Observation: In some places, the number is at the beginning, e.g. in our Mishnah, and Bava Kama 2a "four Avos Nezikin", and Rosh Hashanah 2a "four Roshei Shanim".

Observation: In other places, the number is at the end, e.g. in Avodah Zarah 2a "before idolatrous festivals, three days" and Kidushin 2a "a woman is acquired in three ways", and Pesachim 6a "we ask and investigate laws of the festival beforehand 30 days. Note: In Kidushin 2a (DH ha'Ishah), Tosfos said that we need not be so concerned for the difference, for the Tana teaches the way he normally says it.

Explanation: If we will be concerned for death of one wife, we should be concerned for death of even two or three.

Question: The Stam Mishnah in Yevamos 26a connotes that we are concerned for death of one, but not for death of two;

Contradiction: Our Stam Mishnah (i.e. Chachamim) holds that if we will be concerned for one, we should be concerned for more!

Answer #1: Here, Chachamim mean that granted, we are concerned for death of one over a long time, like in Yevamos, for perhaps before he does Yibum with one Yevamah, the other will die;

However, [letter of the law] we should not be concerned for death in a short time. Rather, due to the importance of Kaparah, you [R. Yehudah] are concerned for a short time;

If so, you should be concerned even for two or three!

Answer #2: There [in Yevamos], it is a mere concern for Bitul Mitzvas Yevamim [a Yevamah might die without doing Yibum or Chalitzah]. This is not such a big Isur;

Here, the Kaparah of all Yisrael depends on this [that the Kohen Gadol have a wife]. We should be concerned for death of two or three, even in a short time!

If so, there is no limit [to how many wives we must prepare for the Kohen Gadol]. Therefore, we do not enact to do something for this concern.

Implied question: The Gemara (13a) asks "why, regarding Tum'ah, which is more common than death, like the Gemara says, it suffices to prepare one Kohen [ready to serve] in his place [if the Kohen Gadol will become Tamei], and here we are concerned for two or three!

The Gemara could have answered like we said, that there is not such a concern there! [According to letter of the law,] there is no need to prepare another Kohen;

Presumably, even without preparation, we could find a Kohen qualified for the Avodah. It is a mere stringency. Therefore, one substitute suffices!

Answer: (Indeed, the Gemara could have answered this, but it did not need to.) In any case, the Gemara gave a proper answer.

Assertion: They were not Metamei the Kohen through a Tum'ah mid'Oraisa. They would not do such a big disgrace.

Support: Just the contrary! We say that the garments of people who eat Kodshim are considered Tamei for Parah Adumah! (Chagigah 18b) (Since they were so stringent about Taharas Parah Adumah, they would not be Metamei him mid'Oraisa.)

Explanation: Rather, they did like it says in Parah (Mishnah 3:8). They put their hands on his head and say "Kohen Gadol! Immerse once!";

His fellow Kohanim are considered Tamei with respect to him [since they were not guarding themselves for the sake of Parah Adumah]. Their clothes are Tamei regarding Parah Adumah, like I explained. (Since they touch him, he is considered Tamei mid'Rabanan.)

Explanation: This was enacted [to use only Kelim of dung, stone and earth, which are not Mekabel Tum'ah] only during the seven days [of separation before] burning Parah Adumah;

Regarding Kidush (putting the ashes onto the water), A Mishnah (Parah 5:5) permits in any Kli, even Kelim of dung...

Support: The Mishnah connotes that it is more obvious that other Kelim are Kosher for Kidush. It needs to teach that even Kelim of dung, [earth] and stone are Kosher.

Even though they are not Kelim regarding Tum'ah, they are Kelim for Kidush. "Mayim Chayim El Keli" applies to them.

Question: Why didn't they separate also the Kohen Gadol before Yom Kipur to this [northeast] chamber Al Pnei ha'Birah?

Answer #1: They called Lishkas Parah Lishkas Beis Even, to make it known that they use there only stone Kelim.

If they separated there also the Kohen Gadol before Yom Kipur, it would not be evident [that such Kelim are special for Parah Adumah].

Answer #2: The Kohen Gadol before Yom Kipur is separated for the sake of Kedushah. All his Avodah was Lifnim (in the Mikdash) and Lifnai v'Lifnim (in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim). Therefore, they separated him to Lishkas Parhedrin, which was built in the Kodesh (Azarah);

Parah Adumah is done outside [the Mikdash] on Har ha'Mishchah. Therefore he was separated to a Lishkah Al Pnei ha'Birah, outside the Azarah.

Question: How could the Gemara suggest that the entire verse discusses Yom Kipur? If so, what does "La'asos" teach?

Answer: The Maksheh (one who asked) thought that we need both "Lechaper" and "La'asos" to teach about Yom Kipur;

Had the verse said only Lechaper, one might have thought that this refers to Kaparah of Korbanos;

Had the verse said only La'asos, one might have thought that this refers to Parah Adumah.

