Question: In Zevachim (53b), we say that the southeast corner of the Mizbe'ach did not have a Yesod (base), because it was not in the portion of "[Binyamin Ze'ev] Toref";

If so, according to the opinion that Yerushalayim was not divided among the Shevatim, why is it different than other parts of the Mizbe'ach? They had a Yesod, but the southeast corner did not!

Suggestion: This opinion holds that there was a Yesod on all sides of the Mizbe'ach.

Rejection: If so, how does he expound "El Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah"? The verse connotes that we put the blood where there is a Yesod, which implies that there is a place without a Yesod.

Answer: There was a tradition not to make a Yesod for the southeast corner - "ha'Kol bi'Chsav."

Assertion: Seemingly, we establish both Beraisos like Rabanan.

If both of them were like R. Meir, since in the first answer we said "both of them are like Rabanan", and now we establish both like R. Meir, the Gemara should have said "alternatively, both of them are like R. Meir."

Support: Below, we ask "do those of villages really receive Tum'as Negaim?", and challenge this from the Beraisa "l'Achuzah..." [If the above Beraisos are like R. Meir,] we should answer that the Beraisa "l'Achuzah..." is like Chachamim! (However, if they are both Chachamim, we cannot answer that the Beraisa "l'Achuzah..." is like R. Meir, for a Stam Sifra (Beraisa that expounds a verse of Vayikra) is R. Yehudah, who normally argues with R. Meir.)

Question #1: If so, R. Meir and Rabanan argue about those of cities;

If so, what was the question from R. Yehudah, who heard [to exempt] only the Mikdash? Perhaps he holds like R. Meir!

Question #2: We must say that we ask from both of them. The first Tana taught that Yerushalayim does not receive Tum'as Nega'im;

Inference: Batei Keneseiyos and Batei Medrash receive Tum'ah.

If so, even after we answer that R. Yehudah meant "Kodesh places", the question remains from the first Tana!

Rather, you must say that we did not ask from the first Tana because we could have answered that he holds like R. Meir. If so, we can answer that also R. Yehudah holds like R. Meir!

Answer (to Question #2): The latter question is not difficult. We cannot infer from the first Tana that hat Batei Keneseiyos and Batei Medrash receive Tum'ah.

Perhaps he taught about Yerushalayim, even though it is not as Kodesh as Batei Keneseiyos and Batei Medrash in several ways, and all the more so Batei Keneseiyos and Batei Medrash [do not receive Tum'ah]!

Repeat of Question #1: However, what was the question from R. Yehudah?

Answer: Since the only Tana'im mentioned who argue about this are R. Meir and R. Yehudah, presumably the one who argues with R. Meir is R. Yehudah, i.e. Rabanan of the above Beraisa, and the one who argues with R. Yehudah is R. Meir.

Implied question: When we thought that R. Yehudah meant the place of the Mikdash, how could we explain the argument?

Answer: We could say that the first Tana holds that all of Yerushalayim is not Metamei through Nega'im, because it is Kodesh for eating Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheni.

Since it is special for Kodshim of Hash-m, it is not considered Achuzaschem (your inheritance);

R. Yehudah holds that only the place of the Mikdash, which is Machaneh Shechinah for eating Kodshei Kodoshim [is excluded], but [the rest of] Yerushalayim receives Tum'ah, and all the more so Batei Keneseiyos and Batei Medrash.

Explanation: However, now we say that R. Yehudah means Kodesh places, which includes Batei Keneseiyos and Batei Medrash...

Suggestion: Perhaps the first Tana holds like we said, that Yerushalayim is not Metamei because it is Kodesh for eating Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheni.

Rejection: If so, R. Yehudah should not have said "only a Kodesh place", since this is also the first Tana's reason!

Therefore, we needed to explain that they argue about another matter.

Riva's opinion: Regarding the Kohen Gadol it says Mitznefes, and regarding a Kohen Hedyot it says Migba'os, because the Kohen Gadol's turban was short, because he needed to wear Tefilin and the Tzitz;

A Kohen Gadol's turban was wide, for he did not wear a Tzitz.

Implied question: We should say that this is a difference between them!

Answer: Since both of them are the same material, even though one is wide and one is thin, this is not considered [a difference].

Support - Implied question: Above, when we asked how we inaugurate him (the Kohen Gadol), why didn't we say that it is through the Mitznefes?

Answer: This is not considered Chinuch, since they are the same, just this is narrow and this is wide.

Explanation: We need the verse so we will not say that just like dirty or torn garments are Pasul, which we learn in Zevachim 18b from "l'Chavod ul'Sif'ares", also worn out garments are Pasul, for there is no poverty in the place of wealth;

Suggestion: Perhaps every year we make new garments!

The verse teaches that we need not.

Citation (Zevachim 18b - Beraisa): Worn out garments are Kosher.

Observation: This is like Rashi's text, which says that it needs to teach that even worn out garments are Kosher.

Note: Tosfos means that the text supports Rashi's Perush, that even worn out garments are Kosher, unlike those who require worn out garments.

Question (Ri): Since we say that the reason is due to enmity, this implies that letter of the law, he may be Kohen Gadol mid'Oraisa, just Chachamim decreed due to enmity;

If so, why must we explain that he cannot serve as Kohen Hedyot because we rise in Kedushah...?

We already know this from a verse, which teaches (Zevachim 18a) that if a Kohen Gadol served in the garments of a Kohen Hedyot, his Avodah is Pasul due to Mechushar Begadim!

Suggestion: We say that he is not proper to be Kohen Gadol due to enmity, i.e. after the first dies.

Rejection: R. Yosi agrees that after the first dies, the second resumes serving.

Answer: A Kohen Gadol is appointed verbally and deposed verbally. (I.e. he could be deposed and returned to be a Kohen Hedyot. We do not do so, because we do not descend in Kedushah - Sefas Emes.) The Yerushalmi expounds this from a verse.

Assertion: Presumably, it depends on the king and the other Kohanim, like it says in Yevamos (61a) that Yanai ha'Melech appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla to be Kohen Gadol.

Citation (Tosefta and Yerushalmi): Once the Kohen Gadol became Pasul, and Yosef ben Elem served in place of him;

Citation (cont.): After he left, he said "my master, the king! The bull and ram offered today - are they from me, or from the Kohen Gadol?" (If they were his, this would mean that he will remain Kohen Gadol.)

Citation (cont.): The king said "it is not enough that you served once in front of the One who said, and the world came into existence?!..." Yosef understood that he was deposed from Kehunah.