Jewish audio on Chabad.org. This שיעור will be מסכת סנהדרין דף י״ח. We will start from the beginning of the second פרק. And the משנה starts off by saying: כהן גדול דן ודנין אותו. A כהן גדול can judge, he can be a דיין, and he can be judged. And תוספות explains the reason why this פרק starts with the דינים of כהן גדול, and later goes on with the דינים of a מלך, even though this is in middle of סנהדרין, in middle of the דינים of סנהדרין, as the first פרק discussed the דינים of סנהדרין and the פרקים afterwards will also be concerning the דינים of סנהדרין, so why did the משנה in middle come in with a פרק concerning the כהן גדול and then the מלך? תוספות says, because since we mentioned the דין of a כהן גדול in the previous פרק, it said that when you come to judge a כהן גדול, you must have a בית דין of 71, so we spoke about a כהן גדול, so he already goes into the דינים of כהן גדול. Now, since he already mentioned the דינים of a כהן גדול, he already goes into the דינים of a מלך, who is in a level higher than the כהן גדול, and when he finishes with that, he goes back to the דינים of סנהדרין. But the משנה said that the כהן גדול can judge and can be judged, מעיד ומעידין אותו, he could testify, and he could be testified for. חולץ וחולצין לאשתו, he could give חליצה, and his wife gets חליצה. The דין of חליצה is, is that if a person dies without children and leaves a wife, and he has a brother, so his brother must be מייבם, marry the wife of his brother, or if he doesn't want, he's able to give חליצה instead. So what the משנה says that a כהן גדול gives חליצה, that if his brother died and left a wife without children, the כהן גדול gives her חליצה, and also, if the כהן גדול dies and has no children, so then his wife gets חליצה by the brother of the כהן גדול. ומייבמין את אשתו, and you could be מייבם his wife, if the כהן גדול dies without children, so the brother of the כהן גדול is allowed to be מייבם, marry the wife of the כהן גדול, אבל הוא אינו מייבם, but he cannot give יבום. If his brother dies, so he cannot marry the widow of his brother, מפני שהוא אסור באלמנה, because he is not allowed to marry an אלמנה. A כהן גדול is not allowed to marry a widow, so this wife of his brother is a widow, and since he is not allowed to marry a widow, he can't marry her. So the only thing he could do is give her חליצה.

מת לו מת, if a person died in the family of the כהן גדול, אינו יוצא אחר המטה, he's not allowed to follow the bed. And it doesn't only mean that he's not allowed to touch the bed, that's a מפורש פסוק where it says that he's not allowed to become טמא even to those relatives that a regular כהן, a כהן הדיוט, is allowed to become טמא, a כהן גדול is not allowed. But what the משנה is saying here, that not only can't he touch, you can't even follow the bed. And the reason is, because he might come to touch it. If he follows it, he might come to touch it. And this is what the פסוק means when the פסוק says: מן המקדש לא יצא, the כהן גדול should not go out from the מקדש, that means that he should not go out from his קדושה. It doesn't mean actually the בית המקדש, it means from his קדושה. He shouldn't do anything that might bring him to desecrate his קדושה. And therefore, he should not only not actually become טמא, but he also should not do anything that might lead him to become טמא. And therefore, he can't even follow the bed of the מת. So what is done when the bed is carried and there are other mourners, other אבלים that follow the bed? אלא הן נכסין והוא נגלה, they are hidden and he is revealed. הן נגלין והוא נכסה, they are revealed and he is hidden. And this means, as רש״י explains, that when they follow the bed, you make it so that when they go into the street to follow the bed, he is not allowed to enter the street. But when they turn the corner, when they go out of that street, that means they are hidden, that's when he is revealed, that's when he is allowed to go into that street. Now, in the second street that they entered and they are revealed there, they are there, so he has to be hidden, which means he cannot enter that street. He has to stay far behind. ויוצא עמהן, and he goes out with them. That's the way he follows them, עד פתח שער העיר, till the door of the gate of the city.

