Daf 2

1) For seven days before Yom Kippur, we separate the Kohein Gadol from his house to the Parhedron chamber. We also separate the Kohein who will burn the Parah Adumah from his house for seven days to a chamber that's upon the Birah (either it's a place on the Temple Mount, or the Beis Hamikdash itself is called the Birah), which was on the Northeast side, (to symbolize that it's a Chatos, which usually needs to be on the north, and it's Shechted on the east side of the Mikdash opposite the opening of the Mikdash) so that there should be a distinction that he's separated for the Parah. [Tosfos explains: therefore, they didn't separate the Kohein Gadol there too, or else there wouldn't be a distinction that this separation was for the Parah. Alternatively, since the Avoda on Yom Kippur is inside the Mikdash, they separated him to a chamber built on the place of the Mikdash. However, the Parah that's Avoda is done outside the Mikdash, they separated him to a chamber built outside the Mikdash.]

2) The chamber for the Parah was called the "stone chamber" since all things done there was done in stone utensils (or dung and mud utensils) that aren't susceptible to Tumah. After all, since they were so lenient by this Kohein to make him Tamai before he does this Avoda to show against the opinion of the Tzedukim (who hold that a Tvul Yom can't perform Parah Adumah). [Tosfos says: they don't make him Tamai from the Torah, as we see that they were very strict when it comes to the Parah and Tumah that they even consider the clothes of people Tahor on the level of Kodshim are considered Tamai Medris for those who are doing the Parah. Rather, we have the other Kohanim touch him. Although they're Tahor, but they're rabbinically considered Tamai to the one who's burning the Parah.]

3) [Tosfos says: they only were careful to only use stone utensils during the seven days of separation, but they put the ashes in the water in any type of utensil. As the Mishna says that they even put the ashes in the water in a dung utensil, (even though it's not considered a utensil regarding Tumah), which infers that, of course, they could use any utensil that's susceptible to Tumah.]

Daf 3

4) Shmini Atzeres is a Regel by itself regarding the acronym Pezar Keshav. (Its own Piyos, lottery for who does the Avodah), its own Zman (Shechiyanu), its own Regel, its own Korban (i.e., not in the pattern of the Korbanos of Sukkos), its own Shir and its own Bracha.) However, it's considered part of Sukkos regarding the make up for the Olas Riya and Chagiga.

5) [Rashi explains having its own Regel: that it's not called Sukkos. Tosfos quotes a Rashi who explains that we don't sit in Sukkos. R' Tam says, regarding Lina (staying over night in Yerushalayim). Even though you need a Korban Simcha for everyday, since Simcah is for all eight days, and bringing a Korban anyhow requires you to have Lina, so you'll anyhow would need Lina all the days of the Regel; since, in truth, it's not really necessary to bring a Korban everyday, since you can eat the Shlomim for two days. Alternatively, you can be Yoitza Simcha with clean clothes and old wine just like it's the only way to be Yoitza it when Sukkos falls out on Shabbos when you can't bring Shalmei Simcha, and you're only Yoitza with Korban meat that was Shechted on Yom Tov, and not from the day before.

However, you can't say that the Torah considers the whole Sukkos as one day, so you need Lina all seven days, for if so, how can we consider Shmini Atzeres its own Yom Tov regarding Lina, since there is no break between all those Linas not to consider it as a continuation. Also, the Tosefta says that Lina is only one day. Rather, since the Gemara's conclusion that, regarding Nossar, we don't consider the whole Sukkos as one day and Korbanos become Nossar on Sukkos, so the same is true regarding Lina.]

6) [Rashi explains "its own Bracha": the Bracha given to the king that they were accustom to give every Yom Tov. R' Tam explains: regarding Davening and Bentching, we mention the Regel as Shmini Chag Atzeres. The Shir by itself is Lamnatzeiach Al Hashminis.]

7) Whenever the Pasuk says "you should make"; R' Yashia holds that, if it said in the plural, it comes from the community. If it's said in the singular, it comes from an individual, like the herbs and trumpets. However, R' Yonason says that it all comes from the community, but Hashem is saying that He would rather it to come from Moshe if it would have been possible, since he doesn't care for it too much as coming from the community. R' Elazar says: when the community is doing Hashem's will, then Hashem wants it from the community. If not, it's not wanted.

8) However, everyone agrees that on Yom Kippur, and during the days of the Meluim (the inauguration days of the Mishkon), it needs to come only from the Kohein Gadol since we have an extra Pasuk.

9) R' Yochanan learns that the Kohein Gadol needs to separate before Yom Kippur, or the Kohein before the Parah, from Miluim. Reish Lakish asks on him, if so, it should be not valid even if it was B'dieved not done like it was by the Miluim, but we see that it's valid. As we'll say that they appointed an understudy for the Kohein Gadol to take over him if something happens that makes him unfit to do the Avodah on Yom Kippur, (which implies that they just appointed him, but didn't separate him seven days beforehand). If it prevents him even B'dieved from doing the Avodah, why didn't they separate him? Rather, Reish Lakish learns it from Sinai that, according to R' Yossi Haglili, that after Moshe went upon the mountain, he waited six days before entering Hashem's camp. (However, R' Akiva holds that those six days were from Rosh Chodesh until the sixth of Sivan.)

Daf 4

10) Even though you need by Yom Kippur and Parah seven days of separation, and by Sinai it was only six days; we must say that it's like R' Yehuda b. Beseira who is worried that he became Tamai in his house (i.e., he had relations with his Nidda wife). [Tosfos says: even though he could Toivel on the seventh day, and he would be a Tvul Yom that's Kosher for a Parah; it fits in well to what we said earlier that they weren't lenient by Torah Tumos, only by rabbinic Tumah. Alternatively, he holds like the opinion that the Torah only allowed a Tvul Yom from someone who touched a corpse, and also from someone who touched a Sheretz since it's a Kal V'chomer from a corpse. However, we can't be lenient by a Tvul Yom of someone who had relations with a Niddah since he has stringencys that don't apply to a corpse, that it makes Tamai what he lays on and what he carries.]

11) According to Reish Lakish, although they didn't sprinkle anything on Moshe by Sinai [Tosfos: to make him Tahor (as the sprinkling done at Sinai was only done for the Bris with the jews, since it was sprinkled on the Jews as much as it was sprinkled on Moshe. Also, even if you learn from it, there wasn't seven days of sprinkling.] We must say that this was just a stringency placed for Yom Kippur.

12) If someone relates something to you, you shouldn't say it to anyone.

13) R' Yochanan says: whatever is written by the Miluim is needed even B'dieved. R' Chanina says that only those that are needed even B'dieved during the rest of the year is needed B'dieved by Miluim. The difference between them is Smicha, Tenufa, Kohanim separated for seven days, and if a Kohein Gadol needs to be anointed and wear the eight articles of clothes for seven days. Although these are usually not needed B'dieved, but according to R' Yochanan, it's needed during the Miluim. [Tosfos says: everyone agrees that the pouring the leftover blood (after the sprinkling) down the Yesod and burning the limbs are not needed B'dieved by Miluim. However, the Yerushalmi says that the leftover blood, according to R' Yochanan, is needed B'dieved by Miluim.]

