Previous daf

1)

(a) According to ...

1. ... Rav, Sukah precedes 'Z'man', - because the obligation of the day comes first.
2. ... Rabah bar bar Chanah, 'Z'man' precedes Sukah - because it is more common than Sukah (seeing as it is applicable on all the Yamim-Tovim).

(b) According to ...

1. ... Beis Shamai, Kidush precedes 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen' - because it is the day that causes the wine to be brought; in addition, the day enters before the wine.
2. ... Beis Hillel, 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen' precedes Kidush - because it is the wine that causes Kidush to be recited, and besides, wine is more common than Kidush.

(c) We initially contend that Rav holds like Beis Shamai, and Rabah bar bar Chanah, like Beis Hillel - because Rav gives precedence to the Berachah over the day to that of wine even though it is more common (similar to Beis Shamai), whereas Rabah bar bar Chanah gives precedence to the wine, because it is more common (like Beis Hillel).

(d) It is possible for ...

1. ... Rav to hold like Beis Hillel - because, in his opinion, Beis Hillel's *main* reason is because it is the wine that causes Kidush to be recited (not because it is more common).
2. ... Rabah bar bar Chanah to hold like Beis Shamai - because in his opinion, Beis Shamai's main reason is the fact that the day causes the wine to be brought (whereas by Sukah, one would recite Z'man over the day, even in the market-place, if he had no Sukah).

(a) This leaves us with a Kashya on Rav from our Mishnah, where, by the distribution of the loaves, they would say to the Kohanim 'Heilech Matzah, Heilech Chametz' - giving Matzah precedence over Chametz, despite the fact that Chametz is the main obligation of the day, because it is more common?

(b) Rav answers that this is a Machlokes Tana'im - that the Tana of our Mishnah follows the opinion of the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, but *he* rules like Aba Shaul in that Beraisa, according to whom they would say to the Kohen 'Heilech Chametz, Heilech Matzah'!

1. 'The other Korbenos Tzibur' - comes to include the 'Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur' and the goats of Avodah-Zarah.
2. 'And they brought everything' - the Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach (Olos Nedavah that they would bring on the Mizbe'ach, particularly during the long summer days, when no other Korbanos were being brought on the Mizbe'ach).

(a) When the first day of Yom-Tov fell immediately after Shabbos, (on Sunday), or when Shabbos fell immediately after the eighth day, all the Kohanim would receive an equal portion of Lechem ha'Panim - because in the former case they had no choice but to arrive before Shabbos, in order to be there for Yom-Tov; and in the latter case, because they had no choice but to remain behind until Sunday (as a sort of compensation for their trouble).

(b) When the first day of Yom-Tov fell on Monday (in which case, they could have arrived on Sunday) yet some Kohanim arrived before Shabbos, or when the eighth day fell on Thursday (and they could have left on Friday), but some Kohanim remained over Shabbos - the Kohanim who arrived early or left late, received *two* Challes.

(c) On a regular Shabbos ...

1. ... according to the Tana Kama - the incoming group received six Challes and so did the outgoing one.
2. ... according to Rebbi Yehudah - the incoming group received seven Challes and the outgoing one, five.

(a) The fact that the incoming group distributed their Challes in the *north*, whereas the outgoing group distributed their's in the *south* - indicated that the incoming group was more important.

(b) The North of the Azarah was more important than the south - because that is where they Shechted Kodshei Kodshei.

(c) Bilgah always distributed their portion of Lechem ha'Panim in the south - in addition, their ring was permanently fixed to the ground, so that it could not be turned to encircle the head of the animal during Shechitah, to keep it still. (Consequently, they had to use the ring belonging to one of the other groups). Also, their window (the opening in the wall of one of the rooms on the north of the Heichal, where they would place their Shechitah- knives) was permanently blocked (again, they were forced to use somebody else's window).

7)

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the incoming group of Kohanim received two extra loaves of the Lechem ha'Panim - for closing the gates (when really it is the outgoing group, who opened them in the morning, who should have closed them).

(b) The outgoing group of Kohanim cannot point out to the incoming group that it is will be to their advantage to divide the Lechem ha'Panim equally, so that, on the following week (when *they* will be the *outgoing* group), they will be able to receive *six* loaves instead of only *five* - because 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'.

(c) According to Rav Yehudah's contention, the *Musaf* was distributed equally among the two groups of Kohanim serving in the Beis Hamikdash that Shabbos (just like the Lechem ha'Panim).

(a) On a regular Shabbos ...

1. ... the Tamid shel Shachar and the Musaf? - was brought by the outgoing group of Kohanim.
2. ... the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim - by the incoming group.

(b) Even if the Musaf was divided among the two groups of Kohanim (like Rav Yehudah contends), this Tana does not say so - because he is not concerned at all with the distribution.

(c) Even if it was the outgoing group who brought the Musaf, the incoming group was able to partake of it - because they also participated in the Avodah, by constantly turning over the flesh with large forks, as it burned on the Mizbe'ach.

(d) The Gemara does not ask from our Mishnah (like it asked from the Beraisa), which *does* mention the division of the Lechem ha'Panim, but *not* of the Musaf - because we could answer that the Tana mentions the division of the Lechem ha'Panim on Shabbos there, at the same time as it mentions their division on Yom-Tov.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa de'Bei Shmuel repeats the Halachos that we just learned, adding that four Kohanim would arrange the Lechem ha'Panim, two from each of the two groups.

(b) The two bowls of frankincense were emptied on to the Mizbe'ach, at which point the Kohanim were permitted to eat the Lechem ha'Panim.

(c) The Beraisa ends with the words 've'Cholkin be'Lechem ha'Panim'- from which we see that this Tana *is* concerned with the distribution - yet he does not say anything about the *Musaf* being distributed equally among the two groups. So we have to conclude that it is only the members of the *outgoing* group (who actually brought the Musaf, as we learned earlier) who received a portion, and not those of the incomimg one (as Rav Yehudah contended).

(a) Chazal penalized the entire group of Bilgah, because of what Miriam bas Bilgah did.

1. *Before* the Greeks entered the Heichal - she converted out of the faith and married a Greek officer.
2. *After* the Greeks entered the Heichal - she kicked the Mizbe'ach and said: 'Wolf, wolf (because a wolf tends to tear up its prey, and because the Zohar refers to the Mizbe'ach as a wolf), how long will you continue to devour the money of Yisrael and not help them when they are oppressed'?

(b) Alternatively, Chazal penalized Bilgah - because the entire group once arrived late for the Avodah.

(c) Yesheivav was the group that preceded them - they continued to serve until Bilgah arrived.

(d) It was unusual that, after they penalized Bilgah, Yesheivav was given the right to distribute the Lechem ha'Pamin on the north side of the Azarah - because, due to the principle 'Woe to a Rasha, woe to his neighbor', the neighbor of a Rasha does not normally benefit when the Rasha suffers.

(a) Even though it was Miriam bas Bilgah who sinned, Chazal nevertheless punished ...

1. ... *her father* - because a child who talks the way *she* did, must have heard derogatory statements concerning the Avodah coming from the mouth of her parents.
2. ... all the members of that group - because of the principle that we just quoted 'Woe to the Rasha, woe to his neighbor'!

(b) We learn this principle from a house that has the signs of Tzara'as. The bricks concerned must be removed, even when the next-door neighbor shares the same wall; he too, is forced to suffer because he is the neighbor of a Rasha.

(c) And if a person must suffer because of his neighbor's *evil* deeds, then how much more so will he share in the reward of his *good* ones, because we have a principle that the reward for good deeds outweighs by far the punishment for bad ones.

On To Beitzah