1)

(a)The Levi'im had to guard - in twenty-one locations in the Beis-ha'Mikdash (see Rosh).

(b)They guarded the five gates of the Har ha'Bayis and its four corners - from the inside; whereas when they guarded the Azarah - they 'stood' guard from the outside.

(c)Two of the remaining three locations were the Lishkas ha'Korban and the Lishkas ha'Paroches. The final one was - Achorei Beis ha'Kapores.

2)

(a)We derive the twenty-one guards of the Levi'im from a Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim, which lists six guards on the east, four on the north, four on the south, two plus two for the Asupim, four to guard the path leading to the Parbar, and two to guard the Parbar. The Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim is referring to - the Mishkan (i.e. the Bamah Gedolah [which explains the discrepancy between the location of the guards there and in the Beraisa]).

(b)The problem with the Pasuk is - that it lists twenty-four locations guarded by the Levi'im (and not twenty-one).

3)

(a)Abaye immediately accounts for two of those additional locations, based on the Lashon of the Pasuk, "ve'la'Asupim Shenayim Shenayim", which he interprets to mean just two (which the Pasuk repeats, because it is the end of a Pasuk), bringing the number down to twenty-two.

(b)Abaye says that - because otherwise, the Pasuk ought to have written 'Arba'ah' (rather than "Shenayim Shenayim").

(c)We arrive at twenty-one by ascribing two guards to the Parbar Gate - where the Levi guarding it was given a friend to keep him company, because the Parbar gate was far away from any of the other gates, and the Levi guarding it would otherwise have had nobody to talk to.

(d)We know that the six at the main gate, for example, were not merely for company, and that one Levi could really have done the job by himself - because for that, two Levi'im would have sufficed (like by the Parbar [see also Rosh]).

4)

(a)Rabah bar Rav Shiloh interprets "Parbar" - as the acronym of 'K'lapei Bar' (towards the outside, describing the location of the gate).

(b)Others explain that there were in fact, twenty-four Levi'im, which concurs with the Mishnah in Midos, (which enumerates twenty-one) - in that the number includes the three Kohanim.

(c)And we reconcile this with the fact that the Pasuk refers to them as Levi'im, by citing Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who states - that in twenty-four places the Pasuk refers to Kohanim as Levi'im.

(d)One of his sources is the Pasuk in Yechezkel, which says - "ve'ha'Kohanim ha'Levi'im B'nei Tzadok".

5)

(a)We learned that the Levi'im guarded in their nine locations on the inside of the Har ha'Bayis, but on the outside of the Azarah - because it is impossible to stand all day, and sitting down inside the Azarah is prohibited.

(b)Mar said - that other than the King of Yehudah, nobody is permitted to sit down in the Azarah.

(c)The problem with the five gates of the Azarah referred to by the Mishnah in Midos is - that another Mishnah in Midos lists seven, three on the north, three on the south and one in the east.

(d)Abaye answers that two of the gates (the middle ones on the north and on the south sides do not require guarding) - because they could easily be guarded by the two other Levi'im who 'stood' guard on the same side.

(e)According to Rava - the two conflicting Mishnahs constitute a Machlokes Tana'im.

6)

(a)Rava's statement is based on a Beraisa, which discusses the number of Gizbarin (treasurers) and Amarkolin. The latter - is the acronym of 'Amar Kol', implying that they were in charge, and were therefore senior to the Gizbarin.

(b)According to the Tana Kama, there were thirteen Gizbarin and seven Amarkolin. Rebbi Nasan says at least thirteen Gizbarin - corresponding to the thirteen gates in the Beis-ha'Mikdash ...

(c)... five in the Har ha'Bayis and - eight in the Azarah.

(d)We now have three opinions as to the number of gates in the Azarah - five and seven according to the two Mishnahs in Midos, and eight according to the Beraisa.

7)

(a)We learned that the Kohanim are not permitted to sleep in the Bigdei Kehunah - implying that they are permitted to walk around in them (even not at the time of the Avodah [see Rosh Amud Beis DH 'Sh'ma Minah']).

(b)And the reason that the Tana then forbids them to sleep in the Bigdei Kehunah, even assuming that they are permitted to benefit from them - is because they are likely to emit a smell whilst they are asleep, which is a disgrace to the Bigdei Kehunah.

(c)Despite the fact that the Bigdei Kehunah are Kodesh, they may well be Mutar be'Hana'ah (not during the time of the Avodah) - because they are sanctified on that condition, coupled with a condition of Beis-Din to the same effect.

(d)We counter the curent proof however, by suggesting that the Tana mentions sleeping (even though walking is prohibited too) - because of the continuation of the Mishnah, permitting the placing of their Begadim under (or beside) their heads (as we shall now see).

(e)And we reject the proof from the Tana's statement 'u'Manichin osan Tachas Rosheihen' that benefiting from them is permitted - by establishing 'Tachas Rosheihen' to mean beside their heads, and not underneath them.

8)

(a)The Chachamim might well have forbidden the Kohanim even to place the Bigdei Kehunah beside their heads during the night - due to the likelihood of their rolling over during their sleep and end up deriving benefit from them.

(b)Rav Papa learns from the fact that they did not forbid it - that one is permitted to sleep with one's Tefilin beside one's cushion.

