THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
YOMA 32-35 - anonymously sponsored towards a REFU'AH SHELEMAH to Shmuel
Yakov ben Ayala Hinda, Ilana Golda bas Chana and Klarees Marcia bas Mammie
1) LOGICAL ADVANTAGES -- MACHSHIR AND MECHAPER
QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the order of the Avodos on Yom Kipur
according to the opinion of Aba Sha'ul as presented by Abaye: The Kohen
Gadol prepares the first five Neros of the Menorah for lighting (Hatavas
ha'Neros), after which he does the Shechitah of the Korban Tamid and the
Zerikah of its blood, and then he prepares the last two Neros for lighting.
The Gemara explains that the source for this is that the word "ba'Boker"
appears twice in the verse referring to Hatavos ha'Neros, thus the actions
of Hatavah (i.e. the Hatavah of the first five Neros as well as the Hatavah
of the last two Neros) have two "ba'Boker"s (meaning *very* early), so to
speak. In the verse of Zerikas ha'Dam, though, there is only one "ba'Boker"
(meaning only "early," but not very early). Therefore, the Zerikas ha'Dam
ought to be performed *after* all of the Neros have been prepared.
2) THE NECESSITY TO SPLIT THE "HATAVOS HA'NEROS" INTO TWO
The Gemara points out, however, that in the earlier verse referring to the
Shnei Gezirei Etzim, the word "ba'Boker" appears twice and they do not
belong there with the Shnei Gezirei Etzim. Therefore, one "ba'Boker" is
allotted to the Zerikas ha'Dam, and the other extra "ba'Boker" is allotted
to the Hatavah of the five Neros. As a result, the Hatavah of the five Neros
has three "ba'Boker"s, so it comes first. Zerikah has two "ba'Boker"s and is
now on an equal standing with the Hatavah of the two Neros. Since it has the
additional advantage of being a "Mechaper," it earns the right of precedence
and comes before the Hatavah of the two Neros (that is, it comes between the
Hatavos of the five Neros and the two Neros).
This reasoning does not seem to be consistent with the reasoning of the
Gemara earlier on the Daf. We find (33a) that a logical advantage alone,
such as "Mechaper" is sufficient to give precedence to one Avodah over
another. When the Gemara discusses which is done first -- the Dishun
Mizbe'ach Penimi or the Shnei Gezirei Etzim, the Gemara concludes that the
bringing of the Shnei Gezirei Etzim is done first, because that Avodah is a
"Machshir" for the Ketores. Even though the word "ba'Boker" appears twice in
the verse of Shnei Gezirei Etzim, the Gemara says that those words are not
used to show the precedence of the Shnei Gezirei Etzim (but are instead
given to the Hatavas ha'Neros and the Zerikas ha'Dam, as we mentioned above)
since it already has the advantage of being a Machshir. That advantage
overrides the two appearances of "ba'Boker" in the verse of Dishun
Similarly, why does the advantage of being a Mechaper not override all of
the "ba'Boker"s and give the Zerikas ha'Dam precedence over the Hatavas
ha'Neros? If the Zerikas ha'Dam has the added advantage of being a Mechaper,
then it should be performed first even *without* giving it an extra
"ba'Boker!" Why is it necessary to manipulate the numbers of instances of
the word "ba'Boker" in the verse, when Zerikas ha'Dam already has an
advantage to place it before the Hatavas ha'Neros? In fact, Zerikas ha'Dam
should come before *all* of the Neros!
(a) The RITVA and TOSFOS HA'ROSH answer that apparently the advantage of
Machshir is stronger than that of Mechaper. Something which is a Mechaper,
though, will not come first without first being on an equal standing (with
numbers of "ba'Boker").
(The logic behind this distinction may be that when something is a Machshir,
it is part of a logical progression from one event to the next. The logical
advantage of Mechaper, though, has nothing to do with the progression of
(b) The TOSFOS YESHANIM and TOSFOS HA'ROSH (in his second answer) explain
that a logical advantage (such as Machshir or Mechaper) has the ability to
put one Avodah before another *only* if both Avodos are already of equal
standing (with numbers of "ba'Boker"), *or* if the Avodah with the logical
advantage has *no* "ba'Boker" at all. In the case of Zerikas ha'Dam, though,
the Torah writes one "ba'Boker." Since the Torah went out of its way to
write one "ba'Boker" here, it must be telling us that this Avodah is
supposed to come *after* an Avodah that has more "ba'Boker"s. Therefore, the
advantage of being a Mechaper will not help in this case.
In the case of the Shnei Gezirei Etzim, regarding which there are two
"ba'Boker"s, the advantage of being a Machshir will work equally well with
two "ba'Boker"s as with no "ba'Boker"s (since the Torah does not tell us by
writing just one "ba'Boker" that it must come after the other Avodah in
question). Therefore, the two "ba'Boker"s are both unnecessary and are
allotted to other Avodos.
