Previous daf

1)

(a) Every Kohen Gadol had to bring the Chavitei Kohen Gadol (the Asiris ha'Eifah each day), even a Merubeh Begadim (who had not been anointed with the Shemen ha'Mishchah) - but not the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah, because the Torah writes by him "ve'ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach Tachtav mi'Banav", from which we learn that only the Kohen Gadol whose son inherits his greatness brings the Chavitin, and a Mashu'ach Milchamah's son does *not*.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Shiv'as Yamim Yilbasham ha'Kohen Tachtav mi'Banav ... Asher Yavo el Ohel Mo'ed" - that the son of a Mashu'ach Milchamah does not inherit his greatness (since he himself is not fit to come to the Ohel Mo'ed - on Yom Kipur).

(c) To conform with Rav Dimi (according to whom a Mashu'ach Milchamah does serve on Yom kipur wearing the eight Begadim) we amend this Beraisa to read, not 'Mi she'Ra'uy la'Vo el Ohel Mo'ed' - but 'Kol she'Ikar Meshichaso le'Ohel Mo'ed' - to exclude a Mashu'ach Milchamah, who was not *primarily* anointed to serve on Yom Kipur. (Consequently, his son will not inherit his position.)

(a) We try to disprove Rav Dimi's statement from a Beraisa, which states that a Mashu'ach Milchamah serves neither in the four garments of a Kohen Hedyot nor in the eight of a Kohen Gadol - Abaye comments on this that if, as the questioner assumes, the Tana is speaking d'Oraysa, how can this be? Is the Mashu'ach Milchamah a Zar?

(b) He therefore explains that the Beraisa speaks mi'de'Rabbanan - he could not wear the eight garments because of 'Eivah' (the Kohen Gadol will be jealous for his position - whereas min ha'Torah he *did*, like Rav Dimi said); and he could not wear the four, because of the principle 'Ma'alin ba'Kodesh ve'Lo Moridin'.

(a) The Tana lists fourteen/fifteen differences between a Kohen Gadol and a Kohen Hedyot:
The Kohen Gadol exclusively ...

1. ... brought the Par ha'Ba al Kol ha'Mitzvos and the Par on Yom Kipur.
2. ... brought the Minchas Chavitin every day.
3. ... (besides not being permitted to bury his dead relative) neither let his hair grow for more than thirty days, nor tore his clothes in the regular way (only by the hem) - as a sign of mourning for a deceased relative.
4. ... was obligated to marry a virgin (if he was not yet married) and forbidden to marry a widow (even if she was still a virgin).
5. ... granted a murderer the right to return home from the city of refuge with his death - according to Rebbi Yehudah.

(b) The Kohen Gadol was permitted to bring Korbanos even when he was an Onan. He was not however, permitted to ...

1. ... eat them.
2. ... to receive a portion of any Korban - because any Kohen who was not permitted to eat Korbanos, did not receive a portion either.

(c) He had first right to take a portion of any Korban he fancied, or to bring any Korban.

(d) He wore the eight Bigdei Kehunah Gedolah, and was Patur from a Korban if he entered the Beis Hamikdash be'Tum'ah, and only he was eligible to do the Avodah on Yom Kipur.

(a)

1. The one thing on this list for which a Kohen Gadol Mashu'ach (with the anointing oil) was eligible, but not a Merubah Begadim - was the Par ha'Ba al Kol ha'Mitzvos.
2. The two things for which a substitute Kohen Gadol (after the original Kohen Gadol was re-instated), was *not* eligible - were the Par of Yom Kipur and the Chavitei Kohen Gadol.
3. The five things from this list that did apply to a Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah - are those which the Torah mentions specifically: He does not let his hair grow long, tear his clothes (in the conventional way), bury his dead relations, marry a woman who is not a virgin or a widow and, when he dies, he grants a murdered permission to leave the city of refuge.

(b) From the fact that the fact that the substitute Kohen Gadol after the original Kohen Gadol was re-instated remained eligible for almost every facet of the Kehunah Gedolah, it is clear that we are not concerned with 'Eivah'.

(c) Rava reconciles this apparent contradiction (with what we learned earlier about a Mashu'ach Milchamah not wearing the eight Bigdei Kohen Gadol) - by differentiating between the substitute Kohen Gadol (who is on a par with the Kohen Gadol, and of whom the Kohen Gadol is therefore not jealous) and the Mashu'ach Milchamah (who is *not*).

(d) Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi did not like this answer when they heard it from Rebbi Avahu in the name of Rebbi Yochanan, though others say that it was from Rebbi Chiya bar Aba that they heard it. Rav Papa thought that it was probably Rebbi Avahu who told it to them - because they merely turned round (to show their disdain) but did not refute outright that Rebbi Yochanan said such a thing. This is what they would have done if they had heard it from Rebbi Avahu - who was close to the king - of whom they would have been afraid, which is not the case with Rebbi Chiya bar Aba.

6)

(a) When the King or the Av Beis-Din would ask a She'eilah from the Kohen Gadol - he would stand facing him; the Kohen Gadol, who stood facing the questioner would nevertheless look down at the Urim ve'Tumim.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk in Pinchas "ve'Sha'al *Lo* be'Mishpat ha'Urim" - that the questioner asked so softly that only Hashem could hear, and not the Kohen Gadol (though he *did* have to *pronounce* the words, and not just *think* them).

(c) The questioner would ask only one question at a time (e.g. 'Erdof Acharei ha'Gedud ha'Zeh?'), and the Kohen Gadol would answer 'Koh Amar Hashem, Aleh ve'Hatzlach'. According to Rebbi Yehudah, he did not need to insert the words 'Koh Amar Hashem'.

