(Tosefta): A Kohen Mashi'ach brings a Par, and Merubah Begadim does not bring a Par. This is unlike R. Meir [who says that also Merubah Begadim brings a Par.]

What is R. Meir's reason? It says "Mashi'ach". Why does it say [also] Kohen? This includes Merubah Begadim.

What is Rabanan's reason? "Mashi'ach" excludes Merubah Begadim.

Contradiction: Here, [Rabanan] say that [Mashi'ach] excludes Merubah Begadim. Here (Chavitei Kohen Gadol), they say that it includes Merubah Begadim!

Resolution (R. Heila): Every Drashah is according to the context. There (Chavitim), the entire Parshah discusses Aharon. Why does it say "Kohen"? It is to include Merubeh Begadim;

However, here (Chatas), the Parshah does not discuss Aharon. Had it written "Mashi'ach" and not said "Kohen", I would have said that this is the king!

Question: (How could one say so?) The Torah already wrote the Parshah of a king! (It says below that a king brings a male goat for a Chatas. We cannot say that this Parshah of a Par discusses a king!)

Answer: I would say that for Helam Davar he brings a Par, and for Shegagas Ma'aseh he brings a male goat!

Conclusion: [The Torah] needed to write Mashi'ach, and it needed to write Kohen. (We explained this like KORBAN HA'EDAH in Megilah 1:10.)

(R. Yochanan): If [a Kohen Gadol ceased [serving] and brought Asiris ha'Eifah (Chavitim) from his [money], it is Kosher.

Question: [Before Yom Kipur] they prepare another Kohen in place of [the Kohen Gadol], in case a Pesul will occur. May they be secluded together?

Answer (R. Chagai): I swear, we do not seclude him with him, lest [the Kohen Gadol] kill him [amidst enmity]!

"Oso" - we anoint one [Kohen Gadol], and we do not anoint two.

(R. Yochanan): This is due to enmity.

If a Kohen Gadol passed (was unable to serve), and this served [in place of him], the first [when he can serve again] has all Kedushas Kohen [Gadol], and the second is not Kosher to serve, not as a Kohen Gadol (wearing the eight garments) and not as a Kohen Hedyot.

(R. Yochanan): If [the latter] transgressed and served [as a Kohen Gadol], his Avodah is Kosher.

Question: [If a Kohen Gadol cannot serve on Yom Kipur, and the substitute serves in place of him,] of whom is the Avodah (Par Yom Kipur)?

Answer: We learn from the following. A case occurred with Ben Ilem of Tziporim in which Tum'ah (KORBAN HA'EDAH in Yoma 1:1 - not a seminal emission) occurred to the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur, and Ben Ilem served in place of him;

When he left [the Mikdash], he said "my master, the king! The bull and ram of Yom Kipur - from whose [money] were they offered - from mine, or from the Kohen Gadol's?"

The king understood what he asked (they are from him only if he will continue to serve). He told him "it is not enough for you that you served once in front of the One who said and the world was created?!" Ben Ilem knew that he was deposed from Kehunah Gedolah. (Tosfos Yoma 12a DH Kohen - a king can depose the Kohen Gadol.)

A case occurred in which Shimon ben Kimchis left to stroll with the [Nochri] king on Erev Yom Kipur close to dark. Spit from the king's mouth splashed on his garment and was Metamei him. His brother Yehudah entered to serve in place of him. Their mother saw two of her sons as Kohanim Gedolim in one day.

Kimchis had seven sons, and all of them served in Kehunah Gedolah. Chachamim sent and said to Kimchis "what are you good deeds [through which you merited this]?"

She told them "[punishments] should come upon me if the ceiling beams of my house saw the hairs of my head (it was never uncovered) or the bottom edge of my cloak (she never lifted it, and she changed clothes under a sheet)."

They say, all flour is flour (there are many Tzenu'os), but the flour of Kimchis was Soles (fine flour. Only she merited seven sons who were Kohen Gadol.) They applied to her "Kol Kevodah Bas Melech Penimah Mishbetzos Zahav Levushah."

Suggestion: Perhaps Mashu'ach Milchamah brings Asiris ha'Eifah!