Therefore, it says both, to teach that it refers only to Yom Kipur, about which both are said.

Question: Why didn't the Gemara answer [that it is unreasonable to learn only about Yom Kipur, for] if so, why do we need the three words in the verse "Tzivah... La'asos Lechaper"?

Suggestion: Now we retract from the Drashah La'asos, therefore we need the other two;

Had it said only Lechaper, one might have thought that this refers to Kaparah of Korbanos.

Had it said only Tzivah, one might have thought that this teaches also about Parah.

Therefore, it says both.

Rejection #1: It would still be difficult. We should say that [we still learn to Parah Adumah, for] we did not [give a reason to] retract from La'asos!

Rejection #2: Had we retracted, the Gemara should have said "Ela"! (This always shows a retraction.)

Rejection #3: Below (3b) it is clear that we did not retract from La'asos.

R. Yehoshua ben Levi expounds two matters [from the verse]. La'asos teaches about Parah.

Inference: We never retracted from expounding La'asos!

Answer #1: The Gemara asks why we learn from the verse only Parah and Yom Kipur;

We should say that Tzivah refers to Yom Kipur, and La'asos Lechaper are free, so we can expound La'asos to teach about Parah, and Lechaper to teach about Korbanos.

It says Lechaper several times regarding Chatas and Asham!

Suggestion: [There is no Hava Amina to learn all three, for] if so, the Torah should have omitted Tzivah, and we would expound Parah from La'asos, and Yom Kipur and Korbanos from Lechaper, like the questioner's Hava Amina below!

Rejection, and support of Answer #1: This is wrong. Had the Torah omitted Tzivah, we would expound both words Lechaper La'asos to teach about Yom Kipur, like we asked above "we should say that the entire verse teaches about Yom Kipur!"

Rather, it is a good question [like we explained above]. We should say that Tzivah refers to Yom Kipur, La'asos teaches about Parah, and Lechaper teaches about Korbanos.

Question: If so (the Torah wanted to include Yom Kipur, Parah and Korbanos), it should have written only Tzivah and Lechaper, like the Makshan below thought;

He asked 'we should say that Lechaper teaches about Korbanos!' This shows that Lechaper teaches about Yom Kipur and Korbanos;

Suggestion: Perhaps [this is not so, rather,] Tzivah teaches about Yom Kipur, and Lechaper teaches about Korbanos, and there is no source for Parah!

Rejection: If so, there would be no need for Tzivah. Lechaper itself could teach about Yom Kipur and Korbanos!

Answer: Had the Torah written only Tzivah La'asos, we would say that it teaches only about Yom Kipur, about which it says Tzivah Lechaper, and resembles it (the Milu'im) more than Korbanos;

Now that it says [also] La'asos, from which we must include Parah, even though it is not so similar to the Milu'im, if so we can also include Korbanos from Lechaper.

It is not to exclude Korbanos, rather, to include.

Suggestion: Perhaps La'asos Lechaper teaches only about Yom Kipur, like we initially asked!

Rejection: This is why it says Tzivah, to include Yom Kipur, so now La'asos Lechaper is extra to teach about Parah and Korbanos!

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara asks that we should say that Tzivah La'asos refers to Yom Kipur. It says va'Ya'as regarding Yom Kipur, and also Tzivah;

It does not teach about Parah, for no expression of Asiyah is written regarding Parah.

Lechaper should teach about Korbanos. We need La'asos to exclude Parah;

Had it said only Tzivah Lechaper, one might have thought Tzivah teaches about Yom Kipur and Parah, for there is no reason to exclude one of them [more than the other].

Therefore, it says La'asos, to teach only a matter about which it says Asiyah near Tzivah, i.e. Yom Kipur, and exclude Parah Adumah, about which it does not say Asiyah;

Gemara's answer: The Gemara answers that we learn a matter in which it says Tzivah before Asiyah...

Explanation: I.e. even though it does not say Asiyah regarding Parah, it is better to learn [Parah] from there (Milu'im), for Tzivah is written before its Asiyah.

I.e. after Tzivah it says "va'Yikchu Elecha Parah", and all the laws of how to do it. We exclude Yom Kipur, for the laws of how to do it precede Tzivah.

I prefer Answer #2 over Answer #1.

Question: According to the answer, that we learn from what is more similar, why do we need Tzivah La'asos Lechaper?

It would suffice to write only Tzivah Lechaper, and we would expound Tzivah is Parah, and Lechaper is Yom Kipur;

Question: [If so] we could ask that Tzivah refers to Korbanos!

Answer: We could answer that we learn [Parah, regarding which it says] Tzivah from Tzivah, and not [Korbanos, regarding which it says] Tzavoso from Tzivah.

Answer - part 1: Had it written only Tzivah Lechaper, one might have thought that Tzivah must refer to Yom Kipur, since both of them (Yom Kipur and Milu'im) are separation for the sake of Kedushah.