Daf 5

14) L'chatchila, when you appoint a Kohein Gadol, he becomes one by wearing the extra articles of clothes and by being anointed for seven days. However, B'dieved, it's enough to have it for only one day.

15) [Tosfos says: someone deserves the death penalty if he enters the Heichel empty handed without doing any Avodah; and he also gets it if he's not wearing all his clothing, or he didn't do Kiddush (i.e., wash) his hands and feet, and enters between the Ullam and the Mizbeach.]

16) When Moshe dressed Ahron and his sons, there's an argument between the children of R' Chiya and R' Yochanan. Regarding most of the clothes, everyone agrees he dressed Ahron before he dressed his children, since he was mentioned before them both by the commandment to clothe them, and describing the action of clothing them. The argument is on the last article, the belt. There are two P'sukim; "he girded them," implying he girded them at the same time, and "he girded him," implying that he girded Ahron first. One held that they were girded at the same time. (Of course, they can't do it exactly at the same time, but after he clothed Ahron seven articles of clothing, he clothed his sons with three, and then girded Ahron with his belt, and then girded his sons.) The reason it says that "he girded him," i.e., Ahron by himself, to say that his belt was different than their belts, and only his belt had Shatnez in it. The other opinion held that Ahron was girded by himself before he clothed the sons at all. The reason it says "he clothed them," that they were together, to say that their belts were the same, that they all contained Shatnez.

Daf 6

17) The Gemara asks: why they separated the Kohein Gadol from his wife? [Rashi: why didn't he bring his wife with him to his chamber? After all, it can't be part of the Mikdash itself since he wouldn't be able to sit down there if it was. Tosfos asks: still, they couldn't have relations there since a Baal Keri is forbidden on the Temple Mount. Rather, the question was: why didn't they put him in an underground place that doesn't have any Kedusha at all.] The Gemara answers: since he will have relations and he might find his wife to be a Safeik Niddah (i.e., according to the Rabanan, if she checked immediately after the relations and finds blood, and according to R' Akiva, if she checks withing twenty four hours).

18) The Gemara concludes that the Tevila of the one who had relations with a Niddah is not the same as the Niddah herself, and he can Toivel during the seventh day, and doesn't need to wait until nightfall. Therefore, he can remain in his house until nightfall, and he doesn't need to leave it when it's still day. After all, even if he had relations with a Niddah at the end of the day, he can be Toivel on Erev Yom Kippur, and he won't be a Tvul Yom when Yom Kippur comes in. However, if he needs to be Toivel at the night after the seventh day, then he would Toivel Yom Kippur night and would be a Tvul Yom the whole Yom Kippur, so you would need to separate him earlier in the day.

19) (Someone who has relations with a Niddah makes what he sits and lays on a light Tumah to make food and drink that touches them Tamai (like a Sheini) [Rashi: but not people and utensils, not like a Zav and Metzorah that their chair or bed make people and utensils Tamai. Tosfos says: Rashi, and R' Moshe from Pointeiz held that a Metzorah makes what he sits on a strong Tumah. Although the Gemara in Pesachim says that a Metzorah doesn't make what he sits on Tamai like by a Zav; R' Moshe answers: that's only during the days that he's counting towards his cleansing process (after the healing of the Tzaras), but here, we refer to during the days where he's decidedly a Metzorah, as it says in Toras Kohanim. However, Rashi and Tosfos in Pesachim say that a Metzorah never has the strict Tumah, only the light Tumah.]

20) That, which a Kohein Gadol only needs to worry about Tumah of having relations with a Niddah and not with Tumah from a corpse, and we don't prevent people from visiting him for, perhaps, one might die suddenly; Rava says: from here they say that Tumah is permitted by communal Korbanos, (and it's not only superseded). [Tosfos asks: in Zvachim, Rava says that Tumah is superseded by communal Korbanos. Ri answers: Rava only says here, 'from here, people say etc.," but he doesn't personally agree to these people. Tosfos answers: in Zevachim, Rav refers to the Korban Pesach. Although, since it's brought by the masses, it's considered like a communal Korban, but it's not completely like communal Korbanos. This is similar to a ram Korban of the Kohein Gadol, which we say later that, although it supersedes Shabbos, it's not permitted but only supersedes. However, a real communal Korban is actually permitted.] Raveina rejects the proof. It could only supersede Tumah. However, we're not worried that someone will die suddenly since death is not so common.

21) R' Nachman held that Tumah is permitted by communal Korbanos and R' Sheishes says it's only superseded. The first version is: they only argue if there is no Tahor Kohein in the Beis Av who's turn it is to bring the Korbanos on that day, should you should try to find a Tahor Kohein from a different Beis Av. However, if there is one Tahor Kohein in this Beis Av, you only allow the Tahor to do the Avodah. The second version: even if there are other Tahor Kohanim in the Beis Av, the Torah allows Tamai Kohanim to do Avodah for communal Korbanos.

Daf 7

22) R' Nachman agrees: if there are leftover food that the Kohanim eat, then you need to get a Tahor Kohein so not to make the food Tamai. Therefore, by the Mincha of an Omer and the sheep that goes along with it that become Tamai, if you can bring another one, don't sprinkle the blood and you can bring another Korban. If not, you keep quiet and sprinkle the blood.

23) R' Nachman also agrees by a communal Korban that doesn't have a set time to be brought, like the bull brought for the community worshipping idols. [Tosfos says: even though it doesn't even supersede Tumah, still, if it's B'dieved brought, the Tzitz appeases for it. So, we need to say that it only applies to the Tumah of the Korban, and not if the Kohein bringing it is Tamai, since the Tzitz doesn't appease on the Kohein's Tumah.]

24) R' Nachman also agrees by an individual's Korban, like the ram of the Kohein Gadol on Yom Kippur. [Tosfos explains: even though it's supersedes Tumah the exact same way as communal Korbanos, as they learn them both from the same Drasha; they were rabbinically more stringent to try to bring it in Taharah. However, R' Sheishes who says they're all superseded, he holds that the Torah considers them only superseded, and not permitted.]

25) According to R' Nachman, you only need the Tzitz to appease on Tumah on an individual's Korban, or on a communal Korban that doesn't have a set time to bring. [Tosfos asks: what's the case that the Tzitz appeases? After all, we say that the Tzitz's appeasement is regarding the eating of a Tamai Korban, which nobody allows eating the Korban even with a communal Korban. It's also only appeases if it's B'dieved eaten, and that would be true even according to those who say that it only supersedes. After all, they only argue if it's permitted L'chatchila. Tosfos answers: we only forbid L'chatchila to eat meat that became Tamai. However, if the meat is Tahor, but the blood was Tamai, where you're allowed to sprinkle it; if you hold it's permitted, then you don't need to come onto the Tzitz's appeasement to eat the meat. However, if you only hold that it supersedes, then you need to come onto the Tzitz's appeasement to allow eating the meat since it comes from Tumah.]

