1)

(a)According to Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, a Nazir who became Tamei after shaving on one of his Korbanos demolishes everything. What do the Chachamim say?

(b)They bring a proof from an incident that took place with Miriam the Tarmudian (a Nezirah) who, after bringing one of her Korbanos, heard that her daughter was dangerously ill. What happened subsequently?

1)

(a)According to Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, a Nazir who became Tamei after shaving on one of his Korbanos demolishes everything. According to the Chachamim - he may bring his remaining Korbanos the moment he becomes Tahor.

(b)They bring a proof from an incident that took place with Miriam the Tarmudian (a Nezirah) who, after bringing one of her Korbanos, heard that her daughter was dangerously ill. Subsequently went to visit her and discovered that she had died. She then participated in her burial, and the Chachamim ruled that, as soon as she became Tahor, she could bring her remaining Korbanos.

2)

(a)What did Rebbi Eliezer say earlier in the Masechta about someone who becomes Tamei after the termination of his Nezirus?

(b)Then what does he mean when he says here that he demolishes everything?

(c)How do we prove this answer from the words of the Chachamim ...

1. ... in our Mishnah?

2. ... regarding he incident with Miriam ha'Tarmudis?

2)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer said earlier in the Masechta that someone who becomes Tamei after the termination of his Nezirus - only needs to demolish seven days.

(b)When he says here that he demolishes everything - he means all his Korbanos, even the first one (but not all the days).

(c)We prove this answer from the words of the Chachamim ...

1. ... in our Mishnah - 'Yavi Sha'ar Korbenosav v'Yithar' and ...

2. ... with regard to the incident with Miriam ha'Tarmudis - 'Tavi Sha'ar Korbenosehah v'Tithar', both of which imply that they argue with Rebbi Eliezer over the first Korban, but agree with him regarding the other Korbanos.

HADRAN ALACH 'SHELOSHAH MINIM'

PEREK KOHEN GADOL

3)

(a)Which stringency does a Nazir share with a Kohen Gadol?

(b)Which concession do they both have in common?

(c)Rebbi Eliezer holds that if a Nazir and a Kohen Gadol are walking together, then it is the Kohen Gadol who is obligated to bury the Mes Mitzvah rather than the Nazir. Why is that?

3)

(a)The stringency that a Nazir shares with a Kohen Gadol is - that he cannot render himself Tamei for his seven relatives.

(b)The concession they both have in common is - that they may (and are even obligated to) render themselves Tamei for a Mes Mitzvah (though this fact is not recorded explicitly in our Mishnah).

(c)Rebbi Eliezer holds that if a Nazir and a Kohen Gadol are walking together, then it is the Kohen Gadol who is obligated to bury the Mes Mitzvah rather than the Nazir - because when the latter becomes Tamei Mes, he has to bring Korbanos, whereas the former does not (indicating that the Kedushah of a Nazir is greater than that of a Kohen Gadol).

4)

(a)On what grounds do the Chachamim require the Nazir to bury the Mes Mitzvah rather than the Kohen Gadol?

(b)What if the Nazir is a Nazir Olam?

(c)According to the Chachamim, who will have to bury the Mes Mitzvah if a Nazir is walking together with a Kohen Hedyot?

4)

(a)The Chachamim require the Nazir to bury the Mes Mitzvah rather than the Kohen Gadol - because a Kohen's Kedushah is permanent, whereas that of a Nazir is only temporary.

(b)This ruling will apply even if the Nazir is a Nazir Olam - seeing as 'Stam Nazir Sheloshim Yom', which indicates that his Kedushah is not on a par with that of a Kohen, which is always permanent.

(c)And for the same reason - it is the Nazir who will have to bury the Mes Mitzvah, even if he is walking together with a Kohen Hedyot.

47b----------------------------------------47b

5)

(a)What is a Merubah Begadim? In which period did he serve?

(b)How is it possible for a Merubah Begadim to continue to serve in the presence of a Mashu'ach b'Shemen ha'Mishchah?

(c)Why would the first Kohen Gadol not return to his post?

5)

(a)A Merubah Begadim - is a Kohen Gadol who was initiated by wearing the eight Begadim of a Kohen Gadol. This applied to the Kohanim Gedolim who were appointed after Yoshiyah ha'Melech hid the bottle of anointing-oil (towards the end of the era of the first Beis ha'Mikdash).