Rejection: It says "Tachtav mi'Banav" - one whose son serves after him brings Asiris ha'Eifah. One whose son does not serve after him (Mashu'ach Milchamah) does not bring Asiris ha'Eifah.

Question: What is the source that Mashu'ach Milchamah's son does not serve after him?

Answer: It says "Shiv'as Yamim Yilbeshem ha'Kohen [Tachtav mi'Banav]" - one who enters the Ohel Mo'ed to serve in the Kodesh, his son serves after him. One (Mashu'ach Milchamah) who does not enter the Ohel Mo'ed to serve in the Kodesh, his son does not serve after him.

Question: What is the source that [Mashu'ach Milchamah] can be appointed Kohen Gadol?

Answer: It says "Pinchas ben Elazar Nagid Hayah Aleihem Lefanim Hash-m Imo" (he was Kohen Gadol, even though he was Mashu'ach Milchamah in the days of Moshe).

When R. Yosah wanted to provoke [his son] R. Eliezer bei R. Yosi [to learn constantly, like in his youth], he would say to him Lefanim Imo - before [Hash-m] was with him (in the days of Zimri, when Pinchas protested and killed Zimri. In the days of Pilegesh b'Giv'ah, he did not protest, so Hash-m was not with him).

Question: What is the source that [the Mashu'ach Milchamah] is asked [questions for the Urim v'Tumim while he wears the] eight [Bigdei Kohen Gadol]?

Answer (R. Chiyah citing R. Yochanan): "U'Vigdei ha'Kodesh Asher l'Aharon Yihyu l'Vanav Acharav" - why does it say "Acharav"? Rather, it is for the grandeur of the one after him (who is not Kohen Gadol, only Mashu'ach Milchamah. He wears the eight garments).

Question: What is the source that he serves in eight [Begadim]?

Answer (R. Yirmeyah citing R. Imi citing R. Yochanan): "U'Vigdei ha'Kodesh Asher l'Aharon Yihyu l'Vanav" - why does it say "Acharav"? Rather, it is for the Kedushah of the one after him.

Objection (R. Yonah, to R. Eimi): I was with you [when R. Yochanan said this]. He did not say that he serves [wearing the eight garments], rather, he is asked! We explained this like HAGAHOS R. DINAR.)

Question: With how many [garments] does he serve?

Answer: R. Hoshayah brought a Beraisa of Bar Kapara from the south, and it teaches that Chachamim say that he does not serve with the eight of the Kohen Gadol, and not with the four of a Kohen Hedyot.

(R. Ba): It is proper that he serve with the four. Why does he not serve? It is lest people say "we saw a Kohen Hedyot, sometimes he served with eight like a Kohen Gadol" (i.e. they saw him wear eight when he was asked).

Question (R. Yonah): Does he not serve inside [the Mikdash], and he is asked outside? Will people err [to confuse something done] inside with [something done] outside?!

Answer: [Yes!] Didn't R. Tarfon, the teacher of all Yisrael, err between Teki'ah of Hakhel (when the king reads the Torah on Sukos) and Teki'ah of the Korban?!

(Beraisa - R. Akiva): "U'Vnei Aharon ha'Kohanim Yiske'u ba'Chatzotzeros" - they must be Tam, and not Ba'alei Mumim;

R. Tarfon: I will cut off my sons if I did not see Shimon, my mother's brother, who was lame in one leg, stand in the Azarah with his trumpet in his hand, and blowing!

R. Akiva Perhaps you saw only at the time of Hakhel, and I say at the time of the Korban!

R. Tarfon: I will cut off my sons [if it is not true] that you did not veer right or left [you are totally correct]! I saw the episode and I forgot, and I could not explain, and you expound and concur with the [received] Halachah! Anyone who departs from you is like one who departs from his life!

Question: What do we learn from "v'Chiper ha'Kohen Asher Yimshach Oso"?

Answer: Because the entire Parshah discusses Aharon. I would know only Aharon himself. What is the source to include another Kohen? It says "Asher Yimshach Oso" [to teach] one who was anointed with Shemen ha'Mishchah;

What is the source for Merubah Begadim? The [continuation of the above] verse says "va'Asher Yemalei Es Yado."

