Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE EIGHT GARMENTS OF THE KOHEN GADOL

(a) (R. Dimi) These same garments are worn by the Kohen Mashuach Milchamah during his daily Avodah (this additional Kohen is learned from the extra work Acharav).
(b) Question: But that would make the Kohen Mashuach Milchamah fitting to go into the Kodesh HaKodoshim (which hinges on Begadim) and his son should inherit his position, not as we are taught that the position does not pass to his son!?
(c) Answer: The Pasuk requires that the person be primarily dedicated to the Ohel Moed in order to confer the position on his son, thus excluding one whose anointment is primarily for battle.
(d) Question: But the Beraisa teaches that he does *not* wear the eight Begadim, nor the four of a Kohen Hedyot!?
(e) (Abaye) Then you have invalidated him from Avodah entirely!?
(f) Rather, he *is* fitting for Avodah, but does not do so.

1. He does not wear the Begadim of the Kohen Gadol out of concern for enmity (Eivah).
2. He does not wear the four Begadim of a Kohen Hedyot owing to his elevated status.

(g) Question: But according to the Tana who is not concerned about enmity, he *should* be able to function, thus proving that he is *not* fit to function at all!?

1. The Tana who is not concerned about Eivah demonstrates this by allowing a former Kohen Gadol to continue to function.
2. At the same time he does not permit the Kohen Mashuach Milchamah to function, thus demonstrating that the Torah does not permit him to function (and it is not only because of our concern for enmity).

(h) Answer: There is no Eivah when the other Kohen is at the same level, but for a lesser Kohen (the Mashuach Milchamah) to function would engender Eivah.
(i) When R. Avahu reported R. Dimi's teaching (that the Mashuach Milchamah wears eight Begadim) citing R. Yochanan, R. Ami and R. Asi turned away from him (to indicate that R. Yochanan did not teach that Din).

1. Others say it was R. Chiya b. Aba who reported it.
2. Question: I would understand why R. Ami and R. Asi could not openly state their disapproval of R. Avahu owing to his political position, but why could they not have spoken directly to R. Chiya b. Aba!?

(j) R. Yochanan (as cited by Ravin) actually taught that the Mashuach Milchamah wore the Urim VeTumim upon going out to battle, and was thus consulted by the King (as supported in the Beraisa).

(a) Question: How is this accomplished?
(b) Answer: The petitioner faces the Kohen Gadol, and the Kohen Gadol faces the Shechinah (the Shem HaMeforash on the Choshen-Rashi).

1. The petitioner asks the request of Dovid HaMelech, and the Kohen Gadol responds (either with or without Ko Amar HaShem) Aleh VeHatzlach.
2. The petitioner may not ask his question in a full voice (VeSha'al *Lo*) nor merely *think* the question, but rather utters it as Chanah spoke with HaShem.
3. He must not ask two questions at once, and if he does, the response comes to the first question (proof text).
4. Question: But we see that Dovid received an answer to his *second* question!?

5. Answer: Dovid asked out of order (whether the city would turn him over to Shaul, and whether Shaul would come down to the city).

i. The Shechinah corrected him by answering the second (properly the first) question.
ii. Dovid then asked the second question properly.

6. When the matter is urgent (as by Shaul), both questions will receive an answer.

(c) The decree of a Navi may be reversed (as by Yonah) but not that of the Urim VeTumim (proof text and Beraisa).
(d) Question: Why was the prophecy regarding the Pilegesh B'Giv'a (to go to battle with Binyamin) not fulfilled (and many B'nei Yisrael fell in those two days)?
(e) Answer: They only asked if to go to battle, not if they would be victorious (proof text regarding the third day).
(f) Question: How would the answer appear?
(g) Answer: R. Yochanan says the letters would stand out (in their place) and Resh Lakish says they would organize into the words.
(h) Question: But the names of the Shevatim are missing the letter Tzadi?
(i) Answer: The names Avraham Yitzhok and Yakov also featured on the Choshen.
(j) Question: But we are still missing a Tes?
(k) Answer: The words Shivtei Yeshurun appeared there, as well.
(l) Question: We see that the operation of the Urim VeTumim was based on the level of Shechinah in the Kohen Gadol and so (according to Rashi) there is no need for the letters to stand out or to organize at all!?
(m) Answer: The Kohen would assist the Urim VeTumim to function.

