind become totally involved in worldly matters while he wears the Tefilin (or Tzitz). Rabeinu Yonah may agree that one may not wear Tefilin while he is in a state of mourning or overcome with grief. He mentions the state of 'lightheadedness' only as an example of a mood of one who is overcome by his emotions and does not focus on matters of Kedushah. (Rabeinu Yonah mentions lightheadedness only as an example of what a person might need to avoid by focusing on the Tefilin constantly. A person does not need to attempt to avoid feelings of mourning or grief, because there is no reason for an emotionally healthy person to be overcome suddenly with such feelings. Moreover, focusing on the Tefilin will not necessarily help to avoid those feelings. When the Ramban and Rambam mention mourning and grief as forms of 'Hesech ha'Da'as,' they are discussing the act of donning Tefilin in the first place when one is already overcome with mourning or grief.)
</p><p>
This is also the opinion of the <b>RITVA</b> in Sukah (26a) who says (in his answer for why one may sleep 'Shinas Arai' with Tefilin) that while one wears Tefilin he may not 'turn his attention to mundane matters,' but he is not required to consciously focus on his Tefilin at all times. This might also be the intention of the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> here (8a, DH Tefilin) in his second explanation.
</p><p>
Even <b>TOSFOS</b> in Shabbos (loc. cit.), who clearly argues with Rabeinu Yonah and prohibits one from sleeping with Tefilin because of 'Hesech ha'Da'as,' may agree that one is not required to think about the Tefilin at <i>every</i> moment. When one goes to sleep with Tefilin he <i>actively</i> renders himself unable to think about his Tefilin, and thus that act is considered a 'Hesech ha'Da'as.' (A short nap, though, is not considered a 'Hesech ha'Da'as,' because one does not render himself unable to think about his Tefilin for a <i>significant duration</i> of time.) As long as one is awake and in a solemn mood with the fear of G-d, his mind is not considered to be removed from his Tefilin even though he might not actually be thinking about them at every moment.
</p><p>
In conclusion, the mental state indicated by 'Hesech ha'Da'as' is defined in three different ways: 1. being overcome with emotion or frivolity, which distracts one's focus from fear of Hash-m (Rabeinu Yonah); 2. actively putting oneself in a state in which it is <i>not possible</i> for him to think about Tefilin (Tosfos in Shabbos); 3. acting in a disrespectful manner towards the Tefilin (Tosfos Yeshanim).
</p><p>
It is worth noting that the <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> (OC 44:2) cites the ruling of the <b>BACH</b> who says that it is a 'Mitzvah Min ha'Muvchar' not to remove one's concentration from the Tefilin at all. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Machlokes (R. Sheishes and R. Nachman) is a 
          Machlokes Tana'im (between R. Shimon and R. Yehudah).
<br>
<b><font>2) R. YEHUDAH AND R. SHIMON ON RITZUI TZITZ</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Shimon):</font></b> The Tzitz is Meratzeh whether or not the 
          Kohen Gadol is wearing it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> The Tzitz is Meratzeh only when the Kohen 
          Gadol wears it.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (R. Shimon):</font></b> A proof can be seen from the Kohen Gadol on 
          Yom ha'Kipurim (not wearing the Tzitz, yet is Meratzeh)!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> His Avodah does not need Ritzui Tzitz 
          because of <i>Tum'ah</i> Hutrah be'Tzibur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  The above implies that R. Shimon holds it is Dechuyah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> A broken Tzitz is not Meratzeh (according to 
          both).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Machlokes is interpreting the Pesukim:
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Al Metzach..ve'Nasa- while it is worn (R. 
                    Yehudah) 
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Tamid..lifnei Hash-m- always (R. Shimon)
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> How will R. Yehudah explain Tamid?
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> That the Kohen must not be Meseach Da'as 
               from the Tzitz.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Rabah b. R. Huna had taught that one must have 
                    continuous awareness of his Tefilin. 
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> This is a Kal va'Chomer from the Tzitz.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) R. YEHUDAH AND R. SHIMON ON RITZUI TZITZ (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is R. Yehudah's source for the correct 
          placement of the Tzitz?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Al Mitzcho
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> That should suffice for R. Shimon, as well?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed it does.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What, then, will R. Shimon do with Al 
          Metzach... ve'Nasa.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> To teach that the Tzitz needs to be <i>able</i> to be 
          on the Metzach of the Kohen (ie not broken).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How will R. Yehudah learn this Din?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Metzach-Metzcho
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What will R. Shimon do with the extra Vav?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is not significant for interpretation.
<br>
<b><font>2) MORE ON 'TUM'AS' HAMES HUTRAH OR DECHUYAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  This appears to be a Machlokes Tanaim in the Beraisa.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (R. Meir):</font></b> Both Kohanim (Yom Kippur and Parah) get 
               Haza'ah on all seven days of their Perishah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (R. Yosi):</font></b> It is only on the third and seventh days
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> (R. Chanina):</font></b> The Kohen of the Parah gets every day 
               while the Kohen of Yom Kippur gets on the third and 
               seventh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The dispute seems to center on Dechuyah (R. Meir) and 
          Hutrah (R. Yosi)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But then R. Yosi should not require <i>any</i> 
          sprinkling!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Both Tanaim hold Dechuyah, and they are arguing 
          over whether Tevilah bi'Zemanahis (R.Meir) or is not (R. 
          Yosi) a Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But our understanding of the Beraisa is that R. 
          Yosi holds that it <i>is</i> a Mitzvah?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Both Tanaim in that Beraisa hold Mitzvah, and 
          they are arguing over whether (R. Meir) or not (R. Yosi) 
          we link Haza'ah to Tevilah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Does R. Chanina make the link or not?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He does not (and the Kohen Parah gets Haza'ah as 
          a Ma'alah b'Almah).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHEN IS THE TZITZ 'MERATZEH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah argue about when the Tzitz is Meratzeh. The Torah teaches that the Tzitz attains atonement when the Kohen performs the Avodah while in a state of Tum'ah. Rebbi Shimon says that the Tzitz is Meratzeh even when the Kohen Gadol is not wearing it. Rebbi Yehudah says that it is Meratzeh only when the Kohen Gadol is wearing it.
</p><p>
The Gemara questions the opinion of Rebbi Shimon from the verse in the Torah which implies that the Tzitz is Meratzeh only when it is 'Al Mitzcho' (Shemos 28:38), on the head of the Kohen Gadol. The Gemara answers that Rebbi Shimon understands the verse to mean that the Tzitz is Meratzeh only when it is <i>fit</i> to be worn 'Al Mitzcho,' on the Kohen Gadol's forehead. It is not Meratzeh when it is not fit to be worn (such as when it is broken).
</p><p>
The Gemara then questions the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, who learns from the words 'Al Mitzcho' that the Tzitz is Meratzeh only when it is on the forehead of the Kohen Gadol. From where does Rebbi Yehudah learn that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh when it is broken?
</p><p>
What is the Gemara's question? According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Tzitz is not Meratzeh unless the Kohen Gadol is wearing it. Since he cannot wear the Tzitz when it is broken, it obviously is not Meratzeh and no verse is necessary to teach this. (<b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> answers that Rebbi Yehudah understands that 'Al Mitzcho' means that the Tzitz is Meratzeh only when it is worn, because he already derived from another verse that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh when it is broken. Had no other verse taught that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh when it is broken, Rebbi Yehudah would have derived that Halachah from 'Al Mitzcho,' and, consequently, he would have had no source to teach that the Tzitz is Meratzeh only when it is worn. Since he now has another verse that teaches that the Tzitz is not Meratzeh when it is broken, the verse of 'Al Mitzcho' teaches that the Tzitz is Meratzeh only when it is on the Kohen Gadol's head.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> adds that the reason why Rebbi Yehudah would not have required that the Tzitz be worn in order to be Meratzeh if not for the additional verse is because it is more logical to assume that the Tzitz is Meratzeh all the time, even when it is not worn. The Torah's objective is to maximize the Ritzuy and not to limit it, and thus without an additional verse it would have been more logical to assume that the Tzitz is Meratzeh as much as possible. (Similar answers are offered by <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> and <b>SHA'AGAS ARYEH</b> #38.)
</p><p>
The <b>SHA'AGAS ARYEH</b> uses this approach to explain why the Halachah requires that one touch his Tefilin intermittently while he wears them in order to keep his mind on them:
</p><p>
The prohibition of 'Hesech ha'Da'as' -- removing one's mind from the Tefilin -- is derived from the Tzitz. The Torah commands that the Tzitz must be 'constantly (Tamid) on his forehead' (Shemos 28:37). Rebbi Yehudah derives from this verse that the Kohen Gadol must constantly keep his mind on the Tzitz while he wears it. Therefore, according to Rebbi Yehudah, one is also required to keep his mind on the Tefilin. Rebbi Shimon, in contrast, derives from the word 'Tamid' that the Tzitz is Meratzeh even while it is not worn. According to Rebbi Shimon, who derives from the word 'Tamid' that the Tzitz is Meratzeh even while it is not worn, one should not be required to keep his mind on the Tefilin at all times. Which opinion does the Halachah follow?
</p><p>
Another issue that depends on the dispute between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon is the application of the principle of 'Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur.' The Tana'im dispute whether Tum'ah is 'Hutrah' or 'Dechuyah' with regard to public Korbanos (Pesachim 77a, Yoma 7b). 'Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur' means that the Torah entirely cancelled the prohibitions of Tum'ah with regard to public Korbanos. 'Tum'ah Dechuyah b'Tzibur' means that the Torah reluctantly allows the offering of public Korbanos to override the prohibitions of Tum'ah in the event of great necessity.
</p><p>
If Tum'ah is Hutrah b'Tzibur, then the Kohanim who are Tamei may offer a Korban Tzibur when they are Tamei even when the Tzitz is not Meratzeh. Accordingly, even if the Tzitz is not Meratzeh when it is not worn, the Korban Tzibur may be offered when the Tzitz is not worn, because the Ritzuy of the Tzitz is not necessary (since Tum'ah is Hutrah b'Tzibur). However, if Tum'ah is only Dechuyah b'Tzibur, then the only way the Kohanim may offer a Korban Tzibur when they are Tamei (even when the Kohen Gadol is not wearing the Tzitz) is if the Tzitz is Meratzeh even when it is not worn. (See Insights to Pesachim 77:2.)
</p><p>
The Halachah follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon who says that Tum'ah is Dechuyah. Thus, the Halachah should follow Rebbi Shimon's opinion also with regard to whether the Tzitz is Meratzeh while it is not worn. However, if the Halachah follows Rebbi Shimon, then why, with regard to Tefilin, does the Halachah require that one not have a 'Hesech ha'Da'as' while he wears Tefilin? It is only Rebbi Yehudah who maintains that 'Tamid' teaches the prohibition of 'Hesech ha'Da'as'; Rebbi Shimon derives a different law from that verse!
</p><p>
The Sha'agas Aryeh explains that even Rebbi Shimon agrees that 'Tamid' is not needed to teach that the Tzitz is Meratzeh when it is not worn, because, logically, it is assumed that it is Meratzeh as much as possible, including when it is not worn, unless an explicit verse states otherwise. Consequently, 'Tamid' is an extra phrase even according to Rebbi Shimon, and thus it teaches that one may not remove his mind from the Tzitz.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  Whom does the Beraisa below follow?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Perishas Kohen of Yom Kippur is for Kedushah and 
               that of Parah is for Taharah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This is the sole difference between them.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> A practical difference is whether others may touch 
               him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  It may either be R. Meir or R. Yosi, but not R. Chanina 
          (according to whom there are several differences).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> There is no reason for Haza'ah on the fourth 
          day!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Meir does not mean <i>every</i> day, since Shabbos 
          is anyway not possible.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b></b>  An application of this would be that we would take the 
          Kohen Parah so that his fourth day is Shabbos (and there 
          is only one lost day of Haza'ah).
<br>
<b><font>3) LISHKAS PARHADRIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But it was called Lishkas Balvati (officers), 
          not Parhadrin (market overseer for the King).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> In the good days it was called Balvati; when the 
          office became corrupted it was known as Parhadrin.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) 'HAZA'AH' ON THE FOURTH DAY OF THE KOHEN'S 'PERISHAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that according to the Tana Kama, Haza'ah is done to the Kohen Gadol on each of the seven days of Perishah before Yom Kippur. Similarly, it is done to the Kohen who prepares the Parah Adumah on each of the seven days of his Perishah. The purpose of this Haza'ah is to ensure that the Kohen is not Tamei with Tum'as Mes. The Haza'ah is performed every day in order to ensure that it is done on the day that it is required, because 'Haza'ah b'Zemanah Mitzvah' (Haza'ah at the proper time is a Mitzvah). Haza'ah must be performed no earlier than the third day from the time one became Tamei, as well as four days after that, on the seventh day. Since each day of the Perishah might be the third or seventh day, Haza'ah is done every day.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks why Haza'ah must be done on the fourth day of Perishah. It is not possible that the fourth day is the third or seventh day after the Kohen became Tamei. It cannot be the third day, because three days earlier he had already started his Perishah and certainly did not become Tamei at that time. It cannot be the seventh day, because a seventh-day-Haza'ah is effective only when Haza'ah was performed on the third day. In this case, though, the Kohen did not have Haza'ah four days ago (his Haza'ah started only three days earlier, on the first day of his Perishah).
</p><p>
The <b>MIKDASH DAVID</b> (Taharos #49) asks that it <i>is</i> possible to have a situation in which the fourth day of the Kohen's Perishah is the seventh day of his Taharah process. He proposes such a scenario based on a novel teaching of the <b>RASHASH</b> in Chagigah (23b). The Torah teaches that a metal object which touches a Mes is considered an Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah, like the Mes itself. If a person (or another utensil) then touches the metal object, he becomes Tamei as an Av ha'Tum'ah like one who touches a Mes itself. Similarly, a metal object which touches a person who touched a Mes is considered an Av ha'Tum'ah, like the person himself, and a person who then touches the object becomes a Rishon l'Tum'ah. This Halachah is called 'Cherev Harei Hu k'Chalal.'
</p><p>
In the case of a metal object that touched a Mes and a person who touched the metal object, both the object and the person are Tamei for seven days and require Haza'ah on the third day and seventh day (see Pesachim 14b and Insights to Pesachim 14:2). The <b>RASHASH</b> points out an interesting peculiarity that arises from this law. If a person touches the metal object on the seventh day after the object touched a Mes, the person will be Tamei for six days longer than the object itself, because the object becomes Tahor in the evening of that day, the seventh day of its Tum'ah. The person will be Tamei longer than the object which made him Tamei, and his Taharah process may not begin until several days after the object itself has become Tahor. The Rashash says that this is not a logical way for Tum'ah to work. He suggests that perhaps the person who becomes Tamei merely continues the count of days of the object which was Metamei him (such a concept is called 'Ya'aleh l'Raglo' and is discussed in Nidah 33a). Accordingly, if the metal object touched the person on its seventh day of Tum'ah, then the person becomes Tamei with the Tum'ah of the seventh day, and he is Tamei with Tum'as Mes for only one day.
</p><p>
According to the proposal of the Rashash, if, on the day before his Perishah begins, the Kohen Gadol touches a metal object which had touched a Mes four days earlier and had already had Haza'ah on the third day of its Tum'ah, he acquires the level of Tum'ah of the metal object. Just as the object will have its second Haza'ah (its seventh-day Haza'ah) in four days from now, so, too, the Kohen Gadol who touched the object will need Haza'ah four days from now as his seventh-day Haza'ah. Consequently, there is a valid reason to require Haza'ah on the fourth day of the Kohen's Perishah -- in the event that on the day before his Perishah the Kohen touched a metal object which had been Tamei for four days. Why, then, does the Gemara say that there is no reason to do Haza'ah on the fourth day? It must be that the proposal of the Rashash is incorrect, and the Kohen would be Tamei for seven days in such a case.
</p><p>
Is there any way to reconcile the proposal of the Rashash with the words of the Gemara?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) The <b>KEHILOS YAKOV</b> (Taharos #18, or #53 in early editions) writes that perhaps the proposal of the Rashash can be reconciled based on the opinion of the <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> (Chulin 71b) and the <b>RAMBAN</b> (Bamidbar 19:16). They write that if a metal object touches a person who is Tamei with Tum'as Mes, the object does <i>not</i> need Haza'ah on the third and seventh days even though it becomes Tamei with Av ha'Tum'ah. (With regard to Haza'ah, it is like a Rishon and not an Av.) Similarly, if a person touches a metal object that touched a Mes and is Tamei with Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah, he does not need Haza'ah. Even though he is Tamei with Av ha'Tum'ah, he does not need Haza'ah on the third and seventh day to become Tahor.
</p><p>
Consequently, if the Kohen Gadol touched a metal object that touched a Mes, he does <i>not</i> need Haza'ah as a result of that Tum'ah. He is Tamei only because of the principle of 'Cherev Harei Hu k'Chalal,' and thus, according to the Ba'al ha'Me'or and Ramban, he does not need Haza'ah.
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps the Rashash's principle, that a person who touched the metal object should have the same level of Tum'ah as the object, applies only when he touched the metal object after its second Haza'ah, on the seventh day of its Tum'ah, or before the first Haza'ah was done on the third day. If he touched the metal object after its first Haza'ah on the third day but before its second Haza'ah, perhaps the first Haza'ah on the metal object does not 'lower' the object's degree of Tum'ah such that the person needs only one more Haza'ah. The two Haza'os comprise a single set, and a Haza'ah on an object cannot be combined with a Haza'ah on a person. Rather, the person will need a new set of Haza'os. (The person's degree of Tum'ah is not considered more severe than that of the object he touched. Rather, it is the lack of <i>Haza'ah</i>, and not the level of his Tum'ah, which prevents him from becoming Tahor.) (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) NACHTOMIN SEPARATING MA'ASER SHEINI FROM D'MAI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Nachtomin are exempt from all tithes except Terumas 
          Ma'aser and Chalah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  A logic is given for each exemption, except as follows:
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why are they exempt from separating and 
          bringing Ma'aser Sheini to Yerushalayim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Chazal were lenient because of the oppressive 
          market conditions (created by the Parhadrin) the 
          Nachtomin worked under.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND BAYIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The first Mikdash stood for 410 years and there were only 
          18 Kohanim Gedolim (the longevity mentioned in the 
          Pasuk).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The second Mikdash had more than 300 Kohanim Gedolim in 
          420 years (R. Yochanan goes on to make the calculation 
          that none of the later Kohanim Gedolim survived the 
          year).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Shiloh was destroyed because...(proof texts for each) 
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Gilui Arayos [not really the Aveirah as implied].
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Bizayon Kodshim.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE FINGERNAILS OF OUR ANCESTORS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Yochanan says, 'Better were the fingernails of earlier generations than the intestines of our own generation. [And if you suggest that we are better than they, consider that] the Beis ha'Mikdash was rebuilt for them, and it has not been rebuilt for us.'
</p><p>
What is the meaning of Rebbi Yochanan's reference to 'fingernails' and 'intestines'? In the simple sense, his expression alludes to the fact that even the least important part of our ancestors' bodies carried more spiritual value than the most important part of our own bodies. Why, though, does he mention specifically 'fingernails' and 'intestines,' and not body parts that more obviously contrast, such as the feet and the head?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (Kol Eliyahu #201, and Perush Al Kamah Agados) offers the following explanation for the words of the Gemara (as elucidated by Rav Aharon Feldman shlit'a in 'The Juggler and the King' (1990, Jerusalem; Feldheim Publishers)).
</p><p>
In Parshas Shemini, the Torah establishes the guidelines for determining which animals are permissible to be eaten. There are two signs which an animal must have in order to be Kosher: it must ruminate, and it must have split hooves. The Torah prohibits the four animals which have only one of the two signs: the camel, rabbit, and hare ruminate but do not have split hooves; the pig has split hooves but does not ruminate (Vayikra 11:3-7).
</p><p>
These two signs of a Kosher animal indicate that the animal is not a beast of prey. It is content with its lot, in a sense, because it does not feel the urge to hunt other animals. A predator, in contrast, does not chew its cud, because meat is digestible without rumination. However, once its prey is digested, the predator seeks new food, for it is ever discontent and ravenous. A ruminant, on the other hand, is content with whatever is already in its stomach, and it even reuses that food, so to speak, by bringing it up and chewing it again. Also, a predator possesses claws with which to tear its victim apart. A Kosher animal, in contrast, is satisfied with the food its Creator brings forth for it from the ground. It has no need for claws, and thus its hooves are split.
</p><p>
The commentators (see <b>RAMBAN</b> to Vayikra 11:13) explain that non-Kosher animals are forbidden as food because their consumption influences man towards the repugnant characteristics of a beast of prey: discontent with one's lot and the resultant exploitation of other creatures. Discontent with one's lot stems from a lack of faith in Hashem's providence.
</p><p>
The four non-Kosher animals that the Torah mentions represent four forms of <i>spiritual</i> impurity. The first three animals have the internal sign of Kashrus (chewing the cud) but not the external one. They represent the person whose inner essence is amenable to holiness, but because of his inappropriate external behavior that holiness is prevented from realizing itself. The fourth animal, the pig, has the external sign of Kashrus but not the internal one. It represents a worse form of impurity: a person whose outer behavior is expressive of holiness but who inwardly denies the omnipotence of Hash-m. This person has 'cloven hooves' instead of claws, but his inner nature is that of a beast of prey.
</p><p>
Similarly, the Chachamim teach that these four forms of impurity are represented by the four kingdoms that have subjugated the Jewish people: Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and Rome. The first three are represented, respectively, by the camel, rabbit, and hare. The fourth one, Rome, is represented by the pig (Vayikra Rabah 13:5). Like the non-Kosher animals mentioned in the Torah, the first three kingdoms demonstrated the behavior of a beast of prey. They sought wealth and self-aggrandizement at the expense of others. However, within their hearts they believed in Hash-m and His providence. The Roman Empire, however, displayed all the external signs of commitment to spirituality. On the surface, it was civilized, concerned with human welfare, and it preached justice and human rights. Inwardly, though, it believed only in self-indulgence and self-worship.
</p><p>
After the destruction of the first Beis ha'Mikdash, the Jewish people were exiled among the first three nations. When the second Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, the Jewish people became subjugated to the Roman Empire. In light of the abovementioned Midrash, it is clear that Hash-m chose our oppressors in a most befitting manner. As the Gemara here states, 'For what was the first Beis ha'Mikdash destroyed? For [the] three [cardinal] sins that were rampant then: idolatry, immorality, and murder.... But in the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash [the Jews] busily studied Torah and performed Mitzvos and acts of kindness -- for what then was it destroyed? Because they hated each other without cause. From this one may learn that baseless hatred is as great a sin as idolatry, immorality, and murder all together.'
</p><p>
The earlier generations suffered from serious depravity in their external behavior, but in their hearts they acknowledged Hashem's kingship. In that respect, the earlier generations were like the animals that have claws but chew their cud. The later generations, however, were like the pig; they showed their cloven hooves, but inwardly they were unclean. Their society was filled with covert hatred and jealousy and the resultant denial of Hashem's dominion. It was appropriate that the oppressors of the Jewish people after the destruction of the <i>first</i> Beis ha'Mikdash were the first three of the four nations, who demonstrated the behavior of the animals that have claws but chew their cud. Hash-m allowed them to rise to power over the Jews when the Jews sank to that level of behavior themselves. After the destruction of the <i>second</i> Beis ha'Mikdash, Hash-m allowed Rome -- represented by the pig, the fourth animal -- to rise to power, measure for measure. The test of the Roman domination is the most difficult the Jewish people have ever faced, and continue to face to this day. The Jews' mission is to learn, in the midst of the Roman domination, to rise above man's tendency for self-worship.
</p><p>
This explains Rebbi Yochanan's comment about fingernails and intestines. The 'fingernails' allude to the <i>claws</i> (as opposed to cloven hooves) of the hunting animal, which represent the external sins of the earlier generations. The 'intestines' allude to the organs which prevent the predatory animals from being Kosher, and represent the internal sins of the later generations. Rebbi Yochanan's comment means, 'Better is one who behaves like a beast of prey, but whose heart longs for Hash-m, than the most pietistic of men, who in his heart worships only himself.'
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The first Mikdash was destroyed because... (proof texts 
          from Yeshayah and Melachim).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Avodah Zarah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Gilui Arayos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Shefichus Damim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  The second Mikdash, where there was Torah, Mitzvos and 
          Gemilus Chasadim, was destroyed on account of Sinas 
          Chinam
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa which says that their Bitachon was false 
               is speaking of the first Mikdash.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Three punishments (all related to the destruction of 
               Yerushalayim) followed in the wake of the sins 
               committed with confidence that Hash-m would not make 
               retribution.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But it seems from Yechezkel that the first 
          Mikdash <i>did</i> have Sinas Chinam!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That was speaking only of the leadership.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  To those (first Mikdash) whose Aveiros were revealed by 
          the Pasuk, the end to their exile was also revealed, 
          whereas the second Mikdash...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The earlier ones (first Mikdash) were 
          better.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Resh Lakish):</font></b> No, we are better (for we study Torah even 
          in the face of foreign dominion).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b></b>  The return of the Mikdash seems to support R. Yochanan.
<br>
<b><font>3) RESH LAKISH AND THE BABYLONIAN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Resh Lakish indicated to Rabah bar bar Chanah his hatred 
          for the Babylonians for not coming en masse to Eretz 
          Yisrael during the days of Ezra.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Had they done so, the Mikdash would not have been subject 
          to deterioration (we are not silver but rather cedar).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The rotting of the cedar is a Mashal to Bas Kol 
          (remaining vestige of prophecy).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But surely Resh Lakish would not have spoken 
          with Rabah bar bar Chanah (who was of a lesser stature 
          than R. Elazar, with whom Resh Lakish would not speak in 
          public)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> (R. Papa): Names in the story need to be changed.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) IDENTIFYING THE NATIONS IN THE PESUKIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan told Resh Lakish that the Nimshal of the 
          Pasuk is not as he said (there would not be Shechinah in 
          the second Mikdash in any case because it was built by 
          the Persians [from Yefes]).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How do we know that the Persians are descended 
          of Yefes?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is a Beraisa identifying Tiras as Persia.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  More identifications...
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Savta and Savtecha (inner and outer regions).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Bavel, Erech, Akad, Chalneh.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Ashur, Nineveh, Rechovos, Kalach, Resen.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> The large city...is Nineveh (based on Yonah).
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> Achiman, Sheishai, Talmei, Yelidei ha'Anak.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (cited in the name of Rebbi):</font></b> Rome is destined to fall 
          before Persia (proof text).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How do you know that Tze'irei ha'Tzon is Persia 
          (the proof text could also refer to Greece)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  The sage of Eretz Yisrael clarified how it refers to 
          Persia.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  (cited in the name of R. Yochanan):</font></b> Rome is destined to 
          fall before Persia.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is logically derived from the 
               builders/destroyers of the first Mikdash.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  (Rav):</font></b> Persia is destined to fall before Rome.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Can the builders fall before the 
               destroyers?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> If the King so decrees.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Alternate answer:</font></b> The Persians also destroyed 
               synagogues, and the King has so decreed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b></b>  Rome must ultimately prevail over the world for nine 
          months prior to Israel's redemption (proof text).
<br>
<b><font>2) MEZUZAH IN THE MIKDASH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Only the Lishkas Parhadrin (the residence of the Kohen 
          Gadol) must have a Mezuzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But other Lishkos (also residences) did not?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is a Gezeirah (lest the Kohen Gadol be 
          considered incarcerated).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why isn't residence enough to obligate?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> R. Yehudah holds that only year-round 
          residences are obligated in a Mezuzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> But we find winter/summer homes called 
          Bayis?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They are called winter-homes, not simply homes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But R. Yehudah obligates a <i>Sukah</i> in a 
          Mezuzah?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> There could hardly be a more seasonal dwelling.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> And if you'll suggest that the obligation is only 
               de'Rabanan...
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE HATED BABYLONIANS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> According to the Gemara's conclusion (9b-10a), Rebbi Yochanan told Reish Lakish that the Shechinah was absent in the second Beis ha'Mikdash <i>not</i> because of the unworthiness of the Bavli'im (the Babylonian Jews), but because the Shechinah dwells only in a sanctuary built under the auspices of the descendants of Shem, and not in one built under the auspices of the descendants of Yefes.
</p><p>
However, the Gemara later in Yoma (66a and 66b) says that the Bavli'im <i>were</i> despised, and thus they were accused of the dishonorable act of pulling the Kohen's hair as he took the goat of Azazel to the cliff, as well as eating raw meat of Kodshim. <b>TOSFOS</b> in Menachos (100a, DH she'Son'in) explains that the source for this hatred of the Bavli'im is Reish Lakish's teaching (which he derives from Shir ha'Shirim 8:9) that it was the reluctance of the Jews of Bavel to ascend to Eretz Yisrael that caused the absence of the Shechinah in the second Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
Why, though, is this a valid reason to despise the Bavli'im? The Gemara concludes that they were <i>not</i> the cause of the Shechinah's absence!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Rebbi Yochanan indeed maintains that there is no reason to despise the Bavli'im. They were not the cause of the absence of the Shechinah in the second Beis ha'Mikdash. Reish Lakish, however, argues with Rebbi Yochanan and maintains that they <i>were</i> the cause of the Shechinah's absence. Even if Reish Lakish's silence to Rebbi Yochanan's statement indicates that he agrees with him, nevertheless the rest of the people of Eretz Yisrael (who referred to anyone they hated as 'Bavli'im') upheld the original view of Reish Lakish and blamed the Bavli'im.
</p><p>
It is interesting to note that Rebbi Yochanan follows his opinion as expressed elsewhere. The Gemara in Shabbos (145b) relates that the Amora'im questioned why birds in Bavel are fatter, the people of Bavel happier on the festivals, and their Talmidei Chachamim adorned so prominently. Rebbi Asi answered each question, and all of his answers were based on the same theme: all of these characteristics of Bavel are results of the inferior quality of the people there. Rebbi Yochanan disagreed and gave different reasons for those characteristics of Bavel (see there). His answers defended the reputation of the people of Bavel. Similarly, the Gemara in Yevamos (63b) relates that Rebbi Yochanan empathized with the suffering of the people of Bavel when he was informed that a wicked nation had arrived in Bavel.
