1)

(a)The Beraisa, which discusses the problem with inspecting Miriam's Tzara'as, explains that it could not be done...

1. ... by Moshe - because he was a Zar (a non-Kohen).

2. ... by Aharon - because he was a close relative.

(b)The problem was finally solved - when Hash-m, who also bears the title Kohen, gave her the Kavod of inspecting it, and of declaring her, first Tamei and subsequently, Tahor.

(c)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconciles Rav (who considers Moshe a Kohen Gadol) with this Beraisa - by referring to the Pasuk in Tazri'a that specifically requires Aharon and his sons (and not just a Kohen) to inspect Nega'im.

2)

(a)The Beraisa discusses Elisheva - the sister of Nachshon ben Aminadav, and the five extra S'machos that she enjoyed.

(b)Her brother-in-law (Moshe) was king, her husband (Aharon), Kohen Gadol, her brother, prince of Yehudah - her son (Elazar), deputy Kohen Gadol and her grandson (Pinchas), the Kohen Gadol for war.

(c)The Tana is referring to - the first of Nisan of the second year in the desert, the day on which the Mishkan was erected.

(d)We refute the Kashya on Rav Melech In, Kohen Gadol, Lo - by interpreting the Beraisa to mean Af Melech (meaning that Moshe was also king, besides being Kohen Gadol).

3)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah in a Beraisa comments on the Pasuk "Vayichar Af Hash-m be'Moshe that - this is the only place in the Torah where we find Charon Af without any repercussions.

(b)We find for example, after "Vayichar Af Ya'akov be'Rachel" that - Ya'akov scolded Rachel with "ha'Sachas Elokim Anochi" (which is a kind of Nezifah [a mild Cherem]).

(c)Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai counters Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah's comment - by referring to the continuation of the Pasuk here "ha'Lo Aharon Achicha ha'Levi ... " to mean that, in reality, Moshe was meant to become the Kohen, and Aharon the Levi. And it was only due to Moshe's persistent refusal to accept the leadership, that their roles were reversed. So we see that here too, Hash-m's anger had repercussions.

4)

(a)According to the Chachamim, Moshe only served as a Kohen during the Shiv'as Yemei ha'Milu'im. Based on the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim "u'Moshe Ish ha'Elokim, Banav Yikar'u al Sheivet ha'Levi" however, Yesh Omrim say that - his sons only, are listed as Levi'im, whereas he remained a Kohen.

(b)Yesh Omrim found it necessary to add the Pasuk in Tehilim "Moshe ve'Aharon be'Chohanav", to prove that Moshe remained a Kohen - because the previous Pasuk might merely intend to present the Yichus of his descendants (in which case it would be natural to leave him out, irrespective of his status).

(c)Resh Lakish reconciles the Pasuk in Bo (after Par'oh told Moshe that he would never see him again) "Va'yeitzei me'Im Paroh ba'Chari Af", with what we said earlier (that every Charon Af in the Torah has repercussions) inasmuch as here too - there were repercussions, because Moshe slapped Par'oh's face before taking leave of him (see Tzon Kodshim).

5)

(a)According to Resh Lakish, when Hash-m instructed Moshe to meet Paroh by the banks of the Nile, He told him to speak to him with the respect that a king deserves. According to Rebbi Yochanan - He informed him that he was a Rasha, and that accordingly, he should talk to him with Chutzpah.

(b)To reconcile Resh Lakish's opinion here with his previous statement (seeing as slapping a king's face is hardly conducive with treating him with respect) - we invert the opinions of Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish.

(c)Rebbi Yanai extrapolates from the Pasuk "Veyardu Chol Avadecha Eileh Eilai" that one should treat a king with respect, even if he is a Rasha - since it was not just Paroh's servants who were destined to go down to Moshe and plead with him to take Yisrael out of Egypt, but Paroh himself, only Moshe did not want to say so, out of respect for Par'oh.

(d)Rebbi Yochanan learns it from Eliyahu Hanavi - who ran on foot in front of King Achav's carriage, in deference to the king (who was alone in the carriage).

6)

(a)Ula commented on the Pasuk in Sh'mos (in conenction wit the burning bush) "Va'yomer Al Tikrav Halom" that - Moshe requested Malchus (since 'Halom' always has connotations of Malchus), but that his request was turned down.

(b)And he proves this from the Pasuk in Shmuel "Mi Anochi ... ki Heveisani ad Halom" - said by David Hamelech to Hash-m.

(c)To reconcile Ula's statement with Rebbi Yishmael, who says that Elisheva's brother-in-law was the King (as we quoted earlier), Rabah bar Ula amends it to read - that in fact, Moshe's request was that his sons should also succeed him as king (and that is the request that was turned down).

(d)The problem with Rabah bar Ula's answer is - Shaul Hamelech, by whom the Pasuk also writes "Halom", yet his sons died in battle together with him.

7)

(a)One answer is that Shaul did have a son who ruled after him - by the name of Ishboshes.

(b)A second answer is based on a statement by Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Chanina, who said, based on the Pasuk in Iyov "Lo Yigra mi'Tzadik Einav ... " that ...

1. ... once Hash-m bestows greatness upon a person, He bestows it forever upon him and his children, but that ...

2. ... should he become conceited, then Hash-m topples him, and binds him with fetters until eventually, he suffers the pangs of poverty.

(c)Shaul too, was initially promised Malchus for himself and his children. However - when he became conceited, he lost both rights

8)

(a)The Beraisa discusses Ba'alei-Mumin. The Tana learns from the Pasuk in Tzav ...

1. ... "Lechem Elokav mi'Kodesh ha'Kodashim Yocheil" that - a Kohen Ba'al-Mum is permitted to eat Kodshei Kodshim.

2. ... "Kol Zachar bi'Venei Aharon Yochlenah" (in connection with the Korban Minchah) - that he also receives a portion.

3. ... "Kol Zachar" (in connection with the Korban Chatas) - that even if he was born a Ba'al-Mum he receives a portion and may eat it.

(b)Initially, the Tana explained the third "Kol Zachar" (in connection with the Korban Asham) to include a temporary blemish. The problem with that was - if a Ba'al-Mum Kavu'a may eat Kodshim, then how much more so, a Ba'al-Mum O'ver.

(c)Rav Sheishes therefore, inverts them, learning a Ba'al-Mum O'ver from the first "Kol Zachar" and a Ba'al-Mum Kavu'a, from the second. According to Rav Ashi, it is not necessary to invert them - because according to him, we would otherwise have thought that a Ba'al-Mum O'ver is obligated to get rid of his blemish before eating Kodshei Kodshim ...

(d)... like a Kohen Tamei who does not receive a portion and is not permitted to eat a Korban Tzibur that was brought by Tehorim, until he becomes Tahor.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah rules 'Kol she'Eino Ra'uy la'Avodah, Eino Cholek be'Basar'. The problem with ...

1. ... this is that - a Kohen Ba'al-Mum is not eligible to perform the Avodah, yet he receives a portion?

2. ... the inference 'Ha Ra'uy, Cholek' is that - a Tamei Kohen is eligible to perform the Avodah by a Korban Tzibur, yet he does not receive a portion?

(b)We try to answer both Kashyos by amending the Mishnah to read - Ra'uy la'Achilah (rather than 'Ra'uy la'Avodah').

(c)The problem that this creates is - from a Katan, who is fit to eat Kodshim, yet he does not receive a portion.

(d)So we reinstate our Mishnah to its original wording, dismissing the Kashya from the inference outright on the grounds that - the statement is itself a Chidush, and is not therefore subject to inferences.

(e)And we refute the initial Kashya from Ba'al-Mum - by referring to it as a Gezeiras-Hakasuv (which the Torah has precluded from the rule [as we already explained before]).

10)

(a)We extrapolate from our Mishnah Afilu Tamei be'Sha'as Zerikas Damim ve'Tahor be'Sha'as Hekter Chalavim, Eino Cholek that - in the reverse case (where he was Tahor at the time of Zerikah, but Tamei at the time of Hekter Chalavim), the Kohen does receive a portion.

(b)And we establish our Mishnah not like Aba Shaul, who learns from the Pasuk in Tzav "ha'Makriv es Dam ha'Shelamim ve'es ha'Cheilev (Lo Sih'yeh Shok ha'Yamin le'Manah)" - that only a Kohen who is Tahor from the Zerikah through to the Haktarah, receives a portion.

(c)The Rabbanan however, learn from ...

1. ... "ha'Makriv es Dam ha'Shelamim" that - the Kohen needs to be Tahor at the time of the Zerikah (because that is how they interpret "ha'Makriv es Dam ... ".

2. ... "ve'es ha'Cheilev" - that only a Kohen who agrees with the Avodah on principle receives a portion, but not if he denies it (as we learned in Chulin).

(d)Rav Ashi asks what the Din will be if, according to Aba Shaul, the Kohen became Tamei between the Zerikah and the Hekter Chalavim. The ...

1. ... case is - where the Kohen became a Ba'al Keri after the Zerikas ha'Dam, and Toveled immediately, so that, by the time of the Hekter Chalavim (at night-time), he is already Tahor.

