Previous daf

1)

(a) If the Pasuk "u'Va Aharon el Ohel Mo'ed" belonged where it was written (immediately after the Avodas ha'Yom) - then there would only be *three* Tevilos and *six* Kidushei Yadayim ve'Raglayim.

(b) If it was only a matter of the right number of Tevilos etc., it would not suffice to make the third Tevilah for the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz (of the Musaf) - because the Torah writes "*ve'Yatza, ve'Asah* es Olaso ve'es Olas ha'Am". Now this is the first time that "Yetzi'ah" is mentioned in the Parshah, insinuating that the two rams immediately follow the Avodas ha'Yom (before the removal of the Kaf and the Machtah, and not after it, as it would appear from the Pasuk).

(c) Rava answers the initial Kashya from the Pasuk by pointing out that "u'Fashat es Bigdei ha'Bad" (written in the same Pasuk as "u'Va Aharon ... ") seems to be superfluous (since a person can only remove clothes that he has previously put on). Consequently, he explains the Pasuk can only mean that, after taking out the Kaf and the Machtah, he removed the clothes that he had already worn earlier (when he entered the Kodesh Kodashim the first time). from which we see that something must have taken place in between the two times that he entered the Kodesh Kodashim.

(a) The statement that all the Pesukim are written where they belong, except for *"u'Va Aharon el Ohel Mo'ed" cannot be correct - because the Pasuk of the burning of the Emurin of the Par and the Sa'ir ("ve'es Cheilev ha'Chatas Yaktir ha'Mizbeichah") precedes that of the burning of their bodies outside the Machaneh ("ve'es Par ha'Chatas ve'es Se'ir ha'Chatas"), when in fact, it only came later, as is evident from the Mishnah (on 68b), which gives the time of the burning of the Par and the Sa'ir as being simultaneous with the Kohen Gadol's reading of the Torah (*before* the bringing of the two rams); whereas the burning of their Emurim were burned only *after* they had been brought.

(b) We amend the statement 'she'Kol ha'Parshah Kulah Ne'emrah al ha'Seder Chutz mi'Pasuk Zeh' - to 'Chutz mi'Pasuk Zeh *va'Eilech*'.

(c) We prefer to change the order of the Pesukim than to change the Beraisa (to place the burning of the Par and the Sa'ir *after* the third Tevilah)- because the Torah writes "ve'ha'Meshale'ach es ha'Sair ... Yechabes Begadav ... " and "ve'ha'Soref Osam ... Yechabes Begadav ..." - implying that just as "ve'ha'Meshale'ach" (although it is *written after* the two rams), *refers to before* them, so too, does "ve'ha'Soref" *refer to before*.

(d) We learn "ve'ha'Soref" from "ve'ha'Meshale'ach" (to mean *before* the two rams), and not vice-versa (to mean *after* them) - because the word "ve'ha'Meshale'ach" implies *before* - because that is when it was sent, and this Pasuk refers to the initial sending.

4)

(a) The Ish Iti would say to the Kohen Gadol if, on the following day ...

1. ... he met him in a public shopping-area - 'My master, the Kohen Gadol, we fulfilled *your* Shelichus' (in order to give honor to the Kohen Gadol in the presence of the people).
2. ... he visited him at home - 'The One who distributes life, we fulfilled *your* Shelichus'.

(b) When taking leave from each other - the Rabbanan of Pumbedisa would say to each other 'May the One who distributes life grant you a long, good and established life'.

(c) When David (as a fugitive) asked Hashem "Es'halech Lifnei Hashem be'Artzos ha'Chayim" - he was requesting that Hashem should always place him in a location of markets, so that he should have his food available at all times.

(d) The "Shenos Chayim" that Shlomoh Hamelech referred to in Mishlei - were the years of poverty that one experienced in one's youth, praying that they turn into good years in one's old age - a form of Techi'as ha'Meisim.

(a) "Aleichem Ishim Ekra" refers to Talmidei-Chachamim who are weak like women (since the Pasuk writes "Ishim", instead of "Anashim"), but who display the strength of men in overcoming their Yetzer-ha'Ra - because Chazal have said in Pirkei Avos: 'Eizehu Gibor, ha'Kovesh es Yitzro'! (Agados Maharsha).

(b) According to Rebbi Berechyah, the Pasuk refers to someone who wants to pour wine on the Mizbe'ach nowadays ). What should he do? He should give the Talmidei-Chachamim wine (since the word "Ishim" is both a Lashon of "fire-offerings" - see also Agados Maharsha - as well as a reference to Talmidei-Cahachamim, as we just explained).

(c) Rebbi Berechyah advises someone who sees that Torah is not continuing in his children - to marry the daughter of a Talmid-Chachamim, who will influence their children to follow the same path that she saw being followed in her parental home.