</p><p>
Perhaps the reason for Rebbi Yochanan's affability towards the Bavli'im stems from his awareness of the importance of the Babylonian Jews to the continuity of Torah learning. Rebbi Yochanan, who lived in Eretz Yisrael and redacted the Talmid Yerushalmi, saw the increasing severity of the Roman persecution of the Jews. He understood that the continuity of the Oral tradition and Halachic process would come from the Torah scholars in Bavel and from the Talmid Bavli (see Sanhedrin 24a and Insights there, as well as Chagigah 10a, where Rebbi Yochanan praised the Talmud Bavli; see also see <b>RIF</b>, end of Eruvin, 'v'Anan Lo Sevira Lan...'). Therefore, he endeavored to build up the reputation of the Jews of Bavel in the eyes of those of Eretz Yisrael.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> But he also makes the produce brought directly into 
               the Sukah subject to Ma'aser (and this we would not 
               do unless the obligation was d'Oreisa, for fear of 
               errors).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> They agree that Sukah is obligated in 
          Mezuzah during the week of Sukos; they argue about 
          whether (Chachamim) or not (R. Yehudah) to extend that 
          obligation to the rest of the year.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> But the Mishnah teaches that the 
          Chachamim <i>argue</i> about Mezuzah during Sukos!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> Rather, there is no argument during the 
          year (exempt) and they only argue during Sukos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b></b>  Sukah and Lishkah have separate bases for the argument.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> (Sukah):</font></b> R. Yehudah holds that Sukah must be of a 
               permanent nature; Rabanan hold it must be a 
               temporary dwelling.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> (Lishkah):</font></b> Chachamim hold that an imposed dwelling 
               is called a dwelling; R. Yehudah holds it is not 
               (and the obligation for a Mezuzah, as mentioned, is 
               a Gezeirah).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) DOES A SUKAH NEED A MEZUZAH?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses whether the Lishkas Parhedrin, the chamber in which the Kohen Gadol is secluded for seven days prior to Yom Kippur, requires a Mezuzah. The Chachamim rule that it is the type of dwelling place that requires a Mezuzah. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that it is not the type of dwelling place that requires a Mezuzah, but nevertheless the Rabanan enacted that a Mezuzah be affixed to it so that people not say that the Kohen Gadol is incarcerated in a prison.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that both the Chachamim and Rebbi Yehudah contradict their opinions as expressed elsewhere. In the Mishnah in Ma'aseros (3:7, according to the explanation of the Beraisa), the Chachamim state that a Sukah does not require a Mezuzah, while Rebbi Yehudah rules that a Sukah does require a Mezuzah. The Chachamim argue that a Sukah is not a permanent dwelling place because one lives there for only seven days of the year, and therefore it does not require a Mezuzah. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that even a temporary dwelling is considered a dwelling that requires a Mezuzah.
</p><p>
They clearly contradict their opinions with regard to the Lishkas Parhedrin. The Chachamim say that the Lishkas Parhedrin <i>is</i> considered a dwelling place that requires a Mezuzah, even though the Kohen Gadol lives there for only seven days of the year, and Rebbi Yehudah says that it is <i>not</i> considered a dwelling place that requires a Mezuzah.
</p><p>
Abaye answers that everyone agrees that a Mezuzah is required during the seven days of Sukos when one lives in the Sukah, and during the seven days before Yom Kippur when the Kohen Gadol lives in the Lishkas Parhedrin, because one actually lives there. When Rebbi Yehudah says that the Lishkas Parhedrin does not need a Mezuzah, he refers to the rest of the year when no one lives in the Sukah and the Kohen Gadol does not live in the Lishkas Parhedrin.
</p><p>
Rava challenges Abaye's answer from the Mishnah in Ma'aseros which says 'Sukas ha'Chag <i>ba'Chag</i>.' These words imply that the Chachamim and Rebbi Yehudah argue even with regard to the seven days during which one lives in the Sukah, in contrast to Abaye's explanation.
</p><p>
Why does Rava quote the Mishnah's words, 'Sukas ha'Chag ba'Chag'? Even without those words, there is an obvious question on Abaye's explanation that Rava should have asked. The Chachamim do <i>not</i> require that a Sukah have a Mezuzah throughout the year, but they <i>do</i> require that the Lishkas Parhedrin have a Mezuzah throughout the year. Rava should have asked simply that the Mishnah says that the Chachamim exempt a Sukah from a Mezuzah, and thus they still contradict their opinion with regard to the Lishkas Parhedrin. (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH Rabanan #2)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> explains that Rava questions merely the wording of Abaye. Abaye says that 'everyone' agrees that the Sukah and Lishkas Parhedrin require a Mezuzah during the time one lives there. Rava asks why Abaye says 'everyone' agrees, when one opinion -- that of the Chachamim in the Mishnah in Ma'aseros -- maintains that the Sukah does not need a Mezuzah even when one lives there.
</p><p>
Rava does not ask how Abaye reconciles the contradiction between the Chachamim here, who exempt the Lishkah from a Mezuzah, and the Chachamim in Ma'aseros, who require a Sukah to have a Mezuzah during the festival, because perhaps they are two different Chachamim. Abaye's answer successfully resolves the contradiction between Rebbi Yehudah's opinion here and his opinion in Ma'aseros.
</p><p>
When Rava asks that the Mishnah says 'Sukas ha'Chag ba'Chag,' he intends to show Abaye that it is incorrect to say that <i>everyone</i> requires a Sukah to have a Mezuzah when one lives there, for the Chachamim in Ma'aseros maintain that it does not need a Mezuzah.
<br> 
<br>This seems to be the intention of Rashi (DH v'Ha Sukah) as well.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> suggests further that perhaps Abaye <i>is</i> bothered by the contradiction in the opinion of the Chachamim. However, he does not address that contradiction in his answer because he understands that the Chachamim in Ma'aseros maintain that a Sukah is exempt from a Mezuzah only <i>mid'Oraisa</i>. They agree that it needs a Mezuzah mid'Rabanan. When the Chachamim here say that the Lishkas Parhedrin requires a Mezuzah, they mean that it requires a Mezuzah <i>mid'Rabanan</i>.
</p><p>
Rava asks that when the Mishnah says that the Chachamim exempt a Sukah from a Mezuzah, it refers to the practical Halachah and not merely to whether or not a Mezuzah is required mid'Oraisa. Accordingly, the Mishnah there means that a Sukah does not need a Mezuzah even <i>mid'Rabanan</i>, and thus the contradiction in the opinion of the Chachamim remains unanswered.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Rabanan #2) and the <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> explain that the Girsa of our text of the Gemara is incorrect. Some of the words in Abaye's answer should be reversed. Instead of, 'Rabanan Savri Gazrinan... v'Rebbi Yehudah Savar Lo Gazrinan,' the words should read, 'Rabanan Savri <i>Lo</i> Gazrinan... v'Rebbi Yehudah Savar <i>Gazrinan</i>.'
</p><p>
Abaye understands the argument with regard to the Lishkas Parhedrin as follows. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that the Rabanan decreed that a Mezuzah be affixed to the Lishkah when the Kohen Gadol lives there so that people not say that he is incarcerated there. That Gezeirah requires that the Lishkah have a Mezuzah throughout the entire year so that when Yom Kippur arrives people not think that the Lishkah is a prison. The Chachamim, on the other hand, maintain that '*Lo* Gazrinan' -- the Lishkas Parhedrin requires a Mezuzah <i>not</i> because of a Gezeirah, but because it is considered a dwelling place that requires a Mezuzah. Since they maintain that there is no Gezeirah, they do not require that the Lishkah have a Mezuzah during the rest of the year (when no one lives there).
</p><p>
Abaye says that according to the Chachamim, a <i>Sukah</i> does not require a Mezuzah during the rest of the year, just as the Lishkas Parhedrin does not require one. According to Rebbi Yehudah, a Sukah <i>does</i> require a Mezuzah during the rest of the year because of the Gezeirah that people not say that the Sukah is a prison (which is a disgrace to the Mitzvah), just as he says with regard to the Lishkas Parhedrin. According to Abaye, the Mishnah in Ma'aseros indeed refers to a Sukah during the rest of the year. Rebbi Yehudah's opinion is both a leniency and a stringency: he is lenient and maintains that a Sukah is exempt mid'Oraisa from a Mezuzah even during the festival (when people live there), but he is stringent in that he requires a Sukah to have a Mezuzah during the rest of the year (mid'Rabanan). Rava questions Abaye's statement and asks that the Mishnah says 'Sukas ha'Chag <i>ba'Chag</i>.'
</p><p>
(d) The <b>NETZIV</b> (in <b>MEROMEI SADEH</b>) explains as follows. When Abaye says that the Chachamim and Rebbi Yehudah agree that the Sukah needs a Mezuzah during the seven days one lives in the Sukah, he means that each Tana refers to a Sukah built according to his own specifications. That is, Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a Sukah may be built in the manner of a permanent structure ('Diras Keva'; Sukah 2a and 7b). Consequently, he maintains that such a Sukah requires a Mezuzah because it is an ordinary dwelling place. The Chachamim maintain that a Sukah must be built in the manner of a temporary structure ('Diras Arai'), and thus such a Sukah is exempt from a Mezuzah even during Sukos itself because it is not an ordinary dwelling place. The Lishkas Parhedrin, in contrast, is a permanent structure and therefore requires a Mezuzah according to everyone (at least while the Kohen Gadol resides there). The Chachamim and Rebbi Yehudah disagree only with regard to whether a Mezuzah is required there during the rest of the year.
</p><p>
Rava asks that according to Abaye's assertion, Rebbi Yehudah should require a Sukah to have a Mezuzah during the rest of the year <i>if one decides to live there</i>. The Mishnah in Ma'aseros, however, says 'Sukas ha'Chag <i>ba'Chag</i>' and implies that a Sukah needs a Mezuzah only when a person lives in it during Sukos, but during the rest of the year it is exempt even if one lives in it.
</p><p>
Therefore, Rava explains that a Sukah does not need a Mezuzah because it is not a real dwelling place. The only reason Rebbi Yehudah says that it needs a Mezuzah is because of the principle of 'Achshevei' -- the Torah considers a Sukah <i>during Sukos</i> a 'dwelling place' (since, as Rebbi Yehudah maintains, a Sukah may be a 'Diras Keva'). The Torah thereby requires that a Sukah have a Mezuzah during Sukos.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MEZUZOS IN THE GATES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa teaches that any gate which leads to a 
          residence (such as the Nikanor Gate leading to Lishkas 
          Parhadrin) must have a Mezuzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This could not be the opinion of R. Yehudah, 
          since the Lishkah itself is, according to him, only a 
          Gezeirah, making the Gate a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He could view it as one inclusive Gezeirah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa teaches that all gates require Mezuzos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why were Mezuzos not put on the gates of 
          Mechuza?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Those gates were only to support the structures 
          above them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But that should require that they have 
          Mezuzos!?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa teaches that a Beis ha'Keneses does not 
               ordinarily require a Mezuzah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If there is a residence within for the Chazan, then 
               the building <i>does</i> require a Mezuzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, they did not put up Mezuzos for fear of 
          the dangers involved, as reported in the incident in 
          Tzipori.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Sheluchei Mitzvah Einan Nizokin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That is not where danger is ever-present, as in 
          the incident of Shmuel.
<br>
<b><font>2) PLACE MEZUZOS ON YOUR HOMES - BEISECHA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  This excludes places which are not for human residence.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Others obligate such places but exclude places such as 
          outhouses, bathhouses and places of women's adornments.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Kehana explains the opinions above:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Tana Kama derives the obligation from Beisecha; and 
               the others assume the obligation and derive the 
               exclusions.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Women adorn means they bathe there.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Then that is the same as Merchatz?
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Both public and private bathes are thus 
               mentioned (as we might have obligated the latter).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah explains the opinions above:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Tana Kama understands Beisecha as restricted to 
               full, personal residence, and excludes any other 
               place, even if it is <i>also</i> used for people, such as 
               if women adorn themselves there.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Others consider the combined places to be obligated, 
               but exempt the storehouses (used <i>only</i> as such).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Unseemly places (outhouses, etc.) are exempt even if 
               women also adorn themselves there.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE 'MITZVAH' TO PLACE A MEZUZAH ON CITY GATES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that the word 'bi'She'arecha' (Devarim 6:9) teaches that a Mezuzah must be placed even on the gates of provinces (Medinos) and cities (Ayaros). The Beraisa, when it mentions that such gates require a Mezuzah, says, 'Yesh ba'Hem Chovas Mitzvah la'Makom' -- 'they have the obligation of the Mitzvah for the Omnipresent.'
</p><p>
The Beraisa's expression is unusually elaborate. Why does the Beraisa not say simply that these gates are 'obligated to have a Mezuzah' ('Chayavin b'Mezuzah')?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>SI'ACH YITZCHAK</b> answers that the Gemara teaches that the Mezuzah arouses Divine protection for Jewish homes and their inhabitants (Avodah Zarah 11a). Similarly, the Gemara later (11b) says that fulfillment of the Mitzvah of Mezuzah brings long life. (Tosfos in Menachos (44a) writes that for this reason even a rented home requires a Mezuzah; see Insights to Yoma 11:4.)
</p><p>
Since the Mezuzah affords Divine protection, one might have thought that a Mezuzah is necessary on the door of one's residence but not on the gates of the city. Since one's home is already protected because of the Mezuzah affixed to its door, there is no need to affix a Mezuzah to the gates of the city. The Beraisa therefore teaches that while it is true that the city gates do not need a Mezuzah for the sake of protection, they still need a Mezuzah because of Hashem's Mitzvah -- 'Chovas Mitzvah la'Makom.'
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A MEZUZAH MUST BE EXAMINED 'TWICE EVERY SEVEN YEARS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes a Beraisa that says that the Mezuzah of a private home must be examined twice every seven years ('Shavu'a'), while the Mezuzah of a public building must be examined twice every fifty years ('Yovel').
</p><p>
What is the significance of these numbers, and why are they expressed in such an unusual manner? Does the Beraisa mean that a Mezuzah of a private home must be examined once every three and a half years, or does it mean that a Mezuzah may be examined literally twice in seven years, such as once after the first two years, and again after five years?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> These requirements were enacted by the Rabanan. <b>RAV CHAIM KANIEVSKY</b> shlit'a (in his commentary to Maseches Mezuzah) records a dispute with regard to the reason for the different requirements. 
</p><p>
(a) According to <b>RASHI</b>, a Mezuzah must be examined intermittently due to concern that it may have rotted or was stolen. The Rabanan did not require that a public Mezuzah be checked as frequently as a private one in order not to inconvenience the public. Had the public been obligated to examine their Mezuzos frequently, each person would pass the responsibility on to another person and the Mezuzos would not be examined at all.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> explains that the reason why the Rabanan enacted such infrequent inspections for public Mezuzos is because of the danger that the inspectors faced due to the decrees issued by the foreign regime against the fulfillment of Mitzvos.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>SEFER HA'ESHKOL</b> says that private Mezuzos are more likely to become damaged by exposure to the elements than public Mezuzos. The large number of people who pass by the public Mezuzos ensures that public Mezuzos are watched carefully.
</p><p>
Rav Chaim Kanievsky adds that although the Beraisa's terminology ('twice in seven years' and 'twice in fifty years') implies that one fulfills his obligation to examine his Mezuzah even if he examines it in two consecutive years out of seven, this is not the Halachah. It is clear from the Beraisa in Maseches Mezuzah that the obligation applies every three and a half years for a private Mezuzah, and every twenty-five years for a public one. The Beraisa here merely uses an abbreviated manner of speech (perhaps to avoid discussing half-years) when it discusses the obligation to examine Mezuzos. (D. Schloss)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How can R. Yehudah claim that an ordinary 
          storehouse would be exempt according to all opinions, 
          when a Beraisa shows that Tana'im hold that they are 
          Chayav!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, this is a Tiyuvta.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE ARCHED GATE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Six gates which are exempt... and here are seven of them.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The one, the arched gate, is a Machlokes R. Meir (who 
          obligates) and the Chachamim (who exempt) [however they 
          agree to obligate if the frame rises 10 Tefachim before 
          the arch].
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Abaye explains that there is no dispute when 
               Chokekin would not give us 10 Tefachim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Machlokes is whether (R. Meir) or not 
               (Chachamim) we hold Chokekin Lehashlim to obligate 
               in Mezuzah.
<br>
<b><font>4) OTHER OBLIGATED BUILDINGS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  A Beis ha'Keneses, a woman's home and a home of partners 
          are obligated in Mezuzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> These are <i>obviously</i> obligated?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Beisecha' could be understood in the singular.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Maybe they are, indeed, exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> All who need long life are obligated.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then what is implied by the singular 
          'Beisecha'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> To teach the obligation on the right side.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Another Beraisa teaches that these same three buildings 
          are subject to the laws to Nega'im.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Again, this is obvious!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> From the singular male lo I might have learned 
          exemptions.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Maybe, indeed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> All homes which are part of the inheritance are 
          included.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is implied by the singular lo?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That the cause for the Nega is miserliness.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But a Beraisa teaches that a Beis ha'Keneses is 
          <i>not</i> subject to the laws of Nega'im?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One Beraisa (which subjects a synagogue to the 
          laws) is R. Meir, and the other (which exempts) is 
          Rabanan (as indicated by R. Meir's opinion obligating it 
          in a Mezuzah even without a residence within).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer:</font></b> They are both the opinion of Rabanan; 
          one speaking where there is an apartment within and one 
          without.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) A MEZUZAH ON A HOLY PLACE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a verse that teaches that only the entranceway of a 'Bayis she'Hu Chol,' a non-sanctified house, requires a Mezuzah, but not the entranceway of a holy place, such as Har ha'Bayis, the Lishkos, or the Azaros. Similarly, the Gemara later (12a) cites a Beraisa in which Rebbi Yehudah implies that a holy place does not require a Mezuzah.
</p><p>
Earlier in the Gemara (10a), the Chachamim and Rebbi Yehudah argue whether the Lishkas Parhedrin needs a Mezuzah. The Gemara there says that the question in that case depends on other factors, such as whether an involuntary dwelling place ('Dirah Ba'al Korcho') requires a Mezuzah, and whether a temporary dwelling place ('Diras Arai') requires a Mezuzah. However, the Gemara there does not suggest (according to either opinion there) that the Lishkas Parhedrin should be exempt from a Mezuzah because it is a holy place. Why does the Gemara there not give this reason for why the Lishkas Parhedrin is exempt from a Mezuzah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> explains that both the Chachamim and Rebbi Yehudah (on 10a) exempt the Lishkas Parhedrin from a Mezuzah because it is a holy place, as the Beraisa here says. This exemption, though, applies only mid'Oraisa. The dispute between the Chachamim and Rebbi Yehudah is whether the Lishkas Parhedrin requires a Mezuzah <i>mid'Rabanan</i>. Rebbi Yehudah says that it is an involuntary dwelling place, and thus it is exempt from a Mezuzah even mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> suggests that both the Chachamim and Rebbi Yehudah argue with the Beraisa here and assert that a holy place <i>requires</i> a Mezuzah mid'Oraisa. The Beraisa (12a) in which Rebbi Yehudah himself implies that a holy place is exempt does not refer to the Mitzvah of Mezuzah at all, but rather it refers to the laws of Nega'im.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ME'IRI</b> explains that when the Beraisa exempts a holy place from a Mezuzah, it exempts a place that is <i>used</i> for purposes of holiness, and not necessarily all places that are sanctified. The Lishkas Parhedrin is not used for a holy purpose when the Kohen Gadol resides there, and thus it requires a Mezuzah even though it is a sanctified place.
</p><p>
(d) The Me'iri suggests further that even if an area that is inherently sanctified does <i>not</i> require a Mezuzah regardless of how it is used, perhaps the Lishkas Parhedrin is <i>not</i> considered a holy place at all. <b>RASHI</b> (6a, DH mi'Beiso) writes that the Lishkas Parhedrin was not sanctified, and thus the Kohen Gadol was permitted to sit in the Lishkah (and, similarly, the Gemara's question that the Kohen Gadol's wife should be able to stay with him there is justified; see Insights there). The Lishkas Parhedrin did not have any sanctity, even that of Har ha'Bayis.
</p><p>


<font><b>4) A MEZUZAH ON A RENTED HOUSE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara asks why the verse says 'Beisecha' ('your houses') with regard to the Mitzvah of Mezuzah. The word 'Beisecha' implies that only a man's house requires a Mezuzah, but not a woman's house. There is no difference, however, between a house owned by a man and a house owned by a woman; both are obligated to have a Mezuzah. The Gemara answers that the word 'Beisecha' does not imply that the house of a man needs a Mezuzah but not that of a woman, but rather it teaches that the Mezuzah must be placed on the doorpost to the right of a person who enters the house ('Bi'ascha'). 
</p><p>
The Gemara in Menachos (44a), however, derives a different law from the word 'Beisecha': a rented house does not require a Mezuzah during the first thirty days of the rental period, because it is not 'your house.' (When one rents a house for more than thirty days, he must affix a Mezuzah only because of Mar'is ha'Ayin.)
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara here not answer that 'Beisecha' teaches the law that the Gemara in Menachos derives from this verse? 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Menachos (44a) explains that the Gemara here maintains that even a rented house requires a Mezuzah mid'Oraisa, because it, too, needs protection. (This is in contrast to the assertion of the <b>GILYON HA'SHAS</b> here.) The only reason why such a house is exempt from a Mezuzah for the first thirty days is because it is not considered a dwelling place until one has dwelled there for thirty days.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> also explains that a rented house requires a Mezuzah mid'Oraisa (Bava Metzia 101b and Avodah Zarah 21a, DH Chovas ha'Dar). In fact, Rashi derives the <i>obligation</i> (as opposed to the <i>exemption</i>) to affix a Mezuzah to a rented house from the word 'Beisecha,' which implies 'Derech Bi'ascha' -- anyone who <i>uses</i> an apartment, whether he owns it or rents it, is obligated to affix a Mezuzah. Before thirty days have passed, one is exempt only because he has not yet made it clear that he intends to live there in a permanent manner (Rashi to Menachos 44a, DH veha'Socher).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> in Shabbos (131b, DH Ho'il) writes that a rented or borrowed house obviously does not require a Mezuzah mid'Oraisa. The Gemara could have given that answer here, but it chose to teach another law which is learned from the word 'Beisecha.'
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> in Menachos (ibid.) also concludes that a rented house is not obligated to have a Mezuzah mid'Oraisa. He explains that the verse says 'Beisecha' <i>twice</i>, and the Gemara here is explaining the <i>second</i> 'Beisecha.' The first 'Beisecha' indeed teaches that a rented house does not need a Mezuzah.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) A BEIS HAKENESES AND THE LAWS OF NEGA'IM (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer #2:</font></b> They both do not have an apartment 
          within; speaks of Kerachim (not subject to the laws of 
          Nega'im), and one of Kefarim (subject to those laws).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa implies (in the opinion of R. 
          Yehudah) that synagogues <i>are</i> subject to <i>Tum'as</i> 
          Nega'im (even if they are of K'rachim)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehudah meant all sanctified places.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the Machlokes Tana Kama and R. Yehudah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Over whether (R. Yehudah) or not (Tana Kama) 
          Yerushalayim was apportioned to Shevatim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This parallels an earlier Machlokes Tanaim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The first Beraisa speaks of the parts of the Mikdash 
               occupying the land of Binyamin and Yehudah, and of 
               the Pious Binyamin yearning to contribute the land 
               under the Mizbe'ach (and being compensated with the 
               Aron).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> The second Beraisa speaks of Yerushalayim as 
               belonging to the entire people, and the resultant 
               prohibition on charging for hospitality there (and 
               the obligations which Chazal placed on visitors, in 
               return).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But a Beraisa limits the laws of Nega'im to 
          homes which have highly specified ownership!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, we should use the first answers.
<br>
<b><font>2) HOW AND WHEN TO BE MECHANECH THE SUBSTITUTE KOHEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How can we do the Chinuch for the substitute if 
          the Pesul occurs after the Tamid Shel Shachar has already 
          been brought by the first (no special Begadim to put 
          on)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Avnet.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But what of the opinion that the Avnet which is 
          worn by the Kohen Gadol on Yom ha'Kipurim is identical to 
          that worn year-round by the regular Kohanim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> He puts on all 8 Begadim and turns the 
          flesh on the fire (an act prohibited to a Zar).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: MEZUZOS ON HOUSES IN YERUSHALAYIM</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says that according to the Tana Kama, houses in Yerushalayim do not become Tamei with Nega'im. The Torah says that only houses built on 'Eretz Achuzaschem' -- 'land in your possession' (Vayikra 14:34) -- can become Tamei. Yerushalayim is not considered 'Achuzaschem,' 'your possession,' because it was not divided among the tribes.
</p><p>
Does the Gemara's comparison of the laws of Nega'im to the laws of Mezuzos imply that the Tana Kama maintains that houses in Yerushalayim are exempt mid'Oraisa from the Mitzvah of Mezuzah?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Mezuzah 6:6) writes that a synagogue is exempt from the Mitzvah of Mezuzah because of its status as a holy place, just as Har ha'Bayis, the Lishkos, and other sanctified places are exempt (11b). With regard to Nega'im, the Gemara (11b) says that a synagogue does not become Tamei with Tum'as Nega'im because it has no designated owner. Its status as a holy place is not the reason for its exclusion from the laws of Nega'im.
</p><p>
According to the Rambam, why does the Gemara say that a synagogue of a small town ('Beis ha'Keneses Shel Kefarim') requires a Mezuzah? It should be exempt because it is a holy place! The Rambam explains that it was the common practice in small towns to use the synagogues as guest houses. The synagogues were built with intent that they not be sanctified as holy places so that guests would be able to sleep there. (The <b>RITVA</b> (11a) offers a similar explanation.)
</p><p>
The Rambam clearly maintains that one set of criteria determines whether the Mitzvah of Mezuzah applies to a place, and another set of criteria determines whether the laws of Nega'im apply to a place. Accordingly, houses in Yerushalayim require Mezuzos, even though the laws of Nega'im do not apply to them.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> (DH d'Kefarim) writes that a synagogue of a small town requires a Mezuzah because it has 'Ba'alim Nikarim' -- its owners are known. It is like a house owned by partners. In contrast, a synagogue of a large town ('Beis ha'Keneses Shel Kerachim') has no discernible owners.
</p><p>
Rashi does not differentiate between the criteria that determine whether the laws of Nega'im apply to a place and the criteria that determine whether a place requires a Mezuzah. The applicability of both Halachos depends on whether the house has a known, discernible owner. When the owner of the house is not identifiable, it does not require a Mezuzah and it is not subject to the laws of Nega'im.
</p><p>
What is the status of the houses in Yerushalayim with regard to the Mitzvah of Mezuzah? Although the houses in Yerushalayim do not become Tamei with Tum'as Nega'im because the land is not owned by anyone, the houses upon the land <i>do</i> have owners, and thus perhaps they need Mezuzos. However, if the houses have owners, then why does the Beraisa prohibit one from renting out a house in Yerushalayim? Since the house has a private owner, he should be entitled to rent out the right to dwell in the house.
</p><p>
Perhaps the answer is that at the allotment of the land during the times of Yehoshua, a condition was made that whoever builds a house in Yerushalayim and uses the land is not allowed to keep others out. Therefore, one may not take rental money for a house in Yerushalayim. However, the house itself has a private owner and thus it requires a Mezuzah.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A MEZUZAH ON A HOUSE OWNED BY PARTNERS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara concludes that according to the Beraisa, the synagogue of a small town ('Beis Keneses Shel Kefarim') does not become Tamei with Nega'im. Even if the owners are known, the fact that it is owned by a group exempts it from the laws of Tum'as Nega'im. It is like houses built on land that was allotted to a tribe but was not yet divided among the specific families. The houses do not become Tamei with Nega'im because they have no individual owner.
</p><p>
The Gemara earlier, however, seems to contradict this law. The Gemara (11b) quotes a Beraisa which says that a house owned by partners <i>does</i> become Tamei with Tum'as Nega'im. According to the Gemara here, a house owned by partners should not become Tamei with Nega'im. How are the two Beraisos to be reconciled?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> and <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> explain that the Gemara here assumes that the two Beraisos disagree. According to the Beraisa here, a house owned by partners indeed does not become Tamei with Nega'im and is exempt from a Mezuzah.
</p><p>
(b) The Tosfos Yeshanim suggests further that perhaps the two Beraisos can be reconciled. The Beraisa here agrees that a house owned by partners must have a Mezuzah. The reason for the Beraisa's ruling that houses built on land that has not yet been divided do not become Tamei with Tum'as Nega'im is because that land was <i>never</i> owned by one person, and not merely because that land is presently owned by more than one owner. Similarly, there is a difference between the joint ownership of a synagogue of a small town and the joint ownership of a house owned by partners. In the case of the synagogue, the joint owners are not entitled to partition the synagogue and give each owner his portion. In contrast, a house owned by partners may be divided whenever the partners decide to divide it. Therefore, a synagogue is exempt from a Mezuzah (and the laws of Tum'as Nega'im) while a jointly-owned house is not.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> and <b><b><b>RI</b></b> HA'LAVAN</b> explain that a house owned by partners is normally exempt from a Mezuzah and does not become Tamei with Tum'as Nega'im, as the Beraisa here teaches. However, when each partner is allotted a designated and distinct area of the house, each section of the house requires a Mezuzah and can become Tamei with Tum'as Nega'im. In such a case, the partners share only a common door at the main entrance to the property. Each owner is obligated to affix a Mezuzah on his section of the house.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (YD 286:1) rules that a house owned by partners must have a Mezuzah.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) BINYAMIN'S REWARD</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa says that Binyamin was distressed when he learned that his portion of Eretz Yisrael would not contain all parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash and Mizbe'ach. In his portion would be only the Mizbe'ach and the parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash to the west of the Mizbe'ach, while in the portion of Yehudah would be the parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash to the east of the Mizbe'ach and a strip right beneath the eastern (and southern) base of the Mizbe'ach. Binyamin was distressed that he would receive only part of the Mizbe'ach and not the entire Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
As reward for his strong desire to have all of the parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash in his portion, Binyamin merited 'to become the host for the Almighty.' <b>RASHI</b> explains that this means that 'the Aron ha'Kodesh was placed in his portion.'
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARSHA</b> (in Zevachim 53b) asks that if Binyamin saw that his portion of land would contain most of the Mizbe'ach except for one small strip on the eastern side of the Mizbe'ach, then certainly he knew that the Mizbe'ach and the area to the west of it would all be in his portion. Accordingly, he already knew that the Aron ha'Kodesh would be in his portion! What, then, does the Gemara mean when it says that Binyamin was rewarded for his feelings of distress by having the Aron ha'Kodesh in his portion? It was already in his portion!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Hash-m revealed to Binyamin that both he and Yehudah would have parts of the Mizbe'ach in their respective portions. Binyamin, however, did not know exactly how this distribution would be executed. All he knew was that he would share the Mizbe'ach with Yehudah. Since he so strongly desired to have all of the Beis ha'Mikdash in his portion, he merited to receive the area to the side of the Mizbe'ach that contained the Aron ha'Kodesh.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TORAH TEMIMAH</b> (Devarim 33:12) gives a different explanation for what the Gemara means when it says that Binyamin merited 'to become the host for the Almighty.'
</p><p>
The Gemara in Zevachim (118b) says that the Shechinah dwelled among the Jewish people in three places: in the Mishkan in Shilo, in Nov and Giv'on, and in the Beis ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim. All three places were in the portion of Binyamin. Binyamin foresaw that he would have the Aron ha'Kodesh in his portion in the <i>Beis ha'Mikdash</i>, while Yehudah would have in his portion only a strip from the Mizbe'ach. As reward for his distress that the eastern base of the Mizbe'ach would not be in his portion, Binyamin merited that the <i>other</i> places in which the Aron ha'Kodesh would reside would be in his portion as well. (This may be the intention of Rashi here as well.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Papa):</font></b> Doing the Avodah is [sufficient] 
          Chinuch (as in the Beraisa regarding Keilim after Moshe's 
          time).