דברי רבי מאיר, this is the opinion of רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says: אינו יוצא מן המקדש, he doesn't go out of the בית המקדש at all, משום שנאמר, because the פסוק says: מן המקדש לא יצא, he should not go out of the מקדש. And רבי יהודה learns that this means literally that he cannot go out of the בית המקדש. According to רבי מאיר, as we said before, he learns that means he should not go out of his קדושה. He should stay far away that it shouldn't cause him to leave the קדושה, to become טמא. But רבי יהודה learns that means literally that he is not allowed to go out of the מקדש, he doesn't follow the bed at all. Then the משנה The משנה continues: וכשהוא מנחם אחרים, when he comes to comfort other אבלים, דרך כל העם עוברים זה אחר זה. Now the normal way it's usually done is, the way it used to be done at that time was, that the אבל would stand in one place and the people who were מנחם the אבל, on the way from the לויה, they would pass by the אבל and be מנחם him. Not like it's done now, that the people stand in two lines, and the אבל passes in between the lines. But it used to be done that the אבל would stand in one place and the people would make a שורה, a line, and they would pass by one after another and they would comfort the אבל, they would be מנחם the אבל. So that's how it usually is. But in the case of the כהן גדול, הממונה ממצע בינו לבין העם. The ממונה, that means the one that is appointed, that means the סגן, the second in command to the כהן גדול. So he would be between him and the other people, that he would be standing as רש''י says on his right side and all other people would be on the left side, so it comes out that the כהן גדול is in the middle. And that's the way he would walk to be מנחם the אבל. וכשהוא מתנחם מאחרים, when he is comforted by others, if he is the אבל and others comfort him, כל העם אומרים לו, all the people say to him, אנו כפרתך, we are your כפרה, that means that you should have a כפרה, a forgiveness of השם through us. We should be instead of you for anything חס ושלום that is supposed to happen to you because of this, we should be in your place. והוא אומר להם, and he would say to them, תתברכו מן השמים, you should be blessed from heaven. וכשמברין אותו, when they feed him the סעודת הבראה, because the דין is that an אבל is not allowed to eat his first meal after the funeral from his own, it is supposed to be brought into the house from others. So when they bring him the food for the first meal, כל העם מסובין על הארץ, all the people sit on the floor, והוא מיסב על הספסל, and he sits on the bench. In other words, out of כבוד he sits on the bench. The other people, they sit on the floor, they are the ones that are supposed to feel themselves like אבלים. They are the ones that are supposed to have the צער for the אבלות. But he, the כהן גדול, sits on the bench in a form of כבוד. Then the משנה continues: המלך, the king, לא דן ולא דנין אותו, he cannot judge and he cannot be judged. לא מעיד ולא מעידין אותו, he cannot testify and he cannot be testified for. לא חולץ ולא חולצין לאשתו, he doesn't give חליצה, if his brother dies without children, he doesn't give חליצה to his brother's wife. And also if he dies, his brother does not give חליצה to his wife. לא מיבם ולא מיבמין לאשתו, he cannot be מיבם, if his brother dies, he cannot marry in the form of ייבום his brother's wife. And also if he dies, his brother cannot marry his wife. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, אם רצה לחלוץ או לייבם, if the king wants to give חליצה or wants to be מיבם, זכור לטוב, he is remembered for the good. In other words, he doesn't have to, but if he wants, he does a good deed. It is better if he does do that. אמרו לו, but they said to him, אין שומעין לו, they don't listen to him. He felt that if he wants, he could do it. But the חכמים said to him no, even if he wants, we do not listen to him, we do not let him do it. ואין נושאין אלמנתו, you are not allowed to marry the widow of a king. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, נושא המלך אלמנתו של מלך, that a king is allowed to marry the widow of another king. שכן מצינו בדוד, as we find by דוד, שנשא אלמנתו של שאול, that he married the widow of שאול, שנאמר, as it says, ואתנה לך את בית אדוניך, I will give you the house of your master, ואת נשי אדוניך בחיקך, and the wives of your master in your lap. So we see that he did marry the wife of שאול, so we see that a king is allowed to marry the widow of another king. Then the גמרא continues: We said in the משנה: כהן גדול דן, that the כהן גדול is allowed to judge. But the גמרא asks: פשיטא, isn't it simple? Why should we think that a כהן גדול is not allowed to judge? The גמרא says: דנין אותו אצטריכא ליה. באמת that טאקע is no חידוש. The חידוש is what he really wants to tell us is that he can be judged. And since he already says that he can be judged and that is a חידוש, so the משנה already mentions that he can judge. But the גמרא asks: הא נמי פשיטא, this is also simple. Why should we think that a כהן גדול cannot be judged? אי לא דיינינן ליה, because if we cannot judge him, איהו היכי דיין, how could he judge? Since we said before that he definitely could judge, now if he definitely could judge, he certainly could also be judged. Because if he couldn't be judged, he couldn't judge. דכתיב, because it says, התקוששו וקושו, which פשוט פשט means you should gather. But here the גמרא uses the word for a different פשט. ואמר ריש לקיש, ריש לקיש says that what it means is, קשוט עצמך, first make yourself nice, beautify yourself, ואחר כך ואחר כך קשוט אחרים, then beautify others. In other words, if you don't make yourself nice, you can't do anything for others. And in this case it would mean, if he himself cannot be judged, then he cannot judge others. And since we know for sure that he can judge others, so that itself shows that he can be judged. So ממילא, why does the משנה have to tell us that he can be judged? And because of that it also tells us that he can judge, it is clear, simple that this is the דין. The גמרא says אלא the truth is, איידי דקבעי למיתני מלך לא דן ולא דנין אותו, since the משנה later wants to say that a king cannot judge and cannot be judged, תני נמי כהן גדול דן ודנין, so therefore it already sets for thinking a כהן גדול also that he can judge and can be judged. So טאקע by a כהן גדול it's no חידוש, but since by a מלך it is a חידוש that he cannot judge and cannot be judged, so therefore the משנה says that a כהן גדול can judge and can be judged. איבעית אימא, the גמרא says if you want, I can give you another תירוץ. הכא קא משמע לן, this משנה tries to tell us, כדתניא, tries to tell us the חידוש as we learned in another ברייתא. Because we learn in a ברייתא, כהן גדול שהרג את הנפש, if a כהן גדול killed a person, במזיד if he did it intentionally, נהרג, he gets killed for it. בשוגג if he killed him unintentionally, גולה, he goes to גלות, he goes to ערי מקלט, because this is the דין that if a person kills somebody unintentionally, he has to run away to one of the cities of refuge, to one of the ערי מקלט. So the ברייתא says here that a כהן גדול also goes to ערי מקלט if he killed somebody בשוגג. Then the ברייתא continues, ועובר על עשה ועל לא תעשה, כהן גדול is עובר, transgresses a positive מצוה and a negative מצוה, והרי הוא כהדיוט לכל דבריו, and he is like an ordinary person for everything. And the גמרא will soon ask, what does this mean that he is עובר on an עשה and a לא תעשה? But at the meantime we see here that the ברייתא tells us a חידוש that a כהן גדול who killed somebody gets killed. If he killed somebody בשוגג, he goes to גלות. And the גמרא will soon explain what the חידוש of the ברייתא is. So whatever the חידוש of the ברייתא is, that is also the חידוש of the משנה. That he is judged, meaning that if he killed somebody, he gets killed. If he killed somebody בשוגג, he also goes to גלות. But the גמרא asks, במזיד נהרג, we just said that if the כהן גדול killed somebody intentionally, he gets killed, פשיטא, isn't that simple? The גמרא says בשוגג גולה איצטריכא ליה, the חידוש that he wants to tell us really is that if he killed somebody unintentionally, he has to go to גלות. And because it already wants to say that if he kills בשוגג he goes to גלות, it already mentions that if he kills במזיד, he gets killed. But the גמרא asks, הא נמי פשיטא, isn't that also simple? Why should we think that a כהן גדול who killed somebody בשוגג should not go to גלות, so that the ברייתא should have to tell us a חידוש that he does go to גלות? What would be the reason we should think he shouldn't go to גלות? The גמרא says איצטריך, it does have to tell us, דסלקא דעתך אמינא, I would have thought, הואיל וכתיב, since it says in the פסוק concerning the דין of ערי מקלט, וישב בה עד מות הכהן הגדול, that the person who goes to גלות for killing somebody בשוגג has to live there till the death of the כהן גדול. So אימא, I would say, כל דאית ליה תקנתא בחזרה, anybody who has a תקנה by ever leaving גלות, ליגלי, he goes to גלות. דלית ליה תקנתא בחזרה, לא ליגלי. Whoever doesn't have a תקנה, cannot leave the גלות, should לכתחילה not go. In other words, we would think that since the תורה says that he should stay there till the death of the כהן גדול, this is not just a time limit how long he should stay, but this is also a condition in the דין of ערי מקלט. That when does a person go to ערי מקלט, only if he is able to stay there with a limit, up to the death of the כהן גדול. But a person who for some reason doesn't have this limit, will have to stay there forever, he לכתחילה does not go to גלות. דתנן, because we learn in a משנה, ההורג כהן גדול, if somebody kills the כהן גדול, או כהן גדול שהרג את הנפש, or a כהן גדול who killed a person, אינן יוצאים משם לעולם, they never leave. Because by them there is no time limit of up to the death of the כהן גדול. And as תוספות explains, this is only if there was no new כהן גדול appointed before the גמר דין. Before the verdict was given that they have to go to גלות, there was no new כהן גדול yet. Because if there was a new כהן גדול before then, then even in this case they have a time limit. For instance, the one that killed the כהן גדול, so even though now when he killed him there is no כהן גדול, but by the time he went to גלות, there was a כהן גדול already. So he stays in גלות up to the death of the כהן גדול. And the same thing if a כהן גדול killed somebody, so they're able to appoint a new כהן גדול, and he would stay there till the new כהן גדול dies. So when the the משנה says that if someone kills a כהן גדול or a כהן גדול who kills somebody stays there forever, it means that there was no other כהן גדול appointed yet. And also תוספות says that there is no משוח שעבר, because the דין is that if there was a כהן גדול that was taken away from his position for whatever reason, he also makes the person of ערי מקלט leave. If he dies, the one that's in ערי מקלט is able to leave. So in this case, if a person killed a כהן גדול, and there was a כהן משוח שעבר around, he also has a time limit. Or if the כהן גדול killed a person, and there is a כהן משוח around, so he also has a time limit. So therefore we must say that here we are talking in a case that there is no משוח שעבר. And then תוספות also adds that there is an opinion that says that the משוח מלחמה also makes the person go back. Not the כהן גדול, but the the person who was anointed as being the general of the army. Now according to that opinion, we must say that this is a case where there was no משוח מלחמה either. But לפועל we see here that a כהן גדול who killed somebody will not leave ערי מקלט forever. Now we would think that since he will stay there forever, he לכתחילה does not have to go to ערי מקלט. Because we would think that when the תורה says that you stay in ערי מקלט up to the death of the כהן גדול, that is a condition in the דינים of ערי מקלט. So therefore אימא I would say לא יגלה, he should not go to גלות, קא משמע לן, therefore we have to tell us that a כהן גדול who killed a person בשוגג does go to ערי מקלט. So it is a חידוש that a כהן גדול that killed בשוגג goes to ערי מקלט, and that's what the ברייתא wants to tell us, and because the ברייתא tells us already that, it already mentioned that if he kills במזיד, he gets killed. And this is really what our משנה also means according to this פשט. When it says that a כהן גדול can be judged, it is a חידוש. The חידוש is that if he kills somebody בשוגג, he is judged, and he is sent to ערי מקלט, and this is a חידוש because we would have thought that he doesn't go to ערי מקלט because of the פסוק that says that you stay there up to the death of the כהן גדול. But then the גמרא asks: ואימא הכי נמי? Maybe it is so? Maybe it is true that a כהן גדול who killed somebody should not go to ערי מקלט, because this פסוק where it says that he stays there till the death of the כהן גדול cannot be fulfilled by him? What makes us so sure that the דין is that he does go to ערי מקלט? And the גמרא answers: אמר קרא, the פסוק says, לנוס שמה כל רוצח. Concerning ערי מקלט it says that this is a city that in that city should run away every murderer, so since it says every murderer, אפילו כהן גדול במשמע, even a כהן גדול is also משמע, is also included in this דין of going to ערי מקלט. Then the גמרא continues, it said in that ברייתא that we brought before, עובר על עשה ועל לא תעשה, that he is עובר, he transgresses, a positive מצוה and a negative מצוה. So the גמרא asks: What does that mean? From the לשון it's משמע that a כהן גדול should be עובר on an עשה and should be עובר on a לא תעשה? לא סגי דלא עבר? It's not okay if he doesn't do it? In other words, it's not good if he's not עובר, he must be עובר on an עשה and a לא תעשה? But the גמרא says: הכי קאמר, this is what the ברייתא meant: אם עבר על עשה ועל לא תעשה, if he was עובר on an עשה and a לא תעשה, הרי הוא כהדיוט לכל דבריו, then he has a דין like an ordinary person, and he is judged by a בית דין of three like any other person. So when the ברייתא said the two things that he is עובר on an עשה and a לא תעשה, then it continued that he has a דין like a הדיוט for everything, these are not two separate things. This goes together, that he if he is עובר on an עשה and a לא תעשה, then he is judged like a הדיוט. So the גמרא asks: פשיטא, this is also simple. Why should we think that a כהן גדול should not be judged like a הדיוט? The גמרא says: סלקא דעתך אמינא, I would think, הואיל ותנן, since we learned in the משנה: אין דנין לא את השבט ולא את נביא השקר ולא את כהן גדול אלא על פי בית דין של שבעים ואחד, that you do not judge a complete שבט, or a false prophet, or a כהן גדול only if you have a בית דין of 71. In other words, when there's a question of capital punishment concerning the כהן גדול, he is not judged by a בית דין of 23 like a הדיוט, like an ordinary person, but he is judged by a בית דין of 71. And the reason for that is דאמר רב אדא בר אהבה, that רב אדא בר אהבה says, because the פסוק says, כל הדבר הגדול יביאו אליך, that when יתרו asked משה to appoint דיינים instead of him sitting and judging all day, he said to him that smaller things should be judged by the other דיינים, but כל הדבר הגדול, that any big thing should be brought to you. So he דרשנ'ס, what does that mean? דברו של גדול, the things of the great person. That when it comes to judge a great person, you have to judge it through משה himself, and משה was in place of 71, so from there we know that when you judge the כהן גדול, who is the גדול, it has to be done through a בית דין of 71. So since we learned that when you judge the capital punishment of a כהן גדול has to be done through a בית דין of 71, not like when you judge an ordinary person, אימא, so I would think, כל דברו של גדול, that anything that applies to the גדול, any type of judgment that applies to the כהן גדול has to be judged through a בית דין of 71. And if that would be true and a בית דין of three