26) We have contradicting Braisos if the Tzitz only appeases when it's done forgetfully, but not if it's done purposely, and the other says it appeases even if it's done purposely. [Tosfos brings the Gemara in Pesachim that reconciles; one refers to the blood becoming Tamai, and the other refers to sprinkling the blood in Tumah. There is an argument there which one were they more lenient. We must say that both are appeased from the Torah in all cases, since there is no logic to differentiate between them. However, the rabbis fined to Pasul it in one case, and they argue when it's appropriate to fine them. One held that it's appropriate to fine by the Tumah since it's the beginning of the P'sul and you didn't intend to do a Mitzvah, and the other says that it's more appropriate to sprinkling, since it's a disgrace to serve Hashem that way.]

27) The Tzitz appeases for the Tumah on the blood and meat. [Tosfos says: Rashi in Pesachim says that appeasing for the meat is only needed according to R' Yehoshua who holds that you need Kosher meat besides Kosher blood to sprinkle the blood. However, Tosfos concludes: really, we can say that it's like R' Eleizer that you only need Kosher blood, but there is a practical difference that the meat is appeased, that, if the Kohein has a Pigul thought, it's considered as if there isn't another prohibition on the meat so the Pigul can take effect. Alternatively, that the meat's considered as made Kosher through the blood sprinkling for the prohibition of Meila to fall off.]

28) The truth is: whether Tumah is permitted or superseded is dependant on the following Tannaic argument. R' Shimon says that the Tzitz appeases even if it's not on the Kohein's forehead, but even if it's hung up on a peg. (However, if the Tzitz is broken, it doesn't appease.) A proof to this is that the Tzitz appeases for the service on Yom Kippur despite the Tzitz not being on the Kohein's forehead. [Tosfos says: you don't need for the Tzitz to appease by communal services since the Tumah is permitted without the Tzitz, the same way it's permitted even when the Kohein is Tamai, even though the Tzitz doesn't appease for that; we must say the Heter to L'chatchila to do the Avodah in Tumah, and we don't try to find a way to do it in Tahara is only with the combination of the factor that the Tzitz appeases. Otherwise, it's only Tumah that's superseded by the communal Korban and we must try to find a way to do it in Tahara.] However, R' Yehuda says that the Tzitz only appeases while it's on the Kohein's forehead. You can't bring a proof from Yom Kippur where Tumah is permitted by communal Korbanos. This seems to say that R' Shimon who held it to be a proof held that it's only superseded. [Tosfos says: although we said earlier that, by a Mincha that became Tamai, that you should get a different one if possible, and we don't say that you can combine the Tzitz to bring the Tamai L'chatchila; we must say it's like R' Yehuda that the Tzitz doesn't appease if it's not on the Kohein's forehead. Alternatively, it's even according to R' Shimon if the Tzitz is broken.]

29) The Kohein Gadol is obligated not to lose focus on the Tzitz from a Drasha, so we learn a Kal V'chomer to Tefilin that has more names of Hashem written in it, (and you need to touch it constantly). [Tosfos points out: this is not a true Kal V'chomer from the Torah since the names of Hashem in the Tefilin are covered over. (Even the Shin on the outside of the Tefilin Shel Rosh that stands for the name Shakai is not a full name, since you don't need more than a Shin. Also, it's only the name Shakai, and not the name "Havaya" that's on the Tzitz.) Rather, since there is some aspect that Tefilin is greater, the Chachumim felt it was appropriate to enact touching it constantly.]

Daf 8

30) R' Meir held that they sprinkled the Parah Aduma waters all seven days and R' Yossi says that it was only on the third and seventh day. Everyone holds that Tumah is only superseded by communal Korbanos, because, if it would be completely permitted, we wouldn't need any sprinkling. [Tosfos says: even for his ram that everyone holds is only superseded, since he doesn't know that he has any Tumah, we shouldn't be too stringent since, regularly, communal Korbanos are permitted, and the ram is similar to them since it supersedes Shabbos and Tumah.]

31) We must say that even R' Yossi holds that Tevila in its proper time is a Mitzvah, as we see he holds that way when someone has the name of Hashem written on his body, he shouldn't pursue finding a reed to cover it up when he Toivels (so it will be covered when he's naked, but rely on covering with his other hand despite the chance that he'll might forget and uncover it) since he'll might miss the time for Teveila that day. (However the Chachumim say that he needs to get a reed, and you don't need to worry that he'll miss Teviela for that day since they hold it's not a Mitzvah to Toivel exactly on that day.)

32) We must say that we have a Hekish sprinkling to Tevila. As R' Meir holds of the Hekish and you need to sprinkle every day for, perhaps, it's the third and seventh day from being Tamai, and R' Yossi doesn't hold of the Hekish, so he only needs to sprinkle on the third and seventh to make sure he's Tahor.

33) [Tosfos quotes R' Tam that holds that it's not a Mitzvah to have Teveila in its proper time. Thus, by a Nidda, she only needs to Toivel at night, and not during the day, which would be the proper time since she might be a Zava. This is not like R' Chananel who Paskins that it's a MItzvah since Beis Hillel held this way in Niddah, since other later Tannaim who hold that it's not a Mitzvah, disagree with that Mishna and hold that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel never argued in this Halacha.]

34) R Chanina Segan Hakohanim didn't hold of the Hekish and only needs for Yom Kippur sprinkling on the third and seventh days. However he held that for the Parah Aduma, he needs to be sprinkled on all seven days because of an extra stringency. However, R' Meir and R' Yossi held that there was no difference between Parah Aduma and Yom Kippur, but by Yom Kippur he's separated for holiness, so his fellow Kohanim may touch him, and by Parah, he's separated for Taharah, so his fellow Kohanim (that are not on his level of Taharah) can't touch him. [Tosfos says: even though they're also different that they're separated to two different chambers, we don't consider it here as a difference since one is not more strict than the second one. Alternatively, it's included in what we're saying. By Yom Kippur, he's being separated for holiness, so he goes into a chamber that's built on a holy place. However, by Parah, he's separated to a chamber that's built in a place that doesn't have any more holiness than the rest of Yerushalayim, but it only has a strictness by Tahara, that a Zav and Baal Keri can't enter. However, you can't claim that the Parhedrin chamber was built in Chulin, but it's Kodesh since it's open to Kodesh, and we'll hold that you can sit there the same way that a Tamai person is not Chayiv Kareis for being in there, since we'll say in the next Perek that, in such a situation, it's forbidden to sit in such a place.]

35) When R' Meir says that you sprinkle every day, it's not exact, since you don't sprinkle on the fourth day, since it can't be the third day (since you don't sprinkle again four days later) or the seventh day (since you didn't sprinkle four days earlier). Also, he doesn't sprinkle on Shabbos since sprinkling doesn't supersede the rabbinical prohibition to sprinkle on Shabbos. Therefore, regarding Yom Kippur, which you don't pick the day for it to fall on, you must separate him on the third of Tishrei, then you could skip two days of sprinkling. However, for the Parah, where they can pick the day to bring it, they separate him on a Wednesday so that the fourth day would fall out on Shabbos and you don't miss any more days of sprinkling.