(b)It is possible for a Merubah Begadim to continue to serve in the presence of a Mashu'ach (b'Shemen ha'Mishchah) - if the latter who was anointed before the Shemen ha'Mishchah was hidden, who was exiled after it was hidden, and they appointed a new Kohen Gadol (a Merubah Begadim) in his place, returned many years later.

(c)Normally, the latter would return to his position, and the Merubah Begadim would have had to stand down, but here, because the new Kohen Gadol had already served for a long period, he will be allowed to continue.

6)

(a)Why, if a Merubah Begadim is walking with ...

1. ... a Mashu'ach, is it the Merubah Begadim who is obligated to bury the Mes Mitzvah?

2. ... a Mashu'ach she'Avar, is it the Mashu'ach she'Avar who is obligated?

(b)In the first of the two cases, what is meant by 'Par ha'Ba al Kol ha'Mitzvos'?

6)

(a)If a Merubah Begadim is walking with ...

1. ... a Mashu'ach, it is the former who is obligated to bury the Mes Mitzvah - because it is the latter who brings the Par ha'Ba al Kol ha'Mitzvos (which will be explained shortly).

2. ... a Mashu'ach she'Avar, it is the latter who is obligated - because the Merubah Begadim actually serves, whereas the Mashu'ach she'Avar does not even serve as a Kohen Hedyot.

(b)In the first of the two cases, what is meant by 'Par ha'Ba al Kol ha'Mitzvos' is - a bull that the Kohen Gadol Mashu'ach must bring, should he issue an erroneous ruling which he then follows.

7)

(a)In the above-mentioned case of a Merubah Begadim and Mashu'ach she'Avar, why did we not rather discuss the more simple case of a Merubah Begadim and a Merubah Begadim she'Avar, or a Mashu'ach and a Mashu'ach she'Avar?

(b)Why is it not possible to establish the case with just two Kohanim (as it appears to be)?

(c)Why can the case not be when the initial Mashu'ach became Tamei, was replaced, returned to his position and then, following his death (after the anointing oil had been hidden), they appointed a new Kohen Gadol (Merubah Begadim). And he was walking together with the Mashu'ach she'Avar when they came across a Mes Mitzvah?

(d)Then what is the case?

7)

(a)In the above-mentioned case of a Merubah Begadim and Mashu'ach she'Avar, we preferred to discuss that case than the more simple case of a Merubah Begadim and a Merubah Begadim she'Avar, or a Mashu'ach and a Mashu'ach she'Avar - because it is a bigger Chidush (to tell us that even a Merubah Begadim takes precedence even over a Mashu'ach [who would normally take precedence over him], once he has become a Mashu'ach she'Avar).

(b)It is not possible to establish the case with just two Kohanim (as it appears to be) - because it would then be speaking when a Merubah Begadim (after the anointing oil had been hidden) became Tamei, and they anointed a replacement, who would become a Mashu'ach she'Avar once the Merubah Begadim returned. And how could they possibly have anointed the replacement (seeing as the anointing oil had already been hidden)?

(c)Neither can the case be when the initial Mashu'ach became Tamei, was replaced, returned to his position and then, when he died after the anointing oil had been hidden, they appointed a new Kohen Gadol (Merubah Begadim), who was walking together with the Mashu'ach she'Avar when they came across a Mes Mitzvah - because should the Kohen Gadol die, there is no reason not to appoint the Mashu'ach she'Avar in his place.

(d)The case therefore, can only be - when the original Kohen Gadol did not die, but went into Galus with Yechonyah, in which case the Mashu'ach she'Avar cannot be appointed in his place, because Chazal decreed that a Mashu'ach she'Avar may not serve (even in the capacity of a Kohen Hedyot), during the lifetime of the Kohen Gadol.

8)

(a)Why must a Kohen Gadol who was removed because he was found to have a blemish bury the Mes Mitzvah rather than one who was removed because he was a Ba'al Keri?

(b)What if the blemish was only a temporary one?

8)

(a)A Kohen Gadol who was removed because he was found to have a blemish bury the Mes Mitzvah rather than one who was removed because he was a Ba'al Keri - since the latter stands to return to the Avodah on the following day, whereas the blemished Kohen Gadol remains permanently out of action ...

(b)... and even if the blemish is only temporary, he will be incapacitated for an indefinite period.

9)

(a)We ask who would have to bury the Mes Mitzvah if the Sgan (the deputy Kohen Gadol) is walking with the Mashu'ach Milchamah. What advantage does the ...