would not be enough like by a הדיוט. Therefore קא משמע לן, he has to tell us that if he is עובר on an עשה or on a לא תעשה, he is like a הדיוט and you judge him with a בית דין of three. And then the גמרא asks, ואימא הכי נמי, maybe it is so? What makes us so sure that when you judge the כהן גדול by an עשה or a לא תעשה you do not need a בית דין of 71? Maybe it is true that anything that applies to the כהן גדול must be judged through בית דין of 71? But the גמרא says, מי כתיב דברי גדול? לפועל, the פסוק does not say the the דברי, the things of the גדול. If the פסוק would say that, then we would say anything that applies to the גדול is judged by a בית דין of 71. What it does say is, "הדבר הגדול" כתיב. The big thing. So even though we דרשן that it refers to the person who is big, that when we judge the person who is big you need a בית דין of 71, but לפועל it also says the big thing. So what does that mean? דבר גדול ממש, only if it's actually the big thing. Now what is the big thing? The big thing is when it's capital punishment. So from here we know that when we judge the big person who's the כהן גדול concerning a big thing, which is capital punishment, that's when we need משה, which is in the place of 71. That's when we need a בית דין of 71. But otherwise, if he's עובר on an עשה or on a לא תעשה, you judge him with a בית דין of three like you judge a regular הדיוט. Then the

