Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa learns Shesuyei Yayin from Mechusar Begadim - with regard to the Avodos for which a Zar is not Chayav Misah.

(b) The Tana began with the Pasuk of "Le'havdil ... " to teach us Shesuyei Yayin (by the Avodos for which a Zar is Chayav Misah), but then he remembered the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Chukah" "Chukah".

(c) The Tana first learns Mechusar Begadim from Shesuyei Yayin, and then Shesuyei Yayin from Mechusar Begadim. The second Limud, based on Rebbi Yochanan's Pasuk (in Tetzaveh), and which covers the Melachos for which a Zar is not Chayav Misah - is the correct one, and the Beraisa's first statement merely means to say that we learn one from the other.

(d) We conclude that we need "Le'havdil" to teach us the Din of Rav - who was careful not to issue any ruling from the time he ate and drank on Yom-Tov until the following day, because he learned from "Le'havdil" that a Rav who has drunk wine may not issue ruings (to distinguish between what is permitted and what is forbidden).

(a) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with the Avodah) "Ve'nasnu B'nei *Aharon ha'Kohen* Eish" - that if Aharon were to serve without the eight Bigdei Kehunah Gedolah (even if he is wearing the four of a Kohen Hedyot), he would render the Avodah Pasul (and the same will apply to a Kohen Hedyot who serves without his four garments.

(b) In spite of the Pasuk in Tetzaveh ("Ve'chagarta Osah Avnet Aharon u'Vanav ... Ve'haysah Lahem Kehunah le'Chukas Olam"), the Torah needs to write this Pasuk - because we might otherwise have thought that the former is referring exclusively to an Avodah that is crucial, but not to one that is dispensable Bedi'eved (such as kindling a fire on the Mizbe'ach, seeing as fire came down from Heaven and burned the Korbanos anyway).

(c) The Torah still needs the Pasuk in Tetzaveh however - seeing as if not for it, how would we know that this Pasuk is referring to Mechusar Begadim?

(a) We learn from the Pasuk there "Ve'archu *B'nei* Aharon *ha'Kohanim" es ha'Nesachim" - that if a Kohen Heyot serves with the eight garments of a Kohen Gadol, his Avodah is invalid.

(b) The Torah needs to add this - because we would otherwise have thought that the Pasuk in Tetzaveh only applies to a Kohen who wore less than the four garments than he was supposed to, but not more.

(a) The Beraisa validates the Avodah of a Kohen who wears garments that are Merushalin, Mesulakin or Meshuchakin. 'Meshuchakin' means old garments. 'Merushalin' and 'Mesulakin' are based on the Pasuk in Tzav "Ve'lavash ha'Kohen Mido Vad" from which we learn - that Lechatchilah, a Kohen must wear clothes that are his size.

(b) By ...

1. ... 'Merushalin', we mean - clothes that are trailing on the ground.
2. ... 'Mesulakin' we mean clothes that are too short.

(c) The Beraisa then says that a Kohen who wears two pairs of pants or two belts, one garment too few or one too many - invalidates the Avodah.

(d) The Beraisa includes in the list a Kohen who serves with a plaster on a wound under his clothes, since we learn from the Pasuk there "u'Michnesei Vad Yilbash al Besaro" - that nothing may interrupt between the garmens and the Kohen's skin.

(a) The Tana concludes the list with a Kohen who is wearing clothes that are Metushtashin or torn. 'Metushtashin' means - dirty.

(b) The Tana invalidates the Avodah of a Kohen who is wearing torn clothes - because it is not ''le'Chavod u'le'Sif'eres" (Tetzaveh).

6)

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules 'Merushalin Kesherin, Mesulakin Pesulin'. Rami bar Chama reconcile this with the Beraisa (that we just quoted) 'Mesulakin Kesherin' - by establishing 'Mesulakin' the Beraisa when the Kohen raised the height of the hem by using a belt (whereas he is speaking when the hem was actually cut in order to shorten it.

(b) Rav rules - Echad Zeh ve'Echad Zeh, Pesulin.

(c) When Rav Huna's host queried Shmuel from the Beraisa, the latter cited Rami bar Chama. The problem he had with Rav is - that he seems to argue with both of the Beraisa's rulings.

(d) We might interpret 'Merushalin' in the Beraisa to mean - that the Kohen fixed it the right length by means of a belt, from which we see that raising the hem using a belt is as effective as cutting the excess length off.

(a) We still remain with a Kashya on Rav however, from Mesulakin. Why can we not reconcile Mesulakin in the same way as we did Merushalin (like we did according to Shmuel) - because Rav holds that fixing the height of a garment using a belt is as if the rest of the garment was cut (as we just explained), in which case Mesulakin with a belt would be no different than Mesulakin without one (and would be Pasul).

(b) Rebbi Zeira therefore concludes that Rav learns only one case - 'Merushalin she'Silkan al-Yedei Avnet'.

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Al Arba Kanfos Kesuscha" - that a garment of only three corners is Chayav Tzitzis.
2. ... "Asher Techaseh Bah" - that one of five, is Kasher.

(b) A person comes to possess a garment ...

