ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 40
YOMA 36-40 have anonymously sponsored towards a REFU'AH SHELEMAH to Shmuel
Yakov ben Ayala Hinda, Ilana Golda bas Chana and Klarees Marcia bas Mammie
(a) The Beraisa says 'Mitzvah Lehagril u'Lehisvados'. The Viduy refers to
the third confession, which the Kohen Gadol made on the Sa'ir
(b) Rebbi Shimon says 'Lo Higril, Kasher, Lo Hisvadeh, Pasul'.
(c) If we amend the Lashon from 'Lehagril' to 'Lehani'ach' - it will follow
that when Rebbi Shimon says 'Lo Higril, Kasher', he too, means 'Lo
Hini'ach', implying that Hagralah, according to him, *is* crucial. But this
cannot be, since Rebbi Shimon says elsewhere, that if one of the two goats
dies, he brings another one to re-place it (without the need to make a
(d) So we explain that in reality, when the Tana Kama said 'Lo Higril', he
meant 'Lo Hini'ach'. Rebbi Shimon however, was not sure which of the two the
Tana Kama meant. So he said to the Tana Kama: 'If you mean that Hagralah
(literally) is not crucial - then I agree with you by Hagralah, but argue
with you by Viduy (because I maintain that it *is* crucial). But if by
Hagralah, you mean 'Hanachah' (but Hagralah *is* crucial), then I argue with
you by Hagralah, too.
1. 'Par Me'akev es ha'Sa'ir' - means that the Kohen Gadol one performed one
of the later Avodos of the Sa'ir (la'Hashem) before an Avodah of the Par
which should have preceded it, he is not Yotze the Avodah, and it must be
repeated. Both this case and the next refer to the Avodos that were
performed inside the Kodesh Kodshim.
(b) The latter case cannot refer to the sprinkling of the blood of the bull
in the Heichal (i.e. towards the Paroches), before that of the goat in the
Kodesh Kodshim (i.e. towards the area between the poles of the Aron) - to
say that one is nevertheless Yotze with the Avodah of the goat, since by all
the Avodos inside the Kodesh Kodshim, the Torah writes "Chukah" (which
denotes that the Kohen Gadol was not Yotze if he changed the order)?
2. 've'Sa'ir Ein Me'akev es ha'Par' - means that if one performed one of the
later Avodos of the Par before an Avodah of the Sa'ir which should have
preceded it, one is nevertheless Yotze.
(c) Establishing the case when he sprinkled the blood of the bull before
drawing lots for the goat - will mean that the order of Hagralah is not
crucial, in which case it follows logically that the Hagralah is not crucial
either (or so we currently think). But did Rebbi Yanai not prove (in the
second Lashon) that Hagralah is crucial even according to Rebbi Yehudah?
(a) So we try to establish the Beraisa when he sprinkles the blood of the
*bull* in the Heichal (i.e. on the Mizbe'ach) before sprinkling the blood of
the *goat* in the Heichal (towards the Paroches), and the author of the
Beraisa will be Rebbi Yehudah. The blood of the bull actually means the
blood of the bull mixed with that of the goat.
(b) This would solve our problem - because, according to Rebbi Yehudah,
whatever is performed even with the white garments *outside* the Kodesh
Kodshim, is not crucial.
(c) This explanation is unacceptable however - because the Beraisa speaks
specifically by the Avodos in the Kodesh Kodshim (as we explained above).
(a) We either establish the Beraisa when he *sprinkled the blood* of the
bull before *drawing lot*s for the goat, and the author of the Beraisa will
be Rebbi Shimon, who holds (even according to Rebbi Yanai) that the Goral is
not crucial -
(b) Or we establish it even like Rebbi Yehudah, who agrees that, despite the
fact that the *order of the Goral* is *not* crucial (due to the fact that
"Chukah" does not pertain to Avodos that are performed outside the Kodesh
Kodshim), the Goral itself *is* (because the Torah repeats "Asher Alah", as
we explained above).
(a) According to Rebbi Shimon, the Sa'ir la'Azaz'el had to remain alive -
until after the third Viduy (that was said over *it*).
(b) Rebbi Yehudah explains "Lechaper" to refer to Kaparas *Damim*, Rebbi
Shimon, to Kaparas *Devarim*.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah derives his opinion from the juxtaposition of the phrases
"ve'Chilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh" and "ve'Hikriv es ha'Sa'ir he'Chai"; Rebbi
Shimon learns from "Lechaper *Alav*" - that we are concerned with its *own*
Kaparah (i.e. Kaparas Devarim), and not the Kaparas Damim of the Sa'ir
la'Hashem ('Alav ve'Lo al Chavero').
(a) When Rebbi Akiva's Talmidim asked him whether the lots needed to be re-
drawn, should the Sa'ir la'Hashem come out in his left hand - he replied
that that was the opinion of the Tzedokim, but not our's.
(b) It would appear from Rebbi Akiva's reply that intrinsically, the Kohen
Gadol should be permitted to re-draw the lots, and that it is only not to
emulate the Tzedokim, that he does not. But did we not say earlier that the
Hagralah is crucial (so how can it possibly be changed)?
(c) We therefore amend the She'eilah to read, not whether, should the Goral
la'Hashem come up in his left hand, the Kohen Gadol *re-draws* the lots, but
whether, he simply *switches* the goat together with the lot, to his right
hand, or not.
(a) The Beraisa initially learns from the word "ve'ha'Sa'ir, Asher *Alah*
Alav ha'Goral la'Hashem ... " - that Hagralah *is* a Mitzvah and Hanachah is
(b) We cannot explain it to mean that Hagralah is (just) a Mitzvah - because
then, we will have to explain that Hanachah (placing the Goral on the heads
of the goats is not even a Mitzvah either).
(c) Rava finally explains the Beraisa 'Keyvan she'Alah, Shuv Eino Tzarich'
to mean that it is not necessary to leave the Goral on the head of the Sa'ir
until it is Shechted - once he has placed it on the goat's head, he has
fulfilled the Mitzvah (but not that Hanachah is not crucial at all).
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa learns from "ve'Asahu Chatas" - that the Goral
makes the one Sa'ir for Hashem and the other, for Az'azel, and not by
(b) Otherwise, we would learn a Kal va'Chomer and say, that if there where a
Goral is *not* effective (i.e. to determine which of the two birds of a Zav
etc. is an Olah, and which, a Chatas), designation *is*, certainly, where a
Goral *is* effective, designation should be effective, too.
(c) The significance of 'Kidesh Hashem' - would be that, once the Kohen
Gadol has declared the two goats, one for Hashem and the other, for Az'azel,
he would not be permitted to change them.
(d) It is clear from this Beraisa, which is a Sifra, that, as far as the
issue of the two goats is concerned, the Goral is crucial - and the author
of a Stam Sifra is Rebbi Yehudah. This proves the second Lashon of the
Machlokes between Rebbi Yanai and Rebbi Yochanan (above end of 39b.) to be
the correct version.