2. ... She'eilah is that - the Kohen ought perhaps not to receive a portion, even though he is Tahor during both the Zerikah and the Hekter Chalavim - because Aba Shaul may well require the Kohen to be Tahor from the beginning of the Avodah until the end (and not just for the duration of the two Avodos [though that is what he appears to have explicitly said]).

(e)The outcome of the She'eilah is - Teiku.

11)

(a)Rav learned from Rebbi Alazar b'Rebbi Shimon that - if a T'vul-Yom asks a fellow Kohen from the same Mishmar to save him a portion of Minchas Yisrael to eat after nightfall - the latter's initial response is in the negative ...

(b)... because if a Kohen T'vul Yom does not receive a portion of a Yisrael's Chatas (as we learned earlier from "ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei Osah Yechalkenah"), even though he is entitled to bring his own Chatas whenever he wishes and even to take the skin, how much more so a Yisrael's Minchah, bearing in mind in the case of his own Minchah he would not be able to eat it (since the Minchah of a Kohen is burned), and would receive nothing from it at all.

(c)The Kohen T'vul-Yom would counter that argument however - by using the reverse argument. He would claim that the reason that he does not receive a portion of the Yisrael's Chatas, is because the Tahor Kohen has as much right in his own Chatas as he (the T'vul-Yom [which is why he can prevent him from taking a portion]), whereas in the case of the Yisrael's Minchah, seeing as regarding his own, the latter does not posses any more rights than he does, perhaps he cannot prevent him from receiving a portion in it.

(d)We finally learn from the Pasuk "la'Kohen ha'Makriv osah Lo Sih'yeh" that - a Kohen who is not eligible to sacrifice the Yisrael's Minchah, does not receive a portion in it either.

12)

(a)When the T'vul-Yom asks the Tahor Kohen to save him a portion of a Yisrael's Chatas, he replies - that if he can stop him from taking a portion in the Yisrael's Minchah (in spite of his own lack of rights in his own Minchah), then how much more so can he stop him from taking a portion in the Yisrael's Chatas (where he has more rights, as we explained) ...

(b)... which the T'vul-Yom counters with the argument that - he has more rights in his own Chatas than he has in his Minchah, in which case, he may receive a portion in that of the Yisrael (even though he does not receive one in his Minchah).

(c)And when the T'vul-Yom asks him to save him a portion of Chazeh va'Shok, he replies - that if he can stop him from taking a portion of the Yisrael's Chatas (which a Kohen normally receives in its entirety), then how much more so the Chazeh ve'Shok (which is all that he receives from the Kohen's Shelamim) ...

(d)... which the T'vul-Yom counters with the argument that he, the T'vul-Yom, has more rights in the Chazeh ve'Shok, inasmuch as he is able to feed them to his wife and slaves), than he has in the Yisrael's Chatas (which he may only feed to the males).

(e)We finally learn from the Pasuk in Tzav ...

1. ... "ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei osah Yochlenah" that - seeing as the T'vul-Yom is unable to sacrifice the Yisrael's Chatas, he cannot receive a portion in it either.

2. ... "la'Kohen ha'Zorek es Dam ha'Shelamim lo Yih'yeh" that - seeing as the T'vul-Yom is unable to sprinkle the blood of the Yisrael's Shelamim, he cannot receive a portion in the Chazeh ve'Shok either.

13)

(a)The loser in each of the four above-mentioned is - the T'vul-Yom.

(b)When Rava ...

1. ... quoted Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon as saying 'be'Veis ha'Kisei Dantah', he meant that - he thought this out in the bathroom.

2. ... concluded 'Yatza T'vul-Yom ... *Onein mi'Yemino u'Mechusar Kipurim mi'Semolo*', he meant that - just as the T'vul-Yom loses in all these claims, so too, does an Onein and a Mechusar Kipurim.

(c)According to Rav Acha'i, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon ought to have added to his list - the T'vul-Yom's claim to a portion of B'chor, and the Tahor Kohen's counter claim, using exactly the same arguments as we did in connection with the Chazeh ve'Shok.

(d)And we would refute the T'vul-Yom's claim to it, from the Pasuk "es Damam Tizrok al ha'Mizbe'ach ... u'Vesaram Tih'yeh lach" - implying that a Kohen who is eligible to perform the Avodah receives a portion, but not one who is not.

14)

(a)To counter Rav Acha'i's Kashya, we explain that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon omitted B'chor - because, in his opinion, since the Torah did not write "u'Vesaram la'Kohen ha'Zorek", the words "u'Vesaram Yih'yeh lach") imply that any Kohen may eat it, even one who is not eligible to sacrifice it.

(b)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan - forbade speaking or even thinking words of Torah in the bathroom ...

(c)... and the reason Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon did so was - because he could not help it (he was an Oneis).