(a)How do we know that the Lishkas Farhedrin was not sanctified with the Kedushah of the Azarah?
(b)Why did the Kohen Gadol not take his wife with him into the Lishkas Falhedrin?
(c)On what grounds does the Gemara reject the contention that it was because he may be Bo'el his wife whilst she was a Safek Nidah?
(a)The Lishkas Farhedrin cannot have been sanctified with the Kedushah of the Azarah - because then, how could the Kohen Gadol live there? Nobody except the King of Yehudah was even permitted to sit in the Azarah, let alone to lie down!
(b)The Kohen Gadol did not take his wife with him to the Lishkas Farhedrin - because he might be Bo'el her and then discover that she was a Safek Nidah, which renders him Tamei for seven days.
(c)The Gemara rejects the contention that it was because he may be Bo'el his wife whilst she was a Safek Nidah - because we are not speaking about Resha'im.
(a)Why do we initially think that the author of our Mishnah must be Rebbi Akiva?
(b)Rav Chisda establishes the Mishnah even like the Rabanan - by Achar Echad. What is 'Achar Echad' and what is 'Achar Achar'?
(a)We initially think that the author of our Mishnah must be Rebbi Akiva - because he is the one who holds that a Nidah renders the man who was Bo'el her, Tamei retroactively.
(b)Rav Chisda establishes the Mishnah even like the Rabanan - by Achar Echad, meaning within the time it takes for her to go down from the bed and clean herself. There, even the Rabanan agree that also the man is Tamei retroactively for seven days - mi'Safek. They argue if they find the blood after that time.
(a)How do we attempt to prove from the fact that we separate the Kohen Gadol seven days from Tum'as Nidah that 'Bo'el Nidah Einah k'Nidah' (with regard to Tevilah)?
(b)How do we explain our Mishnah even according to those who hold Bo'el Nidah k'Nidah?
(c)'Kol Chayvei Tevilos Tevilasan ba'Yom, Nidah v'Yoledes Tevilasan ba'Laylah'. Can we infer from this Beraisa that a Bo'el Nidah may Tovel by day?
(d)The Beraisa 'Ba'al Keri k'Maga Sheretz, Bo'el Nidah k'Tamei Mes' seems to prove that 'Bo'el Nidah Einah k'Nidah'. How do we reject this proof? How else might we explain the Beraisa?
(a)We attempt to prove from the fact that we separate the Kohen Gadol seven days from Tum'as Nidah, that 'Bo'el Nidah Einah k'Nidah' - because if Bo'el Nidah would be k'Nidah, then he would only be permitted to Tovel after nightfall of the eighth day (Kol Nidrei night). How could he then do the Avodah the next morning - seeing as he is still a Tevul Yom)?
(b)We explain our Mishnah even according to those who hold Bo'el Nidah k'Nidah - by establishing the seven days in our Mishnah to mean seven plus (the Mishnah refers to it as seven because it is less than eight: in fact, they separated him just before sunset of the seven day period, so that he could Tovel immediately, and experience Ha'arev-Shemesh - before the seventh day began.
(c)In the Beraisa 'Kol Chayvei Tevilos Tevilasan ba'Yom, Nidah v'Yoledes Tevilasan ba'Laylah' - the Tana may well include all those who derive their Tum'ah (i.e. Bo'el Nidah) in the Din of Nidah.
(d)The Beraisa 'Ba'al Keri k'Maga Sheretz, Bo'el Nidah k'Tamei Mes' might be speaking about their Tum'os, and not about their Tevilos, meaning that a Ba'al Keri is Tamei only for one day and is a Rishon l'Tum'ah - just like a Maga Sheretz; whereas a Bo'el Nidah is an Av ha'Tum'ah and is Tamei for seven days - like a Tamei Mes.
(a)What is the problem with the latter interpretation of the Beraisa?
(b)The Gemara answers 'Seifa Itztricha Lei'. In which way is a Bo'el Nidah more stringent than a Tamei Mes?
(c)Having written "Vatehi Nidasah Alav" (Tazri'a), why does the Torah find it necessary to add "Kol ha'Mishkav Asher Yishkav Alav Yitma"?
