Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa, which discusses the problem with inspecting Miriam's Tzara'as, explains that ...

1. ... Moshe could not do so - because he was a Zar (a non-Kohen).
2. ... Aharon was unable to - because he was a relative.

(b) The problem was finally solved - when Hashem, who also bears the title 'Kohen', gave her the Kavod of inspecting it, and of declaring her, first Tamei and subsequently, Tahor.

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconciles Rav (who considers Moshe a Kohen Gadol) with this Beraisa - by referring to the Pasuk in Tazri'a that specifically requires Aharon and his sons (and not just a Kohen) to inspect Nega'im.

(a) Elisheva - was the brother of Nachshon ben Aminadav.

(b) Her brother-in-law (Moshe) was king, her husband (Aharon), Kohen Gadol, her brother, prince of Yehudah - her son (Elazar), deputy Kohen Gadol and her grandson (Pinchas) the Kohen Gadol for war.

(c) This refers - to the first of Nisan, the day on which the Mishkan was erected.

(d) We refute the Kashya on Rav 'Melech In, Kohen Gadol, Lo' - by interpreting the Beraisa to mean 'Af Melech' (meaning that Moshe was also king, besides being Kohen Gadol).

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah in a Beraisa comments on the Pasuk "Va'yichar Af Hashem be'Moshe - that this is the only place in the Torah where we find 'Charon Af' without any repercussions.

(b) We find for example, after "Va'yichar Af Ya'akov be'Rachel" - that Ya'akov scolded Rachel with "ha'Sachas Elokim Anochi" (which is a kind of Nezifah [a mild Cherem]).

(c) Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai counters that - by explaining the Pasuk there "ha'Lo Aharon Achicha ha'Levi ... " to mean that, in reality, Moshe was meant to become the Kohen, and Aharon the Levi. And it was only due to Moshe's persistent refusal to accept the leadership, that their roles were switched.

(a) According to the Chachamim, Moshe only served as a Kohen during the Shiv'as Yemei ha'Milu'im. Based on the Pasuk "u'Moshe Ish ha'Elokim, Banav Yikar'u al Sheivet ha'Levi" however, Yesh Omrim say - that his sons only, are listed as Levi'im, whilst he was a Kohen.

(b) Yesh Omrim found it necessary to add the Pasuk in Tehilim "Moshe ve'Aharon be'Chohanav", to prove that Moshe remained a Kohen - because the previous Pasuk might merely intend to be Meyaches his descendants (in which case it would be natural to leave him out, irrespective of his status).

(c) Resh Lakish reconciles the Pasuk "Va'yeitzei me'Im Paroh be'Chari Af", with what we said earlier (that every 'Charon Af' in the Torah has repercussions) - in that here too, there were repercussions, because Moshe slapped Par'oh's face before taking leave of him (see Tzon Kodshim).

(a) According to Resh Lakish, when Hashem instructed Moshe to meet Paroh by the banks of the Nile, He told him to speak to him with the respect that a king deserves. According to Rebbi Yochanan - He informed him that he was a Rasha, and that accordingly, he should talk to him with Chutzpah.

(b) And we reconcile this with Resh Lakish's previous statement, where slapping a king's face is hardly conducive with treating him with respect - by inverting the opinions of Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish.

(c) Rebbi Yanai extrapolates from the Pasuk "Ve'yardu Chol Avadecha Eileh Eilai" that one should treat a king with awe - since it was not just Paroh's servants who were destined to go down to Moshe and plead with him to take Yisrael out of Egypt, but Paroh himself, only Moshe did not want to say so, out of respect for a king.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan learns it from Eliyahu Hanavi - who ran on foot in front of Achav's carriage, in deference to the king (who was alone in the carriage).

(a) Ula commented on the Pasuk in Sh'mos "Va'yomer Al Tikrav Halom" - that Moshe requested Malchus (since 'Halom' always has connotations of Malchus), but that his request was turned down.

(b) And he proves this from the Pasuk "Mi Anochi ... Ki Heveisani ad Halom" - said by David Hamelech.

(c) To reconcile Ula's statement with Rebbi Yishmael, who says that Elisheva's brother-in-law was the king (as we quoted earlier), Rabah bar Ula amends it to read - that in fact, Moshe's request was that his sons should also succeed him as king.

(d) The problem with Rabah bar Ula's answer is - Shaul Hamelech, by whom the Pasuk also writes "Halom", yet his sons died in battle together with him.

