1)

(a)We not interpret the Pasuk in Vayikra "v'Samach v'Nirtza" literally - because "v'Nirtza" means that it atones, and it is not the Semichah that atones, but the sprinkling of the blood.

(b)"v'Samach v'Nirtza" - means that even though Semichah is not Me'akev, it is nevertheless a serious thing to omit it. So much so that, if one does omit it, it is considered as if it was not Mechaper (see Tosfos Yeshanim).

(c)Tenufah follows exactly the same pattern as Semichah (with regard to all the points that we just mentioned).

2)

(a)The seven-day Hafrashah is Me'akev by the Milu'im, according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, but not according to ...

2. ... Rebbi Chanina.

(b)We know that Hafrashah is not Me'akev the Avodah on Yom Kipur - because our Mishnah said (with regard to the deputy Kohen Gadol) 'Maskinin', and not 'Mafrishin' (see 3b. answer 8a.).

(c)According to Ravina, the difference between Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Chanina is whether they require both Ribuy Shiv'ah and Meshichah Shiv'ah. Meshichah Shiv'ah means that the Kohen Gadol must be anointed with the anointing oil for seven consecutive days. The anointing comprised smearing oil both on his head like a Greek 'chi', and between his eye-lashes.

(d)'Ribuy Shiv'ah' means wearing the eight garments for the seven days.

3)

(a)'Miluy Yadayim' means initiated by wearing the eight garments.

(b)We learn from the Pasuk

1. ... "Shiv'as Yamim Yilbasham ha'Kohen Tachtav mi'Banav" - that the Kohen Gadol is initiated by being anointed for seven days and wearing the eight Bigdei Kehunah Gedolah.

2. ... " ... va'Asher Yemalei es Yadam" - that he can be initiated by wearing the clothes for eight days even though he was anointed only once.

3. ... "Asher Yimshach Osam" - that he can be initiated by being anointed for seven days even though he wore the clothes only once.

(c)According to the Gemara's first explanation - we know that the Kohen Gadol is anointed all seven days of his initiation from the fact that we preclude it from being Me'akev (if it would not be necessary to do so l'Chatchilah, then it would not be necessary to preclude it from being Me'akev).

4)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish learn from the word "Kachah" - that whatever is written by the Milu'im is Me'akev.

(b)We need the 'Gezeirah Shavah' of "Pesach" (Tetzaveh) "Pesach"(Tzav) - to teach us that even something that is not written explicitly in the Parshah is also Me'akev.

(c)This comes to include placing the Urim v'Tumim into the Choshen Mishpat, which is not mentioned in Tetzaveh, only in Tzav.

(d)True, the Torah writes "Venasata el Choshen ha'Mishpat es ha'Urim v'es ha'Tumim" in Parshas Tetzaveh - but that is in the Parshah of the Bigdei Kehunah, and not the Milu'im.

5)

(a)Rav Mesharshaya learns from the Pasuk in Tzav "u'Shemartem es Mishmeres Hash-m", and Rav Ashi from "Ki Chen Tzuveisi" - that everything which is written in the Parshah of Milu'im is Me'akev.

(b)The advantage of their Derashos over the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - is that according to them we learn it from the Parshah of Milu'im itself.

6)

(a)Moshe needed to say ...

1. ... "Kechu es ha'Minchah ha'Noseres me'Ishei Hash-m v'Ichluha Matzos ... Ki Chen Tzuveisi" - (by Hash-m) to eat the Minchah, even though they were Onenim.

2. ... (regarding the burnt goat of the Chatas Rosh Chodesh) "Achol Tochlu Osah ba'Kodesh Ka'asher Tziveisi" - to tell them that they should have eaten the goat of Rosh Chodesh like he had commanded them to do with the Minchah.

3. ... (regarding the Chazeh and the Shok of the Milu'im "Ka'asher Tzivah Hash-m" - to tell them that they should eat them even though they were Onenim, because that is what Hash-m told him (and he had not erred here like he did by the goat of Rosh Chodesh [see Tosfos Yeshanim]).

(b)Moshe's basic mistake in 2. was that, even though Hash-m had ordered Aharon and his sons to eat the Kodshei Sha'ah (the special Korbanos of the Milu'im) in spite of the fact that they were Onenim - that concession did not extend to Kodshei Doros (the regular Korbanos, such as the Musaf of Rosh Chodesh).

7)

(a)We learn that the Kohanim had to wear the pants during the Avodah of the Milu'im (even though they are not mentioned in the Parshah) from the word "v'Zeh ha'Davar Asher Ta'aseh Lahem Lekadesh Osam Lechahen" (in Tetzaveh) - because the 'Vav' connects this Parshah with the previous one, where the pants are mentioned.

(b)We also learn through a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from "v'Zeh" here and "v'Zeh Korban Aharon u'Vanav" (Tzav) that the Kohen Gadol had to bring the Asiris ha'Eifah (which is not mentioned in the Parshah of the Milu'im) during the Milu'im.

8)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "Zeh ha'Davar Asher Tzivah Hash-m" that even reading the Parshah of the Milu'im is Me'akev, too (because the word "Davar" always refers to speech).

(b)The Gemara then asks how Moshe dressed Aharon and his sons for the Milu'im. Why does the Gemara need to ask a She'eilah that is no longer relevant, asks the Gemara. The Milu'im is long finished, so what is the point of asking such She'eilah?

(c)The Gemara nonetheless find it necessary to pursue the point in order to resolve seemingly contradictory Pesukim.

9)

(a)The sons of Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Yochanan argue over the order of dressing. Based on Pesukim, one of them says that Moshe first dressed Aharon and then his sons. The other one says that he dressed them at the same time.

(b)They all agree that Moshe first dressed Aharon the Kutones (the long shirt) and the Mitznefes (the hat or the turban).

(c)The pants was the first garment with which Moshe dressed Aharon and his sons. Consequently, since he first dressed Aharon in his shirt, he must have also dressed him first him in his pants (The Ramban in Chumash points out that, due to Tzeni'us, Aharon and his sons put on the pants themselves - in which case, the question falls away).

(d)Some learn from ...

1. ... the sequence of the Pesukim in Tzav "Vayachgor Oso ba'Avnet" and then Vayachgor Osam Avnet" - that Moshe first dressed Aharon and then his sons.

2. ... and others from "Vechagarta Osam Avnet Aharon u'Vanav"- that he dressed them both simultaneously.

10)

(a)Those who maintain that Aharon and his sons were dressed simultaneously explain that the sequence of the Pesukim in Tzav comes to teach us that their clothes (even the four garments that they both wore) were not exactly the same - i.e. that although the belt of the Kohen Gadol contained Sha'atnez (wool and linen threads), that of the Kohen Hedyot did not.

(b)According to those who hold that Moshe dressed Aharon first - the Torah mentions them together in Tetzaveh to teach us that the Kohen Hedyot's belt, like that of the Kohen Gadol, contained Sha'atnez.

(c)'Simultaneously' - means that, after dressing Aharon in the pants, the shirt and the hat, he dressed his sons in the same three garments; then he tied Aharon's belt, and then his sons - before dressing Aharon in the four special clothes of the Kohen Gadol.

(d)According to the other opinion, he dressed Aharon in all his eight garments, before dressing his sons in their four.