Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yoma 73

1) THE "BIGDEI KEHUNAH" OF THE " MASHU'ACH MILCHAMAH"

QUESTION: Rav Dimi (72b) states that a Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah (a Kohen specially appointed to exhort the men of the Jewish army when they go to war, as described in Devarim 20:1-9) may wear the eight Begadim of the Kohen Gadol. The Gemara challenges his opinion from a Beraisa which states that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may *not* wear the eight Begadim of the Kohen Gadol, nor may he wear the four Begadim of a Kohen Hedyot. Abaye answers that mid'Oraisa, he may wear the eight Begadim, as Rav Dimi said. The Rabanan, though, decreed that he not wear the eight Begadim of the Kohen Gadol in order to prevent malice against him from the Kohen Gadol, and that he not wear the four Begadim of a Kohen Hedyot because of the principle of "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin" -- we rise in holiness and we do not descend.

Why does Abaye say that the reason the Beraisa says that he cannot wear the four Begadim is because of "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh?" Rav Dimi holds that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah is *required* to wear the eight Begadim, and that is why he may not wear four Begadim! If he wears only four Begadim, he is considered "Mechusar Begadim" (lacking the required Begadim) and any Avodah which he does is invalid!

ANSWER: The TOSFOS YESHANIM answers that there are times when a Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah must be removed from his position. For example, if he becomes too old to go out to war with the army, he is dismissed from his position and his status returns to that of a Kohen Hedyot. (The position of Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah was an appointed position. Just like the appointment was made verbally by the king or Beis Din, so, too, the resignation is made verbally by the king or Beis Din.) Nevertheless, he may still not wear the four Begadim. Even though he will not be "Mechusar Begadim" for he is no longer a Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah, another reason prevents him from wearing the four Begadim -- because "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin."

QUESTION: Rav Dimi (72b) states that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may perform the Avodah while wearing the eight Begadim of the Kohen Gadol. The Gemara challenges his opinion by citing several sources that show that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may *not* wear the eight Begadim. Ravin answers that it was never taught that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may perform the Avodah with the eight Begadim. Rather, the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may wear the eight Begadim when he stands before the questioner who comes to ask a question of the Urim v'Tumim. When he does the Avodah, though, he wears only four Begadim. This version of Rav Dimi's statement answers all of the questions asked on Rav Dimi, for according to this version, Rav Dimi agrees that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah never wears the eight Begadim for the Avodah, which is consistent with the proofs cited by the Gemara.

However, there is one Beraisa that apparently contradicts Ravin's statement. The Beraisa says that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may not do the Avodah while wearing four Begadim (like a Kohen Hedyot), nor may he do the Avodah while wearing the eight Begadim (like the Kohen Gadol). Until now, it was assumed that he cannot wear four Begadim because of the principle, "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin" -- one may only rise in holiness, but not descend, and since he is supposed to wear eight Begadim, while serving as Mashu'ach Milchamah, he is not permitted to "descend" to four Begadim even if he loses his position.

Ravin, however, maintains that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah *never* wears eight Begadim; he only wears four Begadim like a regular Kohen. To apply "Ma'alin b'Kodesh" is entirely inappropriate; if so why does the Beraisa not allow him to serve with four Begadim?

ANSWERS:

(a) The CHAFETZ CHAIM (Zevach Todah) and the SEFAS EMES answer that according to Ravin, if the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah ever dons the eight Begadim in order for someone to ask a question of the Urim v'Tumim, afterwards he is no longer allowed to perform the Avodah with four Begadim, because of "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin." Since he once wore the eight Begadim, he may no longer wear only four Begadim. That is the instance which the Beraisa is discussing.

However, this answer is debatable. "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin" means that since the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah held a loftier appointment, as is witnessed by the fact that he was to serve with eight clothes, he may no longer perform the Avodah with four Begadim, as a normal Kohen. According to Ravin, though, he should not become more lofty, as far as Avodah is concerned, just because a question was asked of him through the Urim v'Tumim -- since he did not perform Avodah in those clothes. Why should that be considered "rising" in Kedushah such that he may not "descend?" (Apparently these Acharonim hold that the very act of donning the eight Begadim gives the Kohen more Kedushah.)

(b) The CHAZON ISH (Horiyos 15:22) points out that the Gemara cites a Beraisa as support for Ravin's statement. The Beraisa says explicitly that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah dons the eight Begadim in order for someone to ask a question of the Urim v'Tumim. The implication is that he wears four Begadim when he does the Avodah. Consequently, this Beraisa is arguing with the earlier Beraisa which says that he may not do the Avodah with four Begadim because of "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh." There is thus an argument between the Beraisos, and Ravin holds like the second Beraisa.

(c) The YEFEH EINAYIM cites the Yerushalmi that is bothered by this question. The Yerushalmi says that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may not wear four Begadim, because people who see him wearing the eight Begadim (while someone is asking a question of the Urim v'Tumim) might think that he has the status of a Kohen Gadol. If he is then allowed to do the Avodah with four Begadim, they will say that a *Kohen Gadol* is permitted to do the Avodah with four Begadim! Therefore, the Rabanan decreed that he may not do the Avodah in four Begadim, so that people not think that a Kohen Gadol is permitted to do the Avodah with four Begadim.