1. ... Mashu'ach Milchamah have over the Sgan?

2. ... Sgan have over the Mashu'ach Milchamah?

(b)We resolve this She'eilah from a Beraisa, which obligates the Mashu'ach Milchamah to perform the burial. How does Mar Zutra reconcile this with another Beraisa, which gives the Mashu'ach Milchamah precedence over the Sgan?

(c)In which regard is the second Beraisa cited in Horiyos?

9)

(a)We ask who will have to bury the Mes Mitzvah if the Sgan is walking with the Mashu'ach Milchamah. The advantage that the ...

1. ... Mashu'ach Milchamah has over the Sgan - is that he (alone) served as Kohen Gadol for war (a public service).

2. ... Sgan have over the Mashu'ach Milchamah - is that he (alone) is destined to serve instead of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur, should the need arise.

(b)We resolve this She'eilah from a Beraisa, which obligates the Mashu'ach Milchamah to perform the burial (because the deputy is considered more Kadosh than him). Mar Zutra reconciles this with another Beraisa, which gives the Mashu'ach Milchamah precedence over the Sgan - by establishing it specifically with regard to saving his life, should the lives of both be threatened (because the entire community depends on him).

(c)The second Beraisa is cited in Horiyos - with regard to a ruin that fell on them both, and it is only possible to remove the rubble from one of them.

10)

(a)How many Bigdei Kehunah were worn by ...

1. ... the Mashu'ach Milchamah when going to war?

2. ... the Sgan?

(b)How many other Chumros does the Mashu'ach Milchamah have over the Sgan?

(c)Then why does the Tana of the first Beraisa mention only the Din of the Mashu'ach Milchamah burying the Mes Mitzvah?

(d)In which other regard does the Sgan's higher level of Kedushah than the Mashu'ach Milchamah manifest itself?

10)

(a)The ...

1. ... Mashu'ach Milchamah wore - eight Bigdei Kehunah when going to war, whereas ...

2. ... the Sgan wore - only four when he served in place of the Kohen Gadol (like he did on Yom Kippur).

(b)The Mashu'ach Milchamah has five other Chumros over the Sgan - the five mentioned in the Parshah of Kohen Gadol (not marrying a widow ... ) ...

(c)... and the reason that the Tana of the first Beraisa mentions only the Din of the Mashu'ach Milchamah burying the Mes Mitzvah is - because he is only concerned with his leniencies, but not with his stringencies.

(d)The Sgan's higher level of Kedushah than the Mashu'ach Milchamah also manifests itself that - it is he who walks on the right of the Kohen Gadol, whilst the Mashu'ach walks on his left.

11)

(a)The Torah writes in Parshas Emor (in connection with a Kohen Gadol) "Al Kol Nafshos Mes Lo Yavo". How do we know that the Pasuk is not speaking about strangers?

(b)So it must be speaking about relatives. What do we therefore learn from ...

1. ... "l'Aviv ... Lo Yitama"?

2. ... "l'Imo"?

(c)What is the problem with using "l'Aviv" for this Derashah, in view of the 'Kal va'Chomer' that we just Darshened?

(d)That being the case, it is not really from a 'Kal va'Chomer' that we learn that a Kohen Gadol cannot render himself Tamei for strangers. Then from where do we learn it?

11)

(a)The Torah writes in Parshas Emor (in connection with a Kohen Gadol) "Al Kol Nafshos Mes Lo Yavo". The Pasuk cannot be speaking about strangers - because we know that from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a Kohen Hedyot.

(b)So it must therefore be speaking about relatives. We learn from ...

1. ... "l'Aviv ... Lo Yitama" - the inference 'Aval Mitamei Hu l'Mes Mitzvah'

2. ... "l'Imo" - a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (Kohen Gadol from Nazir, which will be discussed shortly).

(c)The problem with using "l'Aviv" for this Derashah is - that we only know that a Kohen Gadol is forbidden to render himself Tamei for his relatives (the basis of the 'Kal va'Chomer' that we just Darshened), from it (in which case, it is not redundant for a Derashah).

(d)That being the case, it is not really from a 'Kal va'Chomer' that we learn that a Kohen Gadol cannot render himself Tamei for strangers - but from the fact that they were forbidden to him before he became a Kohen Gadol. It is obvious that, once he becomes Kohen Gadol, they will not become permitted.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF