(Rav Ashi): Huna bar Noson was once in front of the Persian king. Huna's belt was too high. The king lowered it to his elbows, and told him 'you are "Mamleches Kohanim v'Goy Kadosh."' (Therefore, you must conduct like Kohanim, and not gird belts where you sweat.)

(Ameimar): "V'Hayu Melachim Omnayich (kings will be your foster parents)" was fulfilled with Huna bar Noson.

(Mishnah): If a Kohen bruised his finger on Shabbos, he wraps a reed over it in the Mikdash;

This is forbidden outside the Mikdash (Rashi - because it heals; Tosfos - lest he squeeze out blood).

In all places, one may not squeeze out blood.

Version #1 (R. Yehudah brei d'R. Chiya): Only a reed is permitted, but a small belt is forbidden, for it is an extra garment.

(R. Yochanan): Extra garments are forbidden only in the places where Bigdei Kehunah are worn.

Question: It should be forbidden because it is a Chatzitzah (blockage) (between his skin and the Avodah. He must hold the Korban or Keli Shares with his hand!)

Answers: The bruise was on his left hand, or on a part of the right hand not used for Avodah.

Rava argues with R. Yochanan.

(Rava): In the places where Bigdei Kehunah are worn, even a thread is a Chatzitzah. In other places, only a garment three Tefachim by three Tefachim is a Chatzitzah.

Question: Must we say that Rava also argues with R. Yehudah brei d'R. Chiya?

Answer: No. Since a small belt is decorative, it is considered like a garment three Tefachim by three Tefachim.

Version #2 (R. Yehudah brei d'R. Chiya): Only a reed is permitted, but a small belt is forbidden (it is a Chatzitzah).

(R. Yochanan): Extra garments less than three Tefachim by three Tefachim are a Chatzitzah only in the places where Bigdei Kehunah are worn. Elsewhere, only garments of three Tefachim is a Chatzitzah.

This is like Rava.

Suggestion: R. Yochanan and Rava argue with R. Yehudah brei d'R. Chiya.

Rejection: No. Since a small belt is decorative, it is considered like a garment of three Tefachim. (end of Version #2)

Question: According to R. Yochanan (who permits a small belt, at least in Version #1), why did the Mishnah permit a reed? It should have said that even a small belt is permitted!

Answer: The Tana taught in passing that a reed heals.

Question (Rava): If the wind lifted the garment up off his skin, what is the law?

If it must rest on his skin, it (the Avodah) is Pasul;

Or, perhaps this is included in normal wearing of garments.

Question: Is a louse a Chatzitzah?

Surely, a dead louse is a Chatzitzah. The question is about a live louse.

Do we say, since it comes and goes by itself, it is like his skin;

Or, since he does not want it there, it is a Chatzitzah?

Question: Is dirt a Chatzitzah?

Objection: Obviously it is!

Correction: Rather, is very fine dirt (which one does not notice) a Chatzitzah?

Question: Is the sleeve a Chatzitzah (if it is not snug on the underarm)?

Must the garment be flush on his skin?

Or, is this included in normal wearing of garments?

Question: If he stuck his hand under his garment by his chest, is this a Chatzitzah?

Is his own body a Chatzitzah?

Question: Is a thread (from another garment) a Chatzitzah?

Objection: Obviously, it is!

Correction (Question): Is a dangling thread (of this garment) a Chatzitzah?

Question (Mar bar Rav Ashi): (If you will say that his own body is not a Chatzitzah), if hair (of his head) is under a garment (other than the hat), what is the law?

Is his hair like his body, or not?

Question (R. Zeira): Is Tefilin (Rashi - like an extra garment, to be considered) a Chatzitzah?

According to the opinion that the Mitzvah does not apply at night, surely they are a Chatzitzah at night, and also during the day (Rashi - for we are more stringent about daytime Avodah than nighttime Avodah);

He asks according to the opinion that the Mitzvah applies also at night. Is a Mitzvah incumbent on his body a Chatzitzah, or not?

Answer (R. Ami): They are a Chatzitzah.

Question (Beraisa): Kohanim doing Avodah, Leviyim singing and Yisraelim at their Ma'amad (overseeing the Avodah) are exempt from prayer and Tefilin.

Suggestion: If they wore them, they are not a Chatzitzah.

Rejection: No, they are a Chatzitzah.

Question: If so, the Beraisa should forbid wearing them!

Answer: Leviyim and Yisraelim are not forbidden (for they do not do Avodah), only exempt. Therefore it says 'exempt', which applies to all of them.

Question (Beraisa): If they wore them, they are not a Chatzitzah.

Answer: That applies to the head Tefilin. R. Ami discusses the hand Tefilin.

Question: What is the difference between them?

Regarding the Kesones, it says "Yilbash Al Besaro." Also regarding the Mitznefes, it says "v'Samta ha'Mitznefes Al Rosho"!

Answer (Beraisa): The Kohen Gadol's hair was seen between the Tzitz and the Mitznefes, there he wore Tefilin. (I.e. it is not a place where Bigdei Kehunah are worn. The Kesones is worn over the place of hand Tefilin.)

(Mishnah): Mechusar Kipurim (is Mechalel Avodah).

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Rav Huna): "V'Chiper Aleha ha'Kohen v'Taherah" implies that she (a woman who gave birth) is (partially) Tamei (until her Korban is offered).

(Mishnah): One who did not Mekadesh (wash his hands and feet) is Mechalel Avodah.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer: We learn from a Gezerah Shavah "Chukah-Chukah" from Mechusar Begadim.

(Beraisa): If the Kohen Gadol did not immerse or be Mekadesh between changing his clothes (from his usual eight garments to the white (linen) garments he wears when he enters the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, or vice-versa) or between Avodos, his Avodah is Kosher;

If any Kohen (regular or Gadol) did not Mekadesh in the morning, he is Mechalel Avodah.

Question (Rav Asi - Mishnah): The Kohen Gadol immersed five times and was Mekadesh 10 times on Yom Kipur.

This is mid'Oraisa. Since it says "Chukah", they should be Me'akev!

Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): "U'Levesham" - wearing the garments is Me'akev, but not anything else (in the verse).

He (Rav Asi) was happy.

Retraction (R. Yochanan): That was a poor answer. If so, also the first Kidush should not be Me'akev!

Answer #2 (Chizkiyah): "...Chak Olam Lo ul'Zaro Ad Olam" - only what is Me'akev Aharon's children (regular Kohanim) is Me'akev Aharon (the Kohen Gadol), i.e. the first Kidush.

Answer #3 (R. Yonason): "V'Rachatzu Mimenu Moshe v'Aharon u'Vanav" - only what is Me'akev Aharon's children is Me'akev Aharon.

Question: Why didn't R. Yonason learn from Chizkiyah's verse?

Answer: He holds that it teaches that it is a Mitzvah for all generations.

Question: Why did the other (Chizkiyah) not learn from this (R. Yonason's) verse?

Answer: He learns R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina's law from it.

(R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): If the Kiyor (fountain from which the Kohanim washed) cannot hold enough water to be Mekadesh four Kohanim, it is invalid - "v'Rachatzu Mimenu Moshe v'Aharon u'Vanav" (two of Aharon's sons remained alive. Alternatively, 'u'Vanav' connotes at least two.)

(Beraisa): The Kohen would put each hand on the corresponding foot, and then be Mekadesh;

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, he would put one hand on the other, and put them on his feet, which were one on the other, and Mekadesh.

Chachamim: One cannot stand this way!

Question: How does R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah answer this?

Answer (Rav Yosef): Another Kohen helps him stand that way.

(Abaye): R. Yosi and Chachamim argue about whether standing with support is considered standing.

Question (Rav Sama brei d'Rav Ashi): Why can't the Kohen sit (i.e. lean on something) while washing?

Answer (Ravina): Kidush is called "Leshares", and Avodah must be standing.

(Beraisa #1 - Rebbi): If a Kohen was Mekadesh during the day, he need not be Mekadesh at night. If he was Mekadesh at night, he must be Mekadesh again when day comes, because the old Kidush is no longer valid after Linah (passing of the night).

R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says, the old Kidush remains valid.

(Beraisa #2 - Rebbi): If a Kohen was offering Korbanos all night, he must be Mekadesh again when day comes;

R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says, the old Kidush remains valid, even if he serves for 10 days (without engaging in anything else).

They must argue in both cases.

Had they argued only about one who was not working all night, one might have thought that Rebbi admits about one who was working all night;

Had they argued only about one who was working all night, one might have thought that R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon admits when he was not working all night.

Question: What is Rebbi's reason?

Answer: "(Yirchatzu...) v'Gishtam" - they must wash when there is a new approach to serve (i.e. in the morning).

Question: What is R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon's reason?

Answer: "B'Vo'am..." - they washed when they came, and they did not leave.

Question: How does Rebbi explain why it says "b'Vo'am"?

Answer: Had it said only "'v'Gishtam", one might have thought that they must wash each time they approach the Mizbeach. "B'Vo'am" teaches, this is not so.

Question: How does R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon explain why it says "v'Gishtam"?

Answer #1: Had it said only "b'Vo'am", one might have thought that they must wash when they enter, even if they do not serve.

Objection: One could not think so. It says "Leshares"!

Answer #2: Rather, "v'Gishtam" teaches Rav Acha bar Yakov's law.

(Rav Acha bar Yakov): (Even though Tana'im argue about whether the Kohen Gadol washes before or after taking off his garments,) all agree that he washes after putting on the new garments. "V'Gishtam" connotes that after washing, he is ready to serve (he need not don new garments).

Question: What do we learn from "Lehaktir Isheh"?

Answer: One might have thought that they must wash only for Avodah that is Me'akev Kaparah. This teaches that they must wash even for Avodah that is not Me'akev (such as burning Eimurim).