Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MINOR "CHATZITZOS"

(a) (Mishnah): If a Kohen bruised his finger on Shabbos, he wraps a reed over it in the Mikdash;

1. This is forbidden outside the Mikdash (Rashi - because it heals; Tosfos - lest he will squeeze out blood).
2. In all places, it is forbidden to squeeze out blood.

(b) Version #1 (R. Yehudah brei d'R. Chiya): Only a reed is permitted, but a small belt is forbidden, it is an extra garment.
(c) (R. Yochanan): Extra garments are only forbidden in the places where Bigdei Kehunah are worn.
(d) Question: It should be forbidden because it is a Chatzizah (blockage) (between his skin and the Bigdei Kehunah)!
(e) Answers: The bruise was on his left hand, or on a part of the right hand not used for Avodah.
(f) Rava argues with R. Yochanan.

1. (Rava): In the places where Bigdei Kehunah are worn, even a thread is a Chatzizah; in other places, only a garment three Tefachim by three Tefachim is a Chatzizah.

(g) Question: Must we say that Rava also argues with R. Yehudah brei d'R. Chiya?
(h) Answer: No - since a small belt is decorative, it is considered like a garment three Tefachim by three Tefachim.
(i) Version #2 (R. Yehudah brei d'R. Chiya): Only a reed is permitted, but a small belt is forbidden (it is an extra garment).
(j) (R. Yochanan): Extra garments less than three Tefachim by three Tefachim are only forbidden in the places where Bigdei Kehunah are worn; elsewhere, only garments of three Tefachim are forbidden.
(k) This agrees with Rava.
(l) Suggestion: R. Yochanan and Rava argue with R. Yehudah brei d'R. Chiya?
(m) Answer: No - since a small belt is decorative, it is considered like a garment of three Tefachim. (end of Version #2)
(n) Question: According to R. Yochanan (who permits a small belt, at least in Version #1), why did the Mishnah permit a reed, it should have said that even a small belt is permitted!
(o) Answer: The Tana taught in passing that a reed heals.

(a) Question (Rava): If the wind lifted the garment up off his skin, what is the law?

1. If we require that it rest on his skin, (the Avodah) is Pasul;
2. Or, perhaps this is included in normal wearing of garments.

(b) Question: Is a louse a Chatzizah?

1. Surely, a dead louse is a Chatzizah, the question is about a live louse.
2. Do we say, since it comes and goes by itself, it is like his skin;
3. Or, since he does not want it there, it is a Chazakah?

(c) Question: Is dirt a Chatzizah?
(d) Objection: Obviously it is!
(e) Correction: Rather, is very fine dirt (which a person does not notice) a Chatzizah?
(f) Question: Is the sleeve a Chatzizah (if it is not snug on the underarm)?

1. Must the garment be flush on his skin?
2. Or, is this included in normal wearing of garments?

(g) Question: Is he stuck his hand under his garment by his chest, is this a Chatzizah?

1. Is his own body a Chatzizah?

(h) Question: Is a thread (from another garment) a Chatzizah?
(i) Objection: Obviously, it is!
(j) Correction: Question: Is a dangling thread (of this garment) a Chatzizah?
(k) Question (Mar bar Rav Ashi): (If you will say that his own body is not a Chatzizah), if hair (of his head) is under a garment (other than the hat), what is the law?

1. Is his hair like his body, or not?

(l) Question (R. Zeira): Is Tefilin a Chatzizah?

1. According to the opinion that the Mitzvah does not apply at night, surely they are a Chatzizah at night, and also during the day (because we are more stringent about daytime Avodah than nighttime Avodah);
2. The question is according to the opinion that the Mitzvah applies also at night - is a Mitzvah incumbent on his body a Chatzizah, or not?

(m) Answer (R. Ami): They are a Chatzizah.
(n) Question (Beraisa): Kohanim doing Avodah, Leviyim singing and Yisraelim at their Ma'amad (overseeing the Avodah) are exempt from prayer and Tefilin.

1. Suggestion: If they wore them, they are not a Chatzizah.
2. Rejection: No, they are a Chatzizah.
3. Question: if so, it should say they are *forbidden* to wear them!
4. Answer: Leviyim and Yisraelim are not forbidden, only exempt, therefore it uses the language 'exempt', which applies to all of them.

(o) Question (Beraisa): If they wore them, they are not a Chatzizah.
(p) Answer: That applies to the head Tefilin, R. Ami discusses the hand Tefilin.
(q) Question: What is the difference between them?

1. Regarding the Kesones, it says "Yilbash *Al* Besaro" - also regarding the Mitznefes, it says "V'Samta ha'Mitznefes *Al* Rosho"!

(r) Answer (Beraisa): The Kohen Gadol's hair was seen between the Tzitz and the Mitznefes, there he wore Tefilin (i.e. it is not a place where Bigdei Kehunah are worn, but the Kesones is worn over the place of hand Tefilin.)

