(a)The Rabanan interpret the Pasuk "ba'Boker ba'Boker b'Heitivo es ha'Neiros Yaktirenah" to mean that when preparing the Menorah, the Ketores must have already been brought, because of a similar Pasuk there "u've'Ha'alos Aharon es ha'Neiros Bein ha'Arbayim Yaktirena" (which refers to the evening Avodah). Why can that Pasuk not be interpreted literally?
(b)What else do we learn from the Pasuk "Ya'aroch Oso ... me'Erev ad Boker?
(c)Why does Aba Shaul agree with the Rabanan with regard to the order of the evening Avodah, but argue with them with regard to the order of the morning Avodah?
(a)We cannot interpret the Pasuk "u've'Ha'alos Aharon es ha'Neiros Bein ha'Arbayim Yaktirena" literally (i.e. that the Ketores comes last) - because we learn from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "me'Erev ad Boker" that the only (day) Avodah that is Kasher by night, is that of kindling the Menorah (and not the Ketores).
(b)We also learn from "me'Erev ad Boker" - that sufficient oil should be placed in the lamps to burn from evening until morning.
(c)Aba Shaul agrees with the Rabanan with regard to the order of the evening Avodah - where the Torah uses the word "Oso" (from which we infer that it is only the Avodah of the Menorah that is Kasher at night-time, but not that of the Ketores. Consequently, he too, explains the Pasuk "u've'Ha'alos Aharon es ha'Neiros Bein ha'Arbayim Yaktirenah" like the Rabanan; whereas the Pasuk "ba'Boker ba'Boker" etc., where the Torah does not write "Oso", he explains literally.
(a)Rav Papa establishes the Mishnah in the next Perek (which gives the Hatavas ha'Neiros precedence over the Ketores) like Aba Shaul, and our Mishnah like the Rabanan. How does he explain the fact that the Mishnah in the third Perek again places the Ketores before the Hatavas ha'Neros?
(b)Why can Abaye not learn that the Tana of the Seifa is referring to the Hatavas Chameish Neiros (whereas the Machlokes between Aba Shaul and the Rabanan refers to the Hatavas Shtei Neiros)?
(c)Abaye does not agree with Rav Papa, because he does not like the way Rav Papa answers the previous question. But why does Rav Papa not want to learn like Abaye (to establish our Mishnah by Hatavas Shtei Neiros and the Mishnah in the second Perek by Hatavas Chameish Neiros - both like the Rabanan)?
(d)How does Abaye explain the sequence of the three Mishnayos? Why does the Tana of our Mishnah start with Hatavas Shtei Neiros?
(a)Rav Papa establishes our Mishnah like the Rabanan, and the Mishnah in the next Perek (which gives the Hatavos precedence over the Ketores) like Aba Shaul. The fact that the Mishnah in the third Perek again places the Ketores before the Hatavas ha'Neiros (like the Rabanan), does not bother him. 'Reisha v'Seifa Rabanan', he says, 'u'Metzi'asa Aba Shaul'.
(b)Abaye cannot possibly learn that the Tana of the Seifa is referring to the Hatavas Chameish Neiros - because nobody maintains that the Ketores precedes the Hatavas Chameish Neiros.
(c)Rav Papa does not want to learn like Abaye (to establish our Mishnah by Hatavas Shtei Neiros and the Mishnah in the second Perek by Hatavas Chameish Neiros - both like the Rabanan) - because he objects to establishing the first Mishnah by Hatavas Shtei Neiros, and the second Mishnah by Hatavas Chameish Neiros, inverting their natural order.
(d)Abaye explains that, since the Tana of the first Mishnah is not dealing with the actual Avodah on Yom Kipur - and is only coming to teach us that the Kohen Gadol is obligated to perform all the Avodos during the seven days of Hafrashah, he is not fussy about the order in which he presents it. But as soon as he starts to deal with the Avodah on Yom Kipur, he puts everything in the right perspective - first the Hatavas Chameish Neiros, and then the Hatavas Shtei Neiros.
(a)How does the Kohen place the Matnos Dam of a Chatas on the Mizbe'ach?