(a)The problem with the latter interpretation of the Beraisa - is that we already know both Dinim, because they are explicit in the Torah.
(b)A Bo'el Nidah is more stringent than a Tamei Mes - inasmuch as he is Metamei food and drink (though not people and vessels, like the Mishkav and Moshav of a Zav is) even if they are underneath ten sheets on which he is sitting or lying.
(c)Having written "Vatehi Nidasah Alav", the Torah nevertheless finds it necessary to add "Kol ha'Mishkav Asher Yishkav Alav Yitma" - to modify the Din of Mishkav and Moshav from being Metamei everything, to being Metamei only food and drink - as we just explained.
(a)The Gemara finally cites a Beraisa from which it is clear that 'Bo'el Nidah Einah k'Nidah'. The Beraisa lists a Nidah and a Yoledes as the only two Tum'os who must wait until nightfall before Toveling. Which five Tum'os, besides Bo'el Nidah, does the Tana list permitting them to Tovel already on the seventh day?
(a)The five Tum'os, besides Bo'el Nidah, which the Tana permits to Tovel already on the seventh day are: a Zav, a Zavah, a Metzora, a Metzora'as and a Tamei-Mes.
(a)What is the Gemara suggesting when it asks why the Tana of our Mishnah is only concerned about the Tum'ah of a Bo'el Nidah, and not about Tum'as Mes?
(b)How does Rava prove from here that Tum'ah Hutrah Hi b'Tzibur?
(c)How does Ravina refute Rava's proof, to explain the Mishnah even if the Tana holds 'Tum'ah Dechuyah Hi b'Tzibur'?
(d)According to Rava, most of the Korbanos of Yom Kipur are indeed Korbenos Tzibur - but since when is the Kohen Gadol's Korban (his bull and his ram) considered a Korban Tzibur?
(a)When it asks why the Tana of our Mishnah is only concerned about the Tum'ah of a Bo'el Nidah, and not of Tum'as Mes - the Gemara is suggesting that the Kohen Gadol should separate, not only from his wife, but also from all other people, who should not be allowed near him, in case they touch him, and make him Tamei Mes.
(b)The Gemara answers 'Tum'ah Hutrah Hi b'Tzibur', in which case it is not necessary to guard him against Tum'as Mes (since the Avodah on Yom Kipur must be performed by him).
(c)Ravina refutes Rava's proof - because, even if the Tana of our Mishnah holds 'Tum'ah Dechuyah b'Tzibur, we would not be concerned about Tum'as Mes, which is not common (whereas Tum'as Nidah is).
(d)The bull and the ram of the Kohen Gadol are certainly not considered a Korban Tzibur - nevertheless, they are Dechuyah b'Tzibur, since their time is fixed and the Avodah and they are confined to the Kohen Gadol.
(a)Rav Nachman holds 'Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur'. What does Rav Sheshes hold, and what are the ramifications of his statement?
(b)According to the first Lashon, Rav Nachman will agree that if there are any Tehorim in the Beis-Av of that day, they are the ones who will serve in the Beis-Hamikdash, and not the Teme'im. Then when does he argue with Rev Sheishes?
(c)What does the second Lashon hold?
(a)Rav Nachman holds 'Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur'. Rav Sheshes holds Tum'ah Dechuyah Hi b'Tzibur, which means that, even though, if the Korban Tzibur was brought, the Tzibur are Yotzei, one nevertheless does whatever possible, to bring it b'Taharah. It also means that it requires the Tzitz to atone for it, as we shall see later in the Sugya.
(b)According to the first Lashon, Rav Nachman will agree that if there are any Tehorim in the Beis-Av of that day, they are the ones who will serve in the Beis-Hamikdash, and not the Teme'im - he argues where there are no Tahor Kohanim in the Beis-Av of that day. In his opinion, they do not call Kohanim from other Batei-Av to serve that day.
(c)According to the second Lashon - even if there are Tahor Kohanim in the Beis-Av of that day, Rav Nachman will apply the principle 'Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur' and allow the Avodah to be performed by all the Kohanim in that Beis-Av, even by those who are Tamei.