ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 41
YOMA 41 - Dedicated to the memory of Moshe Simcha ben Dovid Z"L Rubner by
his parents, Dovid and Zahava Rubner of Petach Tikva.
(a) Rav Chisda learns from the two Pesukim "*ve'Lakchah* Sh'tei Sorim ... "
and "*ve'Asah* ha'Kohen Echad Chatas ve'Echad Olah" - that the birds of a
'Kan' can be designated either by the owner when he first sets them aside,
or by the Kohen when he actually brings them.
(b) The Beraisa states that, if not for the Pasuk "ve'Asasahu Chatas", the
Sa'ir la'Az'azel could be designated by name from a Kal va'Chomer from the
Goral. This suggests that the designation by name corresponds to the Goral -
which is neither when he takes it nor when he brings it, placing a Kashya on
(c) Rava explains the Kal va'Chomer like this: If there where a Goral does
*not* determine the birds (even at the time of taking or bringing),
designating it at those times is effective, then there where the Goral *is*
effective (not at the time of taking or bringing), designating them should
certainly be effective when it *is* the time of taking or bringing.
(a) A poor Tamei Mikdash who became rich before *he* designating his Olas
ha'Of and Chatas ha'Of - brings a female lamb or kid-goat for a Chatas.
(b) The Beraisa says that if a poor Tamei Mikdash designated money for his
birds and, after becoming wealthy, he divided the money in two, this half
for his Olah and the other half, for his Chatas - he may add the Chatas-
money towards the acquisition of the animal Chatas that he now has to bring,
but not the Olah-money.
(c) This is a Kashya on Rav Chisda - since the designation took place
neither at the time of the taking nor at the time of the bringing, in which
case the money for the Olah would not have the Kedushah of an Olah. So why
should he not be permitted to now use even that money for his Chatas?
(d) The Beraisa is anyway unacceptable as it stands - because Rebbi Elazar
quoting Rebbi Hoshaya, has already said that a rich man Tamei Mikdash who
brings the Korban of a poor one, has not fulfilled his duty - that being the
case, the designation that he made, is anyway meaningless.
(a) We therefore amend the Beraisa to read, not '*ve'He'eshir*, ve'Achar-
Kach *Amar* ... ', but *ve'Amar* ... ve'Achar-Kach *He'eshir'*.
(b) Rav Chisda will amend it still further, and read *'ve'Amar be'Sha'as
Hafrashah* - Eilu le'Chataso ... '.
(c) Rav Chaga Amar Rebbi Yashiyah does not require the initial amendment,
seeing as he holds that a rich Tamei Mikdash who brought the Korban of a
poor man *is* Yotze. Therefore, there is no room for the second amendment.
(a) According to Rav Chaga Amar Rebbi Yashiyah, we try to amend the Beraisa
from 'Amar Eilu le'Chatasi' to 'Lakach ve'Amar Eilu le'Chatasi'. The
problem with that is that if he wished to use the bird that he already
designated for a Chatas Beheimah, he would need to redeem it - and a bird
cannot be redeemed.
(b) Pidyon applies only to animals - but not to birds, frankincense or K'lei
(c) We answer that he only used half the money to purchase *one* of the two
birds , and it is the other half of the money that now goes towards his
If the bird that he purchased was ...
- ... an Olah - it would go for Nedavah.
- ... a Chatas - it must die.
(a) Even Rav Chaga, who holds that a rich *Tamei Mikdash* who brought the
Korban of a poor Tamei Mikdash *is* Yotze, will agree that a rich *Metzora*
who brought the Korban of a poor one will not be Yotze - because the Torah
writes (in connection with the purification ceremony of a Metzora) "*Zos*
Tiheye Toras ha'Metzora", implying that no changes may be made.
(b) Nevertheless, a poor Metzora who brings the Korban of a rich one is
Yotze - because the Torah also inserted the word "Toras", which comes to
(c) Rav Chaga learns from the Pasuk "ve'Im Dal Hu" - that it is only by
Metzora, that a rich man who brings a poor man's Korban is not Yotze, but
not by other cases of a Korban Olah ve'Yored (such as a Tamei Mikdash).
(a) The Kohen Gadol then tied the red piece of wool on the head of the goat.
(b) During the Kohen Gadol's second confession, the goat stood at the gate
through which it would later be taken out.
(c) The second confession covered also the Kohanim who were not members of
(d) He added the Pasuk "Ki ba'Yom ha'Zeh Yechaper Aleichem ... " to both
(a) 'u'le'Nishchat Keneged Beis Shechitaso' in our Mishnah refers to the
(b) The Beraisa of Rav Yosef says that they would tie the thread on to the
head of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach and stand it ... and the Sa'ir la'Hashem
by the place where it was Shechted, so as to confuse neither the two goats
with each other, nor the Sa'ir la'Hashem with other goats.
(c) 'u'le'Nishchat ke'Neged Beis Shechitaso' - either means that he stood
the Sa'ir la'Hashem in the location in the Azarah where it would be
Shechted, or that he tied the red piece of wool on the place on its neck
where it would soon be Shechted.
(d) If the Tana was referring to the standing of the goat in the location in
the Azarah where it would be Shechted, then how would standing it there
avoid confusion with other animals. He must therefore be referring to tying
the red piece of wool on the place on its neck where it would soon be
Shechted - in which case he would avoid confusing it with the Sa'ir
ha'Mishtale'ach by tying the thread to the *neck* and not to its *head*
(like he did with the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach); and he would avoid confusing
it with other animals, which did not have anything tied around their necks.
(a) Rav Yitzchak was not sure whether it was the red thread of the Parah
Adumah or that of the *Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach*, that needed a Shiur. Rav
Yosef took it for granted that it must be that of the Sa'ir - because the
wool of the Sa'ir had to be divided into two (as we shall see later on Daf
67a - the piece of wool that was tied to the Sa'ir la'Hashem was not part of
the same piece), whereas that of the Parah Adumah did *not*.
We reconcile Rav Chanin Amar Rav (who says that if the piece of cedar-wood
or the red thread of the Parah Adumah got burned in the air from the heat of
the burning cow, they are Kasher) with the Beraisa, which rules that they
must bring a replacement - by establishing Rav Chanin Amar Rav by a *low*
flame, where the wool fell close to the fire before bursting into flames,
and the Beraisa by a *high* flame, where it got burnt in mid-air.
(b) Rami bar Chama countered that it might just as well be that of the
*Parah* that requires a Shiur - because it needed to be more weighty than
that of the Sa'ir la'Az'azel, since the Torah says "*el Toch* Serefas
(c) Abaye brought a proof that it must be the piece of wool used for the
*Parah* that required a measurement from the Beraisa 'Korchan bi'Sheyarei
Lashon' (implying that there was more wool from which this piece came). But
we counter this by amending the Beraisa to 'Korchan bi'Z'nav Lashon'
(meaning that he tied it with a piece of wool that was combed into the shape
of a tail).
According to Rebbi, the Torah requires the hyssop and the cedar-wood to be
tied with the red piece of wool so that they should all burn together.
Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon gives the reason for that - because the Torah
requires that the wool falls into the fire as we explained above (and this
is the Machlokes Tana'im to which Rava refers, when he says 'Koved Tana'i
(a) According to Rav Dimi quoting Rebbi Yochanan, there were *three* pieces
1. That of the Parah Adumah weighed *ten* Zuz - because it needed to be
heavy (as we explained earlier).
(b) The piece of wool that was needed for the purification ceremony of the
Metzora weighed one Shekel (*two* Zuzim).
2. That of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach weigh two Sela (i.e. *eight* Zuz) -
because it needed to be divided into two.