גמרא continues, it's said in the משנה, מעיד ומעידין אותו. He testifies and he is testified against. The גמרא says, מעיד, you say that he is allowed to testify, he should testify, וקתני, I'll ask you a question, we learn in a ברייתא, והתעלמת, this refers to the מצוה of השבת אבידה. And this is a פסוק in פרשת כי תצא, the beginning of קפיטל כ"ב, it says, לא תראה את שור אחיך או את שיו נדחים, you do not see the ox of your brother or his sheep being pushed away, והתעלמת מהם, and you will hide yourself, cover yourself up from them. The תורה says, "Don't do that, but השב תשיבם לאחיך, return them to your brother." And this is the source of the מצוה of השבת אבידה that you must return a lost object to another ייד. But לפועל, the expression the תורה uses is והתעלמת, that you should hide yourself, you should cover yourself up. And the גמרא learns out from here that פעמים שאתה מתעלם ופעמים שאי אתה מתעלם, that sometimes you are allowed to hide yourself, in other words, sometimes you are not obligated to pick up the object, and sometimes you are not you're not allowed to hide yourself, you are obligated to pick it up. Now, היכי דמי, when is it? In other words, when is the דין that you must pick up and when not? So when you must pick up the אבידה there's no question, under normal circumstances you must pick up the אבידה. But when is the case when you are not obligated to pick up the אבידה, you are allowed to hide yourself from it? The

case is כהן והוא בבית הקברות. If he's a כהן and the אבידה, the object, is in the cemetery, and we know a כהן is not allowed to become טמא, so he's not allowed to enter a cemetery, so in a case like that if the כהן sees the lost object in the cemetery, he should not pick it up. Or זקן ואינה לפי כבודו, if he's a תלמיד חכם and it's not fit for him, for his כבוד, for his honor that he should pick up the אבידה, so then he is not allowed, so he doesn't have to pick up the אבידה. או, or שהיתה מלאכה שלו מרובה משל חבירו, or if his work was more than his friend's, in other words the loss that he's going to have by the time he waits to pick up the object will be more than the worth of the object, so then the gain of his friend by him picking up the object will be less than his loss, so then he is not obligated to pick up the אבידה of his friend. לכך נאמר והתעלמת, so therefore it says והתעלמת, that you should hide yourself, to tell us that sometimes you are allowed to hide yourself, you don't have to pick up the object. So

from here we see that כבוד הבריות, the כבוד of people, overweighs this מצוה of השבת אבידה. And even though normally there is a לאו, לא תוכל להתעלם, that you're not allowed to cover yourself, but in a case where it's כבוד הבריות, it's כבוד for the person who we're dealing with, so in his honor we say this כבוד overweighs the לאו of לא תוכל להתעלם. So according to that, the same thing should apply to a כהן גדול, because באמת it is not right, it is not according to כבוד for the כהן גדול to come to בית דין to testify. So why shouldn't this ענין of כבוד of the כהן גדול overrule this חיוב of having to come to בית דין if you have a עדות to testify? Because like this we know the דין is if a person knows a testimony for his friend, he must come to בית דין to testify. And as the פסוק says, ואם לוא יגיד ונשא עונו, if he doesn't say, doesn't come to בית דין to testify, then he has an עבירה. But in the case of the כהן גדול, since it's not כבוד for him to do it, so why shouldn't the כבוד of the כהן גדול over overweigh this חיוב of coming to בית דין to testify, just like the כבוד הבריות overweighs the לאו of לא תוכל להתעלם? גמרא says, אמר רב יוסף, רב יוסף said, you are right, that normally טאקע he doesn't have to come to בית דין to testify. But

when we say in the משנה he does testify, מעיד למלך, he testifies for the king. If he has anything to testify for a king, then it is not against his כבוד, so then he is supposed to come to בית דין. But the גמרא says, ותנן, didn't we learn, לא דן ולא דנין אותו, that a king can't judge and cannot be judged, לא מעיד ולא מעידין אותו, he doesn't testify and he is not testified for? So, we see that a king is never testified for. So, how can we say that when does a כהן גדול come to בית דין to testify if he testifies for a king? אלא אמר רב זירא, therefore רב זירא said, what it means is, מעיד לבן מלך, that he testifies if it is for the son of the king. But the גמרא asks, בן מלך הדיוט הוא! A son of a king has the same דין like a regular, ordinary person. That just like we say that he should not testify for an ordinary person because of his כבוד, so too, he should not testify for the בן מלך. אלא, therefore, the גמרא has a פשט like this: מעיד בפני מלך, he testifies in front of the king. And as רש״י explains, it means that he really comes to testify for the son of the king, but for that itself he still couldn't come because the son of the king is an ordinary person, but he does it in front of the מלך, that the מלך sits in בית דין and he comes in front of that מלך in בית דין and testifies for the son of the מלך, and that's when he is allowed to testify because in this case, since it's in front of the מלך, it is not against the כבוד of the כהן גדול. But

the גמרא asks, וכי מושיבין מלך בסנהדרין? But you don't appoint a king in סנהדרין! We just said that he will testify in סנהדרין in front of the king, so what it seems to be saying is that a king is going to be part of the סנהדרין, but we know that you do not appoint a king as part of the סנהדרין! The גמרא says, משום יקרא דכהן גדול, because of the כבוד of the כהן גדול, אתי, he will come, ויתיב, and he will sit, מקבלין לה לסהדותיה, and he will receive and listen to the testimony of the כהן גדול, כולי האי, ואזיל, he will get up and leave, ומעיינינן ליה אנן בדינא, and we will look into the דין. In other words, he only comes in honor of the כהן גדול. Since it is a testimony for his son, so therefore we want the כהן גדול to come, but the כהן גדול just should come is not allowed because the son of the king has a דין of an הדיוט. So, what we do is, the מלך comes, and in front of the מלך, the כהן גדול is allowed to testify because it's not against his כבוד, and as soon as he finishes his testimony, the מלך leaves, and the בית דין sits and looks into the דין. But