36) We have a Mishna in the second Perek of Damai: the rabbis didn't require the bakers to separate from Damai but Trumas Maasar and Challah, and not Maasar Sheini. (However, the Am Ha'aretz anyhow separates Trumah Gedolah.) Also, there's no difference by Maasar Rishon and Maaasar Ani, since he may keep it because, if the Levi or poor want to claim it, it's upon them the proof that it's obligated to remove it from the baker who has it in his possession. [Tosfos: this is even allowed to everyone, even those who are not bakers. The reason we don't say by Trumas Maasar that the Kohein should prove it's obligated to collect it, so the baker can sell it cheap to Kohanim; since it's only a small amount (a one hundredth) , and he needs to sell cheaply, since there's not much of a demand (since not many people can eat it), the rabbis enacted to just give it to the Kohein.])

Daf 9

37) The reason why they didn't enact for the baker to separate Maasar Sheini, since the Parhedrin, the government officials are hitting the bakers to sell their wares cheaply; the rabbis didn't bother them too much. [Tosfos: therefore, the rabbis put it on the seller to separate it.]

38) [Tosfos brings the Yerushalmi that asks a contradiction to this from a different Mishna.; that the baker doesn't separate Trumas Maasar, but it's on the buyer to separate it. There's an argument between R' Elazar and R' Yochanan how to reconcile it. Only if the baker is an Am Ha'aretz who brings his dough to a Chaver to make the bread in Taharah, since we see that he's believed regarding Taharah, he's believed to have separated Trumas Maasar too. However, an Am Ha'aretz who doesn't make it in Taharah is not believed he separated Trumas Maasar. The other one reconciles: if the baker sells in bulk (cheaply) and the buyer gains the most, the rabbis placed on him to separate the Trumas Maasar. However if he sells a little at a time, he gains the most, so they placed it upon him to separate. (Also, children also buy the small amount, and if the baker doesn't separate it, the children will end up eating Tevel.)

However, this is only if he sells to a Chaver, but if he sells to an Am Ha'aretz, the seller always needs to separate. After all, you can't even give definite Tevel to an Am Ha'aretz since he might not take of Trumah and Maasros; and of course you can't give him Damai since he definitely won't separate them.]

39) [Tosfos brings the Yerushalmi in the fifth Perek that asks on the Mishna there that he must separate Trumas Maasar on Challah that's Damai, and in the first Perek, we say that the Challah of an Am Ha'aretz is exempt from Trumas Maasar. (According to R' Hoshiya, who explains in the first Perek, that it refers there that the Am Ha'aretz separated the Challah, so since he's afraid to mess with Kodshim, he would make sure the Challah is not Tevel. So, we can say that the Mishna in the fifth Perek refers to when you separated the Challah from Damai. However, to R' Yochanan who explains that both cases refer to when you separated the Challah from Damai) we must say; according to the explanation above that differentiates between selling it in bulk or a little at a time, we can say that the first Perek that exempts refer to a case where the Am Ha'aretz went to a Chaver to make it in Tahara. However, according to the other opinion that our case also refers to where he want to a Chaver to make it in Tahara, we need to differentiate between two different Chaveirim, since there are Chaveimr that only accepts to separate for himself, what he eats,but not what he sells. Therefore, in the first Perek, it refers to allow eating when you eat by him, but in the fifth Perek, it refers to what he sells.]

Daf 10

40) Tanna Kama says that the only chamber in the Mikdash to have a Mezuza was the Parhedrin chamber since it was where the Kohein Gadol lived. R' Yehuda says that there were many chambers in the Mikdash with a place to live (where the guards stayed), but they're still exempt. The only reason the Parhedrin chamber needed a Mezuza is because of a rabbinical enactment so it shouldn't look as if the Kohein Gadol was stuck in prison. [Tosfos says: although we should assume that the chamber that they kept the Kohein who burnt the Parah is obligated in Mezuzah, we're not talking about it since it wasn't in the Mikdash proper, but only on the Temple Mount. Alternatively, since he didn't live there annually, it's not obligated.]

41) We can't say the reason for R' Yehuda is that he holds that a house that's not made to live in year round is not considered a house. After all, we see that R' Yehuda obligates a Sukka during the Yom Tov to have a Mezuza, and to contribute to an Eiruv, and produce that's brought into it is obligated in Maasar (like bringing it into any house). You can't say that it's only obligated rabbinically, for then we would have to be concerned by Maasar that you'll separate from produce that's exempt from Maasar from the Torah on produce that's obligated from the Torah. [Tosfos says: this is not similar to enacting Damai since there are distinctions to see that it's only rabbinically obligated since you don't separate Trumah Gedolah and you may keep what you separated for yourself. Also, you won't have the problem by bringing grain in with its stalks that were brought in to make a dough since there is a distinction that you can eat it without separating Maasar if you eat it in a temporary manner or to feed your animal, which you can't do if it was Torah obligated. It's not similar to acquiring produce from a non-Jew, since it's obviously different, you won't make a mistake. It's also not similar to what grows in a flowerpot without a hole, you don't need to worry that you'll separate on produce grown in one with a hole since you can tell the difference between the produce grown in two types of utensils. Also, you won't mistake Chutz L'aretz produce to think it's obligated from the Torah.]

42) [Tosfos points out: we only have a question by Sukka and Parhedrin what's considered as an established living place, but any other place where someone may live temporarily, you can't have a way to figure out if it's an established living from the Torah since you're established living there for now.]

43) The Gemara concludes: there are two arguments. By Sukkos, R' Yehuda is consistent to his view that a Sukka needs to be an established living area, so it's obligated in Mezuza. However, the Rabanan say that it only needs to be a temporary living area. [Tosfos says: it's not similar to the Parhedrin since the Sukka is a much more temporary living, since you can leave it for the smallest reason, like when you're pained, or when it rains.] They argue by the Parhedrin if a living area where you're forced to live is considered as a living area. The Chachumim says it does, and R' Yehuda says it doesn't.

Daf 11

44) Even according to R' Yehuda who doesn't require a Mezuza if it wasn't for the enactment, he still holds that you need a Mezuza for the Niknor's gate since it's like a gate house for the Parhedrin chamber. Even though a gate house in general needs a Mezuza only from a rabbinical enactment, we don't consider this to be an enactment (gate house) for an enactment (Parhedrin), but we consider it all apart of one enactment.

45) Gates of houses, courtyards and citys are obligated to have a Mezuza. However, some citys didn't have any because of the danger of the authoritys seeing someone placing things in their city walls, they'll assume that he's doing witchcraft. Therefore, although they enacted for someone to check his Mezuzos twice every seven years, but for city's gates, they enacted to check them twice in fifty years. There was a story that someone was caught by an officer checking the Mezuzos and the officer fined him a lot of money.

46) Although, regularly, an agent doing a Mitzvah doesn't get harmed, but this case is different since the harm is common.

47) A Shul doesn't need a Mezuzah unless it has living quarters for the Shamesh.

48) There is a Tannaic argument whether a storehouse for straw, wood or anything else, or a barn are obligated in Mezuzah. R' Kahana says that everyone obligates if women beautify themselves there, and everyone exempts if they bathe there. They argue when there is no explicit designation. R' Yehuda says that the argument is when women beautify themselves there, [Tosfos: and the one who exempts holds that, since they don't live there in any aspect besides for beautifying, it's not considered a living place], but everyone agrees that he's exempt without any explicit designation. He was disproved from a Braisa that says he's obligated without any explicit intent.

