ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 33
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
(a) The Ma'arachah Sheni'ah shel Ketores (the second arrangement of wood on
the Mizbe'ach), which was for the Ketores, was placed on the south-western
corner, four Amos north of the Keren.
(b) They took coals from it twice a day - to place on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav
for the Ketores.
1. The Ma'arachah Gedolah on which all the regular Korbanos were burnt,
preceded the Ma'arachah Sheni'ah shel Ketores.
(d) Clearing the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores and cleaning and preparing the Menorah
still had to precede the Tamid.
2. The Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei Eitzim followed it.
(a) After the Hatavas Sh'tei Neros came the Ketores (according to Aba
Shaul), followed by the bringing of the limbs on to the Mizbe'ach.
(b) Then came the Minchah (that accompanied the Tamid) and the Chavitei
(c) The last Avodah pertaining to the Tamid shel Shachar - was the bringing
of the Nesachim which were poured into the small bowl next to the south-
(a) The last two Avodos were 1. the placing of the two Bazichei Levonah on
the Shulchan; 2. the bringing of the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Hiktir *Aleha* Chelvei ha'Shelamim" - that
all the Korbanos mast be brought after the Korban Tamid shel *Shachar* (to
which "Aleha" refers), and not after the Tamid shel Bein *ha'Arbayim*. In
other words, the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim has to be the last Korban of the
(a) The Ma'arachah Gedolah takes precedence over the Ma'arachah Sheni'ah
shel Ketores - because its Kaparah is more common than that of the latter.
(b) We might have thought that the Ma'arachah Sheni'ah shel Ketores takes
precedence over the Ma'arachah Gedolah - because its fire *was* taken inside
the Heichal - whereas that of the Ma'arachah Gedolah was *not*.
(c) We counter that argument - by pointing out that if, for some reason,
there was no fire on the *second* Ma'arachah, then they would take from the
(d) We learn from the Pasuk "u'Vi'er *Aleha* Eitzim" - that one needs to
arrange two pieces of wood on *it*, and not on another Ma'arachah (which
must have already been lit) - i.e. the Ma'arachah shel Ketores. So we see
that the Ma'arachah Sheni'ah shel Ketores precedes the Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei
Eitzim. "Aleha" is indeed needed for itself. However, the word "Aleha"
(a) The Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei Eitzim and to the clearing of the ashes from the
Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores - because it is Machshir (it prepares ... for service)
as opposed to clearing of the ashes, which is an Avodas Siluk (removal).
Abaye knew of no logical reason as to why clearing the ashes from the
Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores should precede the preparation of the five lamps.
According to Rava, it wis because of Resh Lakish's principle 'Ein Ma'avirin
Al ha'Mitzvos' (one does not bypass a Mitzvah). Here too. upon entering the
Heichal, one would first come upon the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores (which, as we
learned earlier, was drawn slightly towards the east), before the Menorah.
(b) The Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei Eitzim is Machshir the Korban (since it goes on
(c) It nevertheless precedes the clearing of the ashes of the Mizbe'ach
*ha'Ketores* - because a Machshir is a Machshir, whichever Mizbe'ach it is
(d) Rav Ashi answers the Kashya (using the same Sevara that we presented
above in 4c.) - by pointing out that, if there was no fire on the Ma'arachah
Sheni'ah shel Ketores, they would take from the Ma'arachah Gedolah (in which
case, it was indeed a Machshir for the Ketores).
(a) The Shulchan was placed in the middle of the Heichal on the north, two
and a half Amos from the northern wall; the Menorah was exactly opposite it
on the south side of the Heichal, also two and a half Amos from the southern
wall. The Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores was in the middle, but drawn slightly towards
(b) The Mizbe'ach was deliberately drawn out of line of the Shulchan and the
Menorah, in keeping with the Pasuk in Terumah "Nochach ha'Shulchan" (with
regard to the Menorah).
(c) The two and a half Amos ...
1. ... between the Shulchan and the wall served the purpose of allowing the
two Kohanim who would place the two rows of Lechem ha'Panim every Shabbos to
walk there abreast, before arranging them on the table simultaneously.
(d) We learn from Resh Lakish's principle (not to pass over Mitzvos) - that
the shel Yad must precede the shel Rosh (See also Tosfos DH 'Avurei Dar'a').
2. ... between the Menorah and the wall - was only in order to conform with
(a) We add one of the two "ba'Boker" written by the Sh'nei Gizrei Eitzim ...
We do not need "ba'Boker ba'Boker" by the Sh'tei Gizrei Eitzim in order to
place it before the Ma'arachah Sheni'ah shel Ketores - because we know that
anyway, from "Aleha" 've'Lo Al Chavertah' (as we explained earlier, in 4d.).
1. ... on to Hatavas Chamesh Neros giving it *three* "ba'Boker" as against
the *two* of the Dam ha'Tamid (see 2.)?
(b) According to Rav Papa's Kashya, the order would be Dishun Mizbe'ach
ha'Penimi, Dam ha'Tamid, Hatavas Chamesh Neros and Hatavas Sh'tei Neros. But
that is not acceptable - because we need a break in between the Hatavas
Chamesh Neros and Hatavas Sh'tei Neros.
2. ... to the Dam ha'Tamid (giving it *two* "ba'Boker" against the *two* of
the Hatavas Sh'tei Neros), in which case, the Dam ha'Tamid takes precedence
- because it is Mechaper.
(c) According to Resh Lakish, the reason for breaking up the preparation of
the Menorah into two - is in order to cause excitement in the Azarah twice.
This can be achieved even without performing another Avodah between them.
But according to Rebbi Yochanan, who learns the break between them from the
Pasuk "ba'Boker" ba'Boker" ('Chalkehu li'Sh'nei Bekarim'), Rav Papa's
suggestion would be a problem.
(d) Neither is it possible to move the Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi to *after*
the Dam ha'Tamid, and to place *it* in between the two Hatavos - because of
'Ein Ma'avirin al ha'Mitzvos' (in which case, the Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi
must come before the Hatavos ha'Neros). (See also Maharsha on Rashi).
(a) The Hatavos Chamesh Neros precede the Hatavas Sh'tei Neros, and not
vice-versa - because having begun with the Hatavas Neros, it is logical to
go ahead and prepare the majority of the lamps.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "be'Hetivo es *ha'Neros* Yaktirenah
- that at least two lamps must be left for the second Hatavah (otherwise, we
would prepare first six lamps and leave only one for the second Hatavah).
(a) According to Abaye in the name of Aba Shaul, the Ketores precedes the
bringing up of the limbs on to the Mizbe'ach - because by the former, the
Torah writes *twice* "ba'Boker", whereas by the bringing up of the limbs on
to the Mizbe'ach, it only writes it *once*.
(b) The Beraisa learn from "*ha*'Olah" that bringing the limbs on to the
Mizbe'ach precedes the Minchah - because "*ha*'Olah" teaches that the Tamid
is brought up first (before any other Korban, and before the Minchah).
(c) The Minchah precedes the Chavitin - because the Torah writes in Emor
"Olah u'Minchah" from which we learn that the Minchas ha'Tamid follows the
Olah with nothing (such as the Minchas Chavitin) in between; the Chavitin
precede the Nesech - because the Chavitin too, is a Minchah, and logically,
one Minchah follows the other; And the Nesech precedes the Musaf - because
the Torah writes (ibid) "Zevach u'Nesachim", to teach us that the Nesech
follows the Zevach with no Korban in between.