<br>
<b><font>3) THE COMPOSITION OF THE AVNET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  There is a Machlokes Rebbi and R. Elazar b'R. Shimon 
          whether the Avnet was Kilayim or only Pishtan.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We attempt to adduce that Rebbi holds it is Kilayim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa, which must speak on Yom ha'Kipurim, 
               cites the Avnet as the only difference between the 
               garments of the Kohen Gadol and of a regular Kohen.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> No, the Beraisa could be speaking year-round and is 
               only drawing contrasts between like-garments of the 
               Kohen Gadol and the regular Kohen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Ravin taught that the Machlokes was if the Avnet of the 
          regular Kohen was Kilayim (Rebbi) or Pishtan (R. Elazar).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> There was no Machlokes regarding the Avnet of the 
               Kohen Gadol.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Avnet of the Kohen Gadol on Yom ha'Kipurim was 
               surely Pishtan, and during the year it was Kilayim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Nachman b. Yitzhok cited a supporting Beraisa wherein 
          Rebbi teaches that the Avnet of the Kohen Gadol on Yom 
          ha'Kipurim is unlike the Avnet of the regular Kohen.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa revolves around the word 'Yilbash'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah and R. Dosa argue over its 
               interpretation.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Rebbi gives two refutations to R. Dosa (our reason 
               and a S'vara that an object of higher Kedushah 
               should not be used for lesser).
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> 'Yilbash' (according to Rebbi) would then teach that 
               the garments need not be brand new.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> R. Dosa is consistent with his opinion that the 
               Begadim of a Kohen Gadol need not be placed in 
               Genizah, but may only not be used for another Yom 
               ha'Kipurim.
<br>
<b><font>4) SUBSEQUENT TREATMENT OF THE REPLACEMENT KOHEN GADOL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Meir):</font></b> Both Kohanim are treated as Kohanim Gedolim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Yosi):</font></b> The first is restored to his post, and the 
          second cannot function as Kohen Gadol nor as a regular 
          Kohen (citing an incident in support of his view).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He cannot be a co-Kohen Gadol for fear of enmity.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He cannot be a regular Kohen out of respect for his 
               elevated status.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Halachah 
          follows R. Yosi.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi also holds that if he <i>does</i> function as a 
               Kohen Gadol, his Avodah is Kesheirah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Here, too, in the name of Rav, the Halachah follows 
               R. Yosi.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) SUBSEQUENT TREATMENT OF THE REPLACEMENT KOHEN GADOL (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi agrees that if the first Kohen Gadol dies, that 
          the replacement takes his place permanently.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> This seems obvious?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We might have wished to avoid hard feelings.
<br>
<b><font>2) A REPLACEMENT WIFE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do the Rabanan regard the risk of his P'sul 
          more so than his death?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The likelihood of <i>Tum'ah</i> is greater.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How would R. Yehudah respond to the endless 
          risks concern of the Rabanan?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We concern ourselves with the risk of one death, 
          not two (while Rabanan hold that once we are concerned 
          about deaths, we would be concerned even for two).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What of the endless risk charge against the 
          Rabanan?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Kohen Gadol is a Zariz.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then why the need for the replacement?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> To spur him on even further.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But designating the replacement does not make 
          her his Beiso?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He gives her Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But without Chupah, she is still not Beiso?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He does Chupah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But then he has two wives, and it is not Beiso?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He then divorces her.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then we are back where we started?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He divorces her on condition.
<br>
<b><font>3) THE CONDITIONAL DIVORCE OF THE KOHEN GADOL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  He stipulates, If you die...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> He could then end up with two wives?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He stipulates 'If you don't die... '.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> He could end up with no wife?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He stipulates 'If one of my wives dies... '.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> He could end up with two wives?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question #2:</font></b> A Get with a life-long condition is not 
          valid?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He stipulates 'If the other does not die... '.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> He could end up having had done the first half 
          of the Avodah with two wives?!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) PERFORMING 'KIDUSHIN' TO TAKE EFFECT ON YOM KIPPUR</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Torah requires that the Kohen Gadol be married when he performs the Avodah on Yom Kippur (Vayikra 16:11); a Kohen Gadol who is not married may not perform the Avodah. However, the Torah also requires that he be married to only one woman and not to two (ibid.). Because of these requirements, Rebbi Yehudah maintains that prior to Yom Kippur another wife is arranged for the Kohen Gadol in order to ensure that he remains married in case his first wife dies on Yom Kippur. Rebbi Yehudah does not say that the Kohen Gadol should simply marry another wife before Yom Kippur, because he may not be married to two wives when he performs the Avodah.
</p><p>
The Gemara proposes a complex arrangement whereby the Kohen Gadol should marry a second woman before Yom Kippur and divorce both wives conditionally, in such a way that at any given moment during Yom Kippur he has only one wife and yet he is assured that if one dies he will be married to the other. The condition effectively states that in the event that one of the two women dies on Yom Kippur, then that woman (who died) is divorced retroactively (from before Yom Kippur), so that retroactively the Kohen Gadol was not married to two women when he began the Avodah. If neither woman dies on Yom Kippur, then the condition states that the second wife automatically becomes divorced retroactively.
</p><p>
There seems to be a much simpler solution that the Gemara could have offered to ensure that the Kohen Gadol remain married. The Kohen Gadol should marry a woman (with Kidushin (Erusin) and Nisu'in (Chupah)) on Yom Kippur at the moment his first wife dies.
</p><p>
Alternatively, if it is not possible for the Kohen Gadol to marry a woman on Yom Kippur because of the decree that one may not marry a woman on Yom Tov (Beitzah 36b), he should still perform Kidushin with her <i>before</i> Yom Kippur on condition that if his present wife dies on Yom Kippur, the Kidushin of the second will take effect <i>at the moment</i> that the first one dies. Why does the Gemara not offer this solution? (<b>SHA'AGAS ARYEH</b> #93)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (13b, DH v'Chada) cites the Yerushalmi that indeed says that the Kohen Gadol marries a second wife on Yom Kippur if his first wife dies. The enactment against marrying on Yom Tov does not apply because of the principle of 'Ein Shevus b'Mikdash' (the prohibitions of Shevus do not apply in the Beis ha'Mikdash).
</p><p>
However, the Gemara here clearly does not accept this, apparently because this type of Shevus is not permitted even in the Beis ha'Mikdash ('Shevus d'Medinah Lo Hutar ba'Mikdash'; Eruvin 103a). Why, though, does the Gemara here not allow the Kohen Gadol to be Mekadesh a second wife before Yom Kippur with the condition that the Kidushin take effect on Yom Kippur? (In fact, according to the Girsa of our edition of the Yerushalmi which Tosfos cites, this is actually what the Yerushalmi itself suggests.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (Teshuvos 1:159) and the <b>SI'ACH YITZCHAK</b> discuss whether a person may perform an act of Kinyan prior to Shabbos which will take effect on Shabbos (see Insights to Pesachim 66:2). They prove from the Gemara here that such an act is prohibited because of Shevus. Had it been permitted, the Gemara would have said that the Kohen Gadol should perform Kidushin with a second wife before Yom Kippur on condition that the Kidushin take effect on Yom Kippur in the event that his first wife dies. Since the Gemara does not say this, it is evident that such a Kinyan is prohibited because of Shevus.
</p><p>
However, Rebbi Akiva Eiger then cites proof that such a Kinyan is permitted. The <b>TERUMAS HA'DESHEN</b> (cited by the Magen Avraham OC 339:8) implies that one should be permitted to perform Pidyon ha'Ben on Shabbos even though the father cannot give the money to the Kohen on Shabbos. The father should be permitted to give the money to the Kohen before Shabbos and stipulate that he wants the Pidyon to take effect on Shabbos. (The Terumas ha'Deshen concludes that the only reason such a Pidyon is not done in practice is because one will not be able to recite the blessings for Pidyon ha'Ben on Shabbos or on Erev Shabbos.) The Terumas ha'Deshen clearly maintains that one is permitted to do an act of Kinyan (and similarly, Kidushin) which will take effect on Shabbos.
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos understands from the Yerushalmi that the act of bringing a wife into the Chupah (the act of Nisu'in) constitutes Shevus, like the act of Kidushin. Accordingly, perhaps the reason why one may not perform Kidushin on condition that it take effect on Yom Kippur is because even though the Kidushin itself may be performed <i>before</i> Yom Kippur and take effect <i>on</i> Yom Kippur, the act of Chupah must be done on Yom Kippur (at the same time it takes effect), and the act of Chupah is prohibited because of Shevus.
</p><p>
The reason why the Chupah cannot be done prior to Yom Kippur on condition that it take effect on Yom Kippur is because the act of Chupah must take effect immediately, and not at a later time. Unlike the money given to effect Kidushin or to consummate a Kinyan, which will remain in existence the following day, an act that is transitory and will no longer exist the following day cannot take effect at a later time. (Rebbi Akiva Eiger apparently assumes that a Chupah <i>can</i> take effect on the following day.)
</p><p>
The <b><b><b>RI</b></b> HA'LAVAN</b> suggests that the act of Chupah cannot be done on Yom Kippur for a different reason, even if it is not an act of Shevus. Practically, there is no way to perform the act of Chupah: Chupah cannot be done with Bi'ah, because Bi'ah is forbidden on Yom Kippur. An ordinary walk-under Chupah cannot be performed on Yom Kippur, because the Kohen Gadol must remain sequestered and cannot leave the Azarah. (Similarly, the new wife cannot join him in the Azarah for the act of Chupah, either because it would be a breach of his Perishah or because of the ruling of Rashi (Kidushin 52b, DH v'Chi) and the Tosefta (Erchin 2:1) that a woman may not enter the Azarah when she does not bring a Korban.)
</p><p>
Rebbi Akiva Eiger adds another reason for why Chupah cannot be performed on Yom Kippur. The Gemara in Kesuvos (56a) discusses whether an act of Chupah which is not fit to be consummated with Bi'ah is a valid Chupah or not. The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ishus 10:2) rules that it is not a valid Chupah. Accordingly, a Chupah performed on Yom Kippur is not valid because Bi'ah is forbidden on Yom Kippur and the Chupah is not fit for Bi'ah. Even according to those who do not rule like the Rambam and who permit a Chupah which cannot be consummated with Bi'ah, the Gemara prefers not to suggest that the Kohen Gadol perform such a Chupah because of the doubt raised in Kesuvos.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RITVA</b> says that even if it one is permitted to perform the act of Chupah on Yom Kippur, there remains a concern that his wife will die while he is in the middle of an Avodah and he will not be able to interrupt the Avodah to marry another wife with Chupah (and the act of Chupah cannot be done through a Shali'ach.)
</p><p>
(See also the end of the following Insight.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He made a prior stipulation 'If the other dies... 
          '.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> He could end up with no wife?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He divorces both with stipulations:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> To the first 'If the other does not die...'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> To the second 'If you do not walk into... '.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But he could end up with no wife?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He takes the stipulation to the second wife into 
          his own control (and if he sees that one is dying he can 
          retroactively activate the divorce of the other).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But it says the singular 'Bayis' by Yibum, as 
          well?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The extra 'Yevimto' increases the number.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But an Arusah should be restricted by Yibum?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We learn Arusah by Yibum from 'ha'Chutzah'.
<br>
<b><font>4) KOHEN GADOL ONEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Tana Kama):</font></b> He offers even while an Onen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> All day.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is all day?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We even bring him from his house.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Such a leniency in Aninus from R. Yehudah from 
          whom we know great strictness in this area?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, he does <i>not</i> offer all day, lest he eat.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) MAKING A RETROACTIVE 'KIDUSHIN' INSTEAD OF 'GERUSHIN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Torah requires that the Kohen Gadol be married when he performs the Avodah on Yom Kippur (Vayikra 16:11), but the Torah also requires that he be married to only one woman and not to two. The Gemara proposes a complex arrangement whereby the Kohen Gadol should marry a second woman before Yom Kippur and divorce both wives conditionally, in such a way that at any given moment during Yom Kippur he has only one wife and yet he is assured that if one dies he will be married to the other. The condition effectively states that in the event that one of the two women dies on Yom Kippur, then that woman (who died) is divorced retroactively (from before Yom Kippur), so that retroactively the Kohen Gadol was not married to two women when he began the Avodah. If neither woman dies on Yom Kippur, then the condition states that the second wife automatically becomes divorced retroactively.
</p><p>
There seems to be a simpler solution that the Gemara could have offered to ensure that the Kohen Gadol remain married. Even if one may not perform an act of Kidushin to take effect on Yom Kippur (see previous Insight), there still is a way to ensure that the Kohen Gadol will be married during the Avodah without having to give two conditional divorces. The Gemara should suggest that the Kohen Gadol divorce his wife on condition that he enters a synagogue, as the Gemara says, and he should be <i>Mekadesh</i> the second woman before Yom Kippur on condition that if his present wife dies the second woman will be married to him retroactively from before Yom Kippur. Why does the Gemara not give this suggestion? (<b>SHA'AGAS ARYEH</b> #93)
</p><p>
This procedure for the second woman has an advantage over the procedure (of marrying her and then divorcing her conditionally) which the Gemara suggests. The advantage of this procedure is that if the Kohen Gadol's present wife does not die, then the second woman will <i>not</i> have been married at all, and thus she remains permitted to marry a Kohen in the future. The Gemara in Yevamos (43b) says that it is preferable to avoid an unnecessary act of Chalitzah with a woman who is permitted to marry a Kohen, because the act of Chalitzah will render her unfit to marry a Kohen. Similarly, in this case, if the Kohen Gadol would marry the second woman and give her a conditional divorce, then if the condition is fulfilled (i.e. the first wife does not die) the divorce will take effect and render the second woman unfit to marry a Kohen. By giving her a conditional <i>Kidushin</i>, on the other hand, if his present wife does not die the Kidushin never took effect and the second woman remains permitted to marry a Kohen.
</p><p>
(The answers to the question in the previous Insight do not apply here, because in this case both the Kidushin and the Chupah take effect retroactively from before Yom Kippur.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>SHA'AGAS ARYEH</b> answers that a conditional Kidushin cannot be performed in this case because such an act entails Bereirah. Bereirah refers to a situation in which a future event determines a retroactive change of status. In the case of a conditional Kidushin, at the moment that he performs the act of Kidushin it is not known that the Kidushin will take effect. The Kidushin depends on the occurrence of a future event (the death of his present wife).
</p><p>
In contrast, when the Kohen Gadol gives a divorce on condition that he goes into a synagogue, there is no element of Bereirah involved. The divorce depends not on the occurrence of a future event that is beyond man's control, but rather on the Kohen Gadol's fulfillment of an ordinary Tenai (condition) -- on an action that the person himself can choose to do or not to do (for an in-depth discussion of the difference between Bereirah and a Tenai, see Insights to Eruvin 36:2). In the case of the Gemara, the condition on which the Kidushin depends (i.e. the death of his present wife) is an event beyond human control, and therefore the case is one of Bereirah.
</p><p>
According to one opinion cited by the Gemara in Eruvin (36b), Rebbi Yehudah maintains that Bereirah does not work ('Ein Bereirah'); a change in status cannot be effected retroactively based on a future event. Since the Gemara here discusses the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, it does not suggest a case that involves Bereirah.
</p><p>
However, the Gemara itself suggests that the Kohen Gadol give the second woman a divorce on condition that his present wife does not die on Yom Kippur. Why does that stipulation not constitute Bereirah?
</p><p>
The Sha'agas Aryeh answers based on the words of the <b>RAN</b> in Gitin (25b). The Ran differentiates between a case in which one makes the change of status contingent upon the positive occurrence of a future event (he says in his stipulation, 'on condition that this event happens') and a case in which one makes the change of status contingent upon the non-occurrence of a future event ('on condition that this event does <i>not</i> happen'). The case is one of Bereirah only when one stipulates that the change of status should take effect only if the future event happens. When one stipulates that the change of status should take effect only if a future event does <i>not</i> happen, it is not a case of Bereirah. (For example, if a man says to a woman, 'You are married to me on condition that your father does not protest,' it is not a case of Bereirah. If he says to her, 'You are married to me on condition that your father grants permission,' it is a case of Bereirah.)
</p><p>
According to the view of the Ran, the Gemara here is clear. When the Kohen Gadol divorces the second woman on condition that the first one does not die, it is not considered Bereirah because the divorce depends on the non-occurrence of an event (the death of the first wife). In contrast, if he <i>marries</i> a second woman on condition that the first one dies, it <i>is</i> considered Bereirah because the marriage depends on the positive occurrence of the event.
</p><p>
<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (Teshuvos 1:159) rejects the Sha'agas Aryeh's answer. The Gemara still should suggest that the Kohen Gadol marry the second woman on condition that he <i>enters a synagogue</i> (and not on condition that the first wife dies), just as the Gemara suggests that he divorce his first wife on condition that he enters a synagogue. A moment before his first wife dies, the Kohen Gadol should walk into a synagogue and thereby cause the divorce of the first wife and the Kidushin of the second to take effect at the same moment.
</p><p>
(b) <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (ibid.) therefore suggests another answer. The Gemara in Beitzah (36b) teaches that the Rabanan decreed (as a prohibition of 'Shevus') that one may not marry or divorce a woman on Yom Tov. Perhaps they prohibited not only the actual act of Kidushin or Gerushin on Yom Tov, but also any act which fulfills a condition and causes Kidushin or Gerushin to take effect. In the case of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur, the Rabanan permitted this lesser form of Shevus to enable the Kohen Gadol to perform the Avodah. (See the Yerushalmi as cited in Insights to 13:1:a.)
</p><p>
Nevertheless, even in a case in which the Rabanan permitted Shevus, a person preferably should avoid two acts of Shevus when he can accomplish his objective with one (<b>TOSFOS</b> to Eruvin 35a, DH Bo). Therefore, the Gemara suggests that the Kohen Gadol marry the second woman on condition, and give a conditional divorce to both women. By doing so, the Kohen Gadol needs to perform only one act of Shevus on Yom Kippur to make the divorce take effect (when he enters a synagogue, he causes his first wife to become divorced), instead of two acts of Shevus (if he would perform a conditional Kidushin with the second woman, his entry into the synagogue would result in two acts of Shevus -- the divorce of his first wife and the Kidushin of his second wife).
</p><p>
(c) Alternatively, perhaps it is not possible to perform Kidushin on condition that it take effect retroactively. In order for the Kohen Gadol to marry the second woman, he also would need to perform a conditional <i>Chupah</i> as well. The act of Chupah consummates the marriage because it generates 'Chibas Bi'ah,' feelings of intimacy between the man and woman. Logically, therefore, the act of Chupah cannot be performed on condition, because if the Kidushin never takes effect (that is, if its condition is not fulfilled), the Chupah retroactively will be rendered an act of promiscuity, because it generated feelings of intimacy between a man and woman who are not married. Therefore, the Gemara does not suggest that conditional Kidushin with Chupah be performed.
</p><p>
This approach also answers the question addressed earlier (see previous Insight) -- why the Gemara does not suggest that the Kohen Gadol perform Kidushin and Chupah on condition that it take effect retroactively if the first wife dies on Yom Kippur. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) A RETROACTIVE DIVORCE -- POSTHUMOUSLY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the proper procedure for the Kohen Gadol to follow to ensure that he remains married to one wife on Yom Kippur. The Gemara concludes that he should perform Kidushin with a second woman, and give a conditional divorce to both. The divorce he gives to the second woman will take effect only if his first wife does not die during Yom Kippur. The divorce he gives to his first wife will take effect only if he enters a synagogue. If, on Yom Kippur, he sees that his wife is about to die, he should run into a synagogue and thereby cause the divorce to take effect retroactively. In that way, he ensures that he will be married to only one woman on Yom Kippur.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara require that the Kohen Gadol enter a synagogue <i>before</i> his wife dies in order to fulfill the condition on which the divorce depends? The divorce should take effect even if he enters a synagogue <i>after</i> she dies! The Gemara in Gitin (76b) teaches that a divorce takes effect after death, retroactively from the time that both partners were alive. For example, when the husband says, 'You are divorced on condition that I do not return within a year,' and he dies within the year, the divorce takes effect.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> and <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> answer that the Gemara in Gitin teaches only that the <i>husband</i> does not have to be alive at the time the condition is fulfilled in order for the divorce to be valid. However, the <i>wife</i> must be alive in order for the divorce to be valid. (The reason for the difference requires further elucidation, as the <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> points out in Hagahos to Teshuvos Rebbi Akiva Eiger #127.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> answers that the Kohen Gadol indeed may divorce his wife by entering a synagogue after her death. However, at the moment of her death he becomes an Onen (a mourner immediately after the death of a close relative) and is so overcome with grief that he might forget to enter a synagogue after she dies in order to effect the retroactive divorce. Therefore, the Rabanan instituted that he enter a synagogue before she dies.
</p><p>
(c) The <b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b> (Hilchos Gerushin 8:21) suggests that at the moment that his wife dies, the Kohen Gadol becomes Nidcheh (disqualified) from the Avodah. When she dies before he enters a synagogue to effect the divorce, the divorce of the <i>second</i> woman becomes annulled retroactively (as per the stipulation), and, as a result, he was married (retroactively) to two wives when Yom Kippur commenced.
</p><p>
When an animal designated as a Korban becomes disqualified from being offered, it remains Nidcheh even when the invalidating factor is removed. Similarly, when the Kohen Gadol becomes disqualified from the Avodah for some reason, he remains disqualified even when that invalidating factor is removed. In this case, if the Kohen Gadol does not enter a synagogue until after his wife dies, he becomes Nidcheh as a result of having two wives at the beginning of Yom Kippur. Although the divorce takes effect retroactively when he eventually enters the synagogue, such that at the onset of Yom Kippur he was not married to two women, nevertheless he remains disqualified from the Avodah.
</p><p>
(This comparison needs further clarification. In the case of a Korban, when the invalidating factor is removed the Korban's rectification applies only from that time onward; since there was still a time in the past at which it was disqualified, it remains disqualified. In the case of the Kohen Gadol, the invalidating factor (having two wives at once on Yom Kippur) is removed <i>retroactively</i> so that it <i>never</i> existed, and thus it is not logical to say that he 'remains' disqualified.)
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RASHASH</b> suggests that none of the conditions that the Gemara mentions operate retroactively. No one becomes divorced retroactively, and no one becomes married retroactively. Conditions that involve retroactive changes of status would constitute Bereirah (see (a) of previous Insight).
</p><p>
Rather, the Kohen Gadol's stipulation causes the divorce or marriage to take effect <i>prospectively</i> ('mi'Kan ul'Haba'). When the Kohen Gadol enters a synagogue to divorce his first wife, the divorce takes effect from that moment onward, and not retroactively. Accordingly, it is obvious that he must fulfill the condition <i>before</i> she dies; he cannot divorce a dead wife.
</p><p>
The Gemara's words, however, contradict the Rashash's explanation. The Gemara explicitly says that the Kohen Gadol must enter a synagogue to divorce his wife 'l'Mafrei'a' (retroactively). How does the Rashash understand the Gemara?
</p><p>
The Rashash explains that 'l'Mafrei'a' does not mean 'retroactively' in this context. Rather, 'l'Mafrei'a' here means that the Kohen Gadol must enter a synagogue to effect the divorce <i>before</i> he begins the day's Avodah. The word 'l'Mafrei'a' does not describe when the divorce takes effect, but rather when the Kohen Gadol should fulfill the condition. The divorce itself takes effect only from that time onward.
</p><p>
(According to the Rashash, the Kohen Gadol should assess his wife's state of health before he begins the Avodah of Yom Kippur. If she appears mortally ill, he must enter a synagogue so that the divorce takes effect and he remains married only to the second wife. If she looks as though she will live, he should not enter a synagogue, and the second wife becomes divorced.)
</p><p>


<font><b>4) THE MITZVAH FOR A KOHEN GADOL TO PERFORM THE AVODAH EVEN AS AN 'ONEN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa states that the Kohen Gadol may perform the Avodah when he is an Onen, but he may not eat any Kodshim in that state ('Makriv Onen v'Eino Ochel'). Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa adds two words, 'Kol ha'Yom' ('all day'). The Gemara asks what he means by 'Kol ha'Yom.'
</p><p>
Abaye explains that Rebbi Yehudah means that the Kohen Gadol who is an Onen is brought from his house to the Beis ha'Mikdash to perform the Avodah ('l'Ha'aviro mi'Toch Beiso'). <b>RASHI</b> explains that Abaye means that it is a <i>Mitzvah</i> for the Kohen Gadol to perform the Avodah while he is an Onen because it will lessen his distress.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi say that it is a Mitzvah for the Kohen Gadol to perform the Avodah while he is an Onen? From where does Rashi learn that it is obligatory for the Kohen Gadol to alleviate his grief by performing the Avodah? Abaye seems to teach simply that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that not only may the Kohen Gadol <i>continue</i> the Avodah when he becomes an Onen in the midst of its execution, but he is also permitted to <i>begin</i> the Avodah when he is an Onen. (Indeed, this is how <b>RABEINU ELYAKIM</b> explains Abaye's statement.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Rashi is bothered by Rebbi Yehudah's phraseology. If Rebbi Yehudah means that the Kohen Gadol is permitted to begin the Avodah as an Onen, why does he use the words 'Kol ha'Yom'? He should say instead '*even* if <i>he is at home</i>.' How does the phrase 'Kol ha'Yom' express the Kohen Gadol's right to begin the Avodah when he is an Onen?
</p><p>
It must be that Rebbi Yehudah means that the Kohen Gadol is <i>obligated</i> to do the Avodah at <i>every moment</i> of the day because it is a Mitzvah, and that is why he says 'Kol ha'Yom.'
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) KOHEN GADOL ONEN (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But in our Mishnah R. Yehudah lets the Kohen 
          Gadol Onen do the Avodah (provided he has a replacement 
          wife)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That is Yom Kipur where there is no fear of 
          eating.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is there Aninus, given that she is divorced?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Perhaps not legal Aninus, but certainly anguish.
<br>
<b><font>2) MISHNAH: DURING THE SEVEN DAYS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Kohen Gadol does the Zerikas ha'Dam, the Ketores, 
          prepares the Neiros, and is Makriv the Rosh and Regel.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  All year round it is his prerogative to be Makriv and to 
          take the portion in the edible Kodshim.
<br>
<b><font>3) A TAHOR PERSON BECOMING TAMEI FROM THE HAZA'AH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah must not follow R. Akiva, who holds that a 
          Tahor upon whom there was Haza'ah becomes Tamei, as cited 
          in the Beraisa (and the Kohen Gadol could not then do the 
          daily Avodah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The source is a Mishnah regarding (un)intentional 
          Haza'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva learns from 'Al ha'Tamei' that a Tahor becomes 
          Tamei.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Rabanan interpret 'Al ha'Tamei' to speak only of articles 
          which may become Tamei (but a Tahor person <i>certainly</i> 
          remains Tahor).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva holds that this is one of the mysteries of the 
          Parah about which Shlomoh wrote that it is beyond him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Rabanan hold that reference to speak about the Mazeh and 
          the one sprinkled upon being Tahor while the Nogeah is 
          Tamei).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Mazeh is Tamei in the Pasuk?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mazeh is the Nogea.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But <i>both</i> are listed (and further, they have 
          different laws regarding clothing)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, the Mazeh is the carrier.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then why did the Pasuk say Mazeh?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> To teach that it requires the Shiur of Haza'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But what of the opinion that there is no Shiur 
          for Haza'ah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That is for how much is sprinkled, not how much 
          there needs to be originally available (which does have a 
          Shiur, as we find in the Mishnah).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHY DOES 'HAZA'AH' NOT MAKE THE KOHEN GADOL 'TAMEI'</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Mishnah states that during the seven days before Yom Kippur, the Kohen Gadol performs the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks why the Kohen Gadol may perform the Avodah during those seven days. The Kohen Gadol is required to have Haza'ah done to him on each of the seven days out of doubt that he might have become Tamei with Tum'as Mes prior to his seclusion. However, when Haza'ah is performed to a person who is actually Tahor, the Haza'ah makes him Tamei. If the Kohen Gadol indeed was Tahor before the Haza'ah, the Haza'ah makes him Tamei and thus he should not be permitted to perform the Avodah during the seven days of his Perishah. (If Haza'ah is not done to him, the Kohen Gadol may perform the Avodah because of a Chazakah ('Chezkas Taharah') that he is not Tamei with Tum'as Mes.)
</p><p>
In its first answer, the Gemara says that the Mishnah follows the opinion of the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Akiva. The Rabanan maintain that when Haza'ah is done to a person who is Tahor, he does <i>not</i> become Tamei.
</p><p>
In its second answer, the Gemara says that the Mishnah may follow even the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, who says that Haza'ah done to one who is Tahor renders him Tamei. However, the Haza'ah done to the Kohen Gadol during his Perishah is done only in the evening, immediately before nightfall, <i>after</i> he has completed the Avodah for the day. He becomes Tamei only until nightfall, and thus he is fit to perform the Avodah the next day.
</p><p>
The <b>OSTROVTZER GA'ON</b>, Rav Yechiel Michal zt'l of Ostrovtz, suggests a different explanation for why the Kohen Gadol is permitted to perform the Avodah after Haza'ah has been done to him.
</p><p>
The Mishnah in Mikva'os (6:2, cited in Chagigah 22a) states that when a utensil, with a smaller utensil inside of it, is immersed in a Mikvah, the inner utensil becomes Tahor because the water that seeps into the outer utensil is considered part of the Mikvah. However, this applies only when the opening of the outer utensil is larger than 'k'Shefoferes ha'Nod' (the size of the mouth of a flask). If the opening in the outer utensil is smaller than 'k'Shefoferes ha'Nod,' the water inside the outer utensil is not considered connected to the Mikvah, and the inner utensil does not become Tahor. Nevertheless, the Tevilah is effective even in such a case when one condition is fulfilled. If the outer utensil itself was Tamei, the Tevilah works for both the outer utensil and the inner one. Since the Tevilah makes the outer utensil Tahor, it also makes the inner one Tahor (though 'Migu').
</p><p>
The Ostrovtzer Ga'on suggests that before the Haza'ah is done to the Kohen Gadol each day, the Kohen Gadol should touch a utensil which has a very small opening. A small utensil that is Tamei should be placed inside the utensil that the Kohen Gadol touched. The two utensils should then be immersed in the Mikvah.
</p><p>
If the Kohen Gadol was Tamei, then the larger utensil became Tamei when he touched it, and thus the Tevilah works to make the inner utensil Tahor. If he was Tahor, then the large utensil is also Tahor and the Tevilah is ineffective for the inner utensil, which thus remains Tamei. In short, the status of the inner utensil is the opposite of the status of the Kohen Gadol; if he is Tamei, then the inner utensil becomes Tahor, and if he is Tahor, then the inner utensil remains Tamei.
</p><p>
Next, the Mei Chatas (the mixture of the spring water and the ashes of the Parah Adumah) should be placed into the inner utensil. If the Kohen Gadol was Tamei until now, then the utensil is Tahor and the Mei Chatas is valid and serves to make him Tahor.
</p><p>
On the other hand, if the Kohen Gadol was Tahor, then the inner utensil is still Tamei (because its immersion while inside the larger utensil, which was Tahor, was not a valid Tevilah) and the Mei Chatas that is placed in it becomes Tamei as well. Mei Chatas which is Tamei is invalid for Haza'ah. Since the Mei Chatas is invalid for Haza'ah, it cannot be Metamei a person who is Tahor. Consequently, Haza'ah with this Mei Chatas may be done on the Kohen Gadol during the seven days of his Perishah, and he may perform the Avodah without concern that the Haza'ah might have made him Tamei, even according to Rebbi Akiva.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) ONE WHO BECOMES TAMEI BY TOUCHING THE 'MEI CHATAS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Akiva and the Chachamim disagree whether or not Haza'ah done to a person who is Tahor renders him Tamei. In the case of the Gemara here, Haza'ah is done to the Kohen Gadol out of doubt that he might have become Tamei with Tum'as Mes. If he is really Tahor, according to Rebbi Akiva the Haza'ah makes him Tamei, and according to the Chachamim he remains Tahor.