(c)And what's more, it is even a 'Kal va'Chomer' - since Me'ilah by Kodshim is mi'd'Oraysa, whereas treating Tefilin disrespectfully is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.

(d)The issue cannot be that he might emit a smell whilst the Tefilin are lying at his side - because the Isur of emitting a smell regarding Tefilin is confined to where one is wearing them.

(e)Initially, we substantiate our current interpretation of 'u'Menichin osan Tachas Rosheihen' - by referring to the Isur of Kil'ayim (with regard to the Kohen's belt) that they would transgress, even if one were to assume that it is permitted to benefit from the Bigdei Kehunah when not performing the Avodah.

9)

(a)The problem of Kil'ayim would not exist, we point out, according to those who hold that the belt of the Kohen Hedyot is not the same as that of the Kohen Gadol - which throughout the year (apart from Yom Kipur) contained Kil'ayim.

(b)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "u'Beged Kil'ayim Sha'atnez Lo Ya'aleh alecha" - that the Isur of Kil'ayim is confined to placing it on top of oneself, but does not extend to lying on it. At first glance, this would seem to dispense with the problem even according to those who hold that the Kohen Hedyot's belt did contain Kil'ayim.

(c)The Tana adds however - that the Chachamim nevertheless forbade even lying on Kil'ayim, in case a thread of Kil'ayim inadvertently winds itself around one's flesh, and one transgresses an Isur d'Oraysa (leaving the problem intact).

(d)Rebbi Shimon (ben Pazi) Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi ... in the name of Kehila Kadisha of Yerushalayim rules - that sleeping on top of a garment containing Kil'ayim is prohibited even if ten mattresses divide between the person and the Kil'ayim (negating the suggestion that it is permitted to place Kil'ayim underneath a person, provided he puts something in between).

10)

(a)However, we refute the proof (that the Mishnah must be speaking about placing the Bigdei Kehunah beside one's head), by establishing the Mishnah by the other Bigdei Kehunah, which do not contain Kil'ayim. Rav Ashi refutes it even with regard to the belt - by pointing out that the Bigdei Kehunah were very thick, in which case, they did not keep the Kohen warm, and they were therefore not subject to Kil'ayim anyway.

(b)And this is borne out by a statement by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who rules - that a hard felt mattress made in Narash is not subject to Kil'ayim.

(c)Based on a Beraisa cited in Yoma however, the Halachah is - that a Kohen may derive benefit from Bigdei Kehunah outside the time of the Avodah.

11)

(a)The fact that a Kohen who became a Ba'al-Keri had to leave the Beis-ha'Mokad via the underground tunnels supports two statement of Rebbi Yochanan, who said a, that ...

1. ... the underground tunnels - were not declared Hekdesh with the Kedushah of the Azarah, and b. that ...

2. ... a Ba'al-Keri must leave two camps (the Machaneh Levi'ah as well as the Machaneh Shechinah, just like a Zav).

12)

(a)When he arrived at the bathroom which Rav Safra was using - he coughed (to know whether anybody was inside). He did not knock on the door - because the bathroom, which presumably, comprised a secluded area in a field, had no door.

(b)When Rav Safra responded with an invitation to enter (the secluded area), Rebbi Aba commented - that without even going to Rome, he had adopted the immodest habits of the Romans, who talked in the bathroom (see also Rabeinu Gershom).

(c)We nevertheless justify Rav Safra's response - on the basis of the possible dire consequences of not going to the bathroom as soon as the need arises.

(d)And we base this on a Beraisa, where Raban Shimon ben Gamliel stated - that someone who fails ...

1. ... to excrete when he needs to - brings upon himself - Hadrokun (dropsy).

2. ... to urinate when he needs to - brings upon himself Yerakon (jaundice).

13)

(a)Both Rav and Rav Huna advised their respective sons - to relieve themselves at the beginning and at the end of the night.

(b)The advantage of doing so at ...

1. ... the beginning of the night - was that they would then not need to go out in the middle of the night.

2. ... at the end of the night (besides the fact that they would then avoid having to go out in the middle of the day) was - that they would then be able to do so near their homes, whilst it was still dark and people were still indoors (thereby avoiding having to travel out into the fields).

(c)They also advised them that ...

1. ... both before and after relieving themselves - they should not uncover and cover themselves (respectively) whilst standing (only after sitting down and before getting up).

2. ... before and after drinking from a cup, they should wash the cup, after drinking in case the person who drank before them forgot to do so, and so that the person who drinks after them should not need to do so.

3. ... that before handing the cup from which they drank to their Talmidim to drink from - they should pour out a little bit of water (in order to wash the side of the cup), even though one may have thought that a Talmid is not fussy to drink from the cup from which his Rebbe drank).

(d)This last piece of advice is based on a Beraisa, which relates the story of a Rav who once handed a cup to his Talmid without having first poured some of it out - and the thirsty Talmid, who was finicky, declined to drink from the cup, and subsequently died of thirst.

14)

(a)Rav Ashi extrapolated from the above episode that a Talmid who pours out some of the cup's contents in front of his Rebbe - is not an Apikores.

(b)Chazal rule that someone who spits in the presence of his Rebbe - is Chayav Misah.

(c)The one exception is after having eaten raw pumpkin - which Chazal compare to having eaten a string of lead.