Question: What is the source to include the Kohen appointed [to substitute for the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur if needed, i.e. the Segan? If the Kohen Gadol became Pasul after offering the Tamid, his replacement begins with Avodas Panim in the four garments. He is not inaugurated through the eight garments - HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA in Yoma 1:1.]

Answer: It says "v'Chiper ha'Kohen" - another Kohen appointed in place of the first if a Pesul occurred to him. It teaches that all of them are Kosher for Avodas Yom Kipur.

Question: How is [the replacement] appointed?

Answer (Rabanan of Kisarin citing R. Chiyah bar Yosef): He is appointed verbally.

Inference (R. Zeirah): This teaches that we may appoint Chachamim verbally [without Semichah].

Support (R. Chiya bar Ada): A Mishnah teaches this! [Chachamim told Akavya ben Mehalalel] "retract from four laws that you say, and we will make you Av Beis Din over Yisrael" (you will be Av Beis Din the moment you retract, due to our words).

"Hu" (a Kohen Gadol is forbidden to marry a widow), and not a king. "Hu", and not a Nazir (even though he is commanded about Tum'ah like a Kohen Gadol). "V'Hu" includes a Mashu'ach Milchamah.

"Ishah bi'Vsuleha Yikach" excludes a Bogeres, whose Besulim are depleted;

R. Lazar and R. Shimon are Machshir a Bogeres [for a Kohen Gadol].

Question (R. Yitzchak): [Terumos 8:1 teaches that if a Kohen was offering Korbanos and he found out that he is a Chalal, R. Eliezer disqualifies what he offered and R. Yehoshua is Machshir. According to R. Yehoshua,] are all other matters like this? If he did Kemitzah [then found out that he is a Chalal], does he do Haktarah afterwards? If he received [the blood], does he do Zerikah afterwards? If he did Melikah, does he do Haza'ah afterwards?

Answer (R. Yakov bar Idi citing R. Yitzchak): They made [a Kohen who found out that he is a Chalal] like a stolen Chatas that was not known to the Rabim (and it was offered; it atones);

Inference: This teaches that if he did Kemitzah, he does Haktarah afterwards. If he received, he does Zerikah afterwards? If he did Melikah, he does Haza'ah afterwards?

Question (R. Berachiyah citing R. Yakov bar Idi): If [a Kohen Gadol] was standing and offering on the Mizbe'ach, and it became known that he is a Ben Gerushah or Ben Chalutzah, what is the law?

Is it as if he died, and a [Shogeg] murderer returns to his place (from his Ir Miklat)? Or is [the murderer] like one who had a final verdict [of Galus] when there was no Kohen Gadol, and he never leaves? (We explained this like GILYON EFRAYIM.)

(Mishnah): A Kohen Gadol tears his clothes from below, and a commoner tears from above.

A Kohen Gadol can serve when he is an Onen, but he may not eat [Kodshim when he is an Onen]. A regular Kohen may not serve nor eat when he is an Onen.

(Gemara - R. Lazar citing Kahana): "Above" is above (KORBAN HA'EDAH - the neck opening), and "below" is below Kanah Safah.

(R. Yochanan): ["Below" is] truly below (towards the feet).

R. Yochanan went out to visit R. Chaninah (who was sick). When he was in the street, he heard that he died. He said that they should send to him his good Bigdei Shabbos, and he tore them.

R. Yochanan argues with R. Yehudah (his opinion is brought below) about two matters (about where to tear, and R. Yudan holds that one tears for his Rebbi only if most of his Chachmah was from him.) R. Lazar's teaching in the name of Kahana is like R. Yehudah.

Question: If [R. Lazar] is like R. Yudah, [a Kohen Gadol] should not tear at all (for he holds that any tear below is nothing)!

Answer: [According to R. Lazar, our Mishnah] refers only to his father and mother, according to R. Meir;

(Beraisa): For all Mesim, one does not divide Kanah Safah, only for his father and mother. R. Meir says so. R. Yudan says, any tear that does not divide Kanah Safah is a tear of folly (it is not a Mitzvah).