</p><p>
The Gemara later says that Rebbi Akiva and the Chachamim agree that one who <i>touches</i> or <i>carries</i> Mei Chatas becomes Tamei. (One who <i>carries</i> Mei Chatas becomes Tamei only when he carries an amount of water into which the Ezov wood can be dipped, and with which another Haza'ah can be done. One who <i>touches</i> Mei Chatas becomes Tamei even when the amount of water that he touches is not enough to perform another Haza'ah.)
</p><p>
If the Chachamim agree that one who touches or carries Mei Chatas becomes Tamei, then why do they say that Haza'ah done to one who is Tahor does not make him Tamei? In that case, the Mei Chatas <i>touches</i> him, and the Chachamim agree that one who touches Mei Chatas becomes Tamei. Although they maintain that the <i>act</i> of Haza'ah does not make him Tamei, the Chachamim should agree that he becomes Tamei when the Mei Chatas touches him.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ME'IRI</b> explains that when the Mei Chatas is sprinkled on a person who is Tahor, it is not called 'Maga' (touching). Apparently, the Me'iri understands that the quantity of water sprinkled on the Kohen Gadol is not enough to perform another Haza'ah with it (and thus his act of carrying the water on his body does not make him Tamei).
</p><p>
It is not clear why the Me'iri says that this is not called 'Maga.' At the moment of the actual Haza'ah, the Mei Chatas cannot make him Tamei; the Mei Chatas cannot be Metamei during the process of being sprinkled. It can be Metamei through contact only outside of the process of sprinkling (<b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> DH Rashi Gores). Even if the Kohen Gadol does not really need Haza'ah, the Mei Chatas is not Metamei him because it was done for the sake of Haza'ah. Why, though, is the Mei Chatas not Metamei him <i>after</i> the process of Haza'ah is completed and the water is touching his body?
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Parah Adumah 15:1) writes that as soon as one immerses the Ezov for the Haza'ah, the Mei Chatas becomes 'Mei Chatas she'Na'asah Mitzvasan,' Mei Chatas which has already been used to perform the Mitzvah, and it no longer is able to be Metamei.
</p><p>
The Rambam implies that although the Kohen Gadol was actually Tahor, since the Haza'ah was already done the Mei Chatas does not make him Tamei through Maga, because it is Mei Chatas which has already been used to perform the Mitzvah.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> Our Mishnah could even be R. Akiva, and we are 
          speaking where the Haza'ah is done at the end of each 
          day.
<br>
<b><font>4) THE ORDER OF KETORES AND NEIROS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  From our Mishnah we may infer that Ketores came before 
          arranging the Neiros.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But from the Mishnah in Tamid it seems the 
          opposite?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The author of the Mishnah in Tamid is R. Shimon 
          Ish ha'Mitzpeh (whom we know to have a different order).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But from the Beraisa in Tamid it seems clear 
          that he did not author the Mishnayos there!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Our Mishnah, here, is R. Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But there is still a contradiction, since we 
          have a Mishnah wherein the Ketores is after the Neiros!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Ketores comes <i>before</i> the two latter 
          Neiros, and <i>after</i> the first five.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Does the <i>Ketores</i> interrupt among the Neiros 
          (we were taught by Abaye himself that it was the Dam 
          Tamid)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Abaye was teaching the view of Aba Shaul (while 
          we are speaking of Abaye explaining the Rabanan).
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) ABA SHAUL AND RABANAN ON NEIROS AND KETORES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> There is a contradiction between the two orders 
          here in Yoma?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> One is speaking after the Hatavah of the 
          five candles; one after the two.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Does Abaye hold that the interruption is 
               filled with the Ketores, but we know that he holds 
               that it is the Dam Tamid!?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> This is resolved by the existence of 
               a Machlokes Rabanan (Ketores then Neiros) and Aba 
               Shaul (Neiros then Ketores interrupting the Neiros 
               with Zerikas ha'Tamid).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> The rationale of Aba Shaul is 'be'Haitivo' then 
               'Yaktirenah'.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> The Rabanan take that to mean that the Ketores 
               should have already been offered at the time of 
               Hatavas ha'Neiros.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> Otherwise we would end up with the Ketores being 
               brought after the Neiros in the afternoon!?
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Maybe that is so?
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> But the Neiros is the end, cont<i>Inuy</i>ng all 
               night.
       <br><b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b></b> Thus, both he Hatavah and the Hadlakah are done with 
               the Ketores already having been done.
       <br><b>   <b><font>9.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What will Aba Shaul do with this?
        <br><b>  <b><font>10. </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> That restricts only the night (Oso).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Papa):</font></b> One listing (our Mishnah) is Rabanan 
          (Ketores first) and one (the Payis listing) is Aba Shaul 
          (Neiros first).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But the Seifa of the Payis listing appears 
               to follow Rabanan (Ketores in the middle).
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> The opening and closing are Rabanan, while 
               the middle is Aba Shaul.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  Abaye did not agree with R. Papa in order to avoid this 
          change of authorship in mid-Mishnah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Papa did agree with Abaye to avoid the switch from 
          speaking of the five candles to the two.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Abaye responds that the first Mishnah is listing the 
          Avodos with which the Kohen needs to be familiar, not the 
          actual order of the Avodah (listed later).
<br>
<b><font>2) ZERIKAS DAM HATAMID</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  We were taught that the Kohen sprinkled the Tamid on the 
          <b><b><b>NE</b></b></b> corner and then on the <b><b><b>SW</b></b></b> corner (two corners as one).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon Ish ha'Mitzpeh taught that after the <b><b><b>NE</b></b></b> 
          sprinkling (as two) the <b><b><b>SW</b></b></b> sprinkling was split (West 
          then South, separately).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan (citing a member of R. Yanai's Yeshiva) 
          taught that R. Shimon learned from the Pasuk where the 
          Torah gives this Olah (the Tamid) some of the laws of a 
          Chatas.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then do the two (as four) sprinklings as an 
          Olah and then the four (separate) as a Chatas?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We do not find blood at a second Kaparah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But neither do we find blood half-Olah half- 
          Chatas (the Torah is forcing our hand here)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is only Pisuk (it is not truly the sprinkling 
          of a Chatas).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why not sprinkle the one-as-two below (Olah) 
          and the two-as-two above (Chatas)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We do not find such a split above/below.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we find such by Yom ha'Kipurim!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That is Matzlif (like lashes) and not actual 
          above/below the midline.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Again, we find such a split on the Taharo Shel 
          Mizbe'ach (implying above/below the midline)?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) CONFLICTING MISHNAYOS ABOUT THE ORDER OF THE AVODAH IN THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the apparent contradictions between the Mishnayos in Tamid and in Yoma which discuss the order of the Avodos in the Beis ha'Mikdash. According to some Mishnayos, the Ketores is offered <i>after</i> the Hatavas ha'Neros is completed. According to other Mishnayos, the Ketores is offered <i>before</i> the Hatavas ha'Neros is completed, between the Hatavah of the first five and the last two lamps of the Menorah.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the contradictory Mishnayos are expressing the opinions of different Tana'im. The Mishnah that states that the Ketores is offered before the Hatavas ha'Neros is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabanan, and it refers to the last two lamps of the Menorah. The Hatavah of the first five lamps of the Menorah, however, is done before the Ketores is offered. The Mishnah that states that the Ketores is offered after the Hatavas ha'Neros, and that the <i>Zerikah</i> is performed between the first five and the last two lamps of the Menorah, expresses the opinion of Aba Shaul.
</p><p>
However, the Gemara does not address another apparent contradiction. When the Mishnah in Tamid describes the actual performance of the Avodah, it says that the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach is performed <i>before</i> the Shechitah and the Zerikas ha'Dam of the Korban Tamid. When the Mishnah describes the order of the 'drawing of lots' ('Payis') for the various parts of the Avodah, it says that lots are drawn first for the Shechitah and the Zerikah, and then for the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach, implying that the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach is performed <i>after</i> the Shechitah and Zerikah. How is this contradiction to be reconciled?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (14b, DH Amar Abaye) explains that this contradiction is reconciled the same way as the contradiction which the Gemara addresses. According to the Rabanan, the Zerikah is performed before the Hatavas ha'Neros is started (before the first five lamps of the Menorah are prepared). Accordingly, it is performed prior to the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach as well. This is the order expressed by the Mishnah which discusses the lots. The Zerikah is done at the beginning of the day's Avodah, immediately after the Korban Tamid is slaughtered.
</p><p>
Aba Shaul, on the other hand, maintains that the Zerikah is performed between the Hatavah of the first five lamps and the Hatavah of the last two lamps of the Menorah, and thus it is done later in the day. Accordingly, it is performed after the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach as well (since the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach is performed before the Hatavas ha'Neros).
</p><p>
This answer suffices to explain the order in the Mishnah of drawing lots only according to Abaye, who asserts that the Mishnah of lots follows the opinion of the Rabanan. According to the Rabanan, the Zerikah is <i>not</i> delayed until the Hatavas ha'Neros, but it is done at the beginning of the day. However, Rav Papa argues with Abaye and maintains that the Mishnah of lots follows the opinion of Aba Shaul, who maintains that the Zerikah is performed between the two Hatavos. Why, according to Rav Papa, does the Mishnah -- which follows the opinion of Aba Shaul -- list the drawing of the lots for the Zerikah <i>before</i> the drawing of lots for the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach? Aba Shaul himself maintains that the Dishun is done <i>before</i> the Zerikah. (<b>TOSFOS</b> 15a, DH Eima)
</p><p>
Tosfos answers that Rav Papa apparently understands that Aba Shaul maintains that, in practice, the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach is performed <i>after</i> the Zerikah, like the order of the lots (and <i>both</i> are performed between the two sets of Hatavas ha'Neros; see, however, <b>MAHARSHA</b>). The Mishnah in Tamid (which describes the actual performance of the Avodah) mentions the Dishun first, even though it maintains that the Zerikah is performed between the two Hatavos, because it follows the view of a third Tana who agrees with Aba Shaul in one respect and argues in another. That Tana agrees with Aba Shaul that the Zerikah separates the two Hatavos, while he argues that the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach is performed before everything else.
</p><p>
(This approach appears to be the intention of Tosfos, and it answers the questions posed by the <b>RASHASH</b>. Even though Dishun is mentioned after Zerikah in the order of the lots in Tamid, the Mishnayos in Tamid express the opinions of different Tana'im, as Rav Papa says here with regard to the Mishnayos in Yoma.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>BARTENURA</b> (Tamid 3:1) says that even though the Mishnah of drawing lots mentions Dishun after Zerikah, it does not mean that the Dishun is actually performed after the Zerikah. The Mishnah agrees that the Dishun is performed before the Zerikah, and the only reason it mentions the drawing of the lots for the Zerikah first is because of the importance of the Avodah of the Zerikah.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> here also explains that the order of the actual performance of the Avodah is not the same as the order of the drawing of the lots.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RASHASH</b> suggests that although the order of the Avodos in the Mishnah of drawing lots <i>is</i> the actual order in which the Avodos are performed, it is not the order in which the Avodos are <i>started</i>, but rather the order in which they are <i>completed</i>. The Mishnah lists the Avodos in the order in which they are completed because an Avodah's most important part is its completion. Consequently, even though the Dishun is started first, it is finished only when the ashes are carried away, which is done <i>after</i> the Zerikas ha'Dam of the Tamid is completed. Hence, the Mishnah mentions the drawing of the lots for the Zerikah <i>before</i> it mentions the lots for the Dishun.
</p><p>
(e) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> (Yoma 25a) suggests that although the Shechitah and Zerikah do not precede the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach, it is necessary to select Kohanim for those Avodos before selecting a Kohen for the Dishun. The Kohanim who perform the Shechitah and Zerikah must be selected first because those who perform the Shechitah and Zerikah also perform another Avodah which <i>does</i> precede the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach. They must bring the lamb for the Korban Tamid from its place and check it for blemishes, which is done even before the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
Similarly, the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (in Tamid) writes that the reason why the Mishnah of drawing lots says that lots are drawn first for the Zerikah is <i>not</i> because the Zerikah is done before the Dishun. Rather, it is because the Kohen who is chosen for the Zerikah must also perform the <i>Kabalas ha'Dam</i>, which indeed is done before the Dishun. The Zerikah is done only after the Dishun, between the two sets of Hatavas ha'Neros, in order to separate between the preparation of the first five and last two lamps of the Menorah. In the time that it takes the Kohen who does the Kabalas ha'Dam to walk with the blood from where the Korban was slaughtered to the Mizbe'ach (a hundred Amos or so), the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach is performed, as well as the Hatavah of the first five lamps of the Menorah. When the Kohen arrives with the blood at the Mizbe'ach, he performs the Zerikah with it there. Afterwards, the Hatavah of the last two lamps of the Menorah is performed.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, it speaks of a clear area on the Mizbe'ach 
          itself, not above/below.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why the Olah sprinkling first?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is, after all, an Olah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why at the <b><b><b>NE</b></b></b> and <b><b><b>SW</b></b></b> corners?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The sprinkling of an Olah requires Yesod.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why <b><b><b>NE</b></b></b> first, not <b><b><b>SW</b></b></b> first?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Since we must turn East, we get to <b><b><b>NE</b></b></b> first.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(t)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Maybe a Chatas should have characteristics of 
          an Olah, not the reverse?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(u)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk implies that a quality of Chatas is 
          done on to the Olah.
<br>
<b><font>3) WHERE WAS THE LISHKAS HATELAIM?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> In one Mishnah we are taught that this Lishkah 
          was in the <b><b><b>NW</b></b></b>, and in another we are taught that it was 
          <b><b><b>SW</b></b></b>!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah in Midos is R. Elazar b. Ya'akov.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) LISHKAS HATELAIM - R. ELAZAR B. YA'AKOV?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  We find R. Elazar b. Ya'akov in the Mishnah in Midos.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Three of the four Lishakos are identified.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar b. Ya'akov said that he did not recall the 
               use of the fourth Lishkah, thus indicating that he 
               was the author of the Mishnah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Aba Shaul identified the 'unidentified' Lishkah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  There is another indication that the Mishnah in Midos is 
          R. Elazar b. Ya'akov.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> All the walls were tall except for the Eastern wall.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This was to allow the Kohen burning the Parah to see 
               through the opening to the Heichal during the 
               Haza'ah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> All the gates were 20 Amos tall, with wall above 
               them.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> By calculating the elevations of each level, we can 
               see that the Eastern wall, if left at its 20-plus 
               Amos of height, would block his view, and was thus 
               shortened.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> This is only true if the measurements are being 
               given by R. Elazar b. Ya'akov, not the Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Ada b. Ahavah entertains the possibility that the 
          measurements were those of R. Yehudah.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE LOCATION OF THE MIZBE'ACH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara addresses a contradiction between the Mishnah in Tamid (3:3) and the Mishnah in Midos (1:6). The Mishnah in Tamid says that the Lishkas ha'Tela'im was on the <i>northwest</i> side of the Beis ha'Moked, while the Mishnah in Midos says that it was on the <i>southwest</i> side. Rav Huna suggests that the Tana of the Mishnah in Midos is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, because he is the Tana of another Mishnah in Midos (2:5).
</p><p>
The Gemara cites additional support for Rav Huna's assertion that the Tana of the Mishnah in Midos is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov. It demonstrates that another Mishnah in Midos (2:4) is also based on his opinion. The Mishnah there says that the eastern gate to Har ha'Bayis was lower than the other walls, because the Kohen who stood on Har ha'Mishchah and burned the Parah Adumah there was required to have a view of the entranceway to the Heichal. If the wall on top of the eastern gate was as high as all of the others, the Kohen would not have been able to see the entranceway to the Heichal from his vantage point, because the ascents on Har ha'Bayis would have blocked the view through the eastern gate to the Heichal. The wall <i>above</i> the eastern gate was made lower than the other walls in order to enable the Kohen to see, above the gate (and not through its opening), the entranceway to the Heichal from where he stood.
</p><p>
The Mishnah's statement that it was not possible to see the Heichal's entranceway through the eastern gate is true only according to the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, who maintains (Midos 2:6) that there was an additional ascent in the Azarah which added an extra Amah to the height of the floor of the Azarah, and which thereby caused the wall to block the view of the Heichal via the eastern gate.
</p><p>
Rav Ada bar Ahavah attempts to refute the proof from there that the other Mishnayos in Midos express the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov. He offers an alternate explanation for why the Kohen could not see the entranceway to the Heichal from Har ha'Mishchah, even though there was no extra Amah of height to block his view. He suggests that the Mishnah in Midos (2:4) is in accordance with <i>Rebbi Yehudah</i>, who says that the Mizbe'ach stood in the center of the Azarah and thereby blocked the Kohen's view of the Heichal's entrance when he stood on Har ha'Mishchah and peered through the eastern gate.
</p><p>
The Gemara replies that this is not a valid explanation, because the Mishnah in Midos (5:1) implies that the Mizbe'ach was <i>not</i> in the middle of the Azarah, but it was to the south. Consequently, the Gemara's proof (that all the Mishnayos in Midos must be according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov since Midos 2:4 follows his view) remains valid.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Ruba d'Mizbe'ach) explains that when the Gemara refutes Rav Ada bar Ahavah's assertion that the Tana of the Mishnah in Midos (2:4) could be Rebbi Yehudah, it not only refutes the suggestion that the Mizbe'ach was centered in the middle of the Azarah, but it also proves that the Mizbe'ach was so far to the southern side of the Azarah that it did not block the Kohen's [partial] view of the Heichal's entranceway when he peered from Har ha'Mishchah. Accordingly, there must have been some other object or ascent that blocked his view, but that is true only according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov. In other words, the Gemara proves not only that the Tana of the Mishnah in Midos (2:4) cannot be Rebbi Yehudah, but it is also proves that it cannot be <i>any</i> Tana other than Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov.
</p><p>
Rashi elaborates as follows:
</p><p>
Rashi first points out that when the Mishnah in Midos (5:1) accounts for what occupied the 135 Amos of the Azarah's width (see Chart), it leaves 25 Amos unaccounted for. Some of this 25-Amah width comprised the area of the Shulchanos and the Nanasim. The remaining Amos comprised the area between the southern wall of the Azarah and the ramp of the Mizbe'ach. Rashi asserts that since the Mishnah does not specify how many Amos were in each of those areas, we must assume that they were split evenly. However, 4 Amos must first be subtracted for the area of the Shulchanos (4 Amos is the minimum possible space that they occupied; see Rashash), which leaves 21 Amos to divide evenly between the Nanasim and the area south of the ramp. 10.5 Amos were between the southern wall and the ramp, and 10.5 comprised the area of the Shulchanos and Nanasim. Accordingly, the northern side of the Mizbe'ach reached 5 Amos past the center point of the Azarah's width. Therefore, the Kohen on Har ha'Mishchah was able to see a part of the Heichal's entranceway behind the Mizbe'ach by peering towards the northern side of the Mizbe'ach where the Mizbe'ach was recessed inwards two Amos, above the recession of the Yesod and the Sovev.
</p><p>
Rashi then questions this explanation. If the Mishnah in Midos does not specify how much space the Shulchanos occupied, then why should we assume that they occupied 4 Amos? Perhaps the Shulchanos were included in the space of the Nanasim and used up no additional space from the width of the Azarah! Accordingly, the unaccounted-for 25 Amos may be divided evenly, such that 12.5 (instead of 10.5) comprised the area between the southern wall and the ramp, and 12.5 comprised the area of the Nanasim. The northern side of the Mizbe'ach extended <i>7</i> Amos past the center point of the Azarah's width, such that the Mizbe'ach <i>completely</i> covered the entranceway to the Heichal (which extended only <i>5</i> Amos past the center point), even with the 2-Amah recession above the midpoint of the Mizbe'ach due to the Yesod and the Sovev. Thus, the Mishnah in Midos (2:4) does not need to follow the view of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, because even without an additional Amah-high ascent in the Azarah, the Heichal's entranceway was blocked from the Kohen's view by the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
Finally, Rashi records the explanation of Rabeinu Yitzchak ben Yehudah ('Moreh Tzedek'; the word 'Mori' in our edition of Rashi should be corrected to 'Moreh'). He explains that since the Mishnah does not specify what occupied the remaining 25 Amos of the Azarah's width, we may assume that 12 (instead of 12.5) were between the southern wall and the ramp, and 13 (instead of 12.5) comprised the area of the Nanasim. Consequently, although the Mizbe'ach blocked almost all of the Kohen's view of the Heichal's entranceway, it left a small space of half an Amah in width through which the Kohen could see the Heichal's entranceway. It must be that the Tana of the Mishnah in Midos (2:4) indeed is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov (and the reason why the Kohen could not see the Heichal's entranceway from Har ha'Mishchah through the opening of the eastern gate was because of the additional one-Amah height of the floor of the Azarah).
</p><p>
There are a number of problems with Rashi's explanation.
</p><p>
(a) According to both Rashi and the Moreh Tzedek, when a given amount of space needs to be distributed to two places with no defined area (in this case, to the south of the ramp and to the area of the Nanasim), we divide that amount evenly. How, then, do they understand the very next line of the Gemara, 'Shema Minah Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov Hi'? Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov says (in Zevachim 59a and Yoma 37a) that the Mizbe'ach was <i>only</i> in the southern part of the Azarah (that is, the northern side of the Mizbe'ach reached the center point of the Azarah but not beyond), and thus a full 5 Amos of space remained through which the Kohen could see the entranceway to the Heichal. However, the only way that the Mizbe'ach could have been completely in the south is if the 25 Amos are divided <i>unevenly</i> (Rashi 17a, DH Ela Lav)! Why does Rashi assume that the 25 Amos must be divided evenly, if that assumption means that the Mishnah <i>cannot</i> be according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov?
</p><p>
(b) Rashi comments that he is not satisfied with the first explanation because perhaps the space of the Shulchanos is included with that of the Nanasim. However, Rashi also rejects the Moreh Tzedek's explanation because it requires an uneven split of the extra Amos. Rashi concludes, 'The best explanation, therefore, is the one that I explained [above].' To which explanation does he refer? He obviously does not refer to either of the two explanations that he rejected. The only other explanation that he mentioned (12.5 Amos of space to the south of the ramp of the Mizbe'ach), however, fails to accomplish the Gemara's objective. It does not prove that the Tana of the Mishnah in Midos is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, because according to that explanation the Mizbe'ach indeed blocked the Heichal's entranceway. To which explanation does Rashi refer when he says 'the one that I explained'?
</p><p>
(c) Rashi later (17a, DH Ela Lav) writes that the Mizbe'ach reached 7 Amos to the north of the center of the Azarah's width. However, this is consistent with neither his own explanation here (that the Mizbe'ach reach only 5 Amos north of center) nor with that of the Moreh Tzedek (the Mizbe'ach reached 6.5 Amos north of center). The other explanation (12.5 Amos of space to the south of the ramp of the Mizbe'ach) indeed places the northern edge of the Mizbe'ach 7 Amos north of the center of the Azarah, but it does not accomplish the Gemara's objective of proving that the Mishnah in Midos is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov. Why, then, does Rashi later write that the Mizbe'ach reached 7 Amos to the north of the center of the Azarah? (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The explanations that Rashi presents here understand that the Gemara does <i>not</i> attempt to prove that the Mishnah in Midos (5:1), which describes the layout of the Azarah, was taught by Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov. Rather, the Gemara merely disproves that the Mishnah there expresses Rebbi Yehudah's opinion about the position of the Mizbe'ach. Another Mishnah in Midos (2:4), which discusses the additional Amah ascent in the Azarah, <i>does</i> follow another opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov's, and it is to that Mishnah which the Gemara refers when it says that the Tana of the Mishnah is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov. With regard to the position of the Mizbe'ach, however, the Mishnah in Midos follows a third opinion, neither that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov nor that of Rebbi Yehudah. This third opinion places the northern edge of the Mizbe'ach 5 or 6.5 Amos north of the center of the Azarah. The Gemara's goal is merely to prove that the Mizbe'ach did not block the Heichal's entranceway. This answers the first question.
</p><p>
(b) Rashi himself prefers neither of the two explanations which he questions. Rather, he prefers the middle explanation, even though that explanation does not prove that the Mizbe'ach did not block the Heichal's entranceway.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi prefer that explanation, if it does not explain how the Kohen would have been able to view the Heichal's entranceway through the eastern gate? According to that explanation, the Mizbe'ach indeed blocked the Kohen's view of the Heichal's entranceway and thus he could not have seen it from Har ha'Mishchah! Rashi answers this question later (beginning of 17a) when he explains that the Tana of the Mishnah <i>certainly</i> cannot be Rebbi Yehudah, because Rebbi Yehudah maintains that the Mizbe'ach was in the center of the Azarah, and thus only 3.5 Amos would be left for the area of the Shulchanos and Nanasim, but they certainly occupied more space than that. Why, then, does the Gemara conclude that the Tana of the Mishnah is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov (who maintains that the Mizbe'ach was entirely in the south) and not a third Tana?
</p><p>
Rashi seems to understand the Gemara like <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ruba), who says that the Gemara accepts the possibility of only <i>two</i> opinions: the Mizbe'ach was either exactly in the center, or it was completely in the south. There is no opinion that says that the Mizbe'ach was between those two locations.
</p><p>
(c) This also answers the third question. Why does Rashi (17a) say that the Mizbe'ach was 7 Amos to the north of center? Rashi, who rejects the first explanation and that of the Moreh Tzedek, also retracts his assertion that the 25 extra Amos must be divided evenly. Therefore, the Tana of the Mishnah indeed is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, as explained above. However, Rashi notes that <i>had</i> we upheld the assertion that the extra Amos must be divided evenly, there would have been 12.5 Amos between the southern wall and the ramp, and the position of the Mizbe'ach would have been shifted to <i>7</i> Amos north of center.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah had taught the positioning of the 
               Mizbe'ach.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah in Midos teaches the overall dimensions 
               of the Azarah (187 x 135 Amos).
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If the Mishnah in Midos were R. Yehudah, the 
               Mizbe'ach would not be in the middle, but slightly 
               to the South.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The difficulty involved in such a possibility establishes 
          the Mishnah as the teaching of R. Elazar b. Ya'akov.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE CONTRADICTORY LOCATIONS OF THE LISHKAS HATELAIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Ada b. R. Yitzhok resolved the contradiction by 
          explaining that the Lishkah was very long and appeared 
          differently to one who might enter from the two 
          directions.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  He also taught that it is further likely that the Lishkah 
          was primarily in the <b><b><b>SW</b></b></b>.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> There is an apparent contradiction between Mishnayos 
               regarding the Lechem ha'Panim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This contradiction is resolved by differing 
               perspectives, one to the right and one to the left.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE LOCATION OF THE 'LISHKAS HA'TELA'IM' IN THE 'BEIS HA'MOKED'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara addresses a contradiction between the Mishnah in Tamid (3:3) and the Mishnah in Midos (1:6). The Mishnah in Tamid says that the Lishkas ha'Tela'im was on the <i>northwest</i> side of the Beis ha'Moked, while the Mishnah in Midos says that it was on the <i>southwest</i> side.
</p><p>
The Gemara offers several answers. Rav Huna answers that the Mishnah is Midos expresses the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, who indeed argues with the Mishnah in Tamid.
</p><p>
Rav Ada brei d'Rav Yitzchak (17a) answers that the Lishkas ha'Tela'im was 'Aktzuyei Mekatzya.' When one stood in the south, the Lishkas ha'Tela'im appeared to be in the northwest. When one stood in the north, it appeared to be in the southwest. The Rishonim explain this in different ways.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Rav Ada), the <b>RA'AVAD</b> (in Tamid), and the <b>ROSH</b> (in Midos) explain that the Lishkas ha'Tela'im was 'elongated' and occupied almost the entire western side of the Beis ha'Moked. Consequently, when one looked from the north it appeared that more of the Lishkah was in the south, and when one looked from the south it appeared that more of it was in the north.
</p><p>
The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> in Tamid (3:3) suggests that the Lishkas ha'Tela'im was elongated for an important reason. The southern part of the Beis ha'Moked (the side closer to the Azarah) was not sanctified, according to the Mishnah in Midos (1:6; see Rashi to 15b, DH Shtayim), while the northern half was sanctified. If the entrance to the Lishkas ha'Tela'im would have been in the south, opening into the Azarah, the entire Lishkah would have been sanctified because it was accessed from a sanctified area (the Azarah). However, it would have been inappropriate for the Lishkas ha'Tela'im to be sanctified, because live animals were kept there and the presence of their excrement would have been disrespectful to a holy area. Therefore, the Lishkas ha'Tela'im was extended to the north, so that its entrance opened into a non-sanctified area (the northern side of the Beis ha'Moked). Since it opened into a non-sanctified area, the entire Lishkah itself had no sanctity.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> (in his first explanation) and the <b>ARUCH</b> in the name of <b>RABEINU MOSHE HA'DARSHAN</b> suggest that 'Aktzuyei Mekatzya' means that the Lishkas ha'Tela'im was 'set away' from the corner of the Beis ha'Moked, positioned nearly in the center of the western side of the Beis ha'Moked (but slightly towards the south, as the Gemara concludes). Therefore, when one looked from the north, the Lishkas ha'Tela'im appeared as though it was in the southwest corner, since it was still a considerable distance away. When one looked from the south, it appeared to be in the northwest corner.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> seems to understand that the Lishkas ha'Tela'im indeed was in the southwest corner of the Beis ha'Moked, but the southern wall of the Lishkas ha'Tela'im was not the southern wall of the Beis ha'Moked. Rather, the Lishkah's southern wall began at the corner of the Beis ha'Moked and protruded north into the Beis ha'Moked at an angle as it extended towards the east. Therefore, to one who entered from the south it seemed as though the Lishkas ha'Tela'im's main area was more towards the north, and to one who entered from the north the Lishkah's main area appeared to be more towards the south. 
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Perush ha'Mishnayos to Midos 1:6) explains that the Lishkas ha'Tela'im was in the southwest corner of the Beis ha'Moked, and the <i>Beis ha'Moked</i> was in the northwest of the <i>Azarah</i>. He understands that the Mishnah in Midos which positions the Lishkas ha'Tela'im in the northwest does not refer to an area in the Beis ha'Moked, but rather to an area in the Azarah.
</p><p>
While this explanation brilliantly resolves the contradiction between the Mishnayos, it is a novel explanation of which the Gemara makes no mention. (In fact, the <b>RIVA</b> (cited by Tosfos to 17b, DH v'Ha) asks why the Gemara does not offer this answer.)
</p><p>
<b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> here proposes the same explanation as the Rambam. (Some words seem to be missing in our edition of his commentary.) Rabeinu Chananel apparently understands that this is the intention of the words, 'Aktzuyei Mekatzya.' The Lishkah was 'set into a corner' from two different perspectives. (See <b>CHAZON ISH</b> OC 126:16.)