(b)What does Rebbi Shimon Ish ha'Mitzpeh learn from the fact that the Torah seems to refer to the Olas Tamid as a Chatas?
(c)Then why does the Tamid not require Shtayim she'Hen Arba (two on the two diagonally opposite corners of the Mizbe'ach - like the Olah that it is) and then four (like a Chatas)?
(d)If the fact that the Kohen splits the Haza'ah on the south-western corner into two, is based on a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv (a Torah decree), then why can we not give the answer that we suggested in c., using the same Gezeiras ha'Kasuv?
(a)The Kohen place the Matnos Dam of a Chatas on the Mizbe'ach with his finger, once on each of the four corners, starting with that of the south east.
(b)From the fact that the Torah seems to refer to the Olas Tamid as a Chatas - we learn that, when the Kohen comes to sprinkle the blood on the south-western corner, he must sprinkle the west and the south separately, like he did by a Chatas.
(c)It would make no sense to sprinkle first, Shtayim she'Hen Arba (two on the two diagonally opposite corners of the Mizbe'ach - like the Olah that it is) and then four (like a Chatas) - because we never find the blood atoning again, after it has atoned already.
(d)This answer is acceptable, because all we are doing is splitting the regular sprinkling into two (which, on its own, does not really give the Avodah the appearance of a Chatas); whereas to learn from the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv what we suggested above (in c.) - that the blood should require two Kaparos, is too radical a Chidush.
(a)Where did the Kohen place the blood that was divided into two (like a Chatas), above the red thread (that marked the halfway mark on the Mizbe'ach) or below it?
(b)Seeing as it was deliberately divided into two to resemble a Chatas, why did he not place it above the red thread?
(c)In that case, how do we explain the Mishnah later which says (with regard to the sprinkling of the blood towards the Aron and the Paroches on Yom Kipur) 'Hizah Mimenu Achas l'Ma'alah v'Sheva l'Matah'?
(d)What is the meaning of 'ke'Matzlif' or 'ki'Menagda'?
(a)The Kohen placed the blood that was divided into two (like a Chatas), below the red thread, the same as the first Matanah on the north-eastern corner.
(b)Despite the fact that the blood was deliberately divided into two to resemble a Chatas, he did not place it above the red thread - because we never find half the blood placed above the red thread and half below it.
(c)When the Mishnah says 'Hizah Mimenu Achas l'Ma'alah v'Sheva l'Matah' - it does not mean one on the top half of the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav and seven on the lower half - but the first one near the top, and the remaining seven, below it (each one a little lower than the other) but all above the half-way mark.
(d)'ke'Matzlif' or 'ki'Menagda' - means like they used to give Malkus - one stroke below the other.
(a)In another Mishnah later, the Tana, describing how the Kohen Gadol would sprinkle the blood on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, writes 'Hizah Mimenu al Taharo shel Mizbe'ach'. How does this create a problem with what we said earlier - that one never finds the blood being placed both above the Chut ha'Sikra and below it? How do we currently understand the expression 'al Taharo'?
(b)Based on the Pasuk in Mishpatim "u'che'Etzem ha'Shamayim la'Tohar", how does Rabah bar Shilkoh interpret 'al Taharo'?
(a)In another Mishnah later, the Tana, describing how the Kohen Gadol would sprinkle the blood on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, writes 'Hizah Mimenu al Taharo shel Mizbe'ach', which we think, means by the middle of the (vertical) wall of the Mizbe'ach (from the word Tzaharayim, which means mid-day). In that case, we will be faced with the problem of how it is possible to sprinkle so many times towards the middle of the wall of the Mizbe'ach without the blood sometimes falling above the halfway mark, and sometimes below it?
(b)Rabah bar Shilo interprets 'al Taharo' to mean in the middle of the top of the Mizbe'ach - from the Pasuk "u'che'Etzem ha'Shamayim la'*Tohar*" which means in the middle of the sky, which is horizontal.
(a)Why did they first follow the procedure of an Olah (by the north-eastern corner), and then that of a Chatas (by the south-western corner)? Why not vice-versa?