(a) One answer is that he did have a son who ruled after him - by the name of Ishboshes.

(b) A second answer is based on a statement by Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Chanina, who said - that once Hashem bestows greatness upon a person, He bestows it forever upon him and his children.

(c) At first, this seems to make matters even worse, since we are now faced with two things that did not come true - since not only did his children not succeed him permanently, but even his own reign was cut short.

(d) The reason that he lost both is - because he became conceited.

(a) The Beraisa discusses Ba'alei-Mumin. The Tana learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Lechem Elokav mi'Kodesh ha'Kodashim Yocheil" - that a Kohen Ba'al-Mum is permitted to eat Kodshei Kodshim.
2. ... "Kol Zachar bi'Venei Aharon Yochlenah" (in connection with the Korban Minchah) - that he also receives a portion.
3. ... "Kol Zachar" (in connection with the Korban Chatas) - that even if he was born a Ba'al-Mum he receives a portion and may eat it.

(b) Initially, the Tana explains the third "Kol Zachar" (in connection with the Korban Asham) to include a temporary blemish. The problem with that is - if a Ba'al-Mum Kavu'a may eat, then how much more so, a Ba'al-Mum O'ver.

(c) Rav Sheishes therefore, inverts them, learning a Ba'al-Mum O'ver from the first "Kol Zachar" and a Ba'al-Mum Kavu'a, from the second. According to Rav Ashi, it is not necessary to invert them - because according to him, we would otherwise have thought that a Ba'al-Mum O'ver is obligated to get rid of his blemish before eating Kodshei Kodshim ...

(d) ... like a Kohen Tamei who does not receive a portion and is not permitted to eat a Korban Tzibur that was brought by Tehorim, until he becomes Tahor.

9)

(a) Our Mishnah rules 'Kol she'Eino Ra'uy la'Avodah, Eino Cholek be'Basar'. The problem with ...

1. ... this is - that a Kohen Ba'al-Mum is not eligible to perform the Avodah, yet he receives a portion?
2. ... the inference 'Ha Ra'uy, Cholek' is - that a Tamei Kohen is eligible to perform the Avodah by a Korban Tzibur, yet he does not receive a portion.

(b) We try to answer both Kashyos by amending the Mishnah to - 'Ra'uy la'Achilah' (rather than 'Ra'uy la'Avodah').

(c) The problem that this creates is - a Kashya from a Katan, who is Ra'uy la'Achilah, yet he does not receive a portion.

(d) So we reinstate our Mishnah to its original wording, dismissing the Kashya from the inference outright - on the grounds that the statement is itself a Chidush, and is not therefore subject to inferences.

(e) And we refute the initial Kashya from Ba'al-Mum - by referring to it as a 'Gezeiras-Hakasuv' (which the Torah has precluded from the rule [as we already explained before).

(a) We infer from our Mishnah 'Afilu Tamei be'Sha'as Zerikas Damim ve'Tahor be'Sha'as Hekter Chalavim, Eino Cholek' - that in the reverse case (where he was Tahor at the time of Zerikah, but Tamei at the time of Hekter Chalavim), the Kohen does receive a portion.

(b) And we establish our Mishnah not like Aba Shaul, who learns from the Pasuk "ha'Makriv es Dam ha'Shelamim ve'es ha'Cheilev (Lo Sih'yeh Shok ha'Yamin le'Manah)" - that only a Kohen who is Tahor from the Zerikah through to the Haktarah, receives a portion.

(c) The Rabbanan however, learn from ...

1. ... "ha'Makriv es Dam ha'Shelamim" - that the Kohen needs to be Tahor at the time of the Zerikah (because that is how they interpret "ha'Makriv es Dam ... "?
2. ... "ve'es ha'Cheilev" - that only a Kohen who agrees with the Avodah on principle receives a portion, but not if he denies it (as we learned in Chulin).

(d) Rav Ashi asks what the Din will be if, according to Aba Shaul, the Kohen became Tamei between the Zerikah and the Hekter Chalavim. The ...

1. ... case is - where the Kohen became a Ba'al Keri (say) after the Zerikas ha'Dam, and Toveled immediately, so that, by the time of the Hekter Chalavim (at night-time), he is already Tahor.
2. ... She'eilah is - that the Kohen ought perhaps not to receive a portion, even though he is Tahor during both the Zerikah and the Hekter Chalavim - because Aba Shaul may well require the Kohen to be Tahor from the beginning of the Avodah until the end (and not just for the duration of the two Avodos [though that is what he appears to have explicitly said]).