(a) Question: How is this known?
(b) Answer: It is based on the Pasuk:

1. The referent of the Pasuk is the King.
2. VeChol B'nei Yisrael is the Mashuach Milchamah.
3. VeChol HaEidah refers to the Sanhedrin.

1) MISHNAH: THE RESTRICTIONS OF YOM KIPUR

(a) It is Asur on Yom Kipur to eat, drink, bath, anoint, wear shoes or cohabit.
(b) A King and a Kalah wash their face.
(c) A nursing mother wears shoes; while R. Eliezer prohibits.
(d) One who eats the equivalent of a plump dried date (Koseves) with its pit is Chayav, as is one who drinks a cheek-full (Male Lugmav).
(e) Foods combine with other foods as do liquids with others, but foods and liquids do not combine.

(a) Question: The Mishnah should have referred to the Isur as Chayav Kares (not merely Asur)!?
(b) Answer: The Mishnah means to refer to Chatzi Shiur (Asur, but not a Kares).
(c) Question: But what of Resh Lakish who holds (in his Machlokes with R. Yochanan) that Chatzi Shiur is *Mutar* from the Torah!?
(d) Answer: Resh Lakish admits that Chatzi Shiur is Asur Mid'Rabanan (and thus the Mishnah refers to it as Asur).
(e) Question: But then how can Resh Lakish explain that his Shevu'ah applies to his eating less than a Shiur (according to Rabanan, in the following discussion from Shevu'os), given that he is already bound not to eat this!?

1. One who takes a Shevu'ah not to eat, and violates his oath by eating forbidden foods is, according to Rabanan, Chayav for violating his Shevu'ah.
2. According to R. Shimon he is Patur.
3. The Gemara there asks why he is Chayav, since he is already under oath from Har Sinai, and his Shevu'ah should not take hold!?
4. The Gemara there provides two answers:

i. Rav, Shmuel and R. Yochanan explain that he is Chayav because he included *permitted* foods in his oath, and was thus able to be bound even regarding forbidden foods (Isur Kolel, while R. Shimon holds that such a Kolel cannot cause the Shevu'ah to apply to the Isur).
ii. Resh Lakish explained that he can be Chayav (even though a Shevu'ah cannot apply to any Isur, even Kolel) in one of two ways:

(1) He specifies in his Shevu'ah that he will not eat Chatzi Shiur (according to Rabanan who hold that one who does not specify means to prohibit only a full Shiur, and thus only one who specifies less will become prohibited in less); or,

(2) He does not specify (according to R. Akiva who holds that one who does not specify means to include even a trace amount).

5. According to Resh Lakish who holds that there is an Isur Mid'Rabanan on Chatzi Shiur, how can the Rabanan hold that his Shevu'ah can apply to less than a Shiur (even if he is explicit) given his standing prohibition!?

(f) Answer: Since it is permitted by the Torah, he is not considered Mushba VeOmed, and his Shevu'ah can thus apply.
(g) Question: But the Mishnah regarding Shevu'as HaEidus teaches that a Shevu'ah *cannot* apply to an Isur Mid'Rabanan!?

1. The requirement of bringing a Korban for Shevu'as HaEidus (if he is sworn to testify but then denies, falsely, that he has any information) applies only to one who is otherwise fit as a witness.
2. Who does this exclude?
3. (R. Papa) It excludes the King (who may not testify due to his honor) and is Patur from bringing a Korban.
4. (R. Acha b. Yakov) It excludes (and exempts) those who are Pasul Mid'Rabanan to testify, such as a gambler.
5. A gambler is only excluded Mid'Rabanan and yet the Shevu'ah does not apply to him!
6. By extension, the same should be true for a Shevu'as Bitui which should not apply to an Isur D'Rabanan!?

(h) Answer: Shevu'as HaEidus is different since it cannot apply to the gambler who, having been excluded D'Rabanan, is not subject to the Lav of "not testifying."