תוספות ask a קשיא, that when the גמרא asked, how can the כהן גדול be מעיד, how can he come to בית דין to testify when we know that כבוד הבריות is stronger than the לאו of לא תוכל להתעלם, so the כבוד of the כהן גדול should also be stronger, that he shouldn't have to come to בית דין to testify? תוספות ask that לכאורה this דין that כבוד הבריות is stronger than a לא תעשה of the תורה only applies if it's a case of דיני ממונות, a case of a לא תעשה concerning money. For instance, the case of picking up an אבידה, which is a monetary דין. So, there we say that כבוד הבריות is stronger than the לא תעשה of לא תוכל להתעלם. But in a case where it's an איסור, in the דינים of איסורין, not of דיני ממונות, then we have a כלל that אין חכמה ואין תבונה לנגד ה׳, that nothing stands in the way against ה׳. In other words, כבוד הבריות will not push away a דין which is not in the גדר of דיני ממונות. Therefore, תוספות ask, maybe when it says in the משנה that the כהן גדול comes to the בית דין to testify, that refers to a testimony that's not concerning דיני ממונות, but a testimony concerning איסור. For instance, if he comes to testify in עדות החודש, he saw the לבנה in its time and he comes to בית דין to testify about the לבנה in order for the בית דין to be able to establish ראש חודש, and in this case, we can't say that the כבוד of the כהן גדול should push away this דין, so what is the גמרא's קשיא that how can the משנה say that a כהן גדול comes to testify? So, what is the גמרא's question that how can the משנה say that a כהן גדול has to come and testify? And תוספות answer that when it says in the משנה that a כהן גדול is מעיד, it's משמע that it refers to all cases. It refers to איסור and also to דיני ממונות. Just like in the second case of the משנה, where it says a מלך is not מעיד, and there it means he's not מעיד not for איסור and not for דיני ממונות. So, therefore, when it says by a כהן גדול that he is מעיד, it means for איסור and for דיני ממונות. So, since the משנה says that a כהן גדול is מעיד for דיני ממונות, that's what the גמרא's קשיא is: Why should he have to be מעיד for דיני ממונות when by דיני ממונות the כלל is that כבוד הבריות is stronger than the לאו of דיני ממונות? Another פשט that תוספות says is different, not like we just said that the משנה means איסור and ממון, that you do not appoint a מלך in סנהדרין. And the answer of the גמרא is that because of the כבוד of the כהן גדול, the מלך comes in, listens to the testimony, and then he leaves. So תוספות asks a קשיא: When the גמרא asked that אין מושיבין מלך בסנהדרין, why did the גמרא have to quote a ברייתא? Why couldn't the גמרא quote our משנה? When we answer that he is מעיד in front of the מלך, and we thought it meant that the מלך is part of the סנהדרין, the גמרא should have asked right away: How can the מלך be part of סנהדרין when it says in the משנה by us that מלך לא דן, that a מלך cannot judge? Why do we have to find a ברייתא where it says אין מושיבין מלך בסנהדרין, that you cannot appoint a king in סנהדרין, when we have a בפירוש a משנה where it says the מלך cannot judge, so obviously he cannot be part of סנהדרין? And the question goes further. The question is on the ברייתא itself: What is the חידוש of the ברייתא? Since there is a בפירוש a משנה where it says המלך לא דן, the מלך cannot judge, so obviously he cannot be part of the סנהדרין, so why does the ברייתא have to say that אין מושיבין מלך בסנהדרין, that you cannot appoint a מלך in סנהדרין? And תוספות answers, in the name of the מהר"ם, that from the משנה itself it's no ראיה. When it says in the משנה that a מלך does not judge, we would think a מלך himself cannot judge. And the reason for that being, since he himself cannot be judged, so therefore he cannot judge, as we quoted before the פסוק, התקוששו וקושו. But it doesn't mean that a מלך cannot be part of סנהדרין and he should judge together with others, since if he would judge together with others, then the verdict would not be based only on the מלך, it would be based on the others also. So from the משנה itself we have no ראיה that a מלך cannot be part of סנהדרין. Therefore, the גמרא had to bring the ברייתא where it says בפירוש אין מושיבין מלך בסנהדרין, that you cannot appoint a מלך in סנהדרין. And this is the חידוש of the ברייתא over the משנה. But then תוספות asks a קשיא, that when the גמרא said that we're talking about the case where you're judging the son of the מלך, and that's what the גמרא said, that the כהן גדול who will testify for the son of the מלך will do it in front of the מלך, and the גמרא thought that the מלך will be part of the סנהדרין, and that is why the גמרא asked that a מלך cannot be appointed as part of the סנהדרין. So תוספות asks: How did the גמרא לכתחילה have a הוה אמינא that the king could judge his son? A father cannot judge the case of his own son. So at this point when the גמרא thought that the מלך will be part of the סנהדרין, and we are judging his son, what kind of הוה אמינא was it that he can be part of the סנהדרין? And תוספות answers that the פשט in the גמרא is a little bit differently, and this will also answer to the previous קשיא that תוספות asked. The גמרא טאקע knew that a מלך cannot be part of the סנהדרין, and this is from our משנה, where it says in the משנה מלך לא דן, he cannot judge, and the גמרא understood that this doesn't only mean he cannot judge himself, it means he cannot even judge together with others in סנהדרין. So what the גמרא thought at this point was, not that the king should judge his son. We're talking in a case where the son is being judged, and the כהן גדול will come to testify for the son of the king, and the king will just sit there listening to what goes on in the סנהדרין. And that's what the גמרא meant, לכתחילה even, that the כהן גדול will come to testify in front of the מלך. And then when the גמרא asked the קשיא that we learned אין מושיבין מלך בסנהדרין, that you cannot appoint a מלך in סנהדרין, the גמרא thought that it means that not only can't you appoint him as a member of the סנהדרין, but he can't even sit in the סנהדרין to listen what goes on there. And that's what the גמרא asked: that how can you say that the כהן גדול will judge the son of the king, in front of the king, when the king is not allowed to sit in the סנהדרין. And this is the reason why the גמרא did not bring our משנה, the גמרא brought that ברייתא, and the גמרא learned the פשט in that ברייתא that a מלך can בכלל not sit in סנהדרין. And the גמרא's answer was that even though he cannot sit in סנהדרין, but he could just sit there while the כהן גדול testifies, and then he gets up and leaves, and the סנהדרין, they go through the case all by themselves. Another קשיא that תוספות asks: לכתחילה, in the first תירץ, when the גמרא asked, "Why should the כהן גדול have to testify?" and the גמרא answered that it means that he testifies for the king, and the גמרא asked a קשיא, "How can you say that, when we learned in our משנה מלך לא דן ולא דנין אותו, that a king cannot be judged, so we cannot say that the case is that the כהן גדול testifies for the king, because the king cannot be judged?" תוספות asks: It says later on in the גמרא that only מלכי ישראל are in the דין of לא דנין ולא דנין אותם, but מלכי בית דוד, the kings from the house of דוד, on them does not apply this דין that they cannot be judged. So why can't we say that when it says in the משנה that a king cannot judge and not be judged, that speaks about מלכי ישראל. When it says in the משנה that the כהן גדול testifies, and we will explain that it means he testifies for the king, that refers to מלכי בית דוד, and מלכי בית דוד are judged? And תוספות answers that מסתמא the whole משנה speaks in the same case, it would all be concerning מלכי ישראל. If we say that when it says in the משנה that the king is not judged refers to מלכי ישראל, so when the משנה says that the כהן גדול testifies, and we explain that it means concerning a king, it would also mean concerning מלכי ישראל, and therefore there would be a contradiction, and therefore we cannot answer that there is a difference between מלכי ישראל and מלכי בית דוד. Now we

