Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) BACK TO RESH LAKISH AND R. YOCHANAN (bottom of 4b)

(a) We may infer that they both hold that whatever is written in the Parashas Miluim is Me'akev (aligning with one side in the Machlokes below).

(a) There is a Machklokes whether all details of the Miluim are Me'akev, or only those details which are normally Me'akev.
(b) We may conclude that R. Yochanan is of the opinion that all the details are Me'akev.

1. This is based on the question which Resh Lakish asked on R. Yochanan (that if Perishah is learned from Miluim then it should be Me'akev by Yom HaKipurim, as well).
2. R. Yochanan, by not responding, showed his agreement.

(c) Question: Of what (Halachic) difference is their dispute?
(d) Answer #1: Semichah.

1. Question: How do we know that Semichah is normally not Me'akev?
2. Answer: From a Bereisa which speaks of Semichah as the Kaparah of the Korban, but in the end teaches that its absence does not prevent the Kaparah.

(e) Answer #2: Tenufah (same Q&A sequence follows as above).
(f) Answer #3: Perishas Shiv'a.

1. Question: Whence that Perishah is normally not Me'akev?
2. Answer: Because the substitute Kohen is not segregated.

(g) Answer #4: Ribui Begadim and Meshichah during the seven days.

1. Question: Whence that these are normally not Me'akev?
2. Answer: The Bereisa learns it from "Asher Yimshach Oso V'Asher Yimalei Es Yado."
3. Question: Then whence that Meshichas Shivah is even a Mitzvah L'Chatchilah?
4. Answer #1: The Pasuk in Tetzaveh links Meshichah to Ribui Begadim.

(h) Question: What is the reason for saying that all details of the Miluim are Me'akev?
(i) Answer: The word "Kachah" in Parashas Tetzaveh implies Ikuv.

(j) Question: But what about the details in Parashas Tzav where the word Kachah does not appear?
(k) Answer #1: A Gezeirah Shavah connects the two Parshios.
(l) Answer #2: Mishmeres in Parashas Tzav implies Ikuv.
(m) Answer #3: Ki Chen Tziveisi means that it is all l'Ikuva.

1. The Bereisa explores the meaning of the repetition of "Tziveisi," "Tziveisi" and "Tzivah HaShem."
2. The first, that the Korban should be eaten b'Aninus; the second was the (erroneous) ruling in this case; the third was to indicate that this ruling is not in error, but rather the command of HaShem.

(n) The Michnasayim and Asiris HaEifah are not written in the Parashah, but are included with a Derashah.
(o) Question: Unlike the Michnasayim, Asiris HaEifah is not written here at all, so where do we learn it as an obligation during the Miluim
(p) Answer: Gezeirah Shavah from "Zeh."
(q) Question: Whence that even reading the Parashah is Me'akev?
(r) Answer: HaDavar Asher Tzivah HaShem.

(a) Question: In what order did Moshe dress Aharon and his sons?
(b) Answer: Whatever was, was!
(c) Question: But how *will* they Kohanim be dressed?
(d) Answer: In the days to come we will see how Moshe dresses Aharon!!
(e) Question: We wish to know the order to understand the Pasuk.

1. The Pesukim seem to contradict, were they dressed together or separately?
2. It is a dispute whether he dressed Aharon first or both together. 3. (Abaye) The dispute is only regarding the Avnet.