73b

QUESTION: The Gemara asks how the letters on the stones of the Choshon can be combined to spell out the answers to any question if they do not contain every letter of the Alef Beis. On the stones were inscribed the names of the twelve sons of Yakov, which did not include the letter "Tzadi!" The Gemara answers that the names of the Avos were also inscribed on the stones. The Gemara asks further that the letter "Tes" appears neither in the names of the Shevatim nor in the names of the Avos. If it was not inscribed on the stones, how could answers from the Urim v'Tumim include the letter "Tes?" The Gemara answers that the words "Shivtei Yeshurun" were also inscribed on the stones.

Why did the Gemara ask out of order? Since the letter "Tes" precedes "Tzadi," it should have first asked from "Tes" and only then from "Tzadi!" Furthermore, the names of the Shevatim also do not include the letter "Ches" [and the letter "Kof"]. Since the letter "Ches" precedes both "Tes" and "Tzadi," the Gemara should have asked first from the missing letter "Ches" in the names of the Shevatim! (The Yerushalmi, Yoma 7:3, indeed asks from Ches, Tes and Tzadi together, before answering that those letters appear in the names of the Avos, which were also inscribed in the stones.)

ANSWER: The CHASAM SOFER (Parshas Tetzaveh), citing from the SHEV YAKOV, proposes a brilliant answer. When the Gemara asked its question from the missing "Tzadi," it was not certain what exactly was written on the stones. Were the names of the Shevatim written on the stones, or were the names of the *stones* written on the stones? In order to safely ask its question, it asked specifically from the letter "Tzadi," which is the only letter that is missing from both the names of the Shevatim *and* the names of the stones!

After the Gemara answered that the names of the Avos were written on the stones, the questioner understood that was the names of the Shevatim that were written on the stones along with the Avos, and not the names of the stones. (If the names of the stones were written on the stones, there would be no point in adding to them the names of the Avos, who have nothing to do with the names of the stones.) Only at that point did it feel safe asking that the letter "Tes" would be missing from the stones, since it appears neither in the list of the Shevatim nor in the list of the Avos (although it *does* appear in the names of the stones, in "Pitda").

(For RAV SHAMSHON of OSTROPOLI's highly original mathemato-Kabalistic approach, see Nitzotzei Shimshon, Parashas Tetzaveh.)

OPINIONS: The Gemara asks why does the Kohen Gadol need to have Ru'ach ha'Kodesh in order to receive an answer from the Urim v'Tumim if the letters themselves protrude or join together (see Rashi) to give him the answer. The Gemara answers that it is nevertheless necessary for the Kohen Gadol also to have Ru'ach ha'Kodesh, in addition to the letters protruding or joining together, because by having Ru'ach ha'Kodesh "he assists them." In what way does the Kohen Gadol assist the letters of the Urim v'Tumim? Why is Ru'ach ha'Kodesh necessary?

(a) RASHI says that the Kohen Gadol would cogitate with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh, and as a result, his Ru'ach ha'Kodesh would cause the letters to protrude or join together.

The RAMBAN (Shemos 28:30) and the RITVA here explain this in much more detail. They explain that Rebbi Yochanan, who says that the letters protrude, and Reish Lakish, who says that the letters join together, are not arguing. The letters both protrude and join together. The Kohen Gadol would first concentrate on the Name of Hashem known as the "Urim," and that would cause the letters to stand out by lighting up ("Urim"). Then, the Kohen Gadol would concentrate on the Name of Hashem known as the "Tumim," and that would enable him to see the correct order of the letters as they joined together ("Tumim" means that they are "Metamem Divrehen," they make their message complete, as the Gemara states on 73b -- see Rashi there).

(b) RABEINU ELYAKIM says that first, the Kohen Gadol would concentrate in order to perceive the answer by himself with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. After he thought of the answer, he would then check the Urim v'Tumim to verify his answer. This is what the Gemara means when it says that "it (meaning the Urim v'Tumim) would assist him (meaning the Kohen Gadol)." It does not mean that the Kohen Gadol would assist the Urim v'Tumim.

(c) The RITVA (end of 73a) writes that "the Urim v'Tumim didn't work for the Mashu'ach Milchamah the same way as it did for the Kohen Gadol, it just helped him." He appears to have had another Girsa in the Gemara. According to his Girsa, the phrase "he assists them" does not answer the question why the Kohen Gadol had to have Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. Rather, it is answering a different question.

What question is the Gemara answering according to his Girsa? The CHAFETZ CHAIM (Zevach Todah) explains that the Gemara wanted to know how the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah can wear the eight Begadim in order for someone to ask a question of the Urim v'Tumim, when it was unlikely that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah had Ru'ach ha'Kodesh, and thus the Urim v'Tumim would not work! The Gemara answers that, in fact, the Mashu'ach Milchamah's Urim v'Tumim was not entirely reliable. Rather, the answer that it gave served only as a support for the questioner's other reasons to act in that way.

Another possible explanation of the Ritva is that his Girsa of the Gemara placed this phrase, "he assists them," at the end of the chapter, and it is answering a different question. The Gemara at the end of the Perek says that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah could serve as the questioner when a question needed to be asked to the Urim v'Tumim (while the Kohen Gadol wore it). We see from there that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah could *not* wear the Urim v'Tumim, but had to ask the question to the Kohen Gadol who wore the Urim v'Tumim.

The Gemara answers that it is true that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may not wear it himself while a question is asked of it, but rather "the Urim v'Tumim assists him" -- i.e. Ravin meant that he has the authority to *ask a question* to the Urim v'Tumim while the Kohen Gadol is wearing it, and the Urim v'Tumim will give him an answer (even though it usually give an answer only to the king or the Sanhedrin). (M. Kornfeld)