6)

(a) When Shemayah and Avtalyon came to take leave of that Kohen Gadol, he said to them 'Let the foreigners come in peace'.

(b) He was making a snide reference to the fact that they were descendants of Sancheriv.

(c) He did it out of jealousy because the people were accompanying *them* home (after Yom Kipur), and not *him*?

(d) They answered him 'Let the foreigners who behave like Aharon (who always pursued peace) come in peace, but not the son of Aharon who does not behave like Aharon!'

(a) The four garments of ...

1. ... a Kohen Hedyot - were the shirt, the breeches, the hat and the belt.
2. ... a Kohen Gadol - were the Choshen (breastplate), the Eifod (apron), the cloak (Me'il) and the Tzitz (golden plate).

(b) Besides a King and Beis-Din (ha'Gadol) - anyone whom the community needed could consult the Urim ve'Tumim.

(a) When the Torah uses the word ...

1. ... "Sheish" - each thread was folded *six* times.
2. ... "Moshzar" - each thread was folded *eight* times.

(b) The only (part of a) garment by which "Moshzar" (only) is written - is the pomegranates that were sewn on to the hem of the Me'il.

(c) The Me'il comprise *twelve* threads.

(d) The Paroches comprised twenty-four threads (4x6); the Choshen and the Eifod *twenty-eight* (4x7).

(a) The Torah writes five times "Sheish" (incorporating once "Bad"). One of them teaches us that the four garments: the shirts, the hat of the Kohen Gadol (which resembled a turban), the hats of the Kohan Hedyot and the breeches, had to comprise linen.

(b) We do not include the mention of "Sheish" by the belt (a fifth time) in the list - because, on account of the other kinds which it also comprised, it needed to mention that it contained Sheish, too (though this answer would appear to be confined to those who hold that the belt of the Kohen Hedyot was not similar to that of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur).

(c) The second "Sheish" comes to teach us that each thread had to comprise six threads, and the third, that all the threads had to be twined together; the fourth time, to include those garments where Sheish is not mentioned, and the fifth, to teach us that all this is crucial.

(d) We learn from the fact that the Torah calls "Sheish" 'Bad' - that "Sheish" is linen (because 'Bad' means single, and linen does indeed grow in single stalks).

(a) We know that "Bad" means linen and not wool, which also appears in single strands - because, whereas wool automatically splits into many strands, linen only does so when it is beaten.

(b) Ravina learns the fact that "Bad" means linen from the Pasuk "Pa'arei Pishtan Yiheyu al Rosham ... ", which specifically uses the word "Pishtan" in connection with the Bigdei Kehunah. But what happened *before* Yechezkel came and informed us of this, asks Rav Ashi?

(c) Ravina answers that in fact, they knew already before Yechezkel, that Sheish means linen, from a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai. All Yechezkel did was to lend support to that Halachah, through a Pasuk (known as an 'Asmachta').

(d) And he proves his point from another Pasuk in Yechezkel "Kol ben Neichar Areil Leiv ve'Areil Basar Lo Yavo el Mikdashi" - which teaches us, among other things, that an Areil is invalidated from performing the Avodah. There too, one could ask, how did they know this before Yechezkel? The answer is - from a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(a) The Torah writes in Pikudei (with regard to the Me'il) "Vaya'as al Shulei ha'Me'il Rimonei Techeiles ve'Argaman ve'Sola'as Shani, Moshzar". We initially learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Moshzar" "Moshzar" from the Paroches - that the pomegranates should consist of twenty-eight threads (8x3), just like those of the Paroches (6x4).

(b) We think that it is preferable to learn the Rimonim of the Me'il from the Paroches than from the Choshen and the Eifod (which comprised twenty- *eight* threads), because the latter contained gold, whereas the former did not. On the other hand, there is a strong reason to rather learn it from the Choshen and the Eifod - which, like the Me'il, was a garment, whereas the Paroches was *not*.

(c) So we learn it neither from the one nor from the other - but from the belt, which was a garment, contained no gold, and comprised twenty-four threads (like the Paroches).

(d) Rav Mari and Rav Ashi both learn the Rimonim from the Paroches (like we learned initially). They both dispense with the suggestion that we rather learn them from the Choshen and the Eifod in different ways.

1. Rav Mari does this from the word "Ta'asenu" (written in connection with the Choshen) - which implies that, in certain regards, 'you shall make *it* like that, but not something else (a cue to learn the pomegranates from the *Paroches* rather than from the *Choshen*.
2. ... Rav Ashi learns it from the Paroches in the basis of the word "ve'Asisa" (that the Torah used by the Rimonim themselves) - implying that all the components must be equal (i.e. that each of the three threads should consist of eight strands - something that would not be possible if we were to learn a total of twenty-eight strands from the Choshen.