A Talmid Chacham must take revenge and bear a grudge like a snake.

Question: But what of the Torah prohibition?!

Answer: That is speaking in money matters (as the examples of Nekimah and Netirah indicate).

Question: But the Beraisa speaks of letting go of vengeful thoughts even in personal (non-financial) matters?!

Answer: The Talmid Chacham is permitted to bear it (only) in his heart.

Question: But Rava taught that it is praiseworthy to overlook even such slights!?

Answer: That speaks of his willingness to forgive when approached.

Question: If two fingers are permitted, then certainly one!?

Answer (Rav Chisda): One speaks of a healthy Kohen (only permitted to put out one) and the other of an ill Kohen (does not have the dexterity to put out one) as we learn in the Beraisa.

We count the two fingers of the ill Kohen as one.

Question: But the Beraisa implies that we count it as two (while the one who puts out a thumb is not counted as two, but is rather struck with a Pakia)?

Answer: It means we count the ill Kohen as one, and we do not count the thumb-user at all.

Question: What is a Pakia?

Answer (Rav): Midra.

Question: What is a Midra?

Answer (R. Papa): It is a whip with strands at the end.

(Abaye): I used to think that Ben Bibai was in charge of wicks (Pakia), but now I see that it means the whip.

There was a tragic incident wherein a Kohen stabbed the winner of a Kevesh-race.

R. Tzadok brought the People to tears with his call regarding the Eglah Arufah.

The victim's father found his son still in his death throes:

He said that the son is their atonement.

He said that the knife could still be removed before becoming Tamei.

This teaches the relative importance of Tum'ah and bloodshed in the eyes of the people (as in the Pasuk regarding the time of Menasheh).

Question: Which incident came first (this or the Mishnah)?

If it was this one, why didn't the Takanah follow?

If it was the Mishnah, then how did this one happen?

Answer: The murder came first, but was regarded as an isolated incident; while the Mishnah triggered the Takanah.

Question: What Eglah Arufah did R. Tzadok refer to?

Among the ten qualities of Yerushalayim is that an Eglah Arufah is not brought from there.

Also, an Eglah Arufah refers to an unsolved murder, not to this incident where the murderer is known?!

Answer: He was speaking to elicit the people's tears.

Question: Had bloodshed become worthless or had Taharas Keilim become precious?

Answer: Given the reference to Menasheh, we may conclude that bloodshed had lost significance.

"Ufashat" indicates a change of garments as on Yom Kipur.

In this case, a change to Chol garments.

Acherim thus corrects this assumption, that the change is into Kadosh garments.

Question: Then how are they 'Acherim' from the first set?

Answer: They are shabbier than the first, but still Kadosh.

Answer (R. Eliezer): "Acherim" refers to the person, teaching that a Ba'al Mum may take out the Deshen (the Chachamim say that a Ba'al-Mum may not take out the Deshen).

Regarding the first answer, we were taught in a Beraisa that it is proper to change from the cooking to the serving garments, to thus honor the Master.

There is a Machlokes if the dispute between R. Eliezer and Chachamim also applies to taking the Terumah (Resh Lakish) or is restricted to taking the Deshen out (R. Yochanan).

Question: What is the rationale of Resh Lakish?

Answer: Terumas ha'Deshen must not be an Avodah, since the Torah speaks of its performance with two garments.

Question: What will R. Yochanan do with this Pasuk?

Answer: The two garments infer the presence of all four.

Question: Why, then, are these two singled out?

Answer: "Mido" teaches that it must be a correct fit; "Michnesei Bad" teaches that they must be the first garments donned.

Question: Whence will Resh Lakish learn these Halachos?

Answer: "Mido" (versus Ketones) teaches the first; "Al Besaro" teaches the second.

Question: Perhaps this Machlokes regarding the status of the Terumas ha'Deshen as an Avodah has a precedent between the Tanaim (R. Yehudah and R. Dosa)?!

R. Yehudah holds that "Yilbash" teaches that the four garments are required for Haramah.

R. Dosa holds that "Yilbash" the four garments of the Kohen Gadol may be used by a Kohen Hedyot.

Question #1: But the Avnet of a Kohen Gadol differs from that of a Kohen Hedyot?!

Question #2: How can garments be used for a lesser Kedushah?!

Rather, Yilbash allows the use of worn (but not torn) garments.

The dispute over whether the Bigdei Kohen Gadol may be used by a Kohen Hedyot derives from "ve'Hinicham Sham", teaching that they must be placed in Genizah.

R. Dosa holds that they may be used by a Kohen Hedyot and the Pasuk teaches that they may not be reused by the Kohen Gadol on a subsequent Yom Kipur.

Would it not, then, appear that R. Yehudah holds that Terumas ha'Deshen is Avodah, and R. Dosa holds it is not?

Answer: No, they may both hold that it is Avodah, but R. Yehudah holds that we need a Pasuk to add the Mitznefes and Avnet (to the two listed) while R. Dosa holds that we do not need a Pasuk to add them.