49) He learns from the word 'house' to be something that's designated for living to exclude foyers, porches and balconies from Mezuzos. [Tosfos says: even though we see in Mesechta Sukkos that a foyer is obligated in a Mezuzah (regarding the two huts that were open to each other), we must say that it's only rabbinically obligated. Alternatively, here it refers to a foyer opening into a porch, and there it's a foyer opening up to a house.]

50) We also learn from 'house' that it infers only to honorable living spaces. Therefore, it excludes a bathroom, a bathhouse, a tannery and a Mikvah, that they're not obligated in a Mezuzah.

51) It also implies a non-Kodesh place, to exclude the chambers in the Azara and on the Temple Mount, that they're exempt from Mezuzah.

52) A gate without a lintel is exempt from Mezuzah. An arch that's high ten Tefachim and wide four (for the whole ten Tefachim), everyone agrees it's obligated. If it's not high ten, or, even if it's high ten, but not wide four for the first three Tefachim off the ground, everyone agrees it's exempt. They argue if it's high ten and wide four on the first three Tefachim off the ground. R' Meir says that we view as if the full Shiur is carved out, and the Rabanan say we don't view it as if it's carved out. [Tosfos says: therefore, on Shabbos, a house that's not ten Tefachim high is a Karmulas to everyone since there is no started place that has the ten Tefachim Shiur to say that we should carve out another Tefach.]

53) [Tosfos says: in Mesechta Shabbos, we say that R' Meir holds that we carve out a hole in the wall to make a four Tefachim square area, we must say that it was already four Tefachim to the side of the wall closer to the inside, but not four Tefachim to the side closer to the street. (The reason we don't say there that we refer to a hole less than four Tefachim on any side and that's why, if it's above ten Tefachim above the ground, it's as if it landed in the air (since R' Meir would also hold that we don't carve it out); or else we wouldn't say your Chayiv when it lands below four Tefachim in the wall, and even if a hole would be consider part of the Reshus Harabim, it would be a Makom Patur since it's not four by four Tefachim.)]

54) A house belonging to partners or women are obligated in Mezuzah, they become Tamai with Tzaras, and we don't exclude them since the Torah describe the house's owner in the singular male form. (After all, by Mezuzah, since the Torah says it gives life, it's logical to say they need life as well. By Tzaras, the Torah also defines it as "the house in your (pl.) land of inheritance" to include them). Rather, when it says 'Beisecha' by Mezuzah, it teaches us that we put the Mezuzah on the right side, the way 'Biascha,' (i.e., that you come in, your right foot first). By Tzaras, when it says "in the house that he has," it teaches us that the owner who has his house for himself to hold his utensils, i.e., that he claims he doesn't have a certain utensil when people come to borrow, so Hashem brings the Tzaras to force him to take out those utensils.

55) A Shul or Beis Medrish that don't have a room that someone lives there; R' Meir obligates it in a Mezuzah, and the Rabanan exempt it. [Tosfos says: it would seem that the Halacha is like the Rabanan. However it would be obligated if it's open to your house, or if it belongs to an individual instead of a community, as different Gemaras imply.]

Daf 12

56) The Tanna Kama says that houses in Yerushalayim didn't become Tamai from Tzaras since he holds that Yerushalayim wasn't split among the Shvatim. Therefore, when the people came to Yerushalayim for the Regalim, their hosts couldn't charge direct rent, but when their guests gave them their skins of their Korbanos to watch, (since it's etiquette to do so), they kept them for themselves as the rent.

57) However, R' Yehuda says that only the holy places in it don't become Tamai because of Tzaras (like the Beis Hamikdash and Shuls). He held like those who say that Yerushalayim was split among the Shvatim, and like the opinion that the Mizbeach was in Yehuda's share, but the Shechina dwelled in Binyamin's share.

58) [Tosfos says: it says in Zevachim that the Yesod of the Mizbeach was only in Binyamin's share, and therefore, not in the southeast. Even according to those who say that Yerushalayim wasn't split among the Shvatim, you must say that the Yesod wasn't around the whole Mizbeach since the Pasuk infers that the Yesod was only on certain parts. Therefore, according to them, we must had been taught that there was no Yesod on the southeast side from Hashem's blueprints of the Mikdash.]

59) If the Kohein Gadol dies and you need his understudy to take over the Avodah on Yom Kippur, and he needs to have Chinuch of being the Kohein Gadol (to make him officially into a Kohein Gadol); if the death was before the Tamid, he can have Chinuch to act like the Kohein Gadol by bringing the Tamid with the Kohein Gadol's eight Begadim. If the Tamid was already brought, and there is no other Avodah afterwards but in the four Begadim of Yom Kippur, it won't be a change from what he was before if it was identical to the Kohein Hedyot's Begadim. Therefore, it would fit in well according to Rebbi that the Kohein Hedyot wears a belt of Shatnez, since the Kohein Gadol's clothes on Yom Kippur is totally linen, there is a change in Begadim to show he's now the Kohein Gadol. However, according to R' Shimon b. Elazar who holds that the Kohein Hedyot's garments are also totally linen, there is no change and there is no Chinuch to make him into a Kohein Gadol. [Tosfos points out: even according to the Riva who holds that the hat of the Kohein Gadol is smaller than the Kohein Hedyot's hat (to leave room for the Tzitz), but since they're both composed of the same material, we don't consider it as a different hat.]

60) Abaya answers: you can have his Chinuch to be a Kohein Gadol by donning the eight Begadim and to turn over limbs burning on the Mizbeach with a pitchfork (to make it burn faster). After all, it's considered to be an Avodah since a non-Kohein who overturns the limbs on the Mizbeach is Chayiv the death penalty.

61) R' Pappa answers: the Avodah itself (that can only be done by a Kohein Gadol) makes the Chinuch. This is similar to utensils dedicated to be Kli Shareis become Kodesh after the days of Moshe (when they didn't use the "anointing oil" anymore); they dedicated it through using it for the Avodah.

62) We see that R' Dosa says that a Kohein Hedyot may use the four Begadim of the Kohein Gadol's Yom KIppur Begadim from the extra words "you shall wear." He holds that when the Torah says that those Begadim should be left there without reusing, it means the Kohein Gadol can never use it again for another Yom Kippur. (However, the Tanna Kama says that it needs to be buried.) Rebbi says that there are two disproofs to R' Dosa. One, that the belt is not the same since the Kohein Hedyot's belt was made of Shatnez. Also, you can't use something designated for a higher Kedusha for a lower Kedusha.

63) Rather, Rebbi says: the extra words that "you shall wear" teaches us that you're permitted to do Avodah with worn out Begadim. [Tosfos explains: I might have thought it's Pasul like ripped and dirtied Begadim since it needs to be for beauty, and we shouldn't act poor in a place of richness.] R' Yehuda learns from the extra words that you need to wear the hat and belt when doing the Avodah of Trumas Hadeshen (the daily removing of ash from the Mizbeach) even though those two Begadim weren't written by it.

