1)

(a)The Torah writes in Acharei-Mos "v'Chol Adam Lo Yihye b'Ohel Mo'ed ... b'Vo'o Lechaper ba'Kodesh". We learn from ...

1. ... "b'Ohel Mo'ed" - that the (Torah) prohibition for anyone to be present when the Kohen Gadol entered with the Ketores, is restricted to the Heichal, but does not apply to the Azarah (we will see on the following Amud what status the Ulam has).

2. ... "ba'Kodesh" - that it also incorporates Mishkan Shilo and the Beis Hamikdash (and is not restricted to the Mishkan in the desert).

(b)And we learn from ...

1. ... "b'Vo'o Lechaper" - that the prohibition extends to the Matan Damim (of the Par and the Sa'ir), and is not restricted to the Ketores.

2. ... "Ad Tzeiso" - that it extends to the time of his exit (i.e. even after he has concluded the Avodah).

(c)We learn from the order of the Pasuk "v'Chiper Ba'ado, uv'Ad Beiso, uv'Ad Kol Kehal Adas Yisrael" - that his own Kaparah precedes that of the other Kohanim, and the Kaparah of the Kohanim precedes that of the rest of Yisrael.

2)

(a)The Beraisa requires "b'Vo'o Lechaper" to include the Matan Damim in the prohibition. Otherwise, we would have thought that it is restricted to the Ketores - because of the Pasuk "v'Chiper Ba'ado, uv'Ad Beiso, uv'Ad Kol Kehal Adas Yisrael", which implies a Kaparah that incorporates himself, the Kohanim and the whole of Klal Yisrael (i.e. the Ketores, since the bull atones exclusively for the Kohanim, and the goat, for the rest of Klal Yisrael).

(b)We learn from the Pasuk in Korach "Vayiten es ha'Ketores Vayechaper al ha'Am" - that the Ketores atones.

(c)The Ketores atones specifically for the sin of Lashon ha'Ra - because 'Yavo Davar she'b'Chasha'i, vi'Yechaper al Ma'aseh Chasha'i' (the Ketores, which is brought in a secret place, atones for the sin which one tends to perform in private - see Erchin 16a).

(d)The Mishnah in Kelim states that also the twenty-two Amos between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach must be vacated. Rebbi Elazar explains that that applies only to the Avodos of the Heichal (i.e. the bringing of the Ketores on the Mizbach ha'Ketores every morning and evening); but when the Kohen Gadol performed the Avodos in the Kodesh Kodashim, it was only necessary to vacate the Heichal (and not Bein ha'Ulam vela'Mizbe'ach).

3)

(a)On three occasions (besides that of the bull and the goat of Yom Kipur) the blood of the Korban was sprinkled towards the Paroches. One of them was the bull of the Kohen Gadol's Chatas - the other two were the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur and the Chatas of Avodah-Zarah.

(b)With regard to vacating even the area of Bein ha'Ulam vela'Mizbe'ach, Rebbi Yosi in the Beraisa differentiates between the Avodah of Haktarah and the other Avodos. We currently explain Haktarah to refer to the Avodah of the Ketores in the Kodesh Kodashim. What he is therefore saying is that the Heichal must be vacated even for the Avodos of Matan Damim in the Kodesh Kodashim, but Bein ha'Ulam vela'Mizbe'ach, only for the Haktarah. If that is so, the Beraisa negates Rebbi Elazar, who said that it is not necessary to vacate the area between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach for the Avodah in the Kodesh Kodshim - even for the Haktarah of the Ketores.

(c)We answer that Haktarah refers to that of the Heichal (and not of the Kodesh Kodashim). However, this creates a problem with the continuation of the Beraisa - which explains the advantage of the Heichal over the Bein ha'Ulam vela'Mizbe'ach as being that one must vacate the Heichal even during the Avodos that are not Haktarah - which we take to mean the Avodos of Matan Damim. Why did Rebbi Yosi define the stringency of the Heichal over Bein ha'Ulam vela'Mizbe'ach as being that one must leave the former even for the Matan Damim of the Kodesh Kodashim, whereas the latter needs to be vacated only for the Haktarah of the Heichal? Why did he not differentiate between the Haktarah of the Heichal and the Haktarah of the Kodesh Kodashim, and say, that whereas one needs to leave the Heichal both for the Haktarah there and for the Haktarah in the Kodesh Kodashim, one only needs to vacate Bein ha'Ulam vela'Mizbe'ach for the Haktarah in the Heichal, but not for that of the Kodesh Kodashim?

(d)We answer that when Rebbi Yosi gives the advantage of the Heichal over the Bein ha'Ulam vela'Mizbe'ach as being that one must vacate the Heichal even during the Avodos that are not Haktarah, he is not referring to the Matan Damim (as we thought); what he means is not the Haktarah of the Heichal, but the Haktarah of the Kodesh Kodashim (which conforms with the contention that we just made)

4)

(a)Having clarified the difference between the need to vacate the Heichal for the Ketores of both the Heichal and the Kodesh Kodashim (but Bein ha'Ulam vela'Mizbe'ach only for that of the Kodesh Kodashim) - Rebbi Yosi did not deem it necessary to extend the distinction to the Matan Damim of the Heichal and that of the Kodesh Kodshim, since the distinction there will be exactly the same as that of the Ketores.