</p><p>
Alternatively, the Rambam and Rabeinu Chananel may understand that when the Gemara continues and says, 'u'Mistavra...,' it <i>rejects</i> the answer of 'Aktzuyei Mekatzya' and asserts that the Lishkas ha'Tela'im was entirely in the southeast part of the Beis ha'Moked. Since the Gemara does not explicitly address how this assertion can be reconciled with the Mishnah in Tamid, the Rambam and Rabeinu Chananel propose their explanation for what the Gemara must mean.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> By positioning the Lishkas ha'Telaim at the <b><b><b>SW</b></b></b>, its 
               position coincides with the resolution of the 
               Mishnayos regarding the Lechem ha'Panim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How can we identify the position of the Lishkah 
          from the left, given that we always turn to the right?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This is not a turning; it is only a calculation 
          of a location.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE KOHEN GADOL GOING FIRST</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  He offers first by selecting which Korbanos he will 
          offer.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  He takes first by designating the Korbanos he will eat.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  He takes one (of two) Chalos on Shavuos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  He takes four or five Chalos from the weekly Lechem 
          ha'Panim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Rebbi taught that he always takes five, representing 
          half.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah ends up switching authors in the 
          middle!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> First clause:</font></b> His taking one (of two) Chalos- Rebbi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Second clause:</font></b> He takes four or five- Rabanan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Third clause:</font></b> He takes five- Rebbi.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The first and second clauses are Rabanan (who 
          hold he takes less than half) but they also concur that 
          we don't give the Kohen Gadol broken loaves (hence one of 
          two loaves on Shavuos).
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE FOUR OR FIVES LOAVES TAKEN BY THE KOHEN GADOL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> The four in the Beraisa follows the view of 
          Chachamim (that the Kohen Gadol gets less than half).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> According to Rabanan he takes five.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The entering and departing Mishmar each take six.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> No loaves were according for closing the gates.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> The Kohen Gadol would take six, but Chachamim hold 
               that he gets less than half, thus he takes five.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> According to R. Yehudah he takes four.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> The entering Mishmar takes seven (including two for 
               the closing of the doors) and the departing takes 
               five.
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b></b> The Kohen Gadol splits ten, and thus takes four to 
               accommodate the requirement that he get less than 
               half.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> Both the four and five are the view of Rebbi 
          (that the Kohen Gadol takes half) and Rebbi holds like R. 
          Yehudah (that the two are never divided).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then he should get five, and not four?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It will depend on the presence of a voluntarily 
          detained Mishmar who will take two.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then why will Rebbi say he always gets five?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Good question.
<br>
<b><font>2) MISHNAH: THE NEXT PHASE OF PREPARATION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  There were elders designated to be with the Kohen Gadol 
          through his week of separation and they would encourage 
          him to study/review the procedure.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Erev Yom Kipur they would parade the animals before him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  While all week they would allow him to eat as he wishes, 
          on Erev Yom Kipur they would avoid serving him 
          sleep-inducing foods.
<br>
<b><font>3) WHAT KIND OF KOHEN GADOL IS THIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> While he may have forgotten, but surely he had 
          learned (he is the <i>most</i> learned Kohen)!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That greatness was a feature of the Mikdash 
          Rishon.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The Mikdash Sheini was corrupt in the office of Kohen 
          Gadol.
<br>
<b><font>4) THE PARADE OF ANIMALS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa taught that the Sa'irim were also presented.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why were the Sa'irim not mentioned in the 
          Mishnah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Our Tana holds that the sight of the Sa'irim 
          would break his spirit since they are reminders of sin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then the Par Chatas should also not be paraded?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He was aware of the sins of the Kohanim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He did not know of the sins of the people at large.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This is in accord with the popular expression...
<br>
<b><font>5) THE RESTRICTED FOODS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yehudah):</font></b> They fed him semolina and eggs, to clear 
          his intestines.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Certainly not! These can cause <i>Tum'ah</i>!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  We would refrain from feeding him <b>ABI</b>, or, <b>ABBI</b>, others 
          add white wine (these are then explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  We attribute the emission of a Zav to foods that he ate.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  We refrain from feeding him <b>CHGVI</b>, <b>GAVAM</b> nor that which 
          will bring on <i>Tum'ah</i>.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is included in that last clause?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Five additional items listed in the Beraisa.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HOW MANY 'CHALOS' IS THE KOHEN GADOL ENTITLED TO TAKE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa states that the Kohen Gadol is entitled to 'four or five' of the twelve Chalos of the Lechem ha'Panim. Abaye explains that the Tana of the Beraisa follows the opinion of the Rabanan who maintain that the Kohen Gadol is entitled to <i>less than half</i> of the total of the products distributed to the Kohanim in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Since the twelve Chalos of Lechem ha'Panim are normally divided among the two Mishmaros (the incoming one and the outgoing one), the Kohen Gadol is entitled to five Chalos, since that is just less than half of the total number of Chalos. Why, though, does the Beraisa mention that he may take '*four* or five' Chalos?
</p><p>
Abaye explains that the Beraisa's statement that the Kohen Gadol may take four Chalos follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that when the incoming and outgoing Mishmaros divide the Chalos, the new Mishmar receives <i>seven</i> and the old Mishmar receives <i>five</i>. Two Chalos are always reserved for the new Mishmar as a reward for closing the doors of the Azarah which were opened by the outgoing Mishmar. Since the two Mishmaros, according to Rebbi Yehudah, divide only <i>ten</i> of the Chalos, the Kohen Gadol takes just less than half, which is <i>four</i>. He does not share the Chalos that are given as a reward; he shares only those Chalos which are given as part of the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
The <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> asks that the Gemara assumes that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the outgoing Mishmar must give <i>two</i> Chalos to the incoming Mishmar, which leaves only ten Chalos from which the Kohen takes just less than half (i.e. four). However, the reason why the new Mishmar receives seven Chalos and the old Mishmar receives five is not because the old Mishmar gives <i>two</i> to the new Mishmar as a reward. Rather, each Mishmar originally was entitled to <i>six</i> Chalos, and the old Mishmar gives only <i>one</i> Chalah to the new Mishmar. In that way, the old Mishmar receives five and the new Mishmar receives seven. Consequently, the Kohen Gadol should be entitled to half of all of the Chalos which are not used as a reward. Since only <i>one</i> is used as a reward, that leaves eleven from which the Kohen Gadol is entitled to take just less than half. Accordingly, even Rebbi Yehudah should agree that he receives <i>five</i> Chalos, and not four!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> answers that it is true that eleven Chalos, and not ten, are divided among the two Mishmaros, and, in theory, the Kohen Gadol should receive five Chalos even according to Rebbi Yehudah. However, if he were to receive five Chalos, it would not be evident that he is entitled to just less than half. One might mistakenly think that perhaps the Kohen Gadol is entitled to receive <i>exactly</i> half, and that is why he receives five Chalos. Although half of eleven is five and a half, it is not respectful to give the Kohen Gadol an incomplete loaf, and therefore he receives five, but normally he receives exactly half of the total amount that is distributed to the Kohanim. In order to show that the Kohen Gadol is entitled only to less than half, but not to exactly half, he is given only four Chalos according to Rebbi Yehudah.
</p><p>
(b) The Gevuras Ari assumes that the extra Chalah which the incoming Mishmar receives is granted to them by the outgoing Mishmar from their own portion (as a reward for closing the doors for them). Accordingly, all twelve Chalos are divided, and that is why the outgoing Mishmar receives five and the incoming Mishmar receives seven (the outgoing Mishmar gives one of 'their' Chalos to the incoming Mishmar). However, if all twelve Chalos are divided, the Kohen Gadol still receives <i>five</i> Chalos (one less than half). Once he is given five Chalos, seven Chalos are left to be divided among the two Mishmaros. Each Mishmar should receive three and a half Chalos, and the outgoing Mishmar should give one of those to the incoming Mishmar as its reward. (The reward should not be lessened by the amount that the Kohen Gadol took.)
</p><p>
It seems that it is <i>not</i> the outgoing Mishmar which gives of its own portion to the incoming Mishmar. Rather, it is a 'Tenai Beis Din' -- a stipulation that Beis Din established in the distribution of the Chalos -- that the incoming Mishmar receives two extra Chalos. Accordingly, those Chalos are given to the incoming Mishmar <i>before</i> all of the Chalos are divided, and thus only <i>ten</i> remain to be divided. The Kohen Gadol is entitled to less than half of those, which is four. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) WHY THE KOHEN GADOL RECEIVES LESS BECAUSE OF THE 'MISHMAR HA'MIS'AKEV'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa states that the Kohen Gadol is entitled to 'four or five' of the twelve Chalos of the Lechem ha'Panim. Rava explains that the Tana of the Beraisa follows the opinion of Rebbi, who maintains that the Kohen Gadol is entitled to <i>half</i> of the total of the products distributed to the Kohanim in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Tana of the Beraisa also follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah, who says that two Chalos are given to the incoming Mishmar as a reward for closing the doors of the Azarah. Consequently, the Kohen Gadol receives half of the ten Chalos that remain, or five Chalos.
</p><p>
When the Beraisa says that the Kohen Gadol receives '*four* or five' Chalos, it refers to a case of a 'Mishmar ha'Mis'akev.' In such a case, the Mishmar ha'Mis'akev receives two Chalos, and thus only eight are left for distribution, of which the Kohen Gadol receives half, or four Chalos.
</p><p>
The Mishmar ha'Mis'akev is a Mishmar (or group of Mishmaros) who either remained in the Beis ha'Mikdash for an extra day at the beginning of the week, after their term of service was over (for example, when Yom Tov concluded on Thursday, they remained until Sunday), or who came a day early to the Beis ha'Mikdash at the end of the week (for example, they arrived on Friday when Yom Tov began on the following Monday) and had to remain there over Shabbos. That Mishmar is not included in the normal division of the Chalos of Lechem ha'Panim, which are divided among the Mishmaros that are present in the Beis ha'Mikdash on Shabbos (the incoming and outgoing Mishmaros). Rather, they receive only two Chalos. The rest are divided among the two Mishmaros on duty.
</p><p>
The <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> and <b>MAHARSHAM</b> ask that the Mishmar ha'Mis'akev, the Mishmar that stays behind, is not required to be there. On the contrary, they are not supposed to be there, as Rashi implies. Why, then, should the Kohen Gadol receive less than he would normally receive as a result of that Mishmar? Instead of diminishing the Kohen Gadol's share, we should diminish that Mishmar's share. Why does the Kohen Gadol receive less because of them?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> answers that the Rabanan enacted that the Mishmar that stays behind receives two Chalos. It is not because they deserve it; rather, it is purely due to the generosity of the Rabanan who made the enactment for their benefit. They receive the Chalos by virtue of a Takanah, and not because of an apportionment (Chalukah), while the other two Mishmaros and the Kohen Gadol receive their share through an apportionment. Just as the Rabanan have the authority to diminish the amount of Chalos which the other two Mishmaros receive (as a result of their Takanah), they also have the authority to diminish the amount of Chalos which the Kohen Gadol receives.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  Oros is Gargir, called Oros owing to its effect on the 
          eyes.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b></b>  This positive effect is only by border Gargir.
<br>
<b><font>6) AVOIDING 'TUM'AH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  A guest should not eat eggs, nor sleep in his host's 
          garment.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Rav and R. Nachman would arrange for wives on their 
          travels.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we are taught that this should be avoided 
          so that siblings not unwittingly marry one another?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The children of scholars are well known.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But one needs seven days from the engagement?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> It was arranged in advance.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> The arrangement was only for Yichud ('Pas 
          be'Salo').
<br>
<b><font>7) MISHNAH: THE NEXT PHASE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  In the Beis Avtinas the elder Kohanim made him take an 
          oath accompanied by tears. 
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Depending on his level of scholarship he would either 
          teach, or be taught, read or be read to.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Zecharyah b. Kavutal added Daniel to the reading list.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) MARRIED TO TWO WIVES IN TWO PLACES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that when Rav and Rav Nachman (and presumably other Amora'im) traveled to distant towns, they would marry other wives in those towns as a way of preventing any nocturnal mishaps from occurring.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that marrying a wife in the new town will not help to prevent a nocturnal mishap, because a newly married man and woman are not be permitted to be with each other for at least seven days; the excitement of the marriage causes the woman to have a flow of 'Dam Chimud' and become a Nidah right away. The Gemara answers that the Amora'im either informed the women whom they intended to marry seven days earlier, or that they did not actually consummate the marriage with them, but merely performed Yichud with them, and thus the psychological effect of having 'Pas b'Salo' ('bread available in his basket') prevented nocturnal mishaps.
</p><p>
According to the Gemara's second answer, how can the woman be considered 'Pas b'Salo' if she is forbidden to him because of 'Dam Chimud'? (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH Yechudi)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (in his explanation of Rashi) and the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 11:10) write that the Gemara means 'Pas b'Salo <i>l'Achar Zeman</i>,' she will become permitted to him after seven days. This is called 'Pas b'Salo' because he knows that she will be permitted to him in a matter of days. (That is, she is 'available' to him as far as the prohibition of being alone with an unmarried woman is concerned, even though she is not available to him as far as the prohibition of Nidah is concerned. Since a Nidah normally becomes permitted in a matter of days, she is called 'Pas b'Salo.')
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> and other Rishonim explain that the Amora'im were only 'Tove'a l'Yichud' -- they asked the women to marry them only in order to perform Yichud with them after marriage, but not to have marital relations. Since the women were informed that the purpose of the marriage was only for Yichud, they had no expectations of intimacy, and thus they did not have a flow of 'Dam Chimud.' (Moreover, if the Amora'im later decided to consummate the marriage, there would be no 'Dam Chimud' at that time because the women were already married to them. 'Dam Chimud' occurs only when a marriage proposal is offered to a woman who is <i>not</i> married.)
</p><p>
This explanation also answers the previous question of the Gemara. The Gemara asked that one is not permitted to have two wives in two different places lest it lead to problems of Mamzerus. Since the Amora did only Yichud with the second woman, there was no concern that problems of Mamzerus would arise. If he later would decide to consummate the marriage, he would bring her to his hometown.
</p><p>
(c) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b> HA'LAVAN</b> and <b>RA'AVAD</b> (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 11:10) explain that the word 'Yichud' here does not mean 'isolate' themselves. Rather, it means 'set aside' for themselves. The Amora did not ask a woman to marry him, but to 'set herself aside' for marriage and to make herself available in case he would decide to marry her. This was considered 'Pas b'Salo' since the woman was ready to marry him at any moment.
</p><p>
There is no problem of 'Dam Chimud' in such a situation for reasons similar to those suggested by Tosfos. A man's request that a woman 'be ready' for marriage is not a formal marriage proposal, and thus there is no 'Dam Chimud.' When he later proposes to her and marries her, she will not have 'Dam Chimud' because the proposal was expected and did not take her by surprise. (This approach also answers the earlier question of the Gemara, as described in (b) above.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE LISHAKOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  In Beis Avtinas he learned Chafinah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  (R. Papa):</font></b> He had two Lishkos, one Parhedrin and one was
          Beis Avtinas, one in the North and one in the South.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The Mishnah lists the six Lishkos in the Azarah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Lishkas ha'Melach - South
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Lishkas ha'Parvah- South, above which was the Mikveh
               of the Kohen Gadol.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Lishkas ha'Madichin- South, and steps leading to the
               roof of the Beis ha'Parvah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Lishkas ha'Etz- North (R. Elazar b. Ya'akov forgot
               its purpose) Abba Sha'ul reported that it was for the Kohen
               Gadol.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> Lishkas ha'Golah- North, the water supply.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> Lishkas ha'Gazis- North, for the Sanhedrin who
               judged the fitness of the Kohanim.
             <br><b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  Those who were found Pasul...
             <br><b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> Those who were found Kasher...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  In addition to the one in the North, the Kohen Gadol had
          a Lishkah in the South (one of the Lishkos reported
          alongside the southern of the seven Gates).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Papa was unclear as to which of his Lishkos (Parhedrin
          or Beis Avtinas) was in the North and South.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  It seemed likely that Parhedrin was in the North to
          minimize his walking back and forth during his day's
          activities.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But troubling him is a good thing if it:
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Discouraged Tzedukim from staying on the job.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Prevented a swelled head (since we could cause him
               even less walking if we so desired, by relocating or
               even concentrating his Lishkos).
<br>
<b><font>2) AGENCY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Our Mishnah may be a refutation of R. Huna b.
          R. Yehoshuah!?
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He taught that a Kohen is considered an agent of
               Heaven, not of the one bringing the offering.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This is supported by the general rule of agency that
               the agent may not do anything which the one who
               appointed him may not do himself.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Yet the Mishnah calls the Kohen Gadol the agent of
               the officers?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE KOHEN GADOL'S MORNING ROUTINE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that the Kohen Gadol used two Lishkos during the seven days of his isolation. He used the Lishkas Beis Avtinus, where he was instructed how to perform the Chafinah with the Ketores on Erev Yom Kippur, and he used the Lishkas Parhedrin, where he slept at night during the seven days of isolation.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks whether the Lishkas Parhedrin, where the Kohen Gadol slept, was on the northern side of the Azarah or on the southern side. The Gemara first suggests that it was on the southern side, because the Mikva'os were in the south. Upon arising early in the morning, the Kohen Gadol would go to the bathroom and then immerse himself in the Mikvah. In the evening, the Haza'ah would be done to him (according to one opinion in the Gemara earlier, 14b), and he would do Tevilah afterwards, before he retired for the night. Since he needed to immerse in the Mikvah in the morning upon arising and in the evening upon retiring, it is logical that his place of residence was near the Mikvah. In this way, he was not troubled to walk from one side of the Azarah (where he slept) to the other (where the Mikva'os were located).
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara say that when the Kohen Gadol arose in the morning, he would first go to the bathroom and then immerse in the Mikvah? It is true that a Kohen who relieves himself is required to immerse himself in a Mikvah before he performs the Avodah (as Rashi writes, based on the Gemara in Yoma 28a). However, even if the Kohen does not go to the bathroom, he is required to immerse himself in a Mikvah when he arises! The Gemara later (30b) states that whenever a Kohen wants to enter the Azarah to perform the Avodah, he first must immerse in a Mikvah (Rashi DH Chutz mi'Zu). Why does the Gemara mention that the Kohen Gadol would go to the bathroom?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHASH</b> and the <b>SI'ACH YITZCHAK</b> answer that it is true that the Kohen Gadol would need to immerse himself upon arising even if he did not go to the bathroom. The Gemara mentions that he would go to the bathroom only to give advice: the Kohen Gadol should go to the bathroom before he immerses so that he will fulfill two obligations of Tevilah with one immersion -- his obligation to immerse before the Avodah, and his obligation to immerse after he goes to the bathroom. In that way, he will not need to make a second trip to the Mikvah.
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps it is a Mitzvah for the Kohen to relieve himself before he enters the Azarah to perform the Avodah. The Gemara in Berachos (15a) teaches that one who goes to the bathroom, washes his hands, dons Tefilin, says Keri'as Shema, and then recites the Shemoneh Esreh is considered to have accepted upon himself the Kingship of Hash-m in the most complete way ('Kabalas Ol Malchus Shamayim Sheleimah') and he is considered as though he immersed in a Mikvah and offered a Korban upon the Mizbe'ach. (Y. Shaw)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The oath is taken under the assumptions of the
          Beis Din, not that he is their actual agent.
<br>
<b><font>3) AN OATH AMIDST TEARS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  He cried on account of their suspicion that he was a
          Tzedoki.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  They cried because one who groundlessly suspects another
          will be personally afflicted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What was all the suspicion about?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Regarding the departure from tradition of the
          Tzedokim, as demonstrated in the reported incident.
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> A Tzedoki performed the Avodah in their incorrect
               manner.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> His father warned him not to openly disobey the
               Perushim.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> He was pleased with his compliance with their
               misunderstanding.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> He did not live long, as reported.
<br>
<b><font>4) SPEAKING OR SIGNALING DURING SHEMA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Rav signaled that the name was Kavutal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't he say the name?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He was in the middle of Keri'as Shema.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then how was he permitted to signal (two
          Beraisos which demonstrate the prohibition of doing so)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> These speak during the first paragraph, whereas
          Rav was in the second.
<br>
<b><font>5) VEDIBARTA BAM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Pasuk teaches that one must hear himself for Keri'as
          Shema but not for Tefilah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Further, one is exclusively permitted to speak words of
          Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Also, make these words permanent, not passing.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  One who speaks non-Torah matters violates an Asei...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  He also violates a Lav...
<br>
<b><font>6) MISHNAH: KEEPING THE KOHEN GADOL UP AT NIGHT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The young Kohanim would snap their fingers to rouse him.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  If he was very drowsy they would get him to stand up.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  They would occupy him until the time for Shechitah.
<br>
<b><font>7) SNAPPING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Which is the Etzba Tzerada?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Tzarah to the other (the thumb).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Huna demonstrated the snap and it made quite a noise.
<br>
<b><font>8) GETTING THE KOHEN GADOL TO STAND UP</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  They would ask him to show them something new.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  This was the bowing (which was to the ground without
          touching it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  They would not use instruments to occupy the Kohen Gadol;
          rather they would sing to him ('Im Hash-m Lo Yivneh...
          ').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The precious Jews of Yerushalayim would also stay up so
          that the sounds of their Torah would rouse the Kohen
          Gadol.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  Aba Shaul reported that this was done even after the
          Churban in various places, but it sometimes led to sin
          (as reported in the conversation between Eliyahu and R.
          Yehudah).
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> What does Hash-m say...?
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> What does the Satan say...?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  We learn from the reported incident that the Satan has no
          power to accuse on Yom Kipur (his number is only 364).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) AGADAH: THE TZEDUKI IN THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> A Tzeduki Kohen Gadol once managed to perform the Avodah of burning the Ketores on Yom Kippur in the manner that the Tzedukim maintained that it must be done. As he exited the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, he was very proud of himself and of his 'accomplishment.' The Gemara relates two versions of what happened to him. According to the first version, he proudly boasted as he exited the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, and a few days later he was found dead in a garbage dump with worms coming out of his nose. According to the second version, on his way out of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, a loud noise was heard in the Azarah. The Tzeduki suddenly lurched forward and fell on his face, and a large hoof-print was found between his shoulders. (The hoof-print was attributed to one of the angels, who 'have feet like those of calves.')
</p><p>
Is there any significant difference between these two versions?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MESHECH CHOCHMAH</b> (Parshas Acharei Mos) cites the Gemara in Gitin (54b) which records two opinions of the Amora'im with regard to a Kohen who claims that he invalidated the Avodah with an improper thought, a Machshavah of Pigul. One Amora maintains that when a Kohen claims he had an improper thought while he performed the Avodah, he is believed and the Avodah is disqualified. Another Amora maintains that he is not believed, and the Avodah remains valid.
</p><p>
The Amora who says that the Avodah is invalid proves his opinion from the law of a Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur, who is believed to say that he invalidated the Avodah even though no one was able to see what he did (or hear what he said) while he stood in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. The Gemara refutes this proof and says that perhaps the Kohen Gadol is not believed based on his testimony alone. Rather, the Avodah is invalidated only when someone else testifies that he saw (through a peephole) the Kohen Gadol utter his invalidating thought at the time he performed the Avodah in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim.
</p><p>
The first version of the Tzeduki's demise (he was found dead later) follows the opinion in Gitin that a Kohen <i>is</i> believed to say that he invalidated the Avodah. Consequently, the Tzeduki's declaration that he burned the Ketores in the wrong manner was accepted, the Avodah he performed was disqualified, and the Avodah was redone in the proper manner. There was no pressing reason for the Tzeduki to die immediately.
</p><p>
The second version of the Tzeduki's demise (he was struck dead immediately upon his exit from the Kodesh ha'Kodashim) follows the other opinion in Gitin, that the Kohen is <i>not</i> believed to say that he invalidated the Avodah. Consequently, the Tzeduki's declaration would not have been accepted, and the Avodah would not have been redone properly, had there been no other indication that the Avodah indeed was invalidated. Therefore, Hash-m sent a divine sign to show that the Avodah indeed was invalid so that the people would know that it needed to be redone. The divine sign was the sudden death of the Tzeduki at the hands of an angel.
</p><p>
How, though, did the sudden death of the Tzeduki prove beyond doubt that his Avodah was invalid? The verse states, 'v'Chol Adam Lo Yiheyeh b'Ohel Mo'ed' -- 'and no man shall be in the Ohel Mo'ed' (Vayikra 16:17). According to the Yerushalmi (Yoma 1:5), the verse teaches that even <i>angels</i> are not allowed to enter while the Avodah is being done on Yom Kippur. Why, then, was the angel that killed the Tzeduki in the Ohel Mo'ed?
</p><p>
The Yerushalmi asks this question and answers that the ban on the entrance of angels to the Kodesh ha'Kodashim applies only while the Ketores is being offered there in the proper manner. Since the Ketores that the Tzeduki offered was invalid, the angel was allowed to enter. Accordingly, the very presence of an angel in the sanctuary (who killed the Tzeduki as he exited the Kodesh ha'Kodashim) proved that the Tzeduki's Avodah indeed was invalid (even though the Tzeduki himself would not have been believed to say that it was invalid). That divine sign enabled the people to appoint another Kohen Gadol in time to redo the Avodah in the proper manner.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MISHNAH: THE TERUMAS HADESHEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Normally the Terumas ha'Deshen was done near Keri'as 
          ha'Gever.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Yom Kipur it was done at Chatzos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  On Regalim it was done from the first Ashmorah, and the 
          Azarah was completely full by Keri'as ha'Gever.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE SOURCES FOR THE TIMES OF TERUMAS HADESHEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Mishnah (in Zevachim) teaches that Chatzos is the 
          cutoff to determine if Eivarim are considered consumed by 
          the Mizbe'ach (and no longer subject to Me'ilah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The source is a contradiction resolved by Rav to teach 
          that the first half is for Haktarah; the second for 
          Haramah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If, indeed, Chatzos is the cutoff d'Oreisa, 
          then how could our Mishnah allow deviations from Chatzos?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE GEMATRIYA OF 'HA'SATAN' IS 364</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that the Satan has power to accuse on 364 out of 365 days of the year. He has no power to accuse on Yom Kippur. An allusion to this is the Gematriya of the word, 'ha'Satan,' which equals 364.
</p><p>
The Jewish calendar, however, follows the lunar year, which is 354 days long. Of what significance, then, is the allusion from the Gematriya of 'ha'Satan,' which refers to the solar year (of 365 days)?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>NETZIV</b> (in <b>MEROMEI SADEH</b>) answers that the allusion is merely a 'Remez b'Alma'; it is not intended to have any significant implication. The fact that the Gematriya of 'ha'Satan' is one less than the number of days in the solar year is significant enough to allude to the fact that the Satan has no reign on one day out of the year.
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps there is additional significance to the Gematriya of 'ha'Satan.' The solar calendar and lunar calendar are synchronized by the 19-year cycle which Rav Ada organized in the third century (see Insights to Eruvin 56:1). The 19-year cycle causes the lunar year to average out to the length of the solar year due to the addition of an extra month in 7 out of 19 lunar years. Accordingly, the Satan's <i>average</i> number of days of power (in every year of the 19-year cycle) is 364! In fact, ascribing the allusion of 364 days to the average number of days per year in the 19-year cycle has a clear advantage over ascribing it to a single lunar year: the lunar years vary in length (depending on whether they are Malei, Chaser, or k'Sidran, and whether they are leap years), and therefore it is preferable to mention the number of days during which the Satan has power in the unchanging solar year.
</p><p>
(c) Moreover, there is a link between the reign of the Satan and the solar year. The Midrash (Bereishis Rabah 6:3) says that Esav follows the solar year, while Yakov follows the lunar year.
</p><p>
Every nation has a spiritual counterpart, a Mal'ach that represents that nation in Shamayim. This Mal'ach signifies the essential character of the nation. The Mal'ach of Esav is 'Sama'el' (Rashi, Sukah 29a and Sotah 10b, based on Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Vayishlach 8). The Midrash (end of Devarim Rabah) describes 'Sama'el' as the Satan. Esav, like 'ha'Satan,' represents the forces that pull a person away from spirituality.
</p><p>
Accordingly, it is especially appropriate that the year of the Satan is comprised of 365 days like the solar year, the year of Esav.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) WHO PERFORMS THE 'TERUMAS HA'DESHEN' ON YOM KIPPUR</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah lists three different times at which the Terumas ha'Deshen is performed. The first is the time at which the Terumas ha'Deshen is performed on an ordinary day. It is performed either right before or right after the 'Keri'as ha'Gever' (approximately the time of dawn, Amud ha'Shachar; see Yoma 20b, and <b>RAMBAM</b>, Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin 2:11). The second is the time at which the Terumas ha'Deshen is performed on Yom Kippur night, when it is performed as early as Chatzos (midnight). The third is the time at which the Terumas ha'Deshen is performed during the festivals, when it is performed from the time that one quarter of the night has passed.
</p><p>
The Gemara later (20b) explains the two changes from the regular schedule. The Terumas ha'Deshen is performed from Chatzos on Yom Kippur night 'because of the weakness of the Kohen Gadol' who performs all of the Avodos on Yom Kippur. The Terumas ha'Deshen is performed after the first quarter of the night has passed during the festival 'because of the large number of Jews and large number of Korbanos' offered during the festival, which increase the amount of work necessary to clear the top of the Mizbe'ach from all of the ashes. The Terumas ha'Deshen must begin much earlier in order to clear off the Mizbe'ach in time for the next day's Korbanos.
</p><p>
The Gemara says that the reason the Terumas ha'Deshen is performed earlier on Yom Kippur is to help the Kohen Gadol preserve his strength for the Avodos of the day. The Gemara clearly implies that it is the Kohen Gadol who performs the Terumas ha'Deshen, just as he performs all of the other Avodos of Yom Kippur. However, the Mishnah later (22a) discusses the Payis (drawing of lots) performed to choose a Kohen to perform the Terumas ha'Deshen. The Mishnah implies that the Terumas ha'Deshen may be performed by <i>any</i> Kohen and not only by the Kohen Gadol.
</p><p>
Who performs the Terumas ha'Deshen on Yom Kippur?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Zevachim (86b, DH Mishum) explains that the Kohen Gadol must perform the Terumas ha'Deshen on Yom Kippur, as the Gemara here implies. Since the Kohen Gadol must perform all of the Avodos of Yom Kippur, he may perform the Terumas ha'Deshen earlier than usual so that he may rest after the Terumas ha'Deshen before he begins the Avodos of the day. (With regard to why the Mishnah discusses the Payis done for the Terumas ha'Deshen, see Insights to Yoma 22:1.)
</p><p>
This is also the understanding of the <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b>.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (20b, DH Mishum, in the name of the <b>RIVA</b>) and the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 4:1) understand that although all of the Avodos of the <i>day</i> must be performed only by the Kohen Gadol, Avodos of the <i>night</i> may be performed by any Kohen. Therefore, a Payis was necessary to choose a Kohen for the Terumas ha'Deshen, an Avodah performed before daybreak.
</p><p>
Why, then, does the Gemara explain that the Terumas ha'Deshen of Yom Kippur is performed early because of the weakness of the 'Kohen Gadol'? The Riva asserts that the text of the Gemara is in error and should read, 'because of the weakness of the Kohen,' instead of, 'because of the weakness of the Kohen Gadol.' The Kohen should perform the Terumas ha'Deshen as early as possible because of the difficulty of the fast.
</p><p>
The Rishonim (<b>TOSFOS RID</b> to 29a and others) cite proof for this explanation from the Gemara later (29a) which states that 'when the watchman announced the break of dawn, the Kohen Gadol would be taken to perform his Tevilah.' This implies that before dawn of Yom Kippur the Kohen Gadol was not required to serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b>, who maintains that the Kohen Gadol must perform the Terumas ha'Deshen, refutes this proof. When the Mishnah (28a) and Gemara (29a) discuss the acts of Tevilah of the Kohen Gadol, they refer only to those which are done during the day, and not to those which are done at night. (See the <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Milchamos) who rejects this argument and upholds the proof from the Gemara later.)