1. ... of three corners - by rounding one of the four corners.
2. ... of five corners - by cutting one of the existing corners.

(c) The Tana precludes a garment of three corners and include one of five, and not vice-versa - because a five-cornered garment contains four corners, whereas a three-cornered one does not.

(d) Another Beraisa learns from "al Arba Kanfos Kesuscha" - that only a four-cornered garment is Chayav be'Tzitzis, precluding both one of five corners and one of three.

(a) We initially explain that the first Tana considers an excess as if it was not there ('Yeser, ke'Ma'an de'Leisa Dami'), whereas the second Tana considers it there ('Yeser, ke'Ma'an de'Isa Dami').

(b) Similarly - the Tana'im will argue whether 'Merushalin' by Bigdei Kehunah is Kasher (because 'Yeser, ke'Ma'an de'Leisa Dami') or not (because ('Yeser, ke'Ma'an de'Isa Dami').

(a) We refute this explanation however, by attributing the Tana's ruling obligating a garment of five corners, to the 'Ribuy' "Asher Techaseh Bah". Both Tana'im will hold however - that generally, 'Yeser 'ke'Ma'an de'Leisa Dami'.

(b) The Tana of the second Beraisa (according to whom "Asher Techaseh Bah" is redundant) learns from ...

1. ... "Asher Techaseh Bah" - that a blind man's garment is Chayav Tzitzis.
2. ... "u'Re'isem Oso" (Sh'lach-Lecha) - that a night garment is Patur.

(c) The Tana includes the garment of a blind man, but precludes a night garment, and not vice-versa - because the garment of a blind man worn by someone else is a regular garment, whereas a night-garment remains a night garment, irrespective of who wears it.

(d) The first Tana includes the garment of a blind man from the word "Asher". The second Tana does not consider "Asher" a D'rashah.

(a) The Torah writes in Tzav (in connection with the Bigdei Kehunah) "Ve'lavash ha'Kohen Mido Vad". 'Vad (Bad)' means - linen (flax).

(b) The Beraisa also requires them to be new, spun, each thread to be twined six times and that weekday clothes may not be worn together with them. We learn this latter Halachah - from the word "Bad", which also has connotations of 'alone' (like 'Levad').

(c) Abaye asked Rav Yosef - how the Tana could learn the Din of 'new' from "Bad" (which evidently comes le'Ikuva [even Bedieved]), when we learned above in the Beraisa that Bedieved, old clothes are Kasher.

(d) Rav Yosef countered - that if, as Abaye seemed to think, all the cases in the Beraisa are rooted in "Bad", then he could also have asked from the Din of 'Chutan Kaful Shemonah', since "Bad" implies a single thread (as we shall see shortly)?

(a) Rav Yosef set out to prove from there - that the Tana is not learning all the Halachos that he lists from "Bad", only that they all pertain to the garments by which the Torah writes "Bad" (some of them Bedieved, and some of them Lechatchilah).

(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learns that "Bad" means linen - from the fact that it grows in single stalks (as the word "Bad" implies).

(c) He answers the Kashya that ...

1. ... wool grows in single strands too - by pointing out that wool splits into a number of strands, whereas linen remains one stalk.
2. ... flax also splits into a number of strands - by confining that to after it has been beaten, whereas wool splits into strands automatically.

(a) Ravina learns that "Bad" means linen from the Pasuk in Yechezkel, which describes the Kohanim's clothes as linen garments ("Pa'arei Pishtim ... "). When Rav Ashi asked him how they knew what "Bad" meant until Yechezkel came and taught them, he replied - that it was basically a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, which Yechezkel later supported with a Pasuk.

(b) And to prove this, Ravina cited another such case, the Pasuk in Yechezkel "Kol ben Neichar Arel Leiv ve'Arel Basar Lo Yavo el Mikdashi". An Arel Leiv - is someone who is completely estranged from Hashem (e.g. he worships Avodah-Zarah).

(c) An Arel Basar - is not recorded in the Torah, and must therefore have been a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai', which Yechezkel likewise supported with a Pasuk.

(a) The Pasuk in Yechezkel continues "Lo Yachgeru ba'Yaza", which Abaye interprets to mean - that the Kohanim may not tie their belt next to a place on the body which perspires (as we shall now see in the Beraisa).

(b) When the Tana of the Beraisa says 'Lo Lematah mi'Mosneihen ve'Lo Lema'alah me'Atzileihen', he means - not lower than his hip and not higher than his elbow.

(c) In fact, the Kohen tied his belt - next to his elbow.

(a) Huna bar Nasan related to Rav Ashi what happened once whilst he was standing before Izgadar Malka - the King of Persia.

(b) In order to enhance his looks before the king, he lowered his belt from where he had tied it above his elbows.

(c) Izgadar Malka commented - that the Torah describes Yisrael as a "Mamleches Kohanim ve'Goy Kadosh" (Yisro), in which case they ought to dress like Kohanim even when they are not standing before kings.

(d) When Huna bar Nasan related the incident to Ameimar, the latter cited him the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Ve'hayu Melachim Omnayich (Kings will educate you)".