Question (Beraisa) Question: Who was Masgir Miryam (ruled that she is a Metzora'as)?

Moshe did not, for he is a Zar. A Zar cannot rule about Tzara'as!

Aharon did not, for he is a relative. A relative cannot rule about Tzara'as!

Answer: Hash-m Himself honored her and ruled about her;

He said 'I am a Kohen. I will be Masgir, Machlit (declare her to be absolutely Teme'ah) and exempt her (when the Tzara'as leaves).

Summation of question: It says that Moshe is a Zar!

Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Tzara'as is different, for it says "Aharon u'Vanav" in the Parshah. (Otherwise, Moshe is considered a Kohen.)

Question (Beraisa): Elisheva (Aharon's wife) had five special causes for joy on the day the Mishkan was inaugurated:

Her Yavam (brother-in-law, i.e. Moshe) was king. Her husband was Kohen Gadol, her son (Elazar) was the Segan (next in line to be Kohen Gadol). Her grandson (Pinchas) was Mashu'ach Milchamah. Her brother (Nachshon) was the Nasi of a Shevet (Yehudah);

At the time, she mourned the loss of two of her sons (Nadav and Avihu).

Summation of question: It says that her Yavam was king, but not Kohen Gadol!

Answer: It means that he was even king (and also Kohen Gadol)!

Tana'im argue about whether he was Kohen Gadol;

(Beraisa - R. Yehoshua ben Korchah): "Va'Yichar Af Hash-m b'Moshe (when Moshe was refusing to redeem Bnei Yisrael)" is the only place where 'Charon Af' is not followed by a show of anger;

R. Shimon says, also here it is followed by anger - "Aharon Achicha ha'Levi";

Question: He was a Kohen, and not (just) a Levi!

Answer: Hash-m rebuked Moshe 'I intended to make you the Kohen, and Aharon would be a Levi. Now (because you refused), you will be a Levi, and he will be Kohen.'

Chachamim say, Moshe was a Kohen only during the seven days of Milu'im (inauguration of the Mishkan);

Some say, the Kehunah ceased only from Moshe's descendants, but he was permanently a Kohen;

It says "u'Moshe Ish ha'Elokim Banav Yikar'u Al Shevet ha'Levi", and "Moshe v'Aharon b'Chohanav..."

Question: Why is the second verse needed? (The first verse connotes that his children were Leviyim, but Moshe himself was a Kohen!)

Answer: The former verse teaches lineage for generations. One might have thought that the reason it taught only about Moshe's descendants is because only this was relevant (Moshe was not alive at the time). The second verse proves that he was a Kohen.

Question: Also in another place, 'Charon Af' is not followed by a show of anger! It says "va'Yeztei me'Im Paro ba'Chari Af", yet Moshe did not say anything to him!

Answer (Reish Lakish): He slapped his face before leaving.

Question: This contradicts another teaching of Reish Lakish!

(Reish Lakish): "V'Nitzavta Likraso Al Sefas ha'Ye'or" - Hash-m told Moshe 'Paro is a king. You must prepare to greet him properly.'

(R. Yochanan): Hash-m said 'he is a Rasha. You must be brazen with him.'

Answer: We must switch these teachings of Reish Lakish and R. Yochanan.

(R. Yanai): The fear of the kingdom should be upon you - "v'Yardu Chol Avadecha Eleh Elai." Moshe omitted saying that also Paro would bow to Moshe and ask him to take Bnei Yisrael from Mitzrayim.

(R. Yochanan): We learn from "...Eliyahu va'Yeshanes Masnav va'Yaratz Lifnei Achav" (Rashi - in order that Achav not be alone; Radak, Maharsha - he ran in front of him to honor him.)

(Ula): Moshe requested kingship, but it was not given to him - "Al Tikrav Halom";

"Halom" refers to kingship - "(David asked) Mi Anochi... Ki Havi'osani Ad Halom".

Question (Rava - Beraisa): Her Yavam (Moshe) was king.

Answer (Rava): Ula means that Moshe requested kingship for him and his descendants (but it was given only to him).

Question: 'Halom' does not always refer to all generations!

Regarding Sha'ul it says "Hava Od Halom Ish", yet only he was king, but not his descendants!

Answer #1: Also his son Ish Boshes was king.

Answer #2: Hash-m gave kingship to him and his descendants, but Sha'ul forfeited it.

(R. Elazar): When greatness is given to a person, it is for him and his descendants for all generations - "Lo Yigra mi'Tzadik Einav v'Es Melachim la'Kisei (va'Yoshivem la'Netzach)";

If he becomes haughty, Hash-m lowers him - "v'Im Asurim ba'Zikim Yilachdun b'Chavlei Onu."

(Mishnah): A Ba'al Mum, whether the Mum (is temporary or permanent, receives a share...)

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa #1): "Kol Zachar" (bi'Vnei Aharon)" (may eat Menachos) includes a Ba'al Mum.

Question: What does it teach about a Ba'al Mum?

Suggestion: It permits him to eat Kodshim.

Rejection: We learn that from "Lechem Elokav mi'Kodshei ha'Kodoshim... Yochel"!

Answer: Rather, it teaches that he receives a share.

(Beraisa #2): "Kol Zachar" (may eat Chatas) includes a Ba'al Mum.

Question: What does it teach about a Ba'al Mum?

Suggestion: It permits him to eat Kodshim.

Rejection: We already know this (from "Lechem Elokav..."!)

Answer #1: It teaches that he receives a share.

Rejection: We already know this (from the verse "Kol Zachar" concerning Menachos!)

Answer #2: One might have thought that only a Kosher Kohen who became a Ba'al Mum may eat Kodshim;

Question: What is the source for a Ba'al Mum from birth?

Answer: We learn from "Kol Zachar."

(Beraisa #3): "Kol Zachar" (may eat Asham) includes a Ba'al Mum.

Question: What does it teach about a Ba'al Mum?

Suggestion: It permits him to eat Kodshim.

Rejection: We already know this!

Suggestion: It teaches that he receives a share.

Rejection: We already know this!

Answer #1: It teaches about a Ba'al Mum from birth.

Rejection: We already know this (from "Kol Zachar" regarding Chatas!)

Answer #2: One might have thought that only a Ba'al Mum Kavu'a (a Kohen with a permanent Mum) may eat, not a Ba'al Mum Over (temporary Mum);

Question: What is the source for a Ba'al Mum Over?

Answer: We learn from "Kol Zachar"

Question: Just the contrary (if a permanent Mum does not disqualify, all the more so a temporary Mum does not)!

Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): We must switch the Beraisa (one might have thought that only a Ba'al Mum Over may eat..."Kol Zachar" includes a Ba'al Mum Kavu'a.)

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): We need not switch the Beraisa. It is a bigger Chidush that a Ba'al Mum Over may eat, for one might have thought that he is like a Tamei;

A Tamei may not eat until he becomes Tahor. Likewise, a Ba'al Mum Over should not eat until the Mum passes!

"Kol Zachar" teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): Anyone who may not do Avodah (does not receive a share.)

Question #1: A Ba'al Mum may not do Avodah, yet he receives a share!

Question #2: The Mishnah implies that anyone who may do Avodah receives a share. However, a Tamei may do Avodas Tzibur, yet he does not receive a share!

Answer #1 (to both questions): It means, anyone who may not eat does not receive a share.

Question: A minor may eat, but he does not receive a share!

Answer: The Mishnah says only that anyone who may not eat does not receive a share. It does not say that anyone who may eat receives a share.

Answer #2 (to both questions): If we are not concerned for the inference of the Mishnah, we can explain the Mishnah exactly like it says. Anyone who may not do Avodah does not receive a share;

Question #2 does not apply, for the Mishnah does not discuss a Tamei;

Question #1 is not difficult. A Ba'al Mum is an exception. A verse teaches that he receives a share.

(Mishnah): Even a Kohen who was Tamei at the time of Zerikah and Tahor at the time of Haktaras ha'Chelev does not receive a share.

Inference: If he was Tahor at the time of Zerikah and Tamei at the time of Haktarah, he would receive a share.

Our Mishnah is unlike Aba Sha'ul;

(Beraisa - Aba Sha'ul): He does not receive a share unless he was Tahor from the time of Zerikah until the time of Haktarah. "Ha'Makriv Es Dam ha'Shelamim v'Es ha'Chelev" teaches that he must be able to serve even at the time of Haktaras Chelev.

Question (Rav Ashi): (According to Aba Sha'ul,) if he did becom Tamei in between Zerikah and Haktarah (and became Tahor again before Haktarah), what is the law?

If he only requires that he be Tahor at the time of Zerikah and at the time of Haktarah, this was fulfilled;

Or, perhaps he must be Tahor from the time of Zerikah until the time of Haktarah!

This question is not resolved.

Rav: When R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon was in the bathroom, he composed the following 'argument', in which a Tahor Kohen refutes a Tevul Yom who requested a share of Kodshim (both are in the same Beis Av):

The Tevul Yom: Give to me a share of a Minchas Yisrael (to eat tonight, when I will be fully Tahor.)

The Tahor: You do not receive. Regarding Chatas, I (a Tahor Kohen) receive all the meat of my own Chatas, and you (a Tevul Yom) do not receive a share of a Yisrael's Chatas. Regarding Minchah, I do not receive anything from my own Minchah (it is totally burned on the Mizbe'ach), all the more so, you do not receive a share of Minchas Yisrael!

The Tevul Yom: No. Granted, I do not receive from Chatas Yisrael, for even though I have Ko'ach (rights) to receive my Chatas (if I wouldbe Tahor), you have (even more) Ko'ach in your Chatas (for you are Tahor);

However, I should receive a share of Minchas Yisrael, for we are equal (neither of us has any Ko'ach) in Minchas Kohen!

The Tahor: "La'Kohen ha'Makriv Osah Lo Sihyeh" - since you cannot serve, you do not receive.

The Tevul Yom: Give me a share of Chatas Yisrael.

The Tahor: You do not receive. Regarding Minchah, I receive nothing from my own Minchah, yet I do not share with you ("la'Kohen ha'Makriv...") Regarding Chatas, I have more Ko'ach than you in my Chatas, all the more so l do not share Chatas Yisrael with you!

The Tevul Yom: No. Granted, I do not receive from Minchas Yisrael, for even though you have no Ko'ach, neither do I;

However, I should receive a share of Chatas Yisrael, for even though you have Ko'ach in your Chatas, also I have Ko'ach in mine!

The Tahor: "Ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei Osah Yochalenah" - since you cannot serve, you do not receive.

The Tevul Yom: Give me a share of Chazeh v'Shok (the chest and thigh of a Yisrael's Shelamim).

The Tahor: You do not receive. Regarding Chatas, even though you have Ko'ach in your Chatas (to receive all the meat when you are Tahor), I do not share Chatas Yisrael with you ("ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei...") Regarding a Yisrael's Shelamim, you receive only Chazeh v'Shok, all the more so l do not share it with you!

The Tevul Yom: No. Granted, I do not receive from Chatas Yisrael, for I have no Ko'ach to let my wife and slaves eat it;

However, I should receive a share of Chazeh v'Shok, for I have Ko'ach to let my wife and slaves eat it!

The Tahor: "La'Kohen ha'Zorek Es Dam ha'Shelamim Lo Yihyeh" - since you cannot serve, you do not receive.

The Tevul Yom understood that he was refuted.

The same verses show that an Onen or Mechusar Kipurim does not receive a share.

Question (Rav Achai): R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon should also teach that Bechor must be given to a Kohen Kosher for Avodah!

The Tevul Yom: I should be allowed to receive a Bechor of a Yisrael.

The Tahor: You may not. Regarding Chatas, even though I lack Ko'ach to let my wife and slaves eat it, I do not share Chatas Yisrael with you. Bechor is totally mine (I have this Ko'ach - this is like Tosefta 6:8, and the Rambam. However, Rashi (Yevamos 99b) holds that slaves may not eat Bechor, and Rashba Nedarim 12a explicitly says that only male Kohanim may eat it. Perhaps they explain 'it is totally mine, i.e. to offer it whenever I want in its first year'), all the more so l do not share it with you!

The Tevul Yom: No. Granted, I do not receive from Chatas Yisrael, for even though you have little Ko'ach in your own Chatas, so do I;

However, I should be able to receive Bechor, for I also have great Ko'ach in it!

The Tahor: "Es Damam Tizrok... u'Vsaram Yihyeh Lach" - since you cannot serve, you do not receive.

Answer: R. Elazar did not teach this, for it does not say 'u'Vsaram la'Kohen ha'Zorek', rather, "u'Vsaram Yihyeh Lach" (to you (Aharon, and your descendants).)

Question: How could R. Elazar think about Torah in the bathroom?!

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): One may think about Torah in any place, except for a bathhouse or bathroom.

Answer: He was Ones (he could not refrain).