<br> 
<br>(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> (beginning of 21a) says in the name of the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> that an ordinary Kohen may perform the Terumas ha'Deshen. When the Gemara here says that the Terumas ha'Deshen of Yom Kippur is performed earlier because of the weakness of the Kohen Gadol, it means that the ordinary Kohanim perform the work of the Terumas ha'Deshen earlier in order to ensure that the Kohen Gadol will be able to start his Avodah early in the morning, before he becomes weak.
</p><p>
This is also the opinion of the <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Milchamos), who also quotes this opinion in the name of the <b>RAMBAM</b>. (See also Insights to Zevachim 86:2.) (Y. Montrose, Y. Shaw)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yochanan reinterprets the Pesukim and there 
          are different times for different days.
<br>
<b><font>3) KRIYAS HAGEVER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is Keri'as ha'Gever?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is a Machlokes between Rav (it means the 
          caller) and R. Shila (it means the rooster).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The incident involves Rav serving as Meturgeman before R. 
          Shila...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  There is a Beraisa to support each definition:
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  In support of Rav, the Beraisa teaches that the <i>caller</i> 
          summons the Kohanim, Levi'im, Yisre'elim...
       <br><b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Agripas rewarded him for his voice, heard at 3 
               Parsah.
       <br><b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Kohen Gadol could be heard in Yericho, in spite 
               of his weakness and it being daytime.
       <br><b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> The noise of the sun blocks sounds during the day.
       <br><b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> La is the name... as indicated by Nevuchadnezar.
       <br><b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> Without the noise of the sun, Rome could be heard; 
               without the noise of Rome, the sun could be heard.
       <br><b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> Three voices travel throughout the world, the above 
               and the Neshamah as it leaves the body (some add the 
               sound at birth, others as Ridyah).
       <br><b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b></b> The Rabanan eliminated the cry of the Neshamah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  In support of R. Shila, the Beraisa speaks of the dangers 
          of embarking before the cry of the <i>rooster</i>.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) AGADAH: SOLAR SAWDUST</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Levi asked why a person's voice is not heard during the day as well as it is heard during the night. He answered that it is 'because of the sound produced by the sun's disc as it saws through the firmament as a sawyer cuts through cedars.'
</p><p>
The Gemara continues and says that 'the dust which can be discerned hanging in the air where the sun shines is the sawdust produced by the sun's progress. It is referred to in Hebrew as 'Lo' -- 'nothingness.' This is what Nevuchadnetzar referred to when he said, 'All of the inhabitants of the earth are as Lo [to Hash-m]'' (Daniel 4:32).
</p><p>
What is this 'sun dust,' and what is the meaning of the Gemara's statement that the sun 'saws through the firmament'?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Gemara in Sotah (10a) teaches that the Hebrew word for 'sun,' 'Shemesh,' is used as an appellation for Hash-m, as it says, 'Hash-m is a Shemesh and a shield' (Tehilim 84:12). Why is the word for 'sun' also used to denote its Creator?
</p><p>
David ha'Melech writes, 'The heavens proclaim the glory of Hash-m.... The sun appears like a groom as he exits his bridal canopy; it rejoices like an athlete as he runs his course. It emerges from one edge of the sky and it goes around to the other; no one can escape its heat' (Tehilim 19:2-7).
</p><p>
In what way do 'the heavens proclaim the glory of Hash-m'? Hashem's power is demonstrated through the sun's great might. The sun's colossal nuclear furnace is the source of all life on earth. The sun, man's only directly observable star, is the greatest public demonstration of the awesome might and glory of Hash-m.
</p><p>
This may explain why the word 'Shemesh,' which is used to describe Hash-m, is used to refer to the sun, His great emissary in this world. An emissary is entitled to use the name of his dispatcher. The sun is the great witness to Hashem's power in this world.
</p><p>
<b>RABEINU BACHYE</b> (introduction to Parshas Yisro; see also Kli Yakar to Bereishis 32:27) uses this idea to explain the Gemara in Bava Basra (16b). The Gemara there relates in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Yochai that a precious stone hung from the neck of Avraham Avinu. Any sick person who came and gazed at the stone would be healed. When Avraham Avinu died, Hash-m hung the stone on the sphere of the sun.
</p><p>
Rabeinu Bachye notes that the Gemara compares Avraham's ability to 'enlighten people's eyes' in a spiritual sense to a resplendent gemstone. The Gemara says that the gem hung from his neck, because speech emanates from one's throat which is in the neck, and it was through his words that Avraham enlightened the spiritually ill. When Avraham Avinu died, no one was left in the world who had the ability to demonstrate Hashem's unity and greatness to others to the same degree that he was able to do. This ability now rested only with the sun, as the verse says, 'The heavens proclaim the glory of Hash-m.'
</p><p>
This is the deeper meaning of the Gemara here as well. The nighttime, when the sun's light is absent, represents the period during which Hashem's hand cannot be clearly seen in the world. It is under the cover of night that a person is particularly susceptible to the persuasions of the forces of evil. The darkness of night allows a person to forget his Creator.
</p><p>
When Rebbi Levi asked why a person's voice is not heard during the day as well as it is heard during the night, he meant, 'Why is a person dominated by his physical, worldly impulses at night more than by day?' He answered that by day, the sun is heard cutting through the heavens as a man saws through cedars. The daytime is dominated by the 'voice' of the sun, the great harbinger of Hashem's mighty presence. This 'voice' bolsters a person's faith and makes him less susceptible to the persuasions of the Yetzer ha'Ra.
</p><p>
The manner in which the sun cuts through the firmament is compared to 'a sawyer who cuts through cedars.' The tall, erect cedar tree is used by the Torah as a symbol of haughtiness (Rashi, Vayikra 14:4). As the sun cuts its way through the heavens, Hash-m cuts down the haughty. The sun's message of the omnipotence of its Creator humbles the arrogant when it openly demonstrates Hashem's power.
</p><p>
'The dust which can be discerned hanging in the air where the sun shines is the sawdust that is produced by the sun's progress.' The dust that reflects the light of the sun's rays reminds man of the sun's lesson in humility. Wherever the sun shines, man is reminded that 'you are dust, and to dust you will return' (Bereishis 3:19). The sun makes man aware of the overwhelming power of Hash-m compared to his own feebleness. This is precisely the context in which 'Lo' is quoted in Daniel: 'All of the inhabitants of the world are like nothingness [to Hash-m].'
</p><p>
This is the lesson of the sun's 'sawing,' of which man is reminded every time he sees a speck of dust suspended in a beam of sunlight. The Gemara's message here is far more than an adage in ancient astronomy. It is a profound philosophical lesson of faith in Hash-m. (M. Kornfeld. See <b>BE'ER HA'GOLAH</b>, ch. 6, for the Maharal's approach to this Agadah.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE TEN MIRACLES OF THE MIKDASH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  When B'nei Yisrael would fill the Mikdash, they would 
          stand crowded, and would prostrate themselves with 
          generous room.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They would fill the 11 Amos behind the Kapores.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> What does this add?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Even though they were <i>so</i> crowded, still...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  This was one of the ten miracles, as listed in Avos.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The last two depart from the Mikdash and speak 
          of Yerushalayim!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There were two others in the Mikdash, as taught 
          in the Beraisa.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The rain never extinguished the fire of the 
               Ma'arachah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The wind could not move its column of smoke.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But there were others (violating the limit of 
          10)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Beraisa- Broken shards were absorbed into the 
               ground.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Abaye- The Mora, Notzah, ashes of the Mizbe'ach and 
               Menorah were also absorbed into the ground.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The three Pesulim in the original list are 
          counted as one (so we remove two and add two).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then the absorbing should all be counted as 
          one!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There is also the Lechem ha'Panim ('Siluko 
          ke'Siduro').
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But there is also the miracle of the Aron and 
          Keruvim!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Only externally visible miracles are in the 
          count.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then the Lechem ha'Panim should not be 
          counted?!
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE JEWS BOWED DURING VIDUY IN THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Yehudah says in the name of Rav that a miracle occurred when the multitudes of Jews crowded into the Beis ha'Mikdash during the festivals. When they stood in the Azarah they were crowded, but when they bowed down they had plenty of room ('Omdin Tzefufin u'Mishtachavim Revachim'). The Gemara says that this is one of the ten miracles which occurred in the Beis ha'Mikdash, as enumerated in Avos (5:5).
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> writes that they bowed for Viduy, the confession of sins which is part of the procedure of Teshuvah. The miracle was that when each person bowed down to recite Viduy, he had plenty of room and no one was near him to hear his confession.
</p><p>
However, Viduy is not recited on any of the festivals (with the exception of Yom Kippur). What does Rashi mean when he says that they bowed for Viduy?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) The <b>TASHBETZ</b> (3:37) asserts that this miracle occurred only on Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur is the only Yom Tov for which Viduy is said as part of the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. He says this is also the intent of Rashi here.
</p><p>
The <b>SI'ACH YITZCHAK</b> agrees with the Tashbetz that when Rashi here says that they bowed during Viduy, he refers specifically to Yom Kippur.
</p><p>
(b) It is possible that when <b>RASHI</b> says that the people bowed during Viduy, he refers not to the ordinary Viduy but to their request during Tefilah for Mechilah, forgiveness. When the people ascended to Yerushalayim for the festival and entered the Beis ha'Mikdash, they would pray to Hash-m and request their needs. The people took advantage of the opportunity of being in the presence of the Shechinah to ask Hash-m for all of their needs, and their prayers included requests for Mechilah as well. At the point in the prayers at which they asked for forgiveness for their sins, they enumerated their sins (Viduy).
</p><p>
When Rashi in Avos (5:5) explains the miracle as it is recorded there, he writes that when each person bowed, he had plenty of room and no one was near him 'to hear his <i>prayer</i>.' This is also the way the Midrash (Bereishis Rabah 5:7) explains the miracle. This supports the contention that the Viduy that Rashi mentions here was merely part of the prayers that were said when the people came to the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
Although the Halachah disapproves of reciting Viduy on Shabbos and Yom Tov, one certainly is permitted to recite Viduy when there is a need to do so specifically on that day, as the <b>BE'ER HEITEV</b> (OC 288:3) writes. The moment that one stands in the Azarah of the Beis ha'Mikdash on Yom Tov in the presence of the Shechinah is an opportune time to confess one's sins and ask for forgiveness.
</p><p>
The <b>MACHATZIS HA'SHEKEL</b> (OC 288:13) cites the <b>ROSH</b> who says that the people may recite the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy (Midos Rachamim) even on Shabbos when there is a need to supplicate for rain. The <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> there permits even Nefilas Apayim, falling on one's arm (as one does for Tachanun), on Shabbos. The Gemara here, according to Rashi's explanation, is strong support for his ruling.
</p><p>
(The <b>KISVEI HA'GRIZ</b> explains that the Gemara here refers to when the people bowed upon their entry into the Azarah. Anyone who enters the Azarah must bow, as derived from the Parshah of Bikurim, as the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> writes in Aderes Eliyahu, Parshas Ki Savo.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) AGADAH: 'THEY STOOD CROWDED, BUT THEY BOWED WITH SPACE'</b></font><b>
<br></b>Rav Yehudah says in the name of Rav that a miracle occurred when the multitudes of Jews crowded into the Beis ha'Mikdash during the three festivals. When they stood in the Azarah they were crowded, but when they bowed down they had plenty of room ('Omdin Tzefufin u'Mishtachavim Revachim'). The Gemara says that this is one of the ten miracles which occurred in the Beis ha'Mikdash, as enumerated in Avos (5:5).
</p><p>
<b>RAV YONASAN EIBESHITZ</b> (in Ahavas Yonasan, cited by Einei Shmuel) explains this miracle as follows. The Gemara in Berachos (6a), in its discussion about Shedim ('demons,' or forces that inflict harm), relates that during the public lecture held prior to the festivals, when many people gathered to learn the Halachos of the upcoming festival, the feeling of crowdedness that they experienced was due to the presence of Shedim.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Kidushin (29b) relates that there was a certain Shed which had the appearance of a seven-headed serpent. It resided in a certain study hall and terrorized the people. When Rav Acha bar Yakov entered the study hall and the Shed attacked him, he bowed down to Hash-m in prayer. When he bowed down, one head of the Shed fell off. He bowed seven times until all seven heads of the Shed fell off and the Shed died. This incident teaches that bowing down to Hash-m is one way to destroy Shedim.
</p><p>
The crowded feeling the Jews felt in the Beis ha'Mikdash during the festival was due to the presence of Shedim, like the crowded feeling they felt during the public lecture before the festival. When the people in the Beis ha'Mikdash bowed down to Hash-m, their acceptance of His sovereignty caused the destruction of the Shedim (at least momentarily) and eliminated the crowded feeling.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> (Resh Lakish): The Lechem ha'Panim were raised 
          and made visible to the people (as a sign of Divine 
          love).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Torah insists that the Shulchan be Tahor.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This implies that it could somehow be Tamei.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Yet the Shulchan was a <i>stationary</i> wooden K'li?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> As such it could not become Tamei.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> It must be because it was raised...
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the golden trees were another miracle?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Fixture miracles were not counted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b></b>  We then understand why the Aron and Keruvim, which were 
          also fixed, were not counted.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE UNMOVABLE COLUMN OF SMOKE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> There was no smoke from the Atzei Ma'arachah 
          (The Beraisa teaches five qualities of the fire of the 
          Atzei Ma'arachah, among them that there was no smoke)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The smoke was from the required man-made flame 
          (not that which came down from Shamayim, as in the 
          Beraisa).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Was the flame crouching like a lion or a dog?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> First Mikdash (lion) and second Mikdash (dog).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Divine flame was absent from the second 
          Mikdash (learned from the missing Heh)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It was there but it did not help burn.
<br>
<b><font>3) SIX TYPES OF FLAMES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa teaches that there are (have been) six types 
          of flames in the world, which varying on eating and 
          drinking.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The pillar of smoke from the Ma'arachah cannot be 
          shifted.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we were taught that the column did shift!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> All looked at, and interpreted, the direction of the 
               smoke after Sukos!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The southern wind, pushing the column North, was 
               good news for the poor (the produce would be sold at 
               discount) and bad news for the landowners (the great 
               quantity of rain would make it impossible to store 
               the produce).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Similarly, each wind direction brought tidings of 
               the rains to come.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The column tilted, but did not disperse.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> There seems to be a contradiction regarding the 
          benefits of the various winds!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Each is beneficial for (and detrimental to) a 
          different product.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Northern wind (which recalls where the Shulchan 
               stood) enhanced the grains.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The South (where the Menorah stood) enhanced the 
               oil.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MISHNAH: THE TERUMAS HADESHEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  It was originally done by whoever came forward.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  In the event that there were several who wished to do it, 
          they would race to the four Amos for the right.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  In the event of a tie, there was a Payis.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> They would put out one or two fingers.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The thumb could not be put out in the Mikdash.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  When a Kohen was injured in such a race, they were 
          Mesaken that the allocation would always be through a 
          Payis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b></b>  This was the first of four Paysos.
<br>
<b><font>2) WHY THE PAYIS WAS INSTITUTED ONLY AFTER THE INCIDENT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why wasn't this Payis originally instituted?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They assumed that the night work would not be 
          popular (and when it turned out to be so, even to the 
          point of injury, they instituted the Payis).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But Eivarim and Pedarim are at night, yet 
               there was always a Payis?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> It ends the Avodah of the day.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But the Terumas ha'Deshen is the start of 
               the days' Avodah (R. Yochanan taught that the Kohen 
               need not be Mekadesh his hands and feet for the 
               days' Avodah once he did so for the Terumas 
               ha'Deshen)!?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> He meant that he has already been Mekadesh 
               for Avodah (but the Terumas ha'Deshen is a separate 
               Avodah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Alternate Answer:</font></b> They originally assumed that sleep 
          would prevent the Kohanim from coming (and when it turned 
          out...).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But the Eivarim also involve sleep?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Putting off sleep is not as hard as waking 
               up.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But there was a different reason for the Payis, 
          since the same Payis granted the right to Sidur and 
          Eitzim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There were two Takanos:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It was assumed that the Kohanim would not come (for 
               the reasons above) and when it turned out...
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Once they made the Payis the Kohanim stopped coming, 
               so they added the right to Sidur and Eitzim to that 
               Payis.
<br>
<b><font>3) WHICH FOUR AMOS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Papa):</font></b> The four Amos must be those closest to the 
          Mizbe'ach (by inference they could not have been:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> on the ground before the ramp;
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> the first four Amos of the Kevesh;
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> the middle Amos of the Kevesh.)
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Did these four Amos include the two Amos above 
          the Sovevim, or were they in addition to them?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'PAYESOS' ON YOM KIPPUR</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah discusses the Payis, the drawing of the lots, that was performed each day in order to select the Kohen who would perform the Terumas ha'Deshen. The Mishnah concludes that this was the first of four Payesos performed during the day to select Kohanim for each part of the Avodah. The following Mishnayos proceed to describe the other Payesos in brief. A similar description of the Payesos is recorded in the Piyut of the Musaf Shemoneh Esreh of Yom Kippur.
</p><p>
The words of the Mishnah and the Piyut imply that these Payesos were performed on Yom Kippur just as they were performed on every other day. However, on Yom Kippur there was no need to select Kohanim to perform the various Avodos, as the only one who was authorized to perform the Avodah was the Kohen Gadol (Yoma 32b). Why, then, were Payesos performed on Yom Kippur?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> writes that no Payis was performed on Yom Kippur. The Mishnah mentions the Payesos only incidentally as part of its discussion of the Terumas ha'Deshen (20a), which was the first Avodah the Kohen Gadol performed on Yom Kippur. The Ba'al ha'Me'or asserts that the authors of the Piyutim erred in including the Payesos in the Yom Kippur prayers.
</p><p>
How, though, does the Ba'al ha'Me'or understand the Gemara earlier (12b) which makes reference to 'the belt that the Kohen Hedyot wears on Yom Kippur'? If an ordinary Kohen (Kohen Hedyot) does not perform Avodah on Yom Kippur, how can he wear the belt of the Bigdei Kehunah on Yom Kippur? Apparently, the Ba'al ha'Me'or understands that the Gemara there refers to a Kohen Hedyot who decides to turn over an ember on the Mizbe'ach with a poker ('Mehapech b'Tzinora'), an act which is not an obligatory part of the Avodah of the day and which any Kohen may do, even on Yom Kippur. (<b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> 12b)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (20b, DH Mishum) and the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 4:1) explain that although all of the Avodos of the <i>day</i> must be performed only by the Kohen Gadol, Avodos of the <i>night</i> may be performed by any Kohen. Therefore, a Payis was necessary to choose a Kohen for the Terumas ha'Deshen, an Avodah performed before daybreak.
</p><p>
The Rishonim (<b>TOSFOS RID</b> to 29a and others) cite proof for this explanation from the Gemara later (29b) which states that 'when the watchman announced the break of dawn, the Kohen Gadol would be taken to perform his Tevilah.' This implies that before dawn of Yom Kippur the Kohen Gadol was not required to serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> (12b) says in the name of the <b>RAMBAN</b> ('Rabeinu ha'Gadol') that mid'Oraisa only the Avodos which are <i>unique</i> to Yom Kippur must be performed by the Kohen Gadol. All of the regular Avodos which are done on all other days of the year, such as the Avodos of the Korban Tamid, may be done on Yom Kippur by a Kohen Hedyot, although it is a greater Mitzvah for the Kohen Gadol to perform them. The Rabanan enacted that the Kohen Gadol <i>must</i> perform all of the Avodos on Yom Kippur, but they permitted a Kohen Hedyot to perform the ordinary Avodos when the Kohen Gadol is weak. In such a situation, Payesos would be made on Yom Kippur to select the Kohanim to do those Avodos. It is to those Payesos which the Mishnayos here refer.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Milchamos) argues that certain unique Avodos of Yom Kippur may be performed by a Kohen Hedyot even l'Chatchilah. Accordingly, all four Payesos must be performed on Yom Kippur to select Kohanim for those Avodos.
</p><p>
The Avodah of Terumas ha'Deshen (included in the <i>first</i> Payis) may be performed by a Kohen Hedyot, since it is not an Avodah which must be done during the daytime of Yom Kippur. Similarly, the Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach (included in the <i>second</i> Payis) may be done by a Kohen Hedyot because that Avodah may be done during the night. The Dishun of the Menorah (also included in the second Payis) may be done by a Kohen Hedyot, because it is only a preparatory Avodah (for the kindling of the Menorah), and it, too, may be performed at night. The Avodah of the Machtah (with which coals are brought from the outer Mizbe'ach to the inner Mizbe'ach), which is included in the <i>third</i> Payis, may be done by a Kohen Hedyot because it is only a secondary part of the burning of the Ketores. Finally, the <i>fourth</i> Payis on Yom Kippur selects the Kohen who will bring the limbs of the previous day's Korban which had been placed on the ramp but not yet brought upon the Mizbe'ach to be burned. Since this Avodah may be done at night, it may be performed on Yom Kippur by a Kohen Hedyot. This is why the Mishnah here, and the Piyut of Musaf on Yom Kippur, discuss all four Payesos.
</p><p>
The Ramban adds that a close examination of the Piyut reveals that, in its discussion of the Payesos, the Piyut mentions only the lots drawn for the specific Avodos which the Ramban enumerates.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Teiku.
<br>
<b><font>4) THE PAYIS AND THE PROHIBITION OF COUNTING JEWS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Payis was announced by the instruction to take out 
          fingers.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why not count the Kohanim themselves?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> This supports R. Yitzhok who taught that counting 
          Jews is forbidden, as it says by Shaul that he counted 
          the soldiers by using shards (Bezek).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Maybe Bezek refers to the name of the place?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, the source is the fact that he later 
          counted them using lambs.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b></b>  Counting Jews is a violation of one (R. Elazar) or two 
          (R. Nachman b. Yitzhok) prohibitions (proof text).
<br>
<b><font>5) HOW MANY JEWS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> There is a contradiction, where one Pasuk 
          refers to the Jews as finite (as the sand of the sea) and 
          one where they are infinite (uncountable).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer #1:</font></b> It depends on whether (infinite) or not 
          (finite) the Jews perform Hashem's will.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer #2:</font></b> It depends on whether people (infinite) or 
          Hash-m (finite) is doing the counting.
<br>
<b><font>6) LEADERSHIP BRINGS WEALTH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  From the example of Shaul (who first gave them shards and 
          later gave lambs) we learn that one who is appointed over 
          the community becomes wealthy.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps each soldier had to bring his own lamb?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That would not have been newsworthy.
<br>
<b><font>7) SHAUL AND DAVID</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The words va'Yarev ba'Nachal allude to Shaul's rebellion 
          regarding killing all the Amaleikim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The Bas Kol said, 'Al Tehi Tzadik Harbeh'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  When Shaul told Doeg to kill the Kohanei Nov, the Bas Kol 
          announced, 'Al Tirsha Harbeh'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  There is a great difference between Shaul (who was 
          punished for one error- Agag) and David (who was pardoned 
          for two- Uriah and the counting).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What of the incident of Bas Sheva?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He was punished fourfold (as he had predicted by 
          his response to Noson) with the son, Amnon, Tamar and 
          Avshalom.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But he was also punished for the counting!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That was not on his person (it was on the 
          people).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the punishments for Bas Sheva were 
          similarly not on his person?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They were on his person, as he became a Metzora, 
          and was distanced by the Shechinah and the Sanhedrin (as 
          in his pleas in the proof text).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But David received Lashon Hara and caused the 
          splitting of the property of Mefiboshes (another 
          transgression)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> No, he did not.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav):</font></b> He did, and he was punished by the 
          splitting of the Kingdom under Yeravam and Rechavam.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b></b>  From the Pasuk we see that Shaul was like a one-year-old, 
          untainted by sin.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question (R. Nachman b. Yitzhok):</font></b> Maybe he was soiled 
          like a one-year-old in Tit and Tzoah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Nachman b. Yitzhok was shown terrifying angels.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He responded with acknowledging his error in 
               speaking against the bones of Shaul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> He was again shown the terrifying angels.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> He responded by adding, 'King of Israel'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why was Shaul's reign not passed on to his son?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Because his lineage was unblemished.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> We are taught that a leader must have such a blemish 
               in his family history.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This keeps the ruler humble.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why was Shaul punished?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(s)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Because he waived his honor (two incidents) at 
          the start of his rule.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) AGADAH: SHAUL'S MISGIVINGS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Mani expounds the verse, 'And he fought in the brook' (Shmuel I 15:5), to mean that Shaul ha'Melech fought with himself about the brook. When Hash-m told Shaul ha'Melech to obliterate Amalek, Shaul said to himself, 'If for one dead soul (a murder victim found on the roadside) the Torah tells us to bring an Eglah Arufah, then all the more so for all of these souls! And if the men sinned, did the animals sin? And even if the adults sinned, did the children sin?'
</p><p>
What was Shaul's logic in contesting the command of Hash-m? Is it possible that Shaul, who is called the 'chosen one of Hash-m' (Shmuel II 21:6), doubted the justice of Hashem's command?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) To better understand Shaul's intentions, we must ask another question. Why was the law of Eglah Arufah the only source that Shaul ha'Melech found that stresses the value of human life? Why did he not simply quote the verse, 'One who kills another man shall be put to death' (Shemos 21:12)?
</p><p>
The answer to this question can be inferred from an analysis of Shaul's eventual sin. In the end, Shaul did not kill the animals of Amalek. He spared them in order to use them as sacrifices to Hash-m. Apparently, he felt a specific need to offer sacrifices at this time, perhaps as atonement for the eradication of an entire nation. Although Shaul was prepared to obey the word of Hash-m and he harbored no rebellious intentions, his reckoning implied that the eradication of Amalek's children and animals was essentially 'wrong' and demanded atonement. 
</p><p>
(Shaul understood that the purpose of killing the children and livestock was to insure that the Jews would destroy every living adult in Amalek. Had the people not concentrated on a complete obliteration, they would have been lax about the primary part of the command as well. Shaul interpreted the command to kill the children and livestock as a symptom of his people's lack of eagerness in the execution of the Divine will. This view, however, may have been based on a misinterpretation of the verse in the Torah that describes the Mitzvah to destroy Amalek. The verse says, 'Eradicate every trace (Zeicher) of Amalek' (Devarim 25:19). Shaul may have read the verse as, 'Eradicate every male (Zecher) of Amalek.' Indeed, the same mistake is attributed to Yoav, the commander-in-chief of the Jewish forces shortly after Shaul's reign (see Bava Basra 21a). According to the proper reading of the verse, it is clear that the destruction of the livestock is just as important as the killing of the men of Amalek (see Rashi to Devarim 25:19). Support for this approach to understanding Shaul's mistake can be found in Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer (ch. 44), which relates the episode mentioned in the Gemara here and adds another detail to Shaul's argument: 'Even if the men sinned, the <i>women</i> did not sin.' This clearly indicates that in Shaul's mind, the command to kill Amalek applied only to the <i>males</i>.)
</p><p>
This explains why Shaul quoted only the verse about Eglah Arufah in his argument to spare the livestock of Amalek, and not the verse which prescribes the death sentence for a killer. That verse involves a <i>sacrificial</i> atonement for an act of killing. Shaul wanted to justify sparing Amalek's livestock by using the animals for sacrificial offerings of atonement for the destruction of Amalek. (<b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b>, <b>IYUN YAKOV</b>)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>KEHILOS YITZCHAK</b> (Parshas Shoftim) quotes <b>RAV YAKOV</b>, the Magid of Vilna, who offers another approach to this Midrash. In the end of Parshas Shoftim and beginning of Ki Setzei, the Torah discusses the Halachos of warfare. In the midst of those laws, the Torah teaches the Parshah of Eglah Arufah. The placement of the Parshah Eglah Arufah in the middle of the Halachos of warfare seems inappropriate. (This is especially difficult in light of the Gemara in Sotah (45b) which implies that an Eglah Arufah is not brought during times of war.)
</p><p>
Rav Yakov of Vilna explains that it is necessary to remember the laws of Eglah Arufah specifically during times of war. When the Jewish warriors wage a war, even a war that is necessary for the survival and protection of the Jewish nation, they become desensitized and accustomed to seeing death and killing. It is necessary to remind them of the importance of human life so that they not take the attitudes of warfare into their peacetime lives. The Torah places the Parshah of Eglah Arufah in the middle of the Halachos of warfare to remind the soldiers that even a single killing demands the attention of all of the sages of the people.
</p><p>
This was also the intention of Shaul ha'Melech. Shaul certainly was aware of the Torah's laws of warfare (see Shmuel I 8:20). He undoubtedly studied this Parshah well. Shaul did not intend to slight the command to eradicate every trace of Amalek. Rather, as his troops went out to war he found it necessary to emphasize to them the great value of a human life, just as the Torah teaches this lesson in the Parshah of the Halachos of warfare.
</p><p>
What, then, was his sin?
</p><p>
The Torah inserts the Parshah of Eglah Arufah <i>after</i> the laws that discuss the actual waging of war. This placement implies that the time to remind the soldiers of the gravity of killing is only <i>after</i> Hashem's dictate has been carried out and the war is over. Shaul ha'Melech erred when he taught his soldiers this lesson <i>before</i> the actual war. His lesson had its effect, but at the wrong time, and thus it had a detrimental impact on the outcome of the battle. The lesson of the value of human life affected Shaul and his nation and, as a result, they 'had mercy on Agag and on the finest of the sheep' and did not carry out the will of Hash-m in full.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RAV SHALOM SHWADRON</b> zt'l, the Magid of Yerushalayim, offered an original approach to explain the mistake of Shaul ha'Melech. Rav Shwadron quoted the <b>RAMBAM</b> in his preface to Avos (Shemoneh Perakim, ch. 6) who points out an apparent dispute between the view of the philosophers and the view of the Chachamim with regard to the service of Hash-m. The philosophers believe that one who innately desires to do good is on a higher spiritual level than one who desires to do bad but subdues his innate urge. The Chachamim, however, teach that 'one should not say, 'I do not desire to eat milk with meat or to wear Sha'atnez,' but rather, 'I desire them, yet I shall refrain from them against my desires, because my Father in heaven has decreed upon me such'' (Toras Kohanim, cited by Rashi to Vayikra 20:26). However, various verses in the book of Mishlei seem to support the view of the philosophers. Why, then, do the Chachamim say that one who wants to do bad but subdues his urge is greater?
</p><p>
The Rambam answers that both views are correct and complement each other. Even a person of low spiritual stature must detest acts of sin that are naturally repulsive, such as murder, theft, property damage, insulting and disgracing others, and any act which is harmful to the fabric of society and which people would have outlawed even without the Torah's mandate. The philosophers' view applies to these acts.
</p><p>
However, a person should have a different attitude when he considers an act that seems to have no implications of evil but which was forbidden by the Torah for reasons beyond man's grasp. He should view such an act as desirable and avoid it only 'because my Father in heaven has decreed upon me such.'
</p><p>
Shaul ha'Melech was unable to comprehend the necessity to obliterate the entire nation of Amalek. Nevertheless, he undoubtedly accepted the word of Hash-m, just as he accepted the other decrees of the Torah that have reasons unfathomable to man. Accordingly, he reasoned that the preferable way to fulfill the Mitzvah is with the attitude that 'I shall perform this act against my desires, because my Father in heaven has decreed upon me such.' To this end, he emphasized to himself the importance of a human life. He did not do so to express doubt about the integrity of the word of the Almighty, but rather -- on the contrary -- in order to fulfill the Mitzvah that Hash-m gave him in the best possible manner.