QUESTIONS: The Gemara suggests that instead of adding one of the extra words
"ba'Boker" to the Zerikas ha'Dam and one to the Hatavah of the five Neros,
we should add one "ba'Boker" to the Zerikas ha'Dam and the other extra
"ba'Boker" to the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach, thereby putting the Zerikas ha'Dam
*before* the Hatavah of all of the Neros. (Zerikas ha'Dam has two
"ba'Boker"s and is equal with the Hatavah of five Neros, *plus* it has the
advantage of being a Mechaper.) The Gemara rejects this because the Torah
writes regarding the Hatavas ha'Neros, "ba'Boker ba'Boker," teaching that
the Hatavah must be split into two parts, and there must be another Avodah
to separate between them. The only Avodah that is available to be put
between the five and two Neros is the Zerikas ha'Dam.
3) TWO "BA'BOKER"S, TWO "HATAVOS"
(a) If it is clear from the verse that Zerikas ha'Dam must be done between
the two Hatavos, then why do we need the additional "ba'Boker" from the
Shnei Gezirei Etzim to give the Zerikas ha'Dam precedence to the Hatavas
Shnei Neros? Even without the extra "ba'Boker," the Zerikas ha'Dam would
come between the Hatavos, because the verse requires that there be a
separation between the Hatavos!
ANSWER: The Gemara is assuming that the Derashah telling us to put an Avodah
between the Hatavah of the five and two Neros is *not* enough reason to put
the Zerikas ha'Dam there, because *another* Derashah tells us otherwise: the
Zerikas ha'Dam has only one "ba'Boker" while the Hatavah of the two Neros
has two "ba'Boker"s. The only way to move the Zerikas ha'Dam before the two
Neros is by adding to it one additional "ba'Boker."
(b) Second, why does the Gemara assume that the only Avodah which could
separate the Hatavos is Zerikas ha'Dam? We could also separate the Hatavos
with the Avodah of the bringing the *Evarei* ha'Tamid to the Mizbe'ach!
This answers why we do not separate the Hatavos with the Evarei ha'Tamid.
There is only one "ba'Boker" in the verse of the Evarei ha'Tamid, and thus
it cannot come before the two Neros, which has two "ba'Boker"s.
(However, we should still be able to take one of the extra "ba'Boker"s of
the Shnei Gezirei Etzim and add it to the Evarei ha'Tamid, so that they are
on equal standing, each having two "ba'Boker"s, and then the verse that
teaches that something must separate between the two Hatavos will allow us
to place the Evarei ha'Tamid there! The remaining extra "ba'Boker" may be
given to Zerikas ha'Dam, so that it is on equal standing with the first
Hatavah, and its advantage of Mechaper will then place it before all of the
Neros! Why do we not use that way of learning to place the Evarei ha'Tamid
between the Neros and the Zerikas ha'Dam before the Neros?
TOSFOS (DH Yukdam) explains that we cannot do that, because by giving one
"ba'Boker" to the Evarei ha'Tamid and the other "ba'Boker" to the Zerikas
ha'Dam of the Tamid, we will be giving both extra "ba'Boker"s to *one*
Avodah (that is, the general Avodah of the Korban Tamid). It is not logical
to add both extra "ba'Boker"s to the same general Avodah.)
QUESTION: The Gemara suggests that instead of placing the Zerikas ha'Dam
between the two Hatavos, it should be placed *before* the Hatavos by re-
distributing the extra "ba'Boker"s in a different way (see previous
The Gemara says that according to Reish Lakish, who maintains that there is
no strict requirement to split the two Hatavos apart from each other, this
is a good question, and it remains unanswered. According to Rebbi Yochanan,
though, who says that the Torah does require that the two Hatavos be
separated, there is no question, because there has to be an Avodah in
between the Hatavos. The only Avodah that is available to be put between the
five and two Neros is the Zerikas ha'Dam. Rebbi Yochanan says that we learn
from the words "ba'Boker ba'Boker" which are written in the verse discussing
the Hatavos ha'Neros that the Hatavah must be divided into two parts (one
for each "ba'Boker").
If so, then each of the two Hatavos -- the Hatavah of the five Neros and the
Hatavah of the two Neros -- has only *one* "ba'Boker." Why, then, does the
Gemara earlier say that both Hatavos each have *two* "ba'Boker"s?
(a) The TOSFOS YESHANIM and RABEINU CHANANEL (quoting "the Ga'on," as cited
by the Ritva) argue with Rashi's interpretation of the Gemara. They explain
that the Gemara is not saying that according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Gemara
has no question. Rather, the Gemara is saying the opposite -- according to
Reish Lakish there is no question, but according to Rebbi Yochanan there
*is* a question. According to Rebbi Yochanan, who holds that the phrase
"ba'Boker ba'Boker" teaches that the Hatavos must be separated, the Gemara
is asking our very question. How can we attribute two "ba'Boker"s to *both*
the Hatavah of the five Neros and the Hatavah of the two Neros? Each should
only have *one* "ba'Boker!" The Gemara's conclusion, according to Rabeinu
Chananel, is that Rebbi Yochanan's opinion remains difficult.
(b) The RITVA explains the Gemara like Rashi. He answers our question by
saying that we learn two things from the phrase "ba'Boker ba'Boker." First,
the phrase teaches to separate the Hatavos into two sets. Second, it teaches
that *each* of the sets of Hatavah have two "ba'Boker"s, since the *simple*
understanding of the verse is that the phrase "ba'Boker ba'Boker" refers to
both the Hatavah of the five Neros *and* the Hatavah of the two Neros. (See
also Insights to 27:1)