Question: How do you explain [our Mishnah according to R. Yehudah? The Kohen Gadol tears from the bottom! We explained this like PNEI MOSHE, Sanhedrin 2:1.]

Answer: It is a stringency of the Kohen Gadol that he does not divide Kanah Safah. ("Lo Yifrom" means that he does not tear like others - KORBAN HA'EDAH.)

The Kohen Gadol offers [Korbanos] when he is an Onen, but he does not eat [Kodshim]. R. Meir says so;

R. Yehudah says, [in any case, he may offer] the entire day;

R. Shimon says, he finishes all the Avodah in his hand, and goes.

R. Meir and R. Shimon argue about one matter (when he may continue to serve after finishing the Avodah in his hand). R. Yehudah and R. Shimon argue about one [Alei Tamar - other] matter (whether or not he may enter the Mikdash to serve if he was outside). R. Meir and R. Yehudah argue [only] about entering.

[The text of] R. Yakov ben Dasai makes a compromise between [the opinions of R. Meir and R. Yehudah];

R. Meir says, if he was inside, he does not leave. If he was outside, he does not enter. R. Yehudah says, if he was inside, he does not leave. If he was outside, he enters. R. Shimon says, he finishes all the Avodah in his hand, and comes (goes home. We explained this like RAMBAN, Hasagos on Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Shoresh 5 DH v'Hinei.)

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun citing Rav Huna): A Beraisa is like R. Shimon. "U'Min ha'Mikdash Lo Yetzei" - with them (people accompanying the Mes) he does not leave, but he leaves after them. (According to R. Meir and R. Yehudah, he does not leave.)

Rather, [those following the bier] are covered and he is exposed (enters the previous area it passed); they are exposed, and he is covered, until the gate of the city. R. Meir says so.

R. Yudah says, he does not leave the Mikdash, for it says "u'Min ha'Mikdash Lo Yetzei." If he left, he does not return.

(R. Avahu citing R. Lazar): Aninus is only for a Mes, for it says "v"Anu v'Avlu Pesacheha" (the previous verse says "Mesayich ba'Cherev Yipolu.")

Question (Chiyah bar Ada): It says "v'Anu ha'Dayagim v'Avlu Kol Mashlichei va'Y'or Chakah"! (Anu is an expression of Aninus. They will mourn that the Nile dried up!)

Answer (R. Chanina): The Beraisa means that Aninus is like Tum'ah (forbids eating Kodshim even the following night) only [if the Aninus is] for a Mes. (Shirei Korban in Sanhedrin asks that R. Avahu cited R. Lazar, and not a Beraisa! He answers that R. Chaninah refers to a Mishnah that permits an Onen to immerse and eat Pesach at night. R. Avahu teaches that others distracted due to pain need not immerse.)

(Beraisa #1): What is Aninus? It is from the time of death until the time of burial. Rebbi says so. Chachamim say, it is the entire day.

It turns out that there is a leniency and stringency in Rebbi's opinion, and there is a leniency and stringency in Rabanan's opinion;

Opinion #1: What do they argue about? He died and was buried in his time (that day). According to Rabanan, the entire day is forbidden. According to Rebbi, it is only until that time (he is more lenient).

If he died and was buried after three days, according to Rabanan, [only] that entire day [of death] is forbidden. According to Rebbi, he is forbidden until that time (he is more stringent).

Opinion #2 (R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan, and Rav Chisda): Both of them say that [in the latter case] Rebbi agrees that only that day is forbidden.

Source (Beraisa #2 - Rebbi): You should know that Aninus of the night [after the death] is not mid'Oraisa, for they said that an Onen immerses and eats Pesach at night. (We must say that the Mes was not buried, for if he was, Rebbi permits even during the day after burial. He would not say "Aninus Laylah" - TAL TORAH.)

Question: [In Beraisa #1, Rebbi] said that Aninus is mid'Oraisa [until the burial]!

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun citing Rav Huna): [Beraisa #2] discusses when he was buried at sunset (no time remained in the day). You cannot learn anything from it [about the rest of the day].