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 61
YOMA 59-88 have been dedicated to the memory of the late Dr. Simcha
Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens N.Y. by his wife
and daughters. Well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah, he
will long be remembered.
1) MATANOS OF THE PAR BEFORE THE SAIR
(a) (Ula) If he slaughtered the Sir before completing the
Matanos of the Par in the Kodesh HaKodoshim, it is
2) EACH KAPARAH IS INDEPENDENT
(b) Question: If so, then our Mishnah should insist that he
slaughter a new Sair in the event that he brought the Dam
Sair before the Dam Par!?
(c) Answer: The Mishnah is speaking of the Matanos in the
*Heichal* (and the Sair was certainly slaughtered after the
Matanos Dam Par in the Kodesh HaKodoshim).
(d) The understanding of the Mishnah is supported by R. Afas.
(a) The Beraisa cites a Machlokes regarding which parts of the
Avodah bring atonement for Tumas Mikdash and which parts
atone for other Aveiros; similarly the dispute applies to
whether the Kohanim and Yisraelim are atoned through the
3) EACH HAZA'AH SEPARATELY, OR EACH SET OF HAZAOS
1. R. Yehudah holds that regarding Tumas Mikdash is atoned
for by the Sair within, and the Sair HaMishtaleach
atones for other Aveiros, Kohanim and Yisraelim alike.
2. R. Shimon holds that the Kaparah for Tumas Mikdash is
accomplished by the Hazaos *alone* (the Sair for
Yisraelim and the Par for the Kohanim) and the Viduyim
(on the Sair HaMishtaleach for Yisraelim and on the Par
for the Kohanim) atone for the other Aveiros (hence the
Kaparah for each is *not* the same for any Aveiros.
(a) A second Beraisa affirms that each Haza'ah is a separate
Kaparah. [Note, this Machlokes forms the basis for several
4) THE LOG SHEMEN OF THE METZORA
1. According to R. Meir (the Tana Kama) each *set* of
Hazaos must be complete before the invalidation takes
place or else he must repeat that set from the
2. R. Elazar and R. Shimon hold that each Haza'ah which
was done is not repeated, even within a set.
3. R. Yochanan teaches that the above positions are based
on different understandings of the Pasuk VeChiper:
i. R. Meir says that it means one Kaparah for each
ii. R. Elazar and R. Shimon understand it to mean only
one Chitui, meaning that no Haza'ah may be
(a) Rebbi reported R. Yakov clarified that the above Machlokes
does not apply to the Log Metzora (which must be Echad) and
all would agree that the whole Kaparah must come from the
5) MATANOS HAROSH
(b) Question: But we find in the Beraisa that R. Elazar and R.
Shimon argue with R. Meir there exactly the same way!?
(c) Answer: Rather, Rebbi reported R. Yakov as teaching that the
*same* Machlokes applies there.
(a) The Beraisa cited above (4.b.) taught that the Matanos
HaRosh are not Me'akev on the Metzora (like the Shefichas
Shirayim on the Yesod of the Mizbeach).
(b) Question: What is the source for this Din?
(c) Answer: Since the Torah calls it Nosar (makes it like
(d) Question: On the basis of Nosar, then the Kometz (where we
find Vehanoseres...) should also not be Me'akev (and we know
that is not the case)!?
(e) Answer: That Pasuk speaks of what remains (Shirayim, which
may, indeed, be Me'akev) while we are speaking of Shiyarei
Shirayim, which are not Me'akev.
6) ASHAM METZORA AS TAUGHT BY R. YOCHANAN
[Note: The following is according to Rashi]
(a) (R. Meir) If an Asham Metzora which was slaughtered Shelo
Lishmo (even though the Avodah went on to Matnas Behonos) he
must slaughter a new Asham.
7) THE METZORA
(b) (R. Elazar and R. Shimon) In that case he is stuck since
this aspect of the Avodah would have to be done with a
second Asham, and would violate Asham *Echad*.
(c) Question: But even according to R. Meir, the restrictive
word Oso should require that the same animal which was used
for the Tenufah be the one offered as his Asham.
(d) Answer: Good question.
(e) A Beraisa supports R. Yochanan in its report that a
replacement Asham must be brought in the event that the
first was slaughtered Shelo Lishmo [or its blood was not
placed on the Behonos] and he is not restricted by Oso to
prevent such replacement.
(f) R. Chisda understands that Beraisa to the contrary, teaching
that he *must* bring another, and that he is stuck owing to
his inability to do so!
(g) Question: Does a Tana use the word *must (Tzarich)* when he
means, by implication, that the person is stuck?
(h) Answer: Indeed, we find such a use in the Beraisa regarding
a hairless Metzora where Beis Shamai say that me must use
1. Ravina understands Beis Shamai to use the word Tzarich
as implying that he needs to - but is unable to - use
the Ta'ar and hence he is stuck in his Tumah.
2. R. Pedas disagrees and holds that he must, and it is
effective for him to pass the Ta'ar over his hairless
head, comparable to R. Elazar's position regarding the
Matanos Dam on a Metzora with no right thumb.
(a) The Beraisa teaches that (owing to the link between Nesinah
and Kabalah) that the Kabalas HaDam from the Asham Metzora
must be done into the hands of the Kohen (just as he must
place the Dam on the thumbs by hand, not with a Keli); but
that the Kabalas HaDam for the Mizbeach must be done into a
Keli (as that is linked to other Chataos and Ashamos).
(b) It emerges that two Kohanim are needed for the Kabalas HaDam
of the Asham Metzora (one fills he hands and goes to the
Metzora and one fills his Keli and goes to the Mizbeach).