64) When the Kohein Gadol can't do the Avodah, and they need to get another one in his place, when the first one returns to the job; R' Meir says that the substitute continues performing the Avodah like a Kohein Gadol. However, R' Yossi says that he can't do the Avodah like a Kohein Gadol since this will lead to animosity with the real Kohein Gadol. Nor can he be a Kohein Hedyot since you can only rise in Kedusha and not descend. [Tosfos explains: although he's technically a Kohein Gadol who is anyhow Pasul to wear the Kohein Hedyot's Begadim for Avodah; however, the same way a Kohein may be promoted to Kohein Gadol by the appointment of the king and the rest of the Kohanim, so too he could be demoted by them to return to be a Kohein Hedyot. Therefore, we're saying that you shouldn't demote him.]

Daf 13

65) The Halacha is like R' Yossi. [Tosfos explains: we don't consider this as a Halacha for Moshiach's time, which the Gemara sometimes says that it's not applicable for us to Paskin it nowadays. After all, it is applicable for anyone appointed to a position that needs to leave the post because of some Onness, he gets reinstated after the Onness passes. Also, you need to honor the substitute somewhat like they did for R' Elazar b. Azarya when they reestablished R' Gamliel as Nossi. R' Chaim the Kohein answers: it's only not applicable to Paskin for things that are only applicable even during Moshiach's days if it only comes out after a transgression of sin, which is totally not a common case.]

66) R' Yossi agrees that, if he B'dieved does the Avodah as a Kohein Gadol, it's valid. Also, if the first one dies, the substitute takes over and we don't say that the Kohein Gadol will view him as competition while he's still alive.

67) R' Yehuda says: we set aside a second wife since the first one might die, and the Torah requires him to do the Avodah to atone also for his 'house,' i.e., his wife. The Rabanan disagree, because, if so, you need to set aside three, four or five of them, and it will never end if you're worried so much. Although they agree that you set aside another Kohein to take over the Kohein Gadol if he gets Tamai; that's because Tumah is common, but death isn't common. [Tosfos says: death is only uncommon in this case, to be concerned that she'll die today; however, the Rabanan agree that you need to worry about death over a longer period of time. As we say in Yevamos that two brothers that married sisters who die, two other brothers can't perform Yibum, one for each sister, even according to the opinion that there is no Zika (connection) to the Yevama, since we're afraid that, after one did Yibum to one sister, the other brother will die, which will cancel the Mitzvah (since now she's the remaining brother's wife's sister, and there is no one to take her. Thus, we say that they must perform Chalitza, so, even if one brother dies, the second brother may do Chalitza on the second sister.

Alternatively, since by Yom Kippur, if the wife dies, the Avodah would be invalid; we need to be very concerned about the death, and if we get too concerned even for one death, there would be no end of how many deaths we'll need to worry about. However, by Yevamos that we're only worried that it might cancel the Mitzvah, you don't need to be worried that much and there is an end to what you need to worry about, i.e., one death. Tosfos adds: according to this, the Gemara could have answered the difference between Tumah and death since the Kohein Gadol's Tumah won't invalidate the Avodah even if both of them became Tamai, since it's very easy to find some Kohein to take there place. However, the Gemara didn't feel necessary to answer it this way since it already had a valid difference.]

68) The Gemara asks: why don't we say that there is no end to worry about Tumah? (See R' Elazar Moshe Horowitz in the beginning of the Mesechta: we already explained why you don't need to worry that there shouldn't be an end, since Tumah is more common. However, here we're trying to find out why it's enough to have one substitute, and not four or five like the Gemara in Chagiga says that they have that many duplicates for the utensils in the Mikdash since we're worried that two of them may become Tamai). The Gemara answers: since the Kohein Gadol is very zealous, so he'll make sure that he won't become Tamai. The only reason we need to set one substitute is to give him some competition in order for him to be even more zealous to make sure he doesn't become Tamai.

69) According to R' Yehuda, you must say that he married the second one before Yom Tov, or else it doesn't help at all since she wouldn't be his wife. However, you can't leave it that way since the Torah requires the Kohein Gadol to have only one house (i.e., wife) and not two houses, therefore, you need to give a Get on condition to both wives. (You can't just give a Get to one with a condition, since the other wife might die in middle of Yom Kippur, and he ended up having two wives during some of the Avodahs.) You make the condition to the substitute wife that you're only divorced if his other wife survives Yom Kippur. He makes the condition to his regular wife that you're divorced "on condition that I'll enter the Shul." Therefore, if she's about to die in middle of the day, he can easily enter the Shul and he would have divorced her retroactively from Erev Yom Kippur. (See Ritva that he can enter the Shul after the death, but they made a Chumra to enter before the death in order that he shouldn't be distracted with her death and might forget to go in.)

70) [Tosfos says: although the Gemara already rejected making a condition that the second wife should enter the Shul (in case the first one dies) since she might not enter; we're only concerned by her, and not by the Kohein Gadol, who's not as zealous. Also, she's not so close to the first wife to know if she died. After all, do we force her to be with her constantly?]

71) [Tosfos brings the Yerushalmi who argues and says that he doesn't marry the second one unless the first one dies during Yom Kippur. Although it's rabbinically forbidden to marry a woman on Shabbos and Yom Tov; but they didn't enact rabbinical Shabbos prohibitions in the Mikdash. Therefore, if someone is marrying a widow on Friday, he needs to seclude himself with her before Shabbos, or else he's acquiring her on Shabbos. (However, this is only by a widow where you acquire her with relations, or, at least, you acquire her by seclusion. However, this is not a problem by a virgin since you acquire her when she goes out with her 'Hemnusa' (i.e., vail).]

72) (If someone gave his wife a Get on condition that she never drinks wine during his lifetime, or someone else's lifetime, she's divorced. However, if he says "all the days of your life and my life," she's not divorced since she'll never be cut off from him (since she'll always be connected to him with this condition). [Tosfos says: really it's all dependant on her life, not his, as the Gemara concludes in Gitten; but his life was only brought in that it's a question according to the Gemara's original thought in Gitten that it depends on his life. (Mahrsha- then Tosfos seems to ignore the above explanation and holds that it refers to making a condition with both lives.) Since the condition was that the Get can take effect if she dies, since the condition is dependant on her death, it's not a good Get, even if there is a second condition that's not dependant on her death.]

73) The Tanna Kama says that the Kohein Gadol could do Avodah when he's an Onnein, but can't eat when he's an Onnein. R' Yehuda says that he can't do Avoda that whole day because, if he'll do Avodah, he'll come to eat. We see a similar argument regarding someone standing by the Mizbeach doing the Avodah, and he hears that a relative dies; R' Yehuda says that he forsakes the Avodah and leaves, and R' Yossi says that he finishes the Avodah. [Rashi says: we refer to a Kohein Hedyot if he has to stop in middle of the Avodah, and we just see that R' Yehuda is always strict when it comes to an Onnein. Tosfos argues and holds it to be a pushed explanation. Also, Tosfos says that the implication is that he was standing there about to do the Avodah, but didn't start it. If so, how can R' Yossi tell him to finish it if it will invalidate the Avodah. Rather, we must say if refers to a Kohein Gadol, and R' Yehuda forbids him since he might come to eat.]

74) [Tosfos says: R' Yehuda only forbids it the rest of the day, implying that it's permitted by night, since Aneinos by night is only rabbinical, and we don't make a decree (not to do the Avodah at night) to keep another rabbinical decree (not to eat Kodshim at night). However, this is only the night after the burial, but R' Yehuda holds that the night after death is Aneinos from the Torah.]

Daf 14

75) The reason why R' Yehuda holds that you need to set aside another wife just in case the first one dies, even though he holds that a Kohein Gadol who's an Onnein can't do the Avodah; we must say that since no one is eating any Kodshim on Yom Kippur, we're not worried that the Kohein Gadol will come to eat any, so he can do the Avodah. (The reason the Gemara assumes that he's an Onnein, even though she would be retroactively divorced and wasn't his wife when he died; still, he's still upset and sad, and for Kodshim, you need to be happy and eat it royally.)

76) Regarding a Para Aduma: R' Akiva says that, if you sprinkle it on someone Tahor, you make him Tamai, and on this is what Shlomo says that these laws are "far from me." The Rabanan say that he's Tahor. After all, if it makes someone Tamai Tahor, of course it won't make someone Tahor Tamai. Rather, Shlomo refers to the fact that the person who carries enough Para water that it has an amount to sprinkle, he's Tamai, yet the one who sprinkles it, or gets sprinkled on, is Tahor. [Tosfos explains: although the one sprinkled on is as Tamai as one who carries it, since both needs Tevila and to wait until night; but they're still opposites since the sprinkling makes the sprinkled lose Tumah, while it makes the carrier gain Tumah. Alternatively, if you sprinkle it on a Tahor person, he remains Tahor.] (Even according to the opinion that sprinkling doesn't need a Shiur, that's only what lands on the person, but you need to start with enough water that you can dip the top of the hyssops into it.) [Tosfos adds: however, if it's not a Shiur, it only makes Tamai a weak Tumah by touching it (i.e., that it doesn't make his clothing Tamai), which is not the case when he carries a Shiur.]

77) (The Rabanan say that you only can sprinkle the Para waters on something that's susceptible to Tumah (and that's good even if your original intent was to sprinkle on an item that's not susceptible, like an animal, and missed). However, if you sprinkle on something that's not susceptible to Tumah, (even if you intended to sprinkle on a human, and you missed), you can't sprinkle with the leftover waters on the hyssop a second time. [Rashi explains: since it's like you did work with the water, since you used it in a way that doesn't involve a Taharah, and all waters that work was done with it becomes invalid.])

78) The Mishna that says that the Kohein Gadol does the Avodah all seven days that he was separated is not like R' Akiva. After all, since you sprinkle the Para waters on him , and he was Tahor, he should be Tamai today and can't do Avoda even after Teveila since he's a Tvul Yom. Abaya says that it can even be like R' Akiva. After all, they can sprinkle it on him close to sunset, after he did the Avodah for that day,and have him Toivel before sunset.

79) Our Mishana in Yuma says that they first brought the Ketores and then they cleaned out the Menorah's lamps. In Tamid, it says the opposite. The Gemara reconciles it: our Mishna is according to R' Shimon from Mitzpah who is the Tanna that argues with the Mishnayos of Tamid. As we see that the Mishna in Tamid says that you sprinkle the Tamid's blood twice (on opposite corners in order that the blood will be) on all four sides. However, R' Shimon says that you sprinkle once on the northeast corner, and on the southwest side, you sprinkle once on the west and a second time on the south.

80) The Rabanan say that the Ketores separated the cleaning of the first five lamps and the last two lamps, and Abba Shaul says that sprinkling the blood of the Tamid separates them.

Daf 15

81) [Tosfos says: R' Chananel says that there were two "chambers of fire" which have a bonfire to bring from it to the Mizbeach, the second one was just in case the first bonfire was extinguished. Even though a fire came from heaven, there's a Mitzvah for a mortal to place fire on it too. (Even though there was an opinion that one bonfire on the Mizbeach was lit for that, we can say that this bonfire was only needed if the ones in the chambers of fire became extinguished. However, Rashi in Mesechta Shabbos says that, since the Kohanim walked barefoot on a marble floor, they came to this chamber to warm up. However, it fits well according to R' Chananel why we have a Drasha there "you can't light a fire in all your dwelling places" to exclude lighting in the chamber of fire, which, according to him, it's needed for the Avodah. However, according to Rashi, since it's only needed for people to get warmed, we must say that it's a Gezeiras Hakasuv that it's permitted even if there is no need for Hashem's service.]

Daf 17

82) The Kohein Gadol can have first dibs to do the Avodah, and the first dibs of taking a portion of the Korban. Rebbi's Rabanan say that he gets a little less than half of what they're dividing. Therefore, according to R' Yehuda's Rabanan who say that they split all twelve loaves of the Lechem Hapanim, the Kohein Gadol is entitled to five. According to R' Yehuda that they only divided ten of them, (since they give two of them to the arriving Mishmor as a payment for closing the doors at night), the Kohein Gadol is entitled to four of them. Rebbi holds that the Kohein Gadol always gets half, so, according to R' Yehuda, the Kohein Gadol is entitled to five of them.

83) The Rabanan agree to Rebbi that, if you can't split something without breaking whole loaves without giving the Kohein Gadol a full half, the Kohein Gadol receives half. After all, it's not proper to give the Kohein Gadol a broken piece and not a whole loaf. Therefore, by the Shtei Halechem, he receives one of the loaves.

Daf 18

84) The elders of the Beis Din read the Parsha of the Avodah before the Kohein Gadol on Erev Yom Kippur, and tell him to read it himself since he might have forgotten it, or had never learned it. (Although the Torah requires to pick out a Kohein Gadol who is superior to his colleagues in strength, beauty, wisdom and wealth, (Acheirim say that if he wasn't the wealthiest, that he takes from his fellow Kohanim until he becomes the wealthiest); this refers to the second Beis Hamikdash when they only appointed those who paid off the king the most money.

85) The Mishna says that they stand him in the east gate and they pass before him, (to become familiar with them), bulls, rams and sheep. The Braisa says that they also passed goats before him. The Mishna held not to pass the goats since it will bring the Kohein Gadol to feel bad since it comes for the sin of the Jews, and he's not familiar with all their sins in order to get them to do Teshuva. However, they passed the bulls, although they also come for sin, but since it's for his and the other Kohanim sins, and he knows the Kohanim and their sins, he has an opportunity to get them to do Teshuva.

86) All seven days, they didn't refrain any food from him except on Erev Yom Kippur close to sunset so that he shouldn't get tired and fall asleep that night. Also, they didn't give him anything that can warm him and bring him to emit semen, like an Esrog, old wine, (some say even white wine), eggs, fatty meat, milk, cheese, beans, brine, garlic, horse-beans, Chalgulos and Gargir.

87) A guest shouldn't eat eggs or sleep in the clothes of the host since he might find semen on it and he'll be embarrassed.

