Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Kohen Gadol walked between the Mizbe'ach and the Menorah, rather than between the Menorah and the wall - in order not to dirty his clothes (as he brushed past the wall which had become blackened from the smoke from the Menorah.

(b)

1. ... the D'vir was the wall that divided the Kodesh Kodashim from the Heichal (although the term is sometimes used to describe the Kodesh Kodashim itself). It was called by that name because the word of Hashem came out from there (Metzudas Tzi'on).
2. ... We have already explained the Amah Teraksin on the previous Amud. It means literally 'inside and outside'.

(c) The 'house' was sixty Amos long - of which the Heichal was 'forty' Amos long and the Kodesh Kodashim, 'twenty'.

(a) Rebbi Nasan initially explains that the Chachamim were not sure whether the Amah Teraksin was included in the forty Amos of the Heichal, or the twenty Amos of the Kodesh Kodashim.

(b) The above two areas are included in the hundred Amos, plus the eleven Amos of the Ulam.

(c) All the four walls that are included in this area were either five Amos thick or six.

(a) The Amah Teraksin was included in the hundred Amos.

(b) Ravina's problem with Rebbi Nasan's definition of the Safek surrounding the Amah Teraksin - is that Rebbi Nasan presumed that the Amah Teraksin was included either in the measurements of the *Heichal* or in those of the *Kodesh Kodashim*; whereas from the way the Beraisa breaks up the hundred Amos, it is clear that it is counted with *neither* of them.

(c) We therefore amend Rebbi Nasan's interpretation of the Safek - not that he was uncertain to which of the two the Amah Teraksin *belonged*, but whether the Amah Teraksin *had the Kedushah* of the Heichal or of the Kodesh Kodashim.

(d) Yosef Ish Hutzal was uncertain how to explain the word *mi'Penimah* in the Pasuk "u'D'vir be'Soch ha'Bayis mi'Penimah Heichin, Lesitan Shamah es Aron B'ris Hashem" - whether it goes together with the D'vir, to say that it too, was within the boundaries of the Kodesh Kodashim; or whether there was a comma after the word "ha'Bayis", to say that it was only the section that was within the D'vir that was part of the Kodesh Kodashim, but not the D'vir itself (and that is Rebbi Nasan's Safek).

(a) The two possible ...

1. ... translations of "Ha'lo im Lo Seitiv *Se'eis* ve'Im Lo Seitiv" are: 'forgiven' (in which case "Se'eis" is read together with the preceding phrase) or 'carry your sin' (in which case, it is read with the phrase that follows it) - i.e. whether the comma comes before or after "Se'eis".
2. ... implications of "Arba'ah Gevi'im *Meshukadim* Kaftoreha u'Feracheha" are: either that the *four goblets* were patterned (i.e. with shapes engraved on them) or that the *balls and the flowers* were - i.e. whether the comma comes before or after "Meshukadim". (Note: This is Pasuk 35. From Pasuk 33 it appears obvious that the *goblets* were patterned. The Gemara's doubt therefore, must be whether the balls and the flowers were patterned, too.)
3. ... implications of "ve'Tzei Hilachem ba'Amalek *Machar* Anochi Nitzav ... " (Beshalach) are: whether Yehoshua should gather an army and go and *attack Amolek tomorrow*, or whether he should *attack today*, and *tomorrow Moshe would stand* on the mountain and Daven - i.e. whether the comma comes before or after "Machar".
4. ... implications of "u'vi'Retzonam Ikru Shor *Arur* Apam ki Az" are: whether it is the ox that they uprooted (that of Sh'chem) or whether Ya'akov was declaring their anger that to be cursed - i.e. whether the comma comes before or after "Arur".
5. ... implications of "Hincha Shochev im Avosecha *ve'Kam* ha'Am ha'Zeh" are: whether it is *Moshe* who will (eventually) *arise* (from the dead - a hint to Techi'as ha'Meisim) or whether it is the *people* who will *get up and sin* - i.e. whether the comma comes before or after "ve'Kam".

(b) The fact that Isi ben Yehudah presents these five Pesukim as ambiguous, appears to contradict the uncertainty of Yosef Ish Hutzal in the previous question (a *sixth* case) - because they happen to be one and the same person.

(c) When Isi ben Yehudah presented these five Pesukim as ambiguous - he was referring to Pesukim in the *Torah*. The Pasuk of "u'D'vir Besoch ha'Bayis" is in *Nevi'im*.