will continue with the גמרא: גופא. Now we're going to quote the גוף, the ברייתא itself that we mentioned before. Says in the ברייתא: אין מושיבין מלך בסנהדרין, you're not allowed to appoint a king in the סנהדרין, ולא מלך וכהן גדול בעיבור שנה, and you shouldn't appoint a king and a כהן גדול when you judge the עיבור שנה, when the סנהדרין discusses whether to add an extra month to the year, so the king and the כהן גדול should not be there. And the גמרא gives the reason for these דינים: מלך בסנהדרין, the reason why the king should not be part of the סנהדרין: כדכתיב, because the פסוק says, לא תענה על רב, this a פסוק in פרשת משפטים, קפיטל כ"ג, פסוק ב', where it says, ולא תענה על רב לנטת, should not answer for an argument to bend, which means that when you have an argument come in front of you, do not just answer and that's it, you have to look into the case and פסקן באמת the way the דין is. But the way the גמרא דרשנ'ס here, that since the word ריב usually is written with a י', and here it's written without a י', so as if it says, לא תענה על רב, you should not answer for the רב, for the leader, which means to say that you should not say your opinion against the opinion of the head. Now, if the king is going to be part of the סנהדרין, no one will be able to give a different opinion because of this פסוק, לא תענה על רב, and therefore, we do not appoint the king as part of the סנהדרין. Then the

other דין where it said לא מלך ולא כהן גדול בעיבור שנה, the king or the כהן גדול should not be part of the סנהדרין when they judge the עיבור שנה, the reason is: מלך משום אפסניא, the king because of אפסניא, as רש"י explains, it means that a king has to feed the army, and based on the עיבור שנה will change how much money he will have to spend for the feeding of the army. And therefore, the king would rather have that every year should be מעובר. So since there is a personal reason why the king would want it to be מעובר, so therefore he cannot be part of the סנהדרין when they judge the עיבור שנה. And a כהן גדול משום צינה, the כהן גדול because of the cold. As רש"י says, that if they're going to be מעבר די שנה, it'll come out that תשרי will be really when חשון should have been, that means that it'll be a colder climate. If they wouldn't be מעבר די שנה, it'll still be a month earlier, it won't be so cold. If they will be מעבר די שנה, then it'll come out that תשרי will be a month later, so the weather of חשון will be in תשרי, so it'll be cold. And since the כהן גדול has to go to the מקוה on יום כיפור five times, and it's cold, so therefore he would rather they should not be מעבר די שנה. So since he could have a personal reason why he should not want to be מעבר די שנה, so maybe because of that his opinion will be not to be מעבר, so therefore לכתחילה we do not let the כהן גדול to be part of this בית דין that is going to be מעבר די שנה. But

תוספות asks a קשיא on רש"י, that how can we say that this is because of the טבילה when we find in the גמרא יומא that they used to make the מקוה warm if it was cold? So what was the כהן גדול afraid of? So therefore תוספות learns that it is not because of the מקוה, but because of the floor. Since when you do the עבודה in the בית המקדש, you weren't allowed to wear shoes, and it was a stone floor, so it was cold, and since the כהן גדול has to do the עבודה On Yom Kippur all day, so if it'll be pushed off, it'll be colder weather, he will be standing all day barefoot on the cold floor, therefore he'd rather they shouldn't be מעבר, so it'll be warmer weather and he will not have to stand on the cold floor, the floor won't be cold. And therefore we do not allow the כהן גדול to be part of this בית דין who is going to be מעבר the שנה. Then the גמרא continues: אמר רב פפא, רב פפא said, שמע מינה, from here we understand, from this that we said that the reason why a כהן גדול can't be part of the בית דין of עיבור שנה is because of the צינה, we're afraid that he will not want the year to be מעובר, because he will want that in תשרי there should not be the weather of חשוון, and if you will be מעבר the שנה, then in תשרי you will have the weather of חשוון, so from that we see that שתא בתר ירחא אזיל, that the year follows the month. That means that if we are מעבר the שנה, what happens is the weather still comes in its same time. If that

month should have been חשוון, and it should have had the weather of חשוון, so even if we are מעבר the year, nevertheless the weather stays the same. At the same time when we would have had the weather of חשוון, we will have that weather, even though when we were מעבר the שנה, that month really now is not חשוון, it is תשרי, but still in תשרי you will have the weather of חשוון, since the weather does not depend on the עיבור שנה, that depends on its own season. And we see that from this, because if it would be different, if it would be that when we're מעבר the שנה, it also pushes off the weather, then why is the כהן גדול worried that they should be מעבר the שנה? What difference does it make? If they'll be מעבר the שנה, so the weather will be pushed off, so when it comes to תשרי it'll have the weather of תשרי, and not the weather of חשוון. And since we said that we are worried the כהן גדול will not want to be מעבר the שנה because of this, obviously if you מעבר the שנה, the weather still stays the same, and therefore if תשרי is pushed off, תשרי will have the weather of חשוון. This is the way רש״י learns. But תוספות asks that לכאורה the whole purpose of making עיבור שנה is in order to straighten out the תקופה. Since the seasons don't depend on the moon, the seasons depend on the sun, and the months follow the moon. So the reason we make an עיבור שנה, one of the reasons at least, is for the תקופה, that we should have the right season in the right month. So it comes out that when we are מעבר the שנה, the whole idea is that when תשרי comes, we should have the right season, the right weather in תשרי as it fits for תשרי. When we see that the תקופה will not fit, that means that the weather, the season of תשרי will not be the right season, so we push off with a month in order that in תשרי we should have the right weather of תשרי. So what does the גמרא mean here that we see from this that the weather still stays the same, that when we make עיבור שנה we will have the weather of חשוון in the month of תשרי, when it is not so? We will have the weather of תשרי in the month of תשרי! The whole idea is, when the חכמים would see that the weather of תשרי will, might not be the right weather, it'll be too hot, the season of summer will still be in the time of תשרי, that's why you push it off in order to have the weather of תשרי, the season of תשרי in the month of תשרי. So it comes out that whenever we make an עיבור שנה, it is in order to have the right weather in תשרי. So what does the גמרא here mean that when we make an עיבור שנה, we have the weather of חשוון in the month of תשרי? Therefore תוספות says, we must say that in this גמרא we are talking in a case when they were מעבר the שנה not because of the תקופה, because we learned earlier in the גמרא that there are two more reasons why we are מעבר the שנה: because of אביב and because of פירות. Now in that case, as far as the season is concerned, תשרי would have had its normal season, its normal weather, and the reason we push it off is for something else. Now in that case, when we push it off, when תשרי comes, it will not have the weather of תשרי, but it will have the weather of חשוון, because if you wouldn't have pushed it off, it would have had the normal season, the normal weather of תשרי. Now that we pushed it off, it's going to have the weather of חשוון. Then the גמרא asks: איני, it is not so! How can you say that when we make עיבור שנה, we will have the weather of the next month in the earlier month?