88) There were rabbis who announced, when they were on a trip, "who is willing to be my wife for one night." Although we have a rule that someone shouldn't marry two wives in different countries, since your children might come together and a brother will marry a sister; rabbis are different since they're famous, and there are rumors who their father is. Although we regularly say that when a woman is proposed to, and she accepts, she needs to count seven clean days since we're afraid she saw blood that comes from desire; we must say that they sent an agent seven days before they arrived to announce for him before he arrived. [Tosfos explains: even minors need to count the seven clean days, so you can't answer that they married minors. Even after the seven clean days, she needs to check herself every day until they have relations, since she might see blood from desire during that whole time.]

89) Alternatively, they only secluded together, but didn't have relations. By this, he at least has "bread in his basket" (i.e., since he has an option of relations if necessary, he doesn't feel deprived). [Tosfos quotes Ri: since he only married her to seclude, and not for relations, we don't need to worry about her seeing blood from desire. This also answers the question how he can marry another wife in another country, since they don't have relations, so there is no problem that siblings will marry. If it does lead to relations, he'll bring her back with him to his own country. However, Rashi explains that, since they're not having relations, you don't need to worry if she's a Niddah. Tosfos asks: if so, how does this help him not feel deprived if they can't have relations? (However, you can answer since he has a Heter after seven days, he doesn't feel deprived.) Also, Tosfos asks: you can't seclude with a new wife that's a Niddah before you have relations with her? (However, you can answer that it only applies to the first time he married, where you need to worry about his desire, but not if he was already married, and especially here where he has another wife. As we see that a married man has a bigger Heter to hold his male organ when he urinates (and doesn't need to worry as much that he'll emit seed) than an unmarried young man.]

90) [Tosfos says: If he was already married, there is no proof that he can seclude with his wife if he becomes an Avel within the Yom Tov, where he needs to keep the private mourning laws like not having relations. After all, we say that if a groom or bride became an Avel by the Chuppah, we allow them they're first relations before the burial (since Aveilos didn't start yet) and they can't seclude throughout Sheva Brachos since it's a time of joy, it might lead to relations. However, the Ravad permits it, since we only forbid it by a wedding where there is extra joy than a regular Yom Tov.]

Daf 19

91) The elder Koheins bring him into the Avtinos chamber to teach him how to scoop up the Ketores with his hands. There was two Braisos, one describes the Kohein Gadol's chamber as in the south, and the other one says it's in the north. To reconcile it, we must say that one refers to the Avtinus chamber, and the other refers to the Parhedrin chamber. Originally, the Gemara wants to prove that the Parhedrin chamber was in the south, since that's the side that the Mikvah was on, (right next to the southern gate). If the chamber would be in the north, then it would be a great bother for the Kohein Gadol to, each morning, walk around the Mikdash from north to south to Toivel, and when he Toivels at night, he would need to walk around the Mikdash from the south to the north. The Gemara rejects the proof. Really it's on the north, and the rabbis wanted the Kohein Gadol to have a great bother so to discourage Tzidokim to vie for the job. Alternatively, so that the Kohein Gadol shouldn't get too haughty. After all, if we don't want the Kohein Gadol to have this bother, why didn't they build both chambers on the same side, or why not only use one chamber for both? Rather, we must say that they wanted to bother him (for the above reasons).

92) They made the Kohein Gadol swear that he wouldn't change anything. They said "we're agents of Beis Din, and you're our agent. Although R' Huna b. Dr' Yehoshua says that the Kohanim are Hashem's agents in the Avodah, and not ours. After all, anything that you can't do personally, you can't appoint an agent for. Rather, what these elders were saying "we're making you swear according to what we're thinking and what Beis Din is thinking," (and you can't think of a way to explain your swearing to mean anything else but what we're thinking).

93) [Tosfos says: even though we have an unresolved inquiry in Nedarim if the Kohanim are our agents or Hashem's agents, and we don't bring a proof from R' Huna; we must say that they only wanted to prove it from Tannaic literature, and not from an Amorah's words. Alternatively, we know from R' Huna that they can't be our agents completely, but the inquiry is if they're somewhat our agent that you can demand to use your own choice of Kohein to bring the Korban, and you don't need to use someone from the Mishmar. if he's somewhat your agent, you can't be forced to use a certain agent without your consent.]

94) He walks away and cries since he was suspected to be a Tzidoki, and they walk away and cry, since they suspected him, and those who suspect someone wrongfully get punished with pain to their body. As they suspected him that he'll burn the Ketores before he enters the Kodesh Hakadoshim like the Tzidokim do.

95) You're not allowed to even hint with your hands in middle of the first Perek of Krias Shma, but you may do so in the second Perek.

96) The Pasuk says that "you speak in it," referring to Shma, but not in Tefila. [Rashi explains: that you say it in a whisper, and not out loud like Shma. Tosfos says: in Tefila, you can't greet anyone, or respond to a greeting, because you fear or honor them like you can during Shma.]

97) The Pasuk says "you speak in it," i.e., in Torah, but not in idle chatter.

98) They would read to the Kohein Gadol at night so that he shouldn't sleep if he's falling asleep, you snap with your fingers to awaken him. You should keep him awake by having him show you Kida (bowing and kissing the floor). The great people of Yerushalayim stayed up all night singing so that their echo will prevent the Kohein from falling asleep.

Daf 20

99) [Tosfos says: regarding removing the remains of the burning limbs to the pile of ash; the Gemara's conclusion is that it depends if it's before or after midnight. That's only when it's somewhat melted, if the fire blast it off the Mizbeach before midnight, you return it to the fire. After midnight, you consider it as burned and you don't return it to the fire. (If it's not so burned, you always return it to the fire. If it's ash, you always don't need to return it.) When you don't return it, it's fit for 'Trumah.' Rashi says that it's fit for Trumas Hadeshen. Tosfos asks: it's not fit for it if it's not ash. (The Ri Bachur explains Rashi: not for actual Trumas Hadeshen, but to remove it to the pile of ash on the Mizbeach.) Rather, Tosfos explains, when we say that it's fit for Trumah; it means like the Trumah that it's not fit to burn anymore.]

100) They usually did Trumas Hadeshen before the crying out of the 'Gever,' or a little afterwards. However, they did it earlier on Yom Kippur by midnight because of the weakness of the Kohein Gadol, and they did it even earlier on Regalim, when everyone brings their Korbanos and they have a lot of ashes, from the first "watch of the night" (i.e.,a third of the night). [Tosfos says: from here, it seems, that the Kohein Gadol did the Trumas Hadeshen on Yom Kippur. However, the Riva says that he didn't do it since it was a night Avodah, and he only needs to do the day Avodahs for Yom Kippur. After all, then he would need an extra Teveila for the Trumas Hadeshen than what the Gemara says he needed. Therefore, we shouldn't have the text of "the weakness of the Kohein Gadol" but "of the Kohein who does the Trumas Hadeshen." The Ri says that you can have the text of "Kohein Gadol." You need to do the Trumas Hadeshen (and setting up the wood on the Mizbeach etc.) earlier in the night so that it should be ready for the Kohein Gadol to be able to start the Avodah by dawn so he can finish the Avodah before he becomes weak.]

101) Some people define 'Gever' as the person designated to call out to start the Avodah, and others define it as a rooster.