5)

(a)We learn that the Heichal must be vacated by the Avodos Penim of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, the Par He'elam Davar, and the Se'irei Avodas Kochavim - from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Kaparah" "Kaparah" (which is written in each of the three cases, as well as by Yom Kipur).

6)

(a)The Mishnah in Kelim divides Eretz Yisrael into ten levels of Kedushah. We try to prove from the fact that Chazal decreed that Bein ha'Ulam vela'Mizbe'ach must be vacated, that these ten levels must be mid'Oraisa - because, if they were mid'Rabanan, then, why, when they decreed on the vacation of Bein ha'Ulam vela'Mizbe'ach (since we learnt earlier that the Torah's obligation is restricted to the Heichal) - because the Kohanim might mistakenly go from there into the Heichal, and not on the rest of the Azarah (which, min ha'Torah we are now currently saying, has the same Kedushah as Bein ha'Ulam vela'Mizbe'ach) - for the same reason as they decreed by Bein ha'Ulam vela'Mizbe'ach.

(b)We repudiate that contention - on the grounds that, even if the ten levels of Kedushah were mid'Rabanan, there would be good reason not to extend the decree to the rest of the Azarah, since the Mizbe'ach (which divided between the two areas) would suffice to remind the Kohanim not to enter the Heichal via Bein ha'Ulam vela'Mizbe'ach.

(c)We then try to prove from the same decree that the Kedushah of the Ulam and that of the Heichal must be one and the same - because if they were not, then seeing as the need to vacate the Ulam itself would then be no more than mid'Rabanan, how could they possibly extend the decree to Bein ha'Ulam vela'Mizbe'ach (which would be a 'Gezeirah li'Gezeirah')?!

(d)It may well be, answers the Gemara, that the Ulam and the Heichal are two different levels of Kedushah. However, the Kedushah of the Ulam and that of Bein ha'Ulam vela'Mizbe'ach are one and the same - in which case, Bein ha'Ulam vela'Mizbe'ach is no more than an extension of the decree on the Ulam.

7)

(a)They made the fire-pan for the daily Ketores out of silver and not out of gold - because the Torah has pity on the money of Yisrael (i.e. it does not want them to waste or lose money unnecessarily - and the fire-pan for shoveling the ashes was not crucial to the Avodah).

(b)They did not require two fire-pans for the Avodah of Yom Kipur - in order to make it easier for the Kohen Gadol, to prevent him from becoming over-burdened (from the combination of the many Avodos that he performed, and the fact that he was fasting).

(c)The Kav of coals which must have spilt on to the floor when (during the year) the Kohen poured the four Kabin of coals from the silver pan into the golden one of three Kabin - were subsequently swept into the Amah (the stream that passed through the Beis Hamikdash).

(d)According to Rebbi Yosi in our Mishnah (who says that the Kohen Gadol poured from a pan holding a Sa'ah into one of three Kabin, three Kabin will have spilled. Rav Chisda maintains that the author of the Beraisa (which speaks about two Kabin spilling) is Rebbi Yishmael Bno shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, who agrees with the Rabanan (that the silver pan held four Kabin) only in his opinion, the Kohen Gadol carried the coals in a pan of two Kabin.

8)

(a)Rav Ashi establishes the Beraisa even like Rebbi Yosi - because, in his opinion, the silver shovel held a Sa'ah Midbaris, but the one of gold, three Kabin Yerushalmi'os - because they added one sixth on to the measurements (i.e. the six Kabin in the silver pan now become five), in which case, the spillage will have been two Kabin Yerushalmi'os, as the Beraisa says.

9)

(a)The pan of Yom Kipur weighed less than that of the whole year - because the gold of which it was made was beaten into a thinner plate, from which the pan was made.

(b)The Yom Kipur pan had a longer handle - so that the Kohen Gadol could support it under his arm-pit.

(c)According to ben ha'Sgan - the Yom Kipur fire-pan had a ring attached to it, that made a noise which warned everyone to leave when the Kohen Gadol entered (because he was not wearing the Me'il that he wore during the year, to which were sewn the golden bells which served the same purpose).

10)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Bereishis "u'Zehav ha'Aretz Hahi Tov" - that there is a type of gold that is not 'good'.

(b)

1. ... Zahav Ofir - is gold that came from Ofir.

2. ... Zahav Mufaz - is gold that shines like a jewel.

3. ... Zahav Shachut - (the acronym of 'she'Nitveh k'Chut') gold which is spun like a thread.

(c)

1. ... Zahav Sagur - is gold whose quality is so good, that, when it is up for sale, all other 'gold-stores' shut (since nobody is interested in purchasing any other kind of gold).

2. ... Zahav Parvayim - is gold that is red like the blood of bulls (k'Dam 'ha'Parim').

(d)Rav Ashi lists only five types of gold - because, according to him, the first two - 'gold' and 'good gold' - are sub-divisions, which are found by each of the five other qualities.