Previous daf

1)

(a) It is obvious that, after going to the bathroom, a Kohen needed to make Kidush *Raglayim*, because of the drops. But why did he need to make Kidush *Yadayim*?

(b) What problem does the Gemara have with Rav Papa, who declared that a person who has 'excrement in its place' is forbidden to recite the Shema?
Why would this appear, either obvious, or incorrect?

(c) How do we solve this problem?

(a) If a person places just his hands inside a bathroom or if he has excrement on his body, Rav Chisda forbids him to recite the Shema.
Why?

(b) What does Rav Huna say?

(c) Is it possible to reconcile Rav Papa's statement (regarding 'excrement in its place') with Rav Huna (and with Rav Chisda - see Rashi DH 've'Rav Chisda'?

(a) What is the difference (regarding the obligation to wash his hands again) between someone who goes out in the middle of a meal to urinate, (but not in a fixed bathroom) or if he goes out to speak to a friend for an extended period of time?

(b) What does he do to ensure that the other participants do not suspect him of not having washed his hands?

(c) How does the Gemara differentiate in this matter between a person who intends to continue *eating* and one who only intends drinking? Why would a person who only intends to drink need to wash his hands at all?

(d) What personal comment did Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak make in this regard?

(a) What must anyone do before he enters the Azarah? Does it make any difference whether he entered for the purpose of performing the Avodah or not?

(b) How many Tevilos and how many Kidushei Yadayim ve'Raglayim did the Kohen Gadol have to make on Yom Kipur?

(c) How many of these Tevilos took place in the Mikveh that was in the Beis ha'Parvah? Why should this Tevilah be any different than the other Tevilos of the day?

(a) The Mikveh was open. What did they do to prevent the people from seeing him Tovel?

(b) They asked Ben Zoma why a Tahor person needs to Tovel before entering the Azarah.
What did he answer?

(c) According to Ben Zoma, the Tevilah is d'Oraysa. Rebbi Yehudah disagrees. In his opinion, it is only mi'de'Rabbanan.
What reason does Rebbi Yehudah give for this Takanah?

6)

(a) We initially explain the Halachic ramifications of the Machlokes between Ben Zoma and Rebbi Yehudah to be whether the Kohen profanes the Avodah or not, but this is refuted from a Beraisa.
What distinction does the Beraisa make between a Kohen Gadol who failed to Tovel or to make Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim between changes of clothing or between one Avodah and the other on the one hand, and any Kohen who did not perform Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim before starting the Avodah in the morning?

(b) How does this disprove our original contention to explain the Machlokes?

(c) So what *is* their bone of contention? In which point is Ben Zoma more stringent than Rebbi Yehudah?

(a) If Rebbi Yehudah agrees that whoever enters the Azarah requires Tevilah (albeit mi'de'Rabbanan), then why does he exempt a Metzora from Tevilah on the eighth day (before he stands at the Sha'ar Nikanor for the ceremony of placing the blood on his right thumb and right big toe)?

(b) Why is this answer obvious?

(c) We try to answer that we raised the Kashya in order to mention this Beraisa, in which Rebbi Yehudah seems to contradict himself from another statement of his, where he adds that it is not only the *Metzora* who Tovels in the Lishkas Metzora'im, but *anyone who is Tamei*.
What is the contradiction?

(d) We try to answer that that Beraisa refers to a Metzora who has not yet Toveled. What is the problem with this answer?

(a) We then attempt to establish the latter Beraisa (which obligates a Metzora to Tovel) when he really had Toveled, but that he had been Mesi'ach Da'as (i.e. had not been careful to remain Tahor).
What is the problem with *that*?

(b) How do we finally establish the Beraisa (even assuming that Rebbi Yehudah obligated Metzo'ra'im too, to Tovel)?

(c) In the second answer, we change the text of the *second* Beraisa to read 'Lo Metzora'im Amru, Ela Kol Adam'.
What is Ravina's final answer (retaining both the original text and Rebbi Yehudah's original opinion, in which he himself exempts a Metzora from Tevilah)?

(a) In the Beraisa that we discussed above, the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah say 'Metzora Tovel ve'Omed be'Sha'ar Nikanor'.
How will we explain the fact that they said specifically 'Metzora - if they *do* hold like Ben Zoma (as Abaye contended)?

(b) How will we explain it - if they *don't* (as Rav Yosef concluded)?