(b)Why did they sprinkle the blood specifically on those two corners, why not on the south-east and the north-west?
(c)And why did they start with the north-eastern corner and not with the south-west?
(d)This principle is written by the Chatas, since the Kohanim were obligated to climb the ramp and walk round the top of the Mizbe'ach. On what grounds then, do we apply it to the Olah, too?
(a)It is natural to follow first the procedure of an Olah (by the north-eastern corner), and then that of a Chatas (by the south-western corner) - since it was, after all, an Olah.
(b)They sprinkled the blood specifically on those two corners (and not on the south-east and the north-west) - because the Olah required the Yesod, and there was no Yesod by the south-east and the north-western corners.
(c)They started with the north-eastern corner and not with the south-west - because of the principle 'be'Chol Pinos she'Ata Poneh, Le'olam Al Tifneh Ela li'Yemin' (one should always make a point of going towards the right).
(d)This principle applies exclusively to a Chatas (where the Kohen had to place the blood on the four Keranos (blocks on the corners), which in turn, required climbing the ramp. Consequently, when he reached the top, he would arrive at the north-eastern corner before the south-western one). It did not apply to an Olah, where the Kohen would stand on the ground and sprinkle. Chazal nevertheless fixed that order even by an Olah, presumably for the sake of uniformity.
(a)The concept of splitting the second sprinkling into two (like a Chatas) is derived from the Pasuk "... l'Chatas, al Olas ha'Tamid Ye'aseh v'Nisko". How do we learn from there to apply the procedure of the Chatas to the Olah, and not vice-versa?
(a)The concept of splitting the second sprinkling into two (like a Chatas) is derived from the Pasuk "... l'Chatas, al Olas ha'Tamid Ye'aseh v'Nisko" - which implies that one should apply the Din of the Chatas to an Olah (and not vice-versa).
(a)There were four rooms on the four corners of the Lishkas Beis ha'Mokad. What was ...
1. ... the 'Lishkas ha'Chosmos'?
2. ... the 'Lishkas Beis ha'Mokad'? Why was it needed?
(b)What was the Lishkas Beis ha'Tela'im?
(c)How do we reconcile the Mishnah in Tamid, which places the Lishkas Beis ha'Tela'im on the north-west of the Beis ha'Mokad, with the Mishnah in Midos, which describes it as being in the south-west?
1. The 'Lishkas ha'Chosmos' - was the room which contained the discs for the Nesachim (about which we learned in Shekalim 7b.) marked Eigel, Gedi, Zachar and Chotei. Anybody who wanted the flour, wine and oil for his Nesech, would pay the officer in charge of the discs, and would receive the appropriate commodities.
2. The 'Lishkas Beis ha'Mokad' - was the room where a fire burned constantly, for the Kohanim (who had to serve bare-footed) to be able to warm their feet.
(b)The Lishkas Beis ha'Tela'im was where they always had at least six lambs examined for blemishes, ready to be brought as the Korban Tamid.
(c)We reconcile the Mishnah in Tamid, which places the Lishkas Beis ha'Tela'im on the north-west of the Beis ha'Mokad, with the Mishnah in Midos, which describes it as being in the south-west - by establishing Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov as the author of the latter (and of all Stam Mishnayos in Midos), and that of the Mishnah in Tamid as the Rabanan.
(a)In what sense were the four rooms that were situated on the four corners of the Lishkas Beis ha'Mokad divided into two?
(b)How was the division marked?
(c)What did the Chashmona'i Kings hide in the north-eastern room?
(d)In the south-eastern room, the Beis Garmu used to bake the Lechem ha'Panim. What was the north-western room used for (according to the Tana in Midos)?
(a)The four corners of the Lishkas Beis ha'Mokad was divided into two - inasmuch as two of the corners were in the Kodesh and two in the Chol.
(b)The division was marked by means of short wooden posts.
(c)In the north-eastern room, the Chashmona'i Kings hid the stones of the Mizbe'ach which the Greek kings had defiled by sacrificing on it in the name of their idols.
(d)The north-western room (according to the Tana in Midos) - contained the entrance to the Mikvah.