</p><p>
His mistake was his assumption that killing is absolutely evil and always detestable. In truth, killing is not always detestable. To put to death a murderer is not an act of cruelty. The murderer's execution is a fitting punishment for his crime, and it is even considered an act of mercy in a sense. The Midrash on the verse, 'Al Tehi Tzadik Harbeh' (Koheles 7:16) says, 'One who shows mercy towards the cruel will eventually show cruelty towards the merciful.' Instead of stressing the value of human life, Shaul ha'Melech should have clarified to himself the necessity for, and the justness of, the destruction of Amalek. Had he done so, he would not have 'had mercy on Agag and the finest of the sheep' and would not have strayed from the letter of the law as conveyed to him by Shmuel ha'Navi. (-As heard personally from Rav Shwadron zt'l)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) DAVID HA'MELECH'S 'GOOD FORTUNE'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Huna exclaimed, 'How fortunate is the person whom Hash-m assists, for we find that Shaul sinned once and lost his kingdom because of it, while David sinned twice but did not lose his kingdom as a result.'
</p><p>
Why did Hash-m help David and not Shaul? The Gemara makes no mention of any element of superiority of David over Shaul. On the contrary, the Gemara implies that they were equal in their righteousness, and that David's good fortune was merely a matter of being more 'fortunate.'
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> explains that assistance granted to a person by Hash-m certainly does not depend on 'good fortune.' David ha'Melech had a special merit which made him worthy of receiving Hashem's help. David ha'Melech was 'Mekabel Yisurim b'Ahavah' -- he accepted his afflictions and suffering with love, and he sang to Hash-m in gratitude for all of his experiences. Shaul ha'Melech, though, did not express gratitude to Hash-m when he suffered. In the merit of his acceptance of afflictions with love, David ha'Melech became the recipient of Hashem's expressions of love for him and He pardoned him for his sins.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (Kol Eliyahu #203) writes that the difference between David and Shaul did depend, to some degree, on each one's Mazal. While the two kings were equal in their righteousness, Shaul was born with a natural tendency to be humble and with an inborn propensity for doing good. David, on the other hand, was born with a tendency to be prideful and with an attraction to warfare. He did not have the same natural inclination for good as Shaul had. Therefore, even though they were equal in their levels of righteousness, David ha'Melech underwent a much greater struggle to reach that level.
</p><p>
Since David overcame his natural tendencies, Hash-m rewarded him measure for measure. Hash-m caused His attribute of mercy to overcome His attribute of justice. Instead of punishing David ha'Melech for his sins, He dealt with David ha'Melech with 'Erech Apayim' and accepted his Teshuvah.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE REVENGE OF THE TALMID CHACHAM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  A Talmid Chacham must take revenge and bear a grudge like 
          a snake.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But what of the Torah prohibition?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That is speaking in money matters (as the 
          examples of Nekimah and Netirah indicate).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa speaks of letting go of 
          vengeful thoughts even in personal (non-financial) 
          matters?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Talmid Chacham is permitted to bear it (only) 
          in his heart.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But Rava taught that it is praiseworthy to 
          overlook even such slights!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That speaks of his willingness to forgive when 
          approached.
<br>
<b><font>2) PUTTING OUT FINGERS IN THE PAYIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> If two fingers are permitted, then certainly 
          one!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> One speaks of a healthy Kohen (only permitted to 
          put out one) and the other of an ill Kohen (does not have 
          the dexterity to put out one) as we learn in the Beraisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  We count the two fingers of the ill Kohen as one.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa implies that we count it as two 
          (while the one who puts out a thumb is not counted as 
          two, but is rather struck with a Pakia)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It means we count the ill Kohen as one, and we do 
          not count the thumb-user at all.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is a Pakia?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer (Rav):</font></b> Midra.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is a Midra?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Papa):</font></b> It is a whip with strands at the end.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> I used to think that Ben Bibai was in charge of 
          wicks (Pakia), but now I see that it means the whip.
<br>
<b><font>3) TRAGEDY ON THE KEVESH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  There was a tragic incident wherein a Kohen stabbed the 
          winner of a Kevesh-race.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Tzadok brought the People to tears with his call 
          regarding the Eglah Arufah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  The victim's father found his son still in his death 
          throes:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> He said that the son is their atonement.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> He said that the knife could still be removed before 
               becoming Tamei.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> This teaches the relative importance of <i>Tum'ah</i> and 
               bloodshed in the eyes of the people (as in the Pasuk 
               regarding the time of Menasheh).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Which incident came first (this or the 
          Mishnah)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If it was this one, why didn't the Takanah follow?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If it was the Mishnah, then how did this one happen?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The murder came first, but was regarded as an 
          isolated incident; while the Mishnah triggered the 
          Takanah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What Eglah Arufah did R. Tzadok refer to?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'NEKAMAH' AND 'NETIRAH' </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa discusses the prohibitions of Nekamah and Netirah (revenge and grudge-bearing) and it gives an example of each prohibition. Nekamah applies when Reuven asks Shimon to lend him a Magal (sickle) and Shimon refuses, and the next day Shimon asks Reuven to lend him a Kardum (ax). If Reuven refuses, he transgresses the prohibition of Nekamah. In the example of Netirah, Reuven asks Shimon to lend him a Kardum and Shimon refuses, and the next day Shimon asks Reuven to lend him a shirt. If Reuven says, 'I will lend you a shirt because I am not like you who refused to lend,' he transgresses the prohibition of Netirah.
</p><p>
Why does the Beraisa change the objects in each example? In the case of Nekamah, the first person asks for a Magal, and the second person asks for a Kardum. In the case of Netirah, the first person asks for a Kardum, and the second person asks for a shirt!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> A careful examination reveals numerous versions in the Rishonim with regard to what objects are mentioned in the Beraisa's examples. Each version necessitates a separate analysis.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>SEFER HA'CHINUCH</b> (Mitzvah 241 and 242), the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Lo Ta'aseh 304 and 305), and the <b>ME'IRI</b> write that the first person, Reuven, asks for a Magal, and the second person, Shimon, asks for a Kardum, in <i>both</i> the case of Nekamah and the case of Netirah.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> mentions that it is the normal manner of the Beraisa to use alternate objects (a Magal and a Kardum) in a single illustration. (Perhaps the reason for this is because if Reuven asks for a Kardum and Shimon refuses to lend him one, it is obvious that Shimon owns one. Clearly, then, Shimon is not going to ask Reuven for a Kardum the next day. Therefore, the Beraisa says that he asks for a different object, a Magal, the next day.)
</p><p>
(b) According to the Girsa of the <b>TORAS KOHANIM</b>, in the case of Nekamah, Reuven asks for a Magal and Shimon asks for a Kardum. In the case of Netirah, Reuven asks for a Kardum and Shimon asks for a Magal. (This Girsa is similar to that of our edition of the Gemara, except that in the Gemara's case of Netirah, Shimon asks for a Chaluk (shirt) and not for a Kardum. See (d) below.)
</p><p>
The Girsa of the <b>DIKDUKEI SOFRIM</b> is similar, except that the order of the objects is switched. In the case of Nekamah, Reuven asks for a Kardum and Shimon asks for a Magal. In the case of Netirah, Reuven asks for a Magal and Shimon asks for a Kardum.
</p><p>
According to these versions, why is the order of the two objects (Kardum-Magal) in the second case (Netirah) the reverse of the order of the two objects (Magal-Kardum) in the first case (Nekamah)? Perhaps it is simply the Beraisa's style to mention <i>first</i> in the new case the object that was mentioned <i>last</i> in the previous case.
</p><p>
Alternatively, perhaps the Girsa of the Toras Kohanim is intended to teach a Chidush. A Kardum is worth more than a Magal. Consequently, in the case of Nekamah, the Toras Kohanim teaches a Chidush when it says that Reuven may not refuse to lend an object to Shimon (who refused to lend him an object yesterday) even when the object that Shimon requests is worth <i>more</i> than the object which he refused to lend to Reuven the day before (and thus Reuven may have grounds to justify his refusal to lend the object to Shimon). In the case of Netirah, the Chidush is that even though Reuven now lends a <i>less</i> valuable object to Shimon, and perhaps his begrudging attitude is not considered Netirah (because he knows that Shimon himself would not have refused to lend an object of such little value to Reuven, had Reuven asked for it in the first place), nevertheless the fact that he lends it begrudgingly <i>does</i> constitute Netirah. (The opposite explanation may be said for the Girsa of the Dikdukei Sofrim, according to which the Magal is worth more than the Kardum.)
</p><p>
(c) The Girsa of the <b>RITVA</b> and in the original <b>EIN YAKOV</b> is that in the case of Nekamah, both Shimon and Reuven request a Kardum from each other. In the case of Netirah, Reuven requests a Magal and Shimon requests a Kardum.
</p><p>
Why does the Beraisa switch from Magal to Kardum only in the case of Netirah?
</p><p>
The Ritva answers that a Kardum is more valuable than a Magal. The Beraisa teaches that even though Reuven lends to Shimon an object worth <i>more</i> than the object which Shimon refused to lend to Reuven, nevertheless his act constitutes Netirah because he gives it begrudgingly.
</p><p>
(d) The Girsa of our Gemara is difficult to understand. In the case of Nekamah, Reuven asks for a Magal and Shimon asks for a Kardum. In the case of Netirah, Reuven asks for a Kardum and Shimon asks for a Chaluk. Why does the Beraisa replace the Magal with a Chaluk <i>and</i> reverse the order, in the second case?
</p><p>
The <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> explains that when the Beraisa gives an example of a case of Netirah, it is not giving an entirely new case, but rather it is giving a continuation of the case of Nekamah. Reuven asked for a Magal and Shimon refused, and the next day Shimon asked for a Kardum and Reuven refused out of revenge. The Beraisa then <i>repeats</i> the last incident of Reuven's refusal to lend a Kardum to Shimon out of revenge. It adds that if Reuven then asks Shimon for a Chaluk, if Shimon lends it to Reuven begrudgingly <i>because Reuven himself committed Nekamah against Shimon</i>, nevertheless Shimon thereby transgresses the prohibition of Netirah. The Chidush is that even when Reuven commits Nekamah against Shimon, Shimon is still prohibited from harboring feelings of malice in his heart against Reuven for it.
</p><p>
Accordingly, in the example of Netirah, the Beraisa must mention 'Chaluk' and not 'Magal,' because Reuven already asked Shimon for a Magal and was refused by Shimon (in the very first incident), and thus in this case he must ask for something else.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HOW FORGIVING MUST A TALMID CHACHAM BE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that a Talmid Chacham should not forgo his honor when he is slighted, and he should remember the affront in his heart unless the offender asks him for forgiveness.
</p><p>
How is the Gemara here to be reconciled with the Gemara in Megilah (28a) which relates that Mar Zutra, as he went to sleep every night, would forgive everyone who slighted him?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that Mar Zutra would forgive only those offenders who apologized to him. Although some he forgave immediately while others he did not forgive immediately, he never went to sleep without forgiving all of the penitent offenders. He did not forgive those who did not apologize to him, as the Gemara here says.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> says that it is not reasonable to suggest that Mar Zutra forgave only those who apologized to him. He certainly forgave the penitent offenders immediately and did not wait until he went to sleep. Rather, the Ritva explains that the Gemara here refers to a Talmid Chacham who was insulted with regard to 'Mili d'Shemaya,' matters pertaining to Torah and Mitzvos. When it comes to such matters, a Talmid Chacham should not forgive the offense to the honor of the Torah. The Gemara in Megilah, in contrast, refers to insults that pertain to 'Mili d'Alma,' worldly matters. When a Talmid Chacham is insulted with regard to a worldly matter, he should certainly forgive the offender with a full heart, as Mar Zutra did.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b> (end of Hilchos Talmud Torah) points out that the <b>RAMBAM</b> answers this question when he explains that the Gemara here refers to a Talmid Chacham who was disgraced in <i>public</i>. In such a case the Talmid Chacham should not forgive the offense, but he should remember it in his heart until the perpetrator apologizes. If, however, the affront was committed only in private, then he should forgive the perpetrator even in his heart, as Mar Zutra did.
</p><p>
(This approach is based on logic similar to that of the answer of the Ritva. A public affront to a Talmid Chacham is itself an affront to the honor of the Torah.)
</p><p>
(d) <b>RASHI's</b> words here may address this question. When the Gemara says that a Talmid Chacham should remember in his heart the offense done to him, Rashi explains that it means that although the <i>Talmid Chacham</i> should forgive the perpetrator wholeheartedly, if <i>someone else</i> wants to defend the honor of the Talmid Chacham the Talmid Chacham should not prevent him from doing so, because his intention is for the sake of the honor of the Torah. The Gemara in Megilah refers only to the personal feelings of the Talmid Chacham; he should forgive the offense wholeheartedly, as Mar Zutra did. He should not mete out justice on his own, lest his act be motivated by a desire for revenge and not just by Kavod ha'Torah.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Among the ten qualities of Yerushalayim is that an 
               Eglah Arufah is not brought from there.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Also, an Eglah Arufah refers to an unsolved murder, 
               not to this incident where the murderer is known?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> He was speaking to elicit the people's tears.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Had bloodshed become worthless or had Taharas 
          Keilim become precious?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Given the reference to Menasheh, we may conclude 
          that bloodshed had lost significance.
<br>
<b><font>4) THE GARMENTS OF THE KOHEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  'Ufashat' indicates a change of garments as on Yom Kipur.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  In this case, a change to Chol garments.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  Acherim thus corrects this assumption, that the change is 
          into Kadosh garments.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then how are they 'Acherim' from the first set?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> They are shabbier than the first, but still 
          Kadosh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer (R. Eliezer):</font></b> 'Acherim' refers to the person, 
          teaching that a Ba'al Mum may take out the Deshen (the 
          Chachamim say that a Ba'al-Mum may not take out the 
          Deshen).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  Regarding the first answer, we were taught in a Beraisa 
          that it is proper to change from the cooking to the 
          serving garments, to thus honor the Master.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b></b>  There is a Machlokes if the dispute between R. Eliezer 
          and Chachamim also applies to taking the Terumah (Resh 
          Lakish) or is restricted to taking the Deshen out (R. 
          Yochanan).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the rationale of Resh Lakish?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Terumas ha'Deshen must not be an Avodah, since 
          the Torah speaks of its performance with <i>two</i> garments.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What will R. Yochanan do with this Pasuk?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The two garments infer the presence of all four.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why, then, are these two singled out?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Mido' teaches that it must be a correct fit; 
          'Michnesei Bad' teaches that they must be the first 
          garments donned.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Whence will Resh Lakish learn these Halachos?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'Mido' (versus Ketones) teaches the first; 'Al 
          Besaro' teaches the second.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(q)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps this Machlokes regarding the status of 
          the Terumas ha'Deshen as an Avodah has a precedent 
          between the Tanaim (R. Yehudah and R. Dosa)?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah holds that 'Yilbash' teaches that the 
               four garments are required for Haramah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Dosa holds that 'Yilbash' the four garments of 
               the Kohen Gadol may be used by a Kohen Hedyot.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Question #1:</font></b> But the Avnet of a Kohen Gadol differs 
               from that of a Kohen Hedyot?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question #2:</font></b> How can garments be used for a lesser 
               Kedushah?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> Rather, Yilbash allows the use of worn (but not 
               torn) garments.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> The dispute over whether the Bigdei Kohen Gadol may 
               be used by a Kohen Hedyot derives from 've'Hinicham 
               Sham', teaching that they must be placed in Genizah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>7.  </font></b></b> R. Dosa holds that they may be used by a Kohen 
               Hedyot and the Pasuk teaches that they may not be 
               reused by the Kohen Gadol on a subsequent Yom Kipur.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>8.  </font></b></b> Would it not, then, appear that R. Yehudah holds 
               that Terumas ha'Deshen <i>is</i> Avodah, and R. Dosa 
               holds it is not?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(r)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> No, they may both hold that it <i>is</i> Avodah, but 
          R. Yehudah holds that we need a Pasuk to add the 
          Mitznefes and Avnet (to the two listed) while R. Dosa 
          holds that we do not need a Pasuk to add them.
<br>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) THE QUANTITY OF TERUMAS HADESHEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How much Deshen must be removed?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> If we apply Terumas Ma'aser, it would be a tenth.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> If we apply Terumas Midyan, it would be 1/500th.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> From Korban Minchah we learn that it is a Kometz.
<br>
<b><font>2) A ZAR IS CHAYAV MISAH FOR THE FOLLOWING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  There is a Machlokes whether Terumas ha'Deshen is (Levi) 
          or is not (Rav) one of the Avodos for which a Zar is 
          Chayav Misah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What are Rav's sources?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Avodas Matanah (not Avodas Siluk); also, Avodah 
          Tamah (no Avodah following it).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is Levi's source?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Torah has included Avodas Siluk ['le'Chol 
          D'var HaMizbe'ach'].
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Rav uses this Pasuk to include sprinklings.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Levi learns the sprinklings from 'D'var' and 'Kol 
               D'var'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Rav does not see the significance of these words.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Maybe there is a Klal ('le'Chol D'var') U'frat 
          ('Avodas Matanah') here to <i>exclude</i> Avodas Siluk?
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) SHECHITAH AS AN EXAMPLE OF AN 'AVODAH TAMAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav and Levi argue whether a Zar (non-Kohen) who performs the Terumas ha'Deshen is Chayav Misah, liable for death. Rav says that only four Avodos are punishable with death: Zerikah, Haktarah, Nisuch ha'Mayim, and Nisuch ha'Yayin. Levi says that a Zar is punished with death even for performing the Terumas ha'Deshen.
</p><p>
Rav derives from the words, 'Avodas Matanah' (Bamidbar 18:7), that a Zar is liable only when he performs an Avodah of 'placing' ('Matanah') something on the Mizbe'ach or into a holy vessel, but he is not Chayav when he performs an Avodah of removing something from the Mizbe'ach (such as the Terumas ha'Deshen).
</p><p>
In addition, Rav derives from the word, 'va'Avadetem' (ibid.), that a Zar is liable only when he performs an Avodah which is an 'Avodah Tamah,' an Avodah which is the 'completion' of a set of Avodos and has no other Avodah after it. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Avodah Tamah) lists Shechitah, Kabalah, and Holachah as examples of an Avodah which is not an 'Avodah Tamah' (and for which a Zar is not Chayav Misah).
</p><p>
Rashi's words imply that a Zar is forbidden to perform the Shechitah of a Korban, but he is exempt from punishment because of the verse that excludes such an Avodah from the punishment of death. However, Shechitah is not an Avodah which must be performed by a Kohen; a Zar is permitted to perform Shechitah (Zevachim 3:1)! Why does Rashi mention that the verse exempts a Zar from punishment for performing Shechitah, if a Zar is permitted to perform Shechitah in the first place? (Indeed, in the comments of <b>RABEINU ELYAKIM</b> here the word 'Shechitah' is omitted.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHASH</b> cites the <b>BEN ARYEH</b> who answers that when Rashi mentions 'Shechitah' here, he refers to the Shechitah of the <i>Parah Adumah</i>, which must be performed by a Kohen (as Rav himself maintains on 42a).
</p><p>
The Rashash, however, rejects this answer. Even without the Derashah of 'Avodah Tamah' there would be no Chiyuv Misah for a Zar who performs the Shechitah of the Parah Adumah. The punishment of Misah applies only to a Zar who performs an Avodah in the Azarah. The Shechitah of the Parah Adumah, however, is performed outside of the Azarah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MENACHEM MESHIV NEFESH</b> cites the <b>YAD DAVID</b> who answers that Rashi mentions Shechitah because of the Shechitah of the 'Par of Aharon' offered by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur. According to one opinion (42a), the Shechitah of that Korban must be performed by the Kohen Gadol. A Zar (and even an ordinary Kohen) who performs the Shechitah of the Par of Aharon would be Chayav Misah if not for the Derashah of 'Avodah Tamah' (as the Gemara in Yevamos 33b implies).
</p><p>
(See, however, Tosfos to 42a, DH Shechitah, who maintains that even without the Derashah a Zar is not liable for Malkus, and certainly not Misah, for slaughtering the Par of Aharon. In order to justify the answer of the Yad David, one must say that Rashi argues with Tosfos in that regard.)
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Klal U'frat is interrupted by intervening 
          words.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The restriction of Avodas Siluk (not being Chayav) 
               only applied to the Avodah within the Paroches.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Outside the Paroches, a Zar is Chayav for Avodas 
               Siluk.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps Avodah Tamah also only applies within?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Vav of 'va'Avadtam' connects it to 'le'Chol 
          D'var'.
<br>
<b><font>3) AVODAS SILUK IN THE HEICHAL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question (Rava):</font></b> What is the status of Avodas Siluk in 
          the Heichal (is it like within or without)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> 'u'le'mi'Beis' comes to include the Heichal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then a Zar who places the Lechem ha'Panim (in 
          the Heichal) should be Chayav (and included in the list 
          of Rav)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is not Avodah Tamah (there is Bazichin after).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then a Zar should be Chayav for Sidur Bazichin?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There is still Siluk Bazichin and Haktarah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> A Zar who cleans out the Menorah should be 
          Chayav?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is followed by the placement of the Pesilim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then placing the Pesilim should be Mechayev?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There is still the pouring of the oil.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Zar should be Chayav for pouring the oil?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(l)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There is still the lighting.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(m)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Zar should be Chayav for the lighting?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(n)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Hadlakah is not an Avodah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(o)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa teaches that igniting the Alisa 
          <i>is</i> an Avodah?!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(p)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Igniting the Alisa is an Avodah; Hadlakah is not.
<br>
<b><font>4) A ZAR AND SIDUR HAMA'ARACHAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> A Zar should be Chayav for Sidur ha'Ma'arachah?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There is still the Sidur of the Eitzim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then he should be Chayav for Sidur Eitzim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> There is still Sidur Eivarim (which <i>is</i> listed).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But R. Yochanan taught that a Zar <i>would</i> be 
          Chayav for Sidur Eitzim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Their Machlokes is whether the Sidur Eitzim is 
          the conclusion of the Avodah (R. Yochanan) or the Sidur 
          Eivarim (Rav).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b></b>  There are Beraisos to support both Rav and Levi (as 
          cited).
<br>
<b><font>5) FOUR PAYSOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do the Paysos?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah is explicit about the reasons!!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do we not do the Paysos one after the 
          other?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> To increase the frequency of tumult in the 
          Azarah.
<br>
<b><font>6) PROPER ATTIRE FOR A PAYIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What garments are worn to attend the Payis?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It is a Machlokes whether they wear Bigdei Chol 
          (R. Nachman) or Bigdei Kodesh (R. Sheishes).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> R. Nachman is concerned for losers who might change 
               into Bigdei Kodesh and usurp the jobs they lost.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> R. Sheishes is concerned about excited winners who 
               would jump ahead to do the Avodah before changing 
               garments.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE 'AVODOS' FOR WHICH A NON-KOHEN IS 'CHAYAV MISAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav and Levi argue whether a Zar (non-Kohen) who performs the Terumas ha'Deshen is Chayav Misah, liable for death. Rav says that only four Avodos are punishable with death: Zerikah, Haktarah, Nisuch ha'Mayim, and Nisuch ha'Yayin. Levi says that a Zar is punished with death even for performing the Terumas ha'Deshen.
</p><p>
The Gemara cites proof for Rav's view that a Zar is not Chayav Misah from a Beraisa which says that a Zar is Chayav for Zerikas Dam, Haza'ah of Chatas ha'Of, Mitzuy or Haktarah of Olas ha'Of, and Nisuch Yayin or Nisuch ha'Mayim. The Beraisa's omission of Terumas ha'Deshen from the list of Avodos for which a Zar is Chayav Misah supports the opinion of Rav.
</p><p>
However, the Beraisa omits other Avodos for which a Zar certainly is Chayav Misah, such as the Haktarah of all Korbanos other than the Olas ha'Of. Rav certainly agrees that a Zar who performs the Haktarah of any Korban is Chayav Misah. How, then, can the Beraisa's omission of Terumas ha'Deshen prove that a Zar is not Chayav Misah for that Avodah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH veha'Maktir) cites a Tosefta in which the order of the words is reversed. The word 'ha'Maktir' appears <i>after</i> the words 'Olas ha'Of.' Accordingly, 'ha'Maktir' refers to the Haktarah of <i>any</i> type of Korban.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos adds that according to the Girsa of the Beraisa as quoted by the Gemara here, perhaps the Beraisa mentions only the Haktarah of an Olas ha'Of because it intends to teach a Chidush. It is obvious that a Zar is Chayav Misah when he performs the Haktarah of other Korbanos. The Beraisa's intent is to teach that a Zar is Chayav Misah even when he performs the Haktarah of an Olas ha'Of. Since other bird-offerings (such as a Chatas ha'Of) have no Haktarah, one might have thought that a Zar is not Chayav for the Haktarah of <i>any</i> type of bird-offering. Therefore, the Beraisa teaches that one indeed is Chayav.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>CHAFETZ CHAIM</b> in Likutei Halachos answers that 'ha'Maktir' in the Beraisa refers to any type of Haktarah. The Beraisa mentions specifically Olas ha'Of because it wants to exclude the Haktarah of a Chatas ha'Of, so that one not mistakenly think that a Zar is Chayav Misah for doing the Haktarah of a Chatas ha'Of. A Zar certainly is not Chayav Misah for offering a Chatas ha'Of on the Mizbe'ach, since it is a Korban that is supposed to be <i>eaten</i> and not offered on the Mizbe'ach. 
</p><p>


<font><b>3) THE REASON WHY A NON-KOHEN IS EXEMPT WHEN HE PERFORMS 'DISHUN HA'MENORAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav and Levi argue whether a Zar (non-Kohen) who performs the Terumas ha'Deshen is Chayav Misah, liable for death. Rav says that only four Avodos are punishable with death: Zerikah, Haktarah, Nisuch ha'Mayim, and Nisuch ha'Yayin. Levi says that a Zar is punished with death even for performing the Terumas ha'Deshen.
</p><p>
Rav derives from the words, 'Avodas Matanah' (Bamidbar 18:7), that a Zar is liable only when he performs an Avodah of 'placing' ('Matanah') something on the Mizbe'ach or into a holy vessel, but he is not Chayav when he performs an Avodah of removing ('Siluk') something from the Mizbe'ach (such as the Terumas ha'Deshen).
</p><p>
The Gemara adds that both Rav and Levi agree that a Zar is not Chayav Misah for an 'Avodas Siluk' that he performs in the <i>Heichal</i>.
</p><p>
What 'Avodas Siluk' is performed in the Heichal? <b>RASHI</b> (DH Avodas Siluk b'Heichal) writes that there are two 'Avodos Siluk' that are performed in the Heichal for which a Zar is not Chayav Misah: Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi (the removal of the ashes from the inner Mizbe'ach) and Dishun ha'Menorah (the removal of the ashes from the Menorah). Rashi adds that the Dishun ha'Menorah is an 'Avodah Tamah,' an Avodah which is not followed by any other Avodah with the same object, and therefore a Zar would have been Chayav Misah had the Dishun ha'Menorah not been an 'Avodas Siluk.'
</p><p>
Why is the Dishun ha'Menorah considered an 'Avodah Tamah'? It <i>is</i> followed by another Avodah -- the lighting of the lamps of the Menorah. In fact, Rashi himself writes elsewhere that it is <i>not</i> an 'Avodah Tamah' for this reason (Sanhedrin 83a, DH Lo Mishum Zarus).
</p><p>
Similarly, the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 9:5) writes that cleaning out the Menorah and preparing the candles to be kindled is not an 'Avodah Tamah.' However, he writes (9:8) that a Zar is not Chayav Misah when he performs the Dishun ha'Menorah because it is an 'Avodas Siluk.' Why does the Rambam not explain simply that a Zar is exempt because the Dishun ha'Menorah is not an 'Avodas Tamah,' as he writes earlier?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>BRISKER RAV</b> (beginning of Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin) answers that there are two different reasons for the Avodah of Dishun ha'Menorah. The first reason is the obligation to remove the ashes in order to place them next to the outer Mizbe'ach. This act of Dishun ha'Menorah indeed is an 'Avodah Tamah' because nothing else is done with the ashes that are removed. The reason why a Zar is exempt when he performs this act of Dishun ha'Menorah must be because it is an 'Avodas Siluk.'
</p><p>
The second reason for the Avodah of Dishun ha'Menorah is the obligation to clean out the Menorah and prepare it to be lit anew. That obligation is not an 'Avodas Siluk' because the point of cleaning out the Menorah is not in order to remove something but in order to be able to light the Menorah. A Zar is exempt because this act is not an 'Avodah Tamah,' since it is done in preparation for kindling the Menorah.
</p><p>
Since the Avodah of Dishun ha'Menorah is comprised of two obligations, both reasons for the exemption of a Zar are necessary.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) PROPER ATTIRE FOR A PAYIS (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Nachman reported his source that the Payis is done in 
          Bigdei Chol.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah teaches that the attendants removed all 
               but the Michnasayim of the Kohanim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> We assume that these Kohanim are the ones who won.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> The changing, then, is <i>into</i> Bigdei Kodesh, <i>from</i> 
               Bigdei Chol!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> (R. Sheishes):</font></b> No, the attendants removed the 
               garments of those who <i>lost</i>.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>i. </font></b></b>  This is supported by the fact that they left on 
                    the Michnasayim, which must be the first 
                    garments to be donned.
<br>             <b>  <b><font>ii. </font></b></b> If we were speaking of the winning Kohanim, 
                    then the Michnasayim would then be donned 
                    <i>last</i>.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> (R. Nachman):</font></b> No, the attendants put Michnesei 
               Kodesh on the winners first, then removed the rest 
               of their Bigdei Chol, leaving them with Michnasayim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Sheishes reported his source that the Payis is done in 
          Bigdei Kodesh.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa teaches that the overseer of the lottery 
               removed the <i>Mitznefes</i> from the head of the 
               starting Kohen, a garment only appearing in Bigdei 
               Kodesh!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> No, there were Kohanim who wore a Mitznefes Chol.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE LISHKAS HAGAZIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (Abaye):</font></b> The Lishkas ha'Gazis must have been half in 
          Kodesh and half in Chol.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The sitting elder indicates that there must have 
               been a part in Chol.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Pasuk 'be'Vais Elokim... ' indicates that the 
               Payis must have been in Kodesh.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Also, it must have had an entrance to both Kodesh and 
          Chol.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Since its entrance determines the status of the 
               room, it must have had an entrance to Chol, since he 
               sat.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Payis indicates that it had an entrance to 
               Kodesh.
<br>
<b><font>3) MISHNAH: THE SECOND PAYIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Mishnah lists the 13 tasks which the second lottery 
          assigned.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Ben Azai (citing R. Yehoshua) argues over the order in 
          which the parts of the Tamid were brought onto the 
          Kevesh.
<br>
<b><font>4) A PAYIS FOR EACH TASK, OR A COLLECTIVE PAYIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Was a Payis conducted for each of the 13 tasks, 
          or was one Payis conducted and the tasks were 
          automatically assigned from that one?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> We have been taught that there were a total of 
          four.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> No, that they <i>entered</i> four times for Paysos (but 
               perhaps they had many Paysos once they entered).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE 'LISHKAS HA'GAZIS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Beraisa states that when the Payesos were done, the Zaken sat in the western part of the Lishkas ha'Gazis and the Payis was done in the eastern part. Half of the Lishkah was in an unsanctified area of the Azarah, and half was in a sanctified area.
</p><p>
(a) Which half of the Lishkas ha'Gazis was built in an unsanctified area?