(e) The outcome of the She'eilah is - 'Teiku'.

(a) Rav learned from Rebbi Alazar b'Rebbi Shimon - that if a T'vul-Yom asked a fellow Kohen from the same Mishmar to save him a portion of Minchas Yisrael to eat after nightfall - the latter's initial response is in the negative ...

(b) ... because if a Kohen T'vul Yom does not receive a portion of a Yisrael's Chatas (as we learned earlier from 'ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei Osah Yechalkenah'), even though a Kohen is entitled to bring his own Chatas whenever he wishes and even to take the skin, 'Kal va'Chomer' a Yisrael's Minchah, where in the case of his own Minchah he would not be able to eat it, and would receive nothing from it at all.

(c) The Kohen T'vul-Yom would counter that argument - by using the reverse argument. He would claim that the reason that he does not receive a portion of the Yisrael's Chatas, is because the Tahor Kohen has as much right in his own Chatas as he (the T'vul-Yom [which is why he can prevent him from taking a portion]), whereas in the case of the Yisrael's Minchah, seeing as regarding his own, the latter does not posses any more rights than he does, perhaps he cannot prevent him from receiving a portion in the Yisrael's.

(d) We finally learn from the Pasuk "la'Kohen ha'Makriv Osah Lo Sih'yeh" - that a Kohen who is not eligible to sacrifice the Yisrael's Minchah, does not receive a portion in it.

(a) And when the T'vul-Yom asks the Tahor Kohen to save him ...

1. ... a portion of a Yisrael's Chatas, he replies - that if he can stop him from taking a portion in the Yisrael's Minchah (in spite of his own lack of rights in his own Minchah), then how much more can he stop him from taking a portion in the Yisrael's Chatas (where he has more rights, as we explained). Which the T'vul-Yom counters with the fact that he has more rights in his own Chatas than he has in his Minchah, in which case, he may receive a portion in that of the Yisrael (even though he does not receive one in his Minchah).
2. ... a portion of Chazeh va'Shok he replies - that if he can stop him from taking a portion of the Yisrael's Chatas (which a Kohen normally receives in its entirety), then how much more so the Chazeh ve'Shok (which is all that he receives from the Kohen's Shelamim). Which he counters with the fact that he, the T'vul-Yom, has more rights in the Chazeh ve'Shok, inasmuch as he is able to feed them to his wife and slaves), than he has in the Yisrael's Chatas (which he may only feed to the males).

(b) We finally learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei Osah Yochlenah" - that seeing as the T'vul-Yom is unable to sacrifice the Yisrael's Chatas, he cannot receive a portion in it either.
2. ... "la'Kohen ha'Zorek es Dam ha'Shelamim Lo Yih'yeh" - that seeing as the T'vul-Yom is unable to sprinkle the blood of the Yisrael's Shelamim, he cannot receive a portion in the Chazeh ve'Shok either.

(a) The loser in each of the above cases is - the T'vul-Yom.

(b) When Rava ...

1. ... quoted Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon as saying 'be'Veis ha'Kisei Dantah', he meant - that he thought this out in the bathroom.
2. ... concluded "Yatza T'vul-Yom ... *Onan mi'Yemino u'Mechusar Kipurim mi'Semolo", he means - that just as the T'vul loses on all these claims, so too, does the an Onan and a Mechusar Kipurim.

(c) According to Rav Acha'i, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon ought to have added to his list - the T'vul-Yom's claim to a portion of Bechor, and the Tahor Kohen's counter claim, using exactly the same arguments as we did in connection with the Chazeh ve'Shok.

(d) And we would refute the T'vul-Yom's claim to it, from the Pasuk "es Damam Tizrok al ha'Mizbe'ach ... u'Vesaram Tih'yeh Lach" - implying that a Kohen who is eligible to perform the Avodah receives a portion, but not one who is not.

(a) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon omitted Bechor however - because, in his opinion, since the Torah did not write "u'Vesaram la'Kohen ha'Zorek", the words "u'Vesaram Yih'yeh Lach") imply that any Kohen may eat the Bechor, even one who is not eligible to sacrifice it.

(b) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan - forbade speaking or even thinking words of Torah in the bathroom ...

(c) ... and the reason Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon did so was - because he could not help it (he was an O'nes).