5)

(a) Rav Chisda is uncertain whether, in the Pasuk "Vayishlach es Na'arei B'nei Yisrael Vaya'alu *Olos* va'Yizbechu Zevachim la'Hashem Parim" the word "Parim"is confined to "Zevachim" i.e. Shelamim) - to say that the *Shelamim* were *bulls*, but that the *Olos* were *sheep or goats*; or whether it covered the Olos, too - to say that both the Shelamim and the Olos were bulls.

(b) This case is not included in Isi ben Yehudah's list - because although this was a Safek to Rav Chisda, it was obvious to Isi ben Yehudah (presumably due to the fact that the word "Parim" the source of Rav Chisda's doubt, appears at the *end* of the Pasuk, in which case it will certainly not cover the "Olos" that comes much before it - as opposed to all the cases of Isi, where the Safek is in the middle).

(a)

1. ... The *outer* curtain (of the Amah Teraksin) was folded open - on the south side.
2. ... The *inner* curtain - was folded open on the north side.

(b) Once the Kohen Gadol entered the southern opening - he turned to the right and proceeded northwards until he reached the inner opening. From there, he turned left and followed the curtain until he reached the Aron.

(c) He then stood in between the two poles where he placed the Machtah, before placing the Ketores on top of the boiling coal that it contained.

(d) After that, the whole room filled with smoke.

(a) The Kohen Gadol took leave from the Kodesh Kodashim - by retracing his steps, walking backwards the same way as he entered.

(b) When he reached the Heichal - he recited a short Tefilah.

(c) He was obligated to keep his Tefilah short - so that the Kohanim who were awaiting his return should not worry that maybe he had died (as so many Kohanim Gedolim in the second Beis Hamikdash really did).

(a) It is difficult to establish our Mishnah ...

1. ... in the time of the *first* Beis Hamikdash - because then there was no Paroches.
2. ... in the time of the *second* Beis Hamikdash - because then there was no Aron.

(b) Yoshiyahu ha'Melech hid the Aron - because he knew (from the Pasuk in Ki Savo "Yolech Hashem Oscha ve'es Malkecha ... ") that the Beis Hamikdash would soon be destroyed, and he did not want the Aron to be taken into captivity to Bavel.

(c) We know that the golden box which the P'lishtim sent Yisrael was hidden together with the Aron - because of the Pasuk in Shmuel, which states that it was placed together with it. In that case, whatever happened to the Aron, happened to it.

(d) Together with it, were hidden ...

1. ... the jar containing a sample of the Man - which we learn from the 'Gezeirah Shavah' "Shamah" "Shamah" (from the Aron).
2. ... the jar of anointing oil - which we learn from the 'Gezeirah Shavah' "Doros" "Doros" (from the jar of Man).
3. ... Aharon's stick together with its almonds and blossoms - which we learn from the 'Gezeirah Shavah' "Mishmeres" "Mishmeres" (also from the jar of Man).

(a) We know that Yoshiyah hid the Aron - because the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim describes how he told the Levi'im to place the Aron in the House that Shlomoh had built. Strange, considering that it was there already! Unless we say that he was telling them to hide it there permanently.

(b) Our Mishnah is speaking about the *second* Beis Hamikdash - and, the Aron of which the Tana speaks, does not refer to the actual Aron, but to the *location* of the Aron.

(c) Even this answer is insufficient however - because how will we then explain the continuation of the Mishnah 'Nasan es ha'Machtah le'Bein Sh'nei ha'Badim'?

(d) So we amend the words 'Nasan es ha'Machtah *le'Bein Sh'nei ha'Badim' - to 'Nasan es ha'Machtah ke'Bein Sh'nei ha'Badim' (which means that he should imagine that the poles were there, and place the poles in between them).

(a) The wording of our Mishnah 'Tzavar es ha'Ketores al Gabei Gechalim' - is a proof for the opinion (above on 49b) which holds that the Kohen Gadol would pile the Ketores high (as opposed to those who hold that he scattered it across the entire Machtah).

(b) There are actually two opinions as to whether he poured the Ketores into the pan, from the far side towards him, or from the near side away from him.

(c) Abaye prefers the second explanation - because that way, he was less likely to get burned (as the Mishnah in Tamid says 'We teach him to be careful not to start piling the Ketores from himself outwards, so as not to get burned').