(d) We quote the Pasuk in Shmuel "ve'Chanah Hi Medaberes al Libah" - because that was how the questioner had to ask his question, as we just explained, and it is from Chanah that we learn it.

(a) If the questioner asked *two* questions, Hashem would answer the *first* of the two.

(b) Nevertheless, when David asked whether the men of Ke'ilah would divulge his whereabouts to Shaul, and whether Shaul would chase after him, Hashem answered his *second* question - because that was the question that he *should* have asked first. In other words, Hashem will always answer the question that *should* have been asked first.

(c) And when David asked whether he should chase after the P'lishtim and whether he would catch them, Hashem answered *both* questions simultaneously - because it was an urgent matter, and there was no time to be lost.

8)

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Sha'al Lo *be'Mishpat* ha'Urim" - (that, unlike the prophecy of a Navi) the words of the Urim ve'Tumim were irreversible (even if the decree was a negative one).
2. ... "Urim" - that their words were clear.
3. ... "Tumim" - that their words were irreversible (this seems to be the same as the Derashah from "be'Mishpat").

(b) The men of Yisrael were not told clearly to fight with Binyamin *and win* - because they did not ask if they would.

(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the letters of the Choshen protruded. Resh Lakish holds that they also appeared in the correct order (so that the Kohen Gadol did not have to work out the order of the letters) see also Agados Maharsha.

(a) The names of the twelve tribes (which were engraved on the stones of the Choshen) did not contain a 'Tzadei', a 'Ches' or a 'Kuf'. That did not create a problem however, because the names of the Avos, Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov were added.

(b) Nor was there a problem with the 'Tes' - because the words 'Shivtei Yeshurun' were engraved, too. (Note: They were arranged in such a way that each stone contained six letters: Reuven - 'Aleph', Shimon - 'Beis', Levi - 'Resh', 'Mem', 'Yud', etc. Binyamin was written full, with two 'Yudin'; 72 letters all in all.)

(c) Although the letters protruded or even rearranged themselves, this was only subject to the worthiness of the Kohen Gadol. If, for some reason, he was unworthy, the Urim ve'Tumim did not respond (Some commentaries interpret "Urim *ve'Tumim*" to mean that the Kohen Gadol had to have the right Kavanah [to *perfect* his heart] for the Urim to enlighten him.) That is why Evyasar was unable to read the answer from the Urim ve'Tumim, when David Hamelech asked him.

(d) A Kohen Gadol to whom the Urim ve'Tumim did not respond - was deposed. Evyasar (who was a descendant of Eli ha'Kohen - from the branch of Isamar) was re-placed by Tzadok (who was from the branch of Elazar).

1. ... "Hu" - refers to the king.
2. ... "ve'Chol B'nei Yisrael Ito" - to the Mashu'ach Milchamah.
3. ... "ve'Chol ha'Eidah" - to the Sanhedrin.

11)

(a) Besides eating and drinking - Inuy comprises washing, anointing oneself, wearing shoes and indulging in marital relations on Yom Kipur.

(b) According to Rebbi Eliezer ...

1. ... a king and a bride are permitted to wash?
2. ... a woman who has given birth, is permitted to wear shoes.

(c) To be Chayav on Yom Kipur, the minimum measurement ...

1. ... of food that one would have to eat - would be a Koseves ha'Gasah (a large Koseves - which itself is a large species of date).
2. ... of drink that one would have to drink - is a Me'lo Lugmav (which appears to mean two cheeks-full, and which will explained in the Gemara).

(d) All foods combine to make up the Shiur, and so do all drinks. Food and drink however, do not combine.

(a) The punishment for eating a Shiur on Yom Kipur - is Kares (be'Meizid, a Chatas, be'Shogeg).

(b) The Tana say only 'Asur' - because of someone who ate less than the required Shiur, who is not Chayav Kares.

(c) Resh Lakish, who says that less than a Shiur is permitted, agrees that there is an Isur de'Rabbanan, which 'Asur' in our Mishnah incorporates.

(a) The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Shavu'os obligates someone who swore not to eat forbidden foods, to bring a Korban Shevu'ah (should he negate it). The problem inherent in this Mishnah is - that such a Shevu'ah is futile, since he was already made to swear at Har Sinai that he would not do that (and a Shevu'ah that one makes on an existing Shevu'ah is not valid).

(b) Rav, Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan establish the Mishnah 'be'Kolel Devarim ha'Mutarim .... ' - meaning that he swore that he would eat neither certain permitted foods, nor the specified forbidden, in which case, the Shevu'ah is valid on both.

(c) Resh Lakish explains that the Mishnah speaks when his Shevu'ah pertained to half the Shiur of the forbidden foods, which the Torah permits, and which is not therefore included in the oath that we made at Har Sinai.

(d) According to Resh Lakish's explanation, Rebbi Shimon, who says that he is Patur - follows his reasoning in Makos, where he says that one is Chayav Malkos for eating even less than a Shiur, because, in his opinion, the Shiur for forbidden foods only concerns there where a Chatas is required, but not cases of Malkos.

(a) According to the Rabbanan, swearing that one will not eat a certain food implies a Shiur, but not less. Rebbi Akiva says that such an oath incorporates even less than a Shiur.

(b) According to what Resh Lakish just said (that a Chatzi Shiur is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan), why should a person who negated an oath not to eat less than a Shiur, be Chayav to bring a Korban Shevu'ah? Why should he not be Patur because he already swore at Har Sinai not to contravene the La'av of "Lo Sasur" which covers all Isurin de'Rabbanan)?