והנך ג' רעיא, there's a story that there were three shepherds, דהוו קיימי that they were standing, ושמעינהו רבנן, and the רבנן heard, דקאמרי that they were saying, חד אמר, one said: אם בכיר ולקיש כחדא ינץ, דין הוא אדר. If the earth is going to be warm and it'll grow together, the one that is soft and the one that is hard, that means as רש״י says, the wheat that was planted in the beginning of the month and the barley that's planted later, if they will both grow out together, then this is אדר, this is the weather of אדר. ואי לא, and if not, לית דין אדר, this is not אדר, this is שבט. In other words, if it is אדר, then this is what should happen, but if they see that this doesn't happen, then this proves this is שבט. That's what one of them said. וחד אמר, the other one said that אם תור בצפר בציגלא ימוז, if in the morning it'll be so cold till the the ox will be close to dying, it'll be so cold that it'll hurt him, he'll be close to dying, ובטיהרא בטול תאינה יתמוך, and if in the afternoon the heat will be so strong that the ox will have to stand in the the shade of the fig tree because of the heat, so וישלח משכיה, and he's going to stretch out his skin, which means he's going to scratch himself on this fig tree because of the heat, so if this will happen, דין הוא אדר, then we know it's אדר. ואם לאו, if not, לית דין אדר, it's not אדר, because then this will have the weather of שבט, then we will know that this is not אדר, but this is שבט. וחד אמר, and one said, אם קידום תקיף לחזא דיהא יפח ברוח נפיק לקיבליה, that means that if the strength of the winter will already be weakened that when an east wind will blow and your breath can prevail against it, then you know that this is the month of אדר. ואם לאו, and if not, לית דין אדר, this is not אדר. In other words, if it's colder than that, then this is not אדר, but this is שבט. And what happened when the רבנן heard this, ועברו רבנן לההיא שתא, the רבנן were מעבר that year, they added another אדר. In other words, what they did was that since that time אדר had the weather of שבט, so what they did was they made a second אדר so that the second אדר would have the weather of אדר. Now, according to this, it comes out that when the חכמים look into being מעבר the year, whether to add another month or not, they take in consideration to make sure that the weather should be in its proper time. And therefore, when they heard from them that this was not the weather of אדר, they added another month in order that אדר should have the weather of אדר. So therefore, by the time תשרי comes around, תשרי will always have the weather of תשרי, because we see that if the weather does not fit to the month, the חכמים will, based on that, see whether to be מעבר השנה or not. So how could we say before that when the חכמים מעבר the year, you have the weather of חשון in the month of תשרי, when here we see that when the חכמים מעבר the year, they make sure that this is so that the weather of the month should be in its right time? And the גמרא answers: ותסברא, what do you think, רבנן ארפסא סמוך, that the רבנן really relied on what these shepherds said? אלא רבנן אחשבונייהו סמוך, the רבנן relied on their own חשבונות, and they, for their own reasons, felt that you have to make an עיבור שנה. ורעי בקר איסתיועי הוא דאיסתייעא מילתא, when they heard these רעי בקר, these shepherds speaking, all it did was help to them and show them that they were right in their calculation, but it's not because of the weather that they did it. And here we see that it doesn't depend on the weather. Sometimes it does work out with the weather, but sometimes it doesn't work out. But if the חכמים have their own reasons why to be מעבר השנה, even if the weather will not fit to the month, nevertheless the חכמים מעבר השנה, and therefore we understand why the כהן גדול sometimes could not want the עיבור שנה, because he doesn't want that the weather of חשון should be in the month of תשרי. And the גמרא continues, we

learn in the משנה: חולץ וחולצין לאשתו, that a כהן גדול would give חליצה if his brother died without children, he would give חליצה to his wife. Also, if the כהן גדול died, then his brother would give חליצה to his wife. And then the משנה continued: ומיבמין את אשתו אבל הוא אינו מייבם, that if he died and his brother wants to marry his wife and perform יבום, he is allowed, but he cannot מייבם the wife of his brother. If his brother died without children, he must give חליצה, he can't מייבם her, he can't marry her. And the reason the משנה gives: מפני שהוא אסור באלמנה, because since he's a כהן גדול, and a כהן גדול is not allowed to marry a widow, so therefore he is not allowed to be מייבם his brother's wife because then he would be marrying a widow. So the גמרא asks: קפסיק ותני, the משנה makes it very clear without any conditions, that לא שנא מן האירוסין ולא שנא מן הנישואין, that when we say that he cannot give יבום to his brother's wife because she is a widow, it doesn't make a difference what kind of widow is she is, whether she's a widow מן האירוסין or a widow מן הנישואין. When you give קידושין to a woman, she becomes an אשת איש, she is married to you, but she is still considered an ארוסה. And then later, when you take her under the חופה, then she is considered a נשואה. And as soon as נישואין took place, then she is allowed to have relations with her husband. Now the דין of יבום applies to a widow whether she was widowed from the אירוסין or from the נישואין. If a person gives קידושין to a woman and then he dies before he actually gave her נישואין, there is also a דין of יבום. So in this case where it says that a כהן גדול cannot give יבום to his brother's wife, without making any differences, is משמע that whether she became a widow from the אירוסין or if she became a widow from the נישואין. And the גמרא asks: בשלמא מן הנישואין, we understand why if she became a widow after already the marriage, why the כהן גדול cannot marry her, because הוי עשה ולא תעשה. Because then the כהן גדול, if he would marry her, would be transgressing a positive מצוה and a negative מצוה. Because the כהן גדול has a לא תעשה, a negative מצוה of not being allowed to marry an אלמנה. The פסוק says that a כהן גדול should not marry an אלמנה. In addition to that, the כהן גדול also has a positive מצוה, מצות עשה, that he must marry a בתולה. It says אשה בבתוליה יקח, he must take a virgin. Now, if she already was married to his brother, so now she is not a virgin. So she has both: she is a widow, and she is not a virgin. So if the כהן גדול would marry her, he would be going against the לא תעשה because he would be marrying an אלמנה, he also would be going against the עשה because she is not a virgin. And the rule is ואין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה, that an עשה, a positive מצוה, cannot push away a negative מצוה with a positive מצוה. Like this we have a rule that עשה דוחה לא תעשה. If there is a מצוה a person is supposed to perform, but at the same time when he's going to perform the מצוה he will have to be עובר on a לא תעשה, on a negative מצוה, so the דין is he should do the מצות עשה, he should do the positive מצוה and push away, transgress the לא תעשה. But if the עבירה he will be doing will not only be a לא תעשה, but it'll be an עשה and a לא תעשה, he will be going against a positive מצוה and a negative מצוה, then we say he should not do the מצוה, because an עשה is not stronger than the לא תעשה and the עשה together. And therefore here, too, it is a מצוה for a person to give יבום. So normally we would say the עשה of יבום should push away the לא תעשה of a כהן גדול marrying an אלמנה. And therefore he should marry her even though she's an אלמנה. But לפועל we said that it's not only a לא תעשה, but there is an עשה also. The תורה says he must marry a virgin. So therefore, if he does marry her, he goes against the עשה and the לא תעשה. So we understand why he is not allowed to give her יבום, even though there is a מצות עשה of יבום, because this מצות עשה cannot push away the לא תעשה and the עשה that a כהן גדול has not to marry her. אלא מן האירוסין, but if she became a widow only after the אירוסין, which means that she never became his wife, so she never had relations with her husband, so she still is a בתולה, she still is a virgin. She is a widow, because since her husband died she is an אלמנה, but she is still a בתולה. אמאי, so then why do we say that the כהן גדול cannot give her יבום? יבא עשה וידחה לא תעשה, why can't the עשה of יבום come and push away the לא תעשה that the כהן גדול has of marrying an אלמנה, and here he will not be transgressing the עשה because she is still a virgin? And the גמרא answers:

גזירה ביאה ראשונה אטו ביאה שנייה. That the reason the חכמים said that he should not מייבם is because it's a גזירה. We're afraid to allow him to have the first ביאה, the first relations with her, because it might come to have the second, because the מצות עשה of יבום is only the first time he has relations with her. The second time already, there is no more מצוה. Now that she's his wife, there is no more מצוה. So a כהן גדול would not be allowed to have a second time relations with her, because now that there is no more מצוה, and on the other hand, she is an אלמנה. So באמת, even if we would say the כהן גדול should מייבם, it would only allow him to have the ביאה ראשונה, but the חכמים felt if they're going to allow him to have the ביאה ראשונה, he might come to have the second ביאה also, so therefore the חכמים said he should never מייבם and not even have the ביאה ראשונה. And the גמרא says תניא נמי הכי, we תקי learn in a ברייתא, this is to prove that the second ביאה is אסור, because it says אם קדמו ובעלו ביאה ראשונה קנו. This refers to all those people who for some reason are forbidden to מייבם, because of whatever reasons. So it says that they're not even allowed to have the first ביאה, even though in the first ביאה there is a מצוה. But nevertheless, אם קדמו ובעלו ביאה ראשונה, if they went ahead and they did have the first ביאה, קנו, they acquired and they fulfilled the מצוה of יבום, but still ואסור לקיימה בביאה שנייה, they're not allowed to hold them and have a second ביאה. So since they're not allowed to have a second ביאה, the חכמים made a גזירה they shouldn't have the first ביאה either. And so too by the כהן גדול, מצד הדין he would be able to have the first ביאה because of the מצוה of יבום, but the חכמים made a גזירה ביאה ראשונה אטו ביאה שנייה. Then the גמרא continues, we

learn in the משנה: מת לו מת וכו', that if a person died in the family of the כהן גדול, so it says he is not allowed to follow the bed. But what does he do? As it says, when they enter the street, he waits, and when they turn the corner, that's when he goes into the street. But the גמרא says תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned. It says in the פסוק: מן המקדש לא יצא, that a כהן גדול should not go out of the מקדש. So we דרשן: לא יצא עמהן, he should not go out together with them, אבל יוצא הוא אחריהן, but he could go out behind them. כיצד, how do you do it? הן נכסין והוא נגלה, they are hidden and that's when he he's revealed. In other words, when they leave the street, that's when he enters the street. הן נגלין והוא נכסה, when they enter the other street, he is hidden, he does not enter the street. That means that he could go, but he could not go together with them. Then the גמרא continues. It said in the משנה, ויוצא עד פתח וכולי, and he can go out up to the door of the gate of the city. That's the opinion of רבי מאיר. But רבי יהודה said that he can't go out of the מקדש at all, as the פסוק says, ומן המקדש לא יצא, that from the מקדש he should not go out. But the גמרא asks, שפיר קאמר רבי יהודה, doesn't רבי יהודה say right? It seems like רבי יהודה is right. If the פסוק says he should not go out of the מקדש, it's משמע he should not go out at all. So how could רבי מאיר say that he could go, but just follows behind? אמר לך רבי מאיר, רבי מאיר will answer you, אי הכי, if it's so like you say, that it means literally he cannot go out of the מקדש, לביתו נמי לא, he shouldn't be able to go to his house either. אלא הכא קאמר, therefore רבי מאיר says, this is the פשט in the פסוק, מן המקדש לא יצא, what does that mean? מקדושתו לא יצא, he should not go out of his קדושה. What it means is, not only shouldn't he become טמא, because that's the פסוק before, לאביו ולאמו לא יטמא, he shouldn't become טמא to his father or mother, what it means is, he shouldn't do anything that could make him come to a point where he will become טמא. He should stay away. So therefore, to be close to the to מיטה, he's not allowed, because he might touch the מיטה. But כיוון דאית ליה היכרא, but if he goes behind, so there is a היכר, there is something to remind him that he's not allowed to touch, לא אתי למינגע, so he will not come to touch. So therefore, he is allowed to go a little bit further, because this is what the פסוק means, מן המקדש לא יצא, מקדושתו לא יצא.

The גמרא asks, ורבי יהודה, it's a good קושיא on רבי יהודה, what will רבי יהודה answer to this? So he says, אגב מריריה, because of his bitterness, since he's an אבל, so he feels very bitter, דילמא מקרי ואתי למנגע, it might happen that by mistake he will touch. Normally if there is a היכר, we're not afraid he will come to do the עבירה. But but in a case where he is in grief, so there we are afraid maybe he will not be careful, and he will come to touch.