POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous dafYoma 58
1) COMBINING THE BLOOD (bottom of 57b)
(a) The Mishnah supports the opinion that the Dam is combined
before the Haza'ah on the Mizbeach HaPenimi.
2) CHATZITZAH MIN BEMINO
(b) This is a Machlokes R. Yoshia and R. Yonasan.
(c) We may infer that R. Yoshia is of the opinion that they must
be combined prior to the Haza'ah, since he holds, generally,
that items listed together in the Pasuk are to be combined
even in the absence of the word Yachdav.
1. Perhaps R. Yonasan could also maintain, here, that the
blood is combined first, owing to the word Achas.
(d) A second Beraisa affirms that MeArvin Lekeranos is the
position of R. Yoshia.
2. This suggestion, however, is clearly refuted by the
Beraisa in which the positions of R. Yonasan and R.
Yoshia are explicit.
3. R. Yonasan there rejects the implication of Achas in
light of the separator term U'Mi'Dam.
(a) Question: What would be the Din if the Kohen put one Mizrak
into the other, would it be considered a Chatzitzah (Min
BeMino) or not?
(b) Answer: Our Mishnah indicates that the one vessel *may* be
placed within the other.
(c) No, the Mishnah means *pouring the contents* of (the full)
one into the other (empty one), not placing one vessel into
(d) Question: But the Mishnah already taught that he poured the
contents of one into the other?
(e) Answer: The second pouring is for greater consistency.
(f) Question: The Beraisa invalidates the Avodah of a Kohen
standing on the foot of another, indicating that Min BeMino
*is* a Chatzitzah!
(g) Answer: A foot does not become Batel (and is thus not
considered Min BeMino).
(h) We could understand the question in (a) as follows:
1. Question: Is it proper to serve HaShem with one vessel
inside the other?
(i) Question: Would a (fibrous) Siv in a vessel constitute a
Chatzitzah (since it is a foreign body- Min BiShe'Eino Mino)
or not (since it becomes fully saturated)?
2. Answer: From the Pasuk we can learn that multiple
vessels may (together) effect one (proper) service.
(j) Answer: We find by the Mei Chatas that whatever is not
absorbed into the sponge is invalid but whatever is outside
of the sponge is Kosher, and so, too, in our case.
1. We may not draw conclusions from there since water is
thinner than blood and more likely will permeate the
space between the sponge and the vessel.
(k) Alternate Answer: The Siv would be acceptable by blood, but
not by a Minchah (even fine flour might not permeate).
3) MISHNAH: THE MATANOS ON THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE MIZBEACH
(a) The Mizbeach spoken of in the Pasuk is the Mizbeach HaZahav.
4) WHERE THE KOHEN STOOD FOR THE HAZAOS OF THE PAROCHES
(b) (Tana Kama) He begins the Hazaos (in a downward motion) in
the NE corner and proceeds to his right (NW, SW, SE). [As
such, he concludes his Hazaos in the corresponding corner
(SE) to where he begins his Avodah on the Mizbeach
(c) (R. Eliezer) [Due to the small size of the Mizbeach HaZahav]
He did the Avodah while standing in one place. [All the
Hazaos (excepting the closest corner) were done in an upward
(d) After the Matanos on the corners he did seven Hazayos on the
top of the Mizbeach and then poured the remaining Dam on the
Western Yesod of the Mizbeach HaChitzon.
1. Shirayim from the Mizbeach HaChitzon would be poured on
the Southern side, and all the blood would combine
beneath in the Amah, then flow out to the Kidron valley
where it was sold as fertilizer.
2. There is a prohibition (Me'ilah) against use of the Dam
without paying for it.
(a) Two Beraisos teach that, for the Par Chatas of the Kohen
Mashiach, the Kohen stands East (outward) of the Mizbeach
(and does the Haza'ah on the Paroches from there) whereas on
Yom Kipur he stands within, West of the Mizbeach, while
doing Haza'ah on the Paroches.
5) THE STARTING POINT OF THE HAZAOS
(a) The Beraisa cites a Machlokes regarding the starting corner
and the direction the Kohen took around the Mizbeach.
1. R. Akiva- He began in the SE and proceeded to his left
(SW, NW, NE).
(b) Question: Why, according to both opinions, does the Kohen
Gadol bypass the Western corner (North or South)?
2. R. Yosi HaGelili- He began in the NE and proceeded to
his right (NW, SW, SE).
3. Each opinion begins at the terminus of the other.
(c) Answer: VeYatzah El HaMizbeach teaches him to proceed until
the "exit" side of the Mizbeach.
(d) Question: Why, according to R. Akiva, doesn't he circle to
1. We learned from Rami b. Yechezkel that all turns must
be to the right (Mizrach).
(e) Answer: They argue not about the principle of turning to the
right, but over whether we derive the Avodah on the Mizbeach
HaZahav from the Avodah on the Mizbeach HaChitzon.
2. This is learned from the sequence of the Pesukim
describing the Mikveh of Shlomo.
3. Are we to learn that R. Akiva does not subscribe to
this rule (and R. Yosi HaGelili does)?
(f) Question: But even granting that R. Akiva does not draw from
the Mizbeach HaChitzon, still, the Kohen should turn to his
right, as per the accepted principle!?
(g) Answer: R. Akiva has the Kohen Gadol going back to the
corner which he (ordinarily would not have) bypassed (but
did, due to the Pasuk of VeYatzah).