3) A KOHEN WHO DID NOT WASH

(a) (Mishnah): Mechusar Kipurim (is Mechalel Avodah).
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer (Rav Huna): "V'Chiper Aleha ha'Kohen v'Taherah" - implying, (a woman who gave birth is partially Tamei) until her Korban is offered.
(d) (Mishnah): One who did not Mekadesh (wash his hands and feet, he is Mechalel Avodah).
(e) Question: What is the source of this?
(f) Answer: We learn from a Gezerah Shavah "Chukah-Chukah" from Mechusar Kipurim.
(g) (Beraisa): If the Kohen Gadol did not immerse or Mekadesh between changing his clothes (from his usual eight garments to the white (linen) garments he wears when he enters the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, or vice-versa) or between Avodos, his Avodah is Kosher;
(h) If any Kohen (regular or Gadol) did not Mekadesh in the morning, he is Mechalel Avodah.
(i) Question (Rav Asi - Mishnah): The Kohen Gadol immersed five times and Kidesh 10 times on Yom Kipur.

1. This is mid'Oraisa - since it says "Chukah", they should be Me'akev!

(j) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): "U'Lvesham" - wearing the garments is Me'akev, not anything else (in the verse).
(k) Retraction (R. Yochanan): That was a poor answer - if so, also the first Kidush should not be Me'akev!
(l) Answer #2 (Chizkiyah): "...Chak Olam Lo ul'Zaro Ad Olam" - only what is Me'akev Aharon's children (regular Kohanim) is Me'akev Aharon (the Kohen Gadol), i.e. the first Kidush.
(m) Answer #3 (R. Yonason): "V'Rachatzu Mimenu Moshe v'Aharon u'Vanav" - only what is Me'akev Aharon's children is Me'akev Aharon.
(n) Question: Why didn't R. Yonason learn from Chizkiyah's verse?
(o) Answer: He learns R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina's law from it.

1. (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): If the Kiyor (fountain from which the Kohanim washed) cannot hold enough water to Mekadesh four Kohanim, it is invalid - "V'Rachatzu Mimenu Moshe v'Aharon u'Vanav" (and two of Aharon's sons remained alive; alternatively, 'u'Vanav' connotes at least two).

(a) (Beraisa): The Kohen would put each hand on the corresponding foot, then Mekadesh;
(b) R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, he would put one hand on the other, and put them on his feet, which were one on the other, and Mekadesh.
(c) Chachamim: A person cannot stand thusly!
(d) Question: How does R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah answer this?
(e) Answer (Rav Yosef): Another Kohen helps him stand that way.
(f) (Abaye): R. Yosi and Chachamim argues whether or not standing with support is considered standing.
(g) Question (Rav Sama brei d'Rav Ashi): Why can't the Kohen sit (i.e. lean on something) while washing?
(h) Answer (Ravina): Kidush is called "Leshares", and Avodah must be standing.

(a) (Beraisa #1 - Rebbi): If a Kohen was Mekadesh during the day, he need not Mekadesh at night; if he Kohen was Mekadesh at night, he must Mekadesh again when day comes, because the old Kidush is no longer valid after Linah (passing of the night).
(b) R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says, the old Kidush remains valid.
(c) (Beraisa #2 - Rebbi): If a Kohen was offering Korbanos all night, he must Mekadesh again when day comes;
(d) R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says, the old Kidush remains valid, even if he serves for 10 days (without engaging in anything else).
(e) They must argue in both cases.

1. If they only argued when he was not working all night, one might have thought that Rebbi admits when he was working all night;
2. If they only argued when he was working all night, one might have thought that R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon admits when he was not working all night.

(f) Question: What is Rebbi's reason?
(g) Answer: "(Yirchatzu...) v'Gishtam" - they must wash when there is a new approach to serve (i.e. in the morning).
(h) Question: What is R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon's reason?
(i) Answer: "B'Vo'am..." - they washed when they came, and they did not leave.
(j) Question: How does Rebbi explain why it says "B'Vo'am"?
(k) Answer: If it only said "'v'Gishtam", one might have thought that they must wash each time they approach the Mizbeach - "B'Vo'am" teaches, this is not so.
(l) Question: How does R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon explain why it says "V'Gishtam"?
(m) Answer #1: If it only said "B'Vo'am", one might have thought that they must wash when they enter, even if they do not serve.
(n) Objection: One could not think so - it says "Leshares"!
(o) Answer #2: Rather, "V'Gishtam" teaches Rav Acha bar Yakov's law.

1. (Rav Acha bar Yakov): (Even though Tana'im argue whether the Kohen Gadol washes before or after taking off his garments,) all agree that he washes after putting on the new garments - "V'Gishtam", after washing he is ready to serve (he need not don new garments).

(p) Question: What do we learn from "Lehaktir Isheh"?
(q) Answer: One might have thought, they must only wash for Avodah that is Me'akev Kaparah - this teaches that they must wash even for Avodah that is not Me'akev (such as burning Eimurim).