</p><p>
(b) How could half of the Lishkas ha'Gazis be built in a sanctified area? The Gemara says that the Lishkas ha'Gazis was built like a 'basilica,' which Rashi explains is a house on the upper story of another structure. The Gemara in Pesachim (86a) says that roofs and upper stories of structures in the Azarah were not sanctified. How, then, could any part of the Lishkas ha'Gazis be sanctified?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Most Acharonim explain that the <i>northern</i> part of the Lishkas ha'Gazis was built in an unsanctified area. Their logic is as follows.
</p><p>
The Gemara earlier (19a) lists the Lishkas ha'Gazis as one of the Lishkos on the northern side of the Azarah. It is possible that it straddled the border of the Azarah, so that half of it was north of the Azarah on Har ha'Bayis (and not sanctified) and half (the southern half) was in the Azarah. The Zaken sat on the western side of the half of the Lishkah which extended beyond the northern border of the Azarah, and thus the Kohanim sat in the unsanctified part (as it is forbidden to sit in the sanctified part of the Azarah). The Payis was done in the eastern side of the southern half of the Lishkah, the half which was in the Azarah and was sanctified.
</p><p>
The <b>EZRAS KOHANIM</b> asks why the Zaken was required to sit specifically in the <i>western</i> side of the northern half of the Azarah. Since the entire northern half of the Lishkah was not sanctified, the Zaken could have sat in the eastern side as well! Similarly, why was it necessary to perform the Payis specifically in the eastern side of the part of the Lishkah which was in the Azarah? The entire southern half of the Lishkah was in the Azarah, and thus the Payis could have been done anywhere throughout that area!
</p><p>
Perhaps the answer is that the Chachamim wanted the Zaken to be as close to the Shechinah as possible, and thus they instituted that he sit in the western side of the Lishkah, which was closer to the Kodesh ha'Kodashim (which was in the west of the Azarah). In contrast, the Chachamim wanted the Payis to be done as far away from the Shechinah as possible, because 'it is not respectful for a crowd to congregate in the place of the Shechinah,' as the Gemara says later (26a). 
</p><p>
This is the opinion of most of the Acharonim. However, the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Perush ha'Mishnayos, end of Midos) writes based on the Gemara here that the western side was unsanctified in order for the Zaken to sit there, while the eastern side (where the Payis was done) was sanctified and thus the Kohanim had to stand while they were there. How is it possible that the western side of the Lishkah was unsanctified if the Lishkas ha'Gazis was in the eastern part of the Azarah? The <i>eastern</i> side of the Lishkah is the only part that could possibly have been unsanctified (as it could have protruded past the eastern border of the Azarah). How could the <i>western</i> side of the Lishkah be unsanctified?
</p><p>
The <b>EZRAS KOHANIM</b> (Midos 5:4) suggests that the Lishkas ha'Gazis was not in the north-eastern part of the Azarah. Rather, it was set apart from the other Lishkos and was in the north-*western* part of the Azarah. If it was built along the western wall of the Azarah, its western section may have protruded beyond the western wall of the Azarah, and thus that section was outside of the Azarah. It was in that half of the Lishkah, which was not in the Azarah, that the Zaken sat.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>EZRAS KOHANIM</b> and <b>SHILTEI GIBORIM</b> (in Midos) point out that the ground level of Har ha'Bayis was much lower than that of the Azarah. Consequently, if the Lishkas ha'Gazis extended northward from within the Azarah, passing the border of the Azarah to the area over Har ha'Bayis, then the part of the Lishkah that extended over Har ha'Bayis would be much higher than the ground level of Har ha'Bayis. When the Gemara says that the Lishkas ha'Gazis was like a 'basilica,' it refers to the side of the Lishkah that protruded from the Azarah over Har ha'Bayis; that part of the Lishkah was much higher than the ground level, like an upper story, or 'basilica.' However, since it was on level ground with the Azarah, it would have been sanctified if not for the doorway that led out to Har ha'Bayis, because the Gemara in Pesachim (86a) says that any upper story on ground level with the Azarah is sanctified.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> From the Beraisa regarding the Ketores and Machtah 
               in the third Payis we see that there were only four, 
               and the other tasks were automatically assigned to 
               the Kohen to his right.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> No, that was unique to the Ketores and Machtah (but 
               our 13 would involve separate Paysos).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Alternately, the sequence began with the inference 
               that other Avodos (than Ketores and Machtah) 
               required a separate Payis, since these were singled 
               out
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b></b> No, they were singled out because we might have 
               (incorrectly) made two Paysos for them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>6.  </font></b></b> In the end, a clear Beraisa teaches that the other 
               12 assignments were automatic after the first Payis.
<br>
<b><font>5) WHO DOES THE KABALAH?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Is the Shochet also the Mekabel, or is the 
          Zorek?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> The Zorek might rush the Kabalah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Shochet might be a Zar.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The 12 spigots of Ben Katin teach us that it is 
          the Zorek who is the Mekabel (R. Acha cites a supporting 
          Beraisa).
<br>
<b><font>6) DIFFERING ORDERS FOR HAKRAVAS HATAMID</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Tana Kama teaches the order of its <i>Hiluch</i> (cited by 
          Ben Azai in the name of R. Yehoshua).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi teaches the order of its <i>Hefshet</i>.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva teaches the order of the <i>Nituach</i>.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi ha'Gelili teaches the order of its <i>Ilui</i>.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But from the Pasuk we learn that the 
               Yerech is <i>more</i> valuable than the Kasef?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> That speaks of a lean animal.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> The Tana Kama and R. Yosi ha'Gelili agree 
          regarding the priority of value, and only argue as to 
          whether size (Tana Kama) or fat (R. Yosi ha'Gelili) is 
          valued more.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why do all the Tanaim agree that the right hind 
          leg goes together with the head.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It, like the head, has many bones.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that the head is first?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The Pasuk puts the Rosh and Pader first to 
          've'Arach'.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(j)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why does Pader need to be singled out?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(k)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It was placed over the Beis ha'Shechitah for 
          Kavod.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE 'MACHTAH' MAKES A PERSON WEALTHY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa in which Rebbi Yehudah states that no Payis was done for the Avodah of the Machtah (bringing the coals in a coal-scoop from the outer Mizbe'ach to the inner Mizbe'ach). Rather, that Avodah was included in the Payis that was done for the Ketores. <b>RASHI</b> explains that when a Kohen was selected by the Payis to perform the Avodah of the Ketores, the Kohen next to him on his right side was appointed to perform the Avodah of the Machtah.
</p><p>
The Gemara says that if not for Rebbi Yehudah's statement, one might have thought that the Avodah of the Machtah should have its own Payis, because whoever performed the Avodah of the Machtah would become wealthy. In order to give every Kohen the opportunity to perform this infrequent Avodah and become wealthy, perhaps it should have its own Payis.
</p><p>
From where does the Gemara know that the Kohen who performs the Avodah of the Machtah becomes wealthy? <b>RASHI</b> refers to the Gemara later (26a), but the Gemara there says that the <i>Ketores</i> makes a person wealthy. It makes no mention of the Machtah.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Tana of this Beraisa maintains that the Machtah, like the Ketores, also makes a Kohen wealthy, as the Yerushalmi says (quoted by the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b>, end of 26b). The verse that teaches that the Ketores makes one wealthy, 'Barech Hash-m Cheilo' (Devarim 33:11), concludes with the words, 'u'Fo'al Yadav Tirtzeh,' which teach that the Machtah makes one wealthy.
</p><p>
This is why the Kohen who would perform the Machtah was selected only by the third Payis. Only Kohanim who had never been selected to perform the Avodah of the Ketores or Machtah were permitted to participate in that Payis.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) MISHNAH: THE THIRD AND FOURTH PAYIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Those who had never performed the Ketores were invited to 
          the third Payis.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  The fourth Payis, to bring the Eivarim from the Kevesh 
          onto the Mizbe'ach, was open to all.
<br>
<b><font>2) THE UNIQUE KETORES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  There was always a Kohen who had not yet done the 
          Ketores.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why not let a Kohen win the Ketores twice?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Because it brought wealth.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Why is that so?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> It cannot be from the Berachah of Moshe, since, if 
               so;
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> The Olah should also be restricted to one time.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> No, the Olah is more frequent than the Ketores.
<br>
<b><font>3) OTHER GLEANINGS FROM THE BERACHAH OF MOSHE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  One who is Moreh Halachah must be from Levi or Yisachar.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps he could also be from Yehudah, who is 
          called 'Mechokek'?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> While Yehudah had great scholars, Levi and 
          Yisachar were blessed with learning Torah to its 
          Halachah.
<br>
<b><font>4) PAYIS FOR THE AFTERNOON TAMID</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Kohen who won a task in the Tamid of 
          Shacharis, wins it for the Bein ha'Arbayim, as well.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa teaches that there was another 
          Payis?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That was for the <i>Ketores</i> Bein ha'Arbayim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa uses the masculine 'Lo'!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Teach the Beraisa with 'Lah', referring to 
          Ketores.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But a Beraisa specifies both the Tamid and the 
          Ketores!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That is speaking on Shabbos (when the Mishmaros 
          are replaced before the afternoon Tamid).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> How could we have thought there was a second 
          Payis, since that would make <i>five</i>, not <i>four</i> Paysos!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(i)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Both Paysos would have been done in the morning.
<br>
<b><font>5) THE FOURTH PAYIS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah, which assigns the task of bringing Eivarim 
          from the Kevesh to the Mizbe'ach, argues with R. Eliezer 
          b. Ya'akov who holds that the same Kohen who brings it 
          <i>to</i> the Kevesh later brings it on to the Mizbe'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is their dispute?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Our Tana holds be'Rov Am, and R. Eliezer b. 
          Ya'akov holds that it is impolite to leave a job 
          unfinished in the presence of the Shechinah.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  (Rava):</font></b> R. Eliezer b. Ya'akov holds, unlike R. Yehudah 
          (25b), that there was a <i>separate</i> Payis for the Machtah, 
          and R. Yehudah holds, unlike R. Eliezer b. Ya'akov, that 
          there <i>was</i> a Payis for bringing the Eivarim onto the 
          Mizbe'ach, for otherwise, the count of each would be off 
          (and any Tana who holds that there were five, disagrees 
          with both of them).
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHO SHALL RENDER HALACHIC DECISIONS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rava derives from verses in the Torah that Halachic authorities will come only from the tribes of Levi and Yissachar. The Gemara explains that the other tribes certainly will produce scholars who will teach Halachah. However, only Levi and Yissachar will produce authorities with the ability to reach correct conclusions in Halachic matters ('Asukei Shemaita Aliba d'Hilchesa').
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARSHA</b> and others ask that the Gemara in Sanhedrin (93b) teaches that David ha'Melech was able to render correct Halachic decisions -- 'Halachah Kemoso b'Chol Makom' -- even though he was not from Levi or Yissachar. Similarly, the Gemara in Eruvin (54a) says that David ha'Melech was 'Gali Masechta' -- he merited to reach correct conclusions when he rendered Halachic rulings. What, then, does the Gemara here mean when it says that only scholars from the tribes of Levi and Yissachar can reach correct Halachic conclusions?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that David ha'Melech was an exception because he was a king, and as a king he merited special Divine assistance.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RAV YAKOV EMDEN</b> says that scholars from Levi and Yissachar are 'Asukei Shemaita Aliba d'Hilchesa' by themselves, without the need to confer with a Beis Din. David ha'Melech did not reach Halachic conclusions on his own. Rather, he consulted in all matters with his Rebbi, Mefiboshes, as the Gemara in Berachos (4a) says.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> explains that although David ha'Melech came from the tribe of Yehudah, he also descended from Levi through his matrilineal ancestry. <b>RASHI</b> (Shemos 1:21) mentions this when he says that David ha'Melech descended from Miriam (of the tribe of Levi), who merited to have the 'House of Kingship' come from her in return for her selfless dedication in saving the lives of the Jewish babies born in Egypt.
</p><p>
(d) The Gevuras Ari suggests another answer. He says that the Gemara here means that among other tribes, only <i>some</i> of the Halachic authorities are able to reach correct conclusions on their own. However, <i>most</i> of the Halachic authorities from Levi and Yissachar are able to reach correct conclusions on their own, <i>most</i> of the time. David ha'Melech merited to be part of the minority of Halachic authorities from other tribes who were able to reach correct Halachic conclusions.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<b><font>6) MISHNAH: POSSIBLE PARTICIPANTS IN THE TAMID</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Tamid could be, at times, brought by 9-12 Kohanim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  As before, nine Kohanim are always needed, while 
          additions come from:
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Sukos- a Kohen brought the water.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> Bein ha'Arbayim- two Kohanim brought the Gizrei 
               Eitzim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Shabbos- two brought the Bazichei Levonah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> Shabbos and Sukos, combine to make 12.
<br>
<b><font>7) NISUCH HAMAYIM AT THE AFTERNOON TAMID</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Nisuch must be only at Shacharis, since otherwise 
          there could be 12 even on a weekday during Sukos!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  A Beraisa supports this, citing the incident of the 
          Tzeduki who was pelted with Esrogim (at Shacharis) for 
          desecrating the Nisuch.
<br>
<b><font>8) TWO KOHANIM WITH THE GIZREI EITZIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa teaches the source as 've'Archu 
          Eitzim'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> This is not needed for the Tamid of Shacharis (since 
               we already were taught 'u'Vi'er ... '), and thus 
               informs the afternoon Tamid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> Perhaps both Pesukim speak of Shacharis?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Then the Torah would have repeated the same 
               word.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> But perhaps the change of language is to 
               teach that the first wood is brought by one, and the 
               second by two?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>5.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> Then the Torah would have used the same 
               word, first in singular, then in plural, either 
               'Bi'er' or 'Arach'.
<br>
<b><font>9) OTHER PERMUTATIONS FOR THE TAMID</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa teaches that there could be 13-16 Kohanim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But we have a Beraisa which teaches 17?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> That Beraisa disagrees with R. Eliezer b. Ya'akov 
          (and holds like R. Yehudah).
<br>
<b><font>10) MISHNAH: TASKS FOR THE OTHER ANIMALS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  An Ayil (as an Olah) was brought by 11, as detailed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  A Par (Olah) was brought by 24, as detailed.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  These numbers are for Korbanos Tzibur, whereas a Korban 
          Yachid could be brought by a single Kohen.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b></b>  The Hefshet and Nituach of both types of Korbanos can be 
          done by a Zar.
<br>
<b><font>11) HEFSHET AND NITUACH BY A ZAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for this permission?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b><font>  Answer (Chizkiyah):</font></b> Since the Torah mentions the Kohanim 
          only once it speaks of putting on the flame.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE SEVENTEENTH KOHEN SELECTED BY THE 'PAYIS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> A Beraisa taught by Rebbi Chiya states that the Payis sometimes selected 13 Kohanim to perform the various Avodos of the Korban Tamid, and sometimes it selected 14, 15, or 16. The Gemara questions this from another Beraisa which says that the Payis sometimes selected even 17 Kohanim. The Gemara answers that the Beraisa which says that the Payis sometimes selected 17 Kohanim does not follow the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, who maintains that no Payis was done to select a Kohen to bring the Evarim from the Kevesh to the Mizbe'ach. This Tana maintains that an additional Kohen <i>was</i> selected by the Payis to bring the Evarim from the Kevesh to the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
The Gemara adds that the Tana of this Beraisa must follow the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that no separate Payis was done to select a Kohen for the Avodah of the Machtah (bringing the coals from the outer Mizbe'ach to the inner Mizbe'ach).
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara say that the Beraisa (which says that the Payis sometimes selected 17 Kohanim) must follow the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah? Perhaps the Payis selected a Kohen for the Avodah of the Machtah, and it does not select a Kohen to carry the Evarim to the Mizbe'ach. Accordingly, the Beraisa may follow the view of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov (and argue with Rebbi Yehudah).
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Beraisa counts all of the Kohanim who were selected by the Payis to perform an Avodah specifically related to the <i>Korban Tamid</i>. The Avodah of the Machtah was not an Avodah related to the Korban Tamid, but to the Ketores. (In this case, two separate Payesos were conducted to select the Kohanim for the Avodos related to the Korban Tamid. The first 16 Kohanim were selected with the first Payis, and the Kohen who would bring the Evarim from the Kevesh to the Mizbe'ach was selected by the fourth Payis.)
</p><p>
An Avodah that is unrelated to the Korban Tamid (such as the Machtah) is not included in the Beraisa's count of Kohanim. Thus, the Beraisa which says that 17 Kohanim were selected cannot follow the view of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, because he says that no Payis was done to select a Kohen to bring the Evarim to the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
The Rishonim reject this explanation. Whether or not the Beraisa follows Rebbi Yehudah is irrelevant. Even if the Beraisa disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah and maintains that an extra Kohen was selected by the Payis to bring the Machtah, that Avodah cannot be included in the count because it is not related to the Korban Tamid.
</p><p>
(Rashi answers this point when he says that the Gemara mentions that the Beraisa follows Rebbi Yehudah only incidentally. That is, it so happens that Rebbi Yehudah is the Tana who argues with Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, as the Gemara says earlier on this Daf.)
</p><p>
(b) The other Rishonim write that the proper Girsa of the Gemara is the original Girsa (before Rashi's emendation), according to which the Gemara says that the Beraisa is in agreement with <i>neither</i> Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov <i>nor</i> Rebbi Yehudah. The Gemara explains that it cannot follow Rebbi Yehudah, because he maintains that only 16 Kohanim were selected, and not 17. <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH ha'Hi) explains that the Beraisa which mentions 17 does not refer to the Kohanim chosen only for the Avodos of the Tamid. Rather, it refers to the Kohanim chosen by <i>all</i> of the Payesos for <i>all</i> of the Avodos. Moreover, it refers to an ordinary week day, and not to a special day (such as Yom Tov of Sukos which occurs on Shabbos). The number of Kohanim selected on a normal day to perform all of the Avodos was 17. Thirteen Kohanim performed the Avodos of the Tamid, and four others performed the Avodos of the Terumas ha'Deshen, Ma'aleh Evarim l'Mizbe'ach, the Ketores, and the Machtah.
</p><p>
According to Rebbi Yehudah, however, the Avodah of the Machtah cannot be included in the count, because Rebbi Yehudah says (25b) that there was no Payis for the Machtah (but rather the Kohen who won the Payis of the Ketores would tell the Kohen next to him to take the Machtah).
</p><p>
However, what difference does it make if the Machtah was not chosen directly by a Payis but indirectly through the Payis of the Ketores? The Avodah of the Machtah still should be counted, just as the Kohanim who performed the Dishun, Hatavah, and who brought the Evarim of the Tamid to the Kevesh are included in the count even though they were selected only indirectly through one actual Payis (the Kohanim who were standing next to the single Kohen whom the Payis selected would be selected for these Avodos).
</p><p>
Tosfos answers that the selection-process for the Avodah of the Machtah did not work the same way as it did for the Avodos of the Dishun, Hatavah, and bringing the Evarim to the Kevesh. The Kohen who stood next to the winner of the Payis of the Ketores was <i>not</i> automatically chosen to bring the Machtah. Rather, the winner of the Ketores was entitled to choose to take the Machtah himself or to appoint any Kohen of his choice to take the Machtah. Consequently, according to Rebbi Yehudah there was no Payis at all for the Machtah. Rebbi Yehudah cannot be the Tana of the Beraisa, because the only way to have a total of 17 Kohanim selected by the Payis is to include the Kohen who brings the Machtah.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> concurs that the Girsa of the Gemara is that the Beraisa is <i>not</i> in agreement with Rebbi Yehudah. According to Rebbi Yehudah, the maximum number of Kohanim selected by the Payis was 16, and not 17. Rabeinu Chananel explains that the Beraisa counts only the Kohanim selected by the <i>second</i> Payis, regardless of whether or not the specific Avodah is related to the Korban Tamid. According to Rebbi Yehudah, though, the Machtah was chosen (indirectly) during the <i>third</i> Payis, and therefore the number of Kohanim chosen by the second Payis totaled at most 16 (on Yom Tov of Sukos which occurs on Shabbos). The Tana of the Beraisa maintains that the selection of the Kohen for the Avodah of the Machtah was the seventeenth selection, carried out during the second Payis. Since this Tana includes the Machtah in the second Payis instead of in the third (in which a Kohen was chosen to offer the Ketores), it is clear that he argues with Rebbi Yehudah.
</p><p>
Why, though, does this Tana maintain that the Kohen who would perform the Avodah of the Machtah was not chosen together with the one who would offer Ketores on the coals that were brought by the Machtah? Logically, the two should be chosen together. Rabeinu Chananel answers that this Tana maintains that the Avodah of the Machtah did <i>not</i> make the Kohen who performed it wealthy, and thus there was no reason to limit the Payis for the Machtah to Kohanim who had never done it before. (See Insights to Yoma 25:2.) Therefore, it was included in the second Payis in which all Kohanim participated, and not in the third which was limited to 'new' Kohanim.
</p><p>
The Tana of the Beraisa is also not in agreement with Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov. Since Rebbi Eliezer maintains that no Payis was done for the bringing of the Evarim to the Mizbe'ach, the fourth Payis must have been done for the Machtah (as the Gemara says at the beginning of this Daf). Consequently, the Machtah was still not included in the second Payis, which is the only one that the Beraisa here discusses.
</p><p>
In summary, according to Rabeinu Chananel there are three opinions as to when the Kohen was chosen to carry the Machtah: Rebbi Yehudah maintains that he was chosen during the third Payis, along with the Kohen who offered the Ketores. Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov maintains that a fourth Payis was done to choose the Kohen to bring the Machtah. The Tana of the Beraisa maintains that the Machtah was selected during the second Payis.
</p><p>


lvr: 25
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font>1) HEFSHET AND NITUACH BY A ZAR (cont'd)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But that reference to the Kohanim is not 
          superfluous!?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  Answer (R. Shimi b. Ashi, citing Abaye, who was teaching 
          this Derashah to his sons): This is how Chizkiyah is to 
          be understood.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> First he taught the Beraisa which teaches the 
               Shechitah can be done by a Zar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> This is learned from the reference to Kohanim by 
               Kabalas Dam, and not by Shechitah, demonstrating 
               that only from Kabalah onward requires a Kohen, 
               whereas the owner who is Somech may also be Shochet.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> If, Abaye went on to explain, Kabalah and forward is 
               the Mitzvah of Kohanim, then why are we taught that 
               they must place the fire on the Korban?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>4.  </font></b></b> It must be to permit Hefshet and Nituach by a Zar.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But, still, we would need to be taught that the 
          Kohen must place the fire (even though it is after 
          Kabalah)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Since the fire is not Me'akev Kaparah, it might not 
               need a Kohen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> And, as it teaches us this Din, we cannot make other 
               inferences from this P'sul to Hefshet and Nituach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The source is 've'Archu ...ha'Kohanim ... '.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b></b> Since from Kabalah onward is known as the realm of 
               the Kohanim, why do I need this Pasuk?
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b></b> It must exclude Hefshet and Nituach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> But perhaps this Pasuk excludes Sidur Eitzim?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(f)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> It more likely excludes a similar Avodah (done on 
          the animal itself, unlike the Sidur Eitzim).
<br>       <b>   <b><font>1.  </font></b><font> Question:</font></b> To the contrary, Sidur Eitzim is more 
               likely excluded, since they both involve 
               arrangements of the fire!
<br>       <b>   <b><font>2.  </font></b><font> Answer:</font></b> We really would not have thought that Sidur 
               Eitzim does not require a Kohen, once the Pasuk 
               excludes <i>bringing</i> the Eitzim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font>3.  </font></b></b> Thus, 've'Archu' must exclude Hefshet and Nituach.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(g)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> Then what is the purpose of 've'Hiktir 
          ha'Kohen' (who would have thought that Haktarah does not 
          require a Kohen)?
<br> <b>    <b><font>(h)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, 've'Hiktir' is that which excludes 
          Hefshet and Nituach.
<br>
<b><font>2) OTHER PESUKIM WHICH SPEAK OF KOHANIM AFTER KABALAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font>(a)</font></b></b>  The Pasuk teaches that bringing the Eivarim to the Kevesh 
          requires a Kohen, but not bringing the Eitzim (and, by 
          inference, the Sidur Eitzim does require a Kohen).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(b)</font></b></b>  've'Nasnu' teaches its own requirement (since it is not 
          Me'akev the Kaparah).
<br> <b>    <b><font>(c)</font></b></b>  We may derive from the Pasuk 've'Archu' that a T'le 
          requires six Kohanim.
<br> <b>    <b><font>(d)</font></b><font>  Question:</font></b> There is a challenge to R. Elazar since the 
          Pasuk of 've'Archu' speaks of a Ben Bakar, which requires 
          24 Kohanim!
<br> <b>    <b><font>(e)</font></b><font>  Answer:</font></b> The end of the Pasuk (speaking of Eitzim) teaches 
          that the six Kohanim are not dealing with the Ben Bakar, 
          but with the T'le, about which the Torah requires that 
          Eitzim be prepared each morning.
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE 'AVODOS' WHICH A NON-KOHEN MAY PERFORM</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara attempts to find the source which permits a Zar (non-Kohen) to perform the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach (skinning and cutting) of the Korban. The Gemara cites the verse, 'The sons of Aharon, the Kohanim, shall arrange the body parts... upon the Mizbe'ach' (Vayikra 1:8). This verse teaches that the Kohanim must arrange the parts of the animal on the Mizbe'ach, and it implies that the procedures performed before that Avodah do not need to be done by a Kohen, but may be done by a Zar. 
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that perhaps the verse intends to permit a Zar only to perform the 'Sidur Shnei Gezirei Etzim' (placing the two strips of firewood upon the Mizbe'ach), but only a Kohen may perform the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach. The Gemara responds that it is more logical that the intention of the verse -- which discusses the arrangement of the body of the Korban itself on the Mizbe'ach -- is to permit a Zar to perform Hefshet v'Nitu'ach, which also involves the body of the Korban itself (in contrast to the Sidur Shnei Gezirei Etzim).
</p><p>
The Gemara rejects this argument and says that it is more logical that the verse intends to permit a Zar to perform the Sidur Shnei Gezirei Etzim. The verse discusses the <i>arrangement</i> of the Korban on the Mizbe'ach, and thus it is logical that it intends to permit a Zar to perform the Sidur Shnei Gezirei Etzim, which is also a form of <i>arrangement</i> on the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes that the verse cannot intend to permit a Zar to perform the Sidur Shnei Gezirei Etzim, because another verse (Vayikra 1:13) clearly teaches that the Sidur Shnei Gezirei Etzim requires a Kohen. (The verse teaches this through a double-inference. The verse says that the act of bringing the Evarim to the Kevesh must be done by a Kohen, which implies that bringing the wood does not need to be done by a Kohen, which in turn implies that the <i>Sidur</i>, or arrangement, of the wood upon the Mizbe'ach <i>does</i> need to be done by a Kohen.)
</p><p>
The Gemara returns to question whether 'v'Archu' (Vayikra 1:8) teaches that a Zar may do the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach. The Gemara asks that perhaps the verse 'is needed for itself' -- to teach that the act of placing the body parts on the Mizbe'ach must be done by a Kohen, and not to teach through inference that the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach may be done by a Zar. The Gemara concludes that another verse, 'v'Hiktir ha'Kohen Es ha'Kol' (Vayikra 1:9), teaches that a Zar may do Hefshet v'Nitu'ach.
</p><p>
The Gemara's conclusion is puzzling. Why does the Gemara reject the verse 'v'Archu' (Vayikra 1:8) as the source that a Zar may do Hefshet v'Nitu'ach on the basis that it is needed to teach that the placing of the body parts on the Mizbe'ach must be done by a Kohen? That law was taught already by an earlier verse, 'v'Hikrivu Bnei Aharon ha'Kohanim...' (Vayikra 1:5), which -- as the Gemara explained -- teaches that everything after the Kabalas ha'Dam must be done by Kohanim!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> The Rishonim apparently did not have the words, 'v'Eima... l'Gufei,' in their text of the Gemara. (This is also the emendation made by the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> here in Hagahos ha'Gra #1.) According to this text, the Gemara never asks the question that the verse 'v'Archu' is 'needed for itself.' What, though, is the correct text of the Gemara? There are different opinions among the Rishonim:
</p><p>
(a) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> omits all of the words from 'v'Eima Hachi Nami' until 'v'Archu Shenayim.' He explains that the Gemara asks no question at all on the source of 'v'Archu,' and it indeed concludes that the verse 'v'Archu' teaches that a Zar may perform the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach. Rather, the Gemara goes on to teach another Derashah (that the sheep offered as the Korban Tamid is offered by six Kohanim). The Tosfos Yeshanim says that this was also the Girsa of Rashi.
</p><p>
He asks, however, that the Gemara seems to derive two laws from the word 'v'Archu.' First, the Gemara derives from 'v'Archu' that a Zar may perform the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach. Second, when the Gemara counts the number of Kohanim alluded to in the verse who are needed to perform the Avodah of the Tamid, it uses the word 'v'Archu' to refer to two Kohanim (so that it arrives at a total of six). How can the same word be used to teach two different laws?
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> answers this question. He explains that since the rest of the verse teaches the number of Kohanim needed for the Avodah of the Tamid (when it says, 'Bnei Aharon ha'Kohanim,' in the plural form), it is logical that any word in the verse which has a numerical implication (such as 'v'Archu,' in the plural form) is meant to teach the number of Kohanim, even though the word is used already to teach something else. (The total number of Kohanim is derived from the simple implication of the words and does not interfere with the exegetical elucidation of the verse.)
</p><p>
(b) According to the Girsa of <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b>, the Gemara does not make a double-inference from 'v'Hikriv' (Vayikra 1:13) to teach that a Zar may not arrange the Etzim on the Mizbe'ach. Rather, the only source that teaches that a Zar may not arrange the Etzim is the absence of any verse that permits it.
</p><p>
Accordingly, the Gemara leaves its question on the Derashah of 'v'Archu' unanswered (that perhaps the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach must be done by a Kohen, and it is the Sidur Shnei Gezirei Etzim which may be done by a Zar). The Gemara instead explains that the source that a Zar may perform the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach is 'v'Hiktir' (Vayikra 1:9), which does not refer at all to the Gezirei Etzim. The source that a Zar may not perform the Sidur Shnei Gezirei Etzim is the absence of any verse that permits it.
</p><p>
In summary, 'v'Archu' teaches the number of Kohanim who offer the Tamid, 'v'Hikriv' permits a Zar only to <i>bring</i> the wood to the Mizbe'ach (but not to arrange it there), and 'v'Hiktir' permits a Zar to perform Hefshet v'Nitu'ach.
</p><p>
(c) According to the Girsa of the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b>, the Gemara asks that if 'v'Archu' teaches that a Zar may perform the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach, then the word 'v'Hiktir' teaches nothing and is unnecessary. It must be that 'v'Hiktir' teaches that a Zar may perform the Hefshet v'Nitu'ach, and 'v'Archu' teaches only the number of Kohanim needed for the Avodah of the Tamid.
</p><p>
In summary, there are three answers for why the Gemara rejects the Derashah of 'v'Archu.' According to Rashi, the Gemara does not reject it, and two different laws are derived from 'v'Archu.' According to Rabeinu Chananel, the Gemara rejects the Derashah based on the argument that 'v'Archu' teaches instead that a Zar may perform the Sidur Shnei Gezirei Etzim. The Vilna Ga'on says that the Gemara rejects the Derashah of 'v'Archu' only because there is an extra verse of 'v'Hiktir.'
</p><p>