We would not say that it is Parah, for its separation is for Taharah;

Suggestion: We could answer like above, that we learn a matter in which it says Tzivah before Asiyah (Parah) from another such matter (Milu'im)!

Rejection: Just the contrary! If it would not say La'asos regarding the Milu'im, its Tzava'ah would not be before Asiyah, rather, after - "Ka'asher Asah... Tzivah", like Yom Kipur, [about which it says] "va'Ya'as Ka'asher Tzivah";

Therefore, we need La'asos.

Answer - part 2: Had it said only Tzivah La'asos, one might have thought that this refers to Parah, for we learn a matter in which it says Tzivah before Asiyah (Parah) from another such matter (Milu'im), rather than Yom Kipur, in which Tzivah is after Asiyah;

Answer #1 - part 3: Had it said only La'asos Lechaper, one might have thought that Lechaper refers to Yom Kipur, and La'asos refers to Korbanos, in which the separation is for Kedushah;

We would not learn Parah, for it does not say La'asos regarding Parah or Korbanos. We expound from an extra La'asos, to include.

It is more reasonable to include Korbanos. Therefore, it says Tzivah, to teach about Parah.

Answer #2 - part 3: Alternatively, one might have thought that La'asos Lechaper is all for Yom Kipur, like the Gemara asked above.

Answer #3 (to Question (a), and retraction from Suggestion (b)): I prefer to say that the Gemara retracted from expounding La'asos, and we expound only Tzivah Lechaper.

This answers many questions that I wrote.

Question: I asked that the Gemara did not retract from La'asos!

Answer: This is not difficult. You must say that we retracted from it;

La'asos does not connote the actions of Parah. It does not say Asiyah regarding Parah!

Implied question: The Gemara did not say "Ela"! (This implies that it did not retract.)

Answer: This is because it did not retract totally;

Rather, R. Yochanan expounds "Tzivah La'asos" to teach about Parah for all Doros. He does not expound anything from La'asos;

However, had the Torah written only Tzivah, we would not have learned Parah.

Only now that the Torah wrote La'asos, we learn Parah because it says Tzivah before the actions, like regarding the Milu'im.

Observation: In several places the Gemara answers this [that we learn from what is more similar].

Question: In Menachos (4a), it asks 'we should learn "Avono" of Asham from "Avon" of Chatas to disqualify Lo Lishmah' [and answered that we rather learn Minchas Kena'os "Avon-Avon" from Chatas...];

[The Gemara rejected this, because] Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael learns [a Gezeirah Shavah between "u'Va ha'Kohen" and] "v'Shav ha'Kohen"!

Answer: The Gemara there [did not need to give our Gemara's answer, that we learn from what is more similar, for it] relied on what it said shortly after this, 'also, we should learn Asham "Avono-Avono" from Shevu'as ha'Edus' [and the Drashah used to answer that question].

Support: Similarly, in Nidah 22b, regarding Yetzirah [that we should be able to learn it from Beri'ah, like R. Yishmael, we did not need to give our Gemara's answer] because it relies on what it says afterwards, 'also, we should learn Beri'ah from Beri'ah' [and the answer to that question].

Question: In Yevamos (17b), we learn "Achim" from "Achim" [and not from "Achecha". We asked that Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael learns "u'Va" from "v'Shav",] and answered like we say here, that when there are more similar words, we learn from them;

Later it suggests learning "Achim- Achim" from Lot! (Why did it need to give our Gemara's answer? It should have relied on the answer why we do not learn from Lot, like it relied on similar answers in Menachos and Nidah!)

Answer: There, we could not say v'Od (and further, even if you learn from what is more similar,) you should learn a Gezeirah Shavah of Achvah from Lot, for this is unlike the previous question;

Initially it suggested to learn from Arayos, and say that [Yibum] applies even to the wife of a maternal brother.

However, it did not suggest learning about a nephew's wife. Later, it suggested learning even a nephew's wife;

Therefore, had it not answered [that we learn dissimilar words] only when there are not more similar words, we would have had to ask with the word v'Od [to show that the latter answer will answer also the previous question], like we ask in Menachos and Nidah;

Since [in Yevamos] the question is unlike the previous question, we cannot ask v'Od.

Explanation: The Gemara suggests that also other Korbanos should require separation;

Suggestion: Perhaps it suggests that only other Korbanos should require separation.

Rejection: Also Yom Kipur is separation for Korbanos! (There is no reason to exclude it.)

Implied question: Shabbos is [in the seven days] before Yom Kipur [so there is Kedushah beforehand]!

Answer: The Gemara considers only Kedushas Yom Tov, which depends on Beis Din [who decide which day is Rosh Chodesh], but not Kedushas Shabbos, which is fixed [independent of Beis Din];

[Also,] both Yom Kipur and Shemini Atzeres have Kedushas Shabbos [in the week] beforehand.