ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 60
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.
(a) It is because there is Me'ilah by the ashes of the Terumas ha'Deshen
and the Bigdei Kohen Gadol of Yom Kipur - that we say 'Sh'nei Kesuvim
ha'Ba'im ke'Echad, Ein Melamdin' (i.e. Had the Torah written Me'ilah in
*one* case, then we would apply it via a Binyan Av to the entire Torah. But
now that the Torah sees fit to repeat it twice - unnecessarily - we treat
the two cases as exceptions, and say that, in all other cases, there is no
Me'ilah once the Mitzvah has been concluded.
(b) Rebbi Dosa replaces the Bigdei Kohen Gadol with the Eglah Arufah, which
is also Asur be'Hana'ah, so that we remain with *two* cases that are Asur
be'Hana'ah even after their Mitzvah has been concluded.
(c) According to those who maintain that we *do* learn a Binyan Av from two
sources, we will not learn from Terumas ha'Deshen and Eglah Arufah
(according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Dosa), that Me'ilah applies even
*after* the Mitzvah has been completed - because the Torah writes two
Mi'utin (exclusions) - "ve'Sam*o*" and "*ha*Arufah" - to teach us that
Me'ilah applies *only* to those two cases, but not to any other cases
(though why we need *two* Mi'utin is not clear).
(a) We need one of the three Pesukim written by blood: "Lachem", "Lechaper"
and "Hu" - to preclude Kodshim whose Mitzvah has been concluded, from
*Me'ilah*. The other two come to preclude the blood of Kodshim from Nosar
and from *Tum'ah* (i.e. that someone who ate the blood of Kodshim which was
*Nosar* or when he was Tamei, was Chayav for eating blood, but not for
eating Nosar or for eating Kodshim be'Tum'ah).
(b) Neither of them comes to preclude the blood of Kodshim from Pigul -
because it is only something which becomes permitted either to the
Mizbe'ach or to a person that is subject to Pigul. Blood of Kodshim permits
others, and is therefore not subject to Pigul.
(c) We learn this principle from Shelamim - whose flesh becomes permitted
to the owner, and whose fat-pieces become permitted to the Mizbe'ach - both
through the sprinkling of the blood.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah says that - if the Kohen Gadol changes the
sequence of any Avodah of Yom Kipur from the sequence that is stated in the
Torah, that Avodah is invalid.
According to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon - the Kohen Gadol resumed
wherever he left off (even if he was in the middle of the Avodos of the
Kodesh Kodashim, for example - he did not need to begin again).
(b) If the Kohen Gadol ...
1. ... sprinkled the blood of the goat before that of the bull - he must
sprinkle it again after the blood of the bull.
(c) The same will apply if the blood spilled before he had concluded the
Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.
2. ... spilled the blood before he concluded the Matanos of the bull (for
example) in the Kodesh Kodshim, or those in the Heichal - he must bring
another bull, Shecht it, and begin again with those Matanos that he was
busy with when the blood spilled (e.g. to the beginning of the Matanos of
the Kodesh Kodashim - if that is what he was doing when the blood spilled).
(d) If the blood spilled after he had concluded the Matanos ...
1. ... in the Kodesh Kodashim - he would resume with the Matanos in the
2. ... in the Heichal - he would resume with the Matanos on the Mizbe'ach
(a) Rebbi Yehudah restricts the Din of our Mishnah to Avodos that the Kohen
Gadol performed *in the Kodesh Kodashim* wearing the white garments, but
not to Avodos that he performed *outside* wearing the four white garments -
i.e. Hagralah, Viduy, Shefichas Shirayim and all the Matanos of the
Paroches and of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah will agree however, by the Shechitah and the Chafinah,
that the order is crucial, even though they are performed outside the
Kodesh Kodashim - because they pertain to the Avodah of the Kodesh
(c) Rebbi Nechemyah says that the order is crucial - even by the Avodos
that the Kohen Gadol performed *outside* wearing the white garments.
According to him, it is only Avodos that he performed outside wearing the
eight *golden* garments that are not crucial.
(a) Both Tana'im derive their respective opinions from the Pasuk "Vehaysah
Zos Lachem le'Chukas Olam Achas ba'Shanah". Both Tana'im learn from "Achas
ba'Shanah" - that the order of whatever is performed with the Bigdei Lavan
bi'F'nim is crucial (only Rebbi Nechemyah extends that even to outside the
(b) Rebbi Yochanan initially explains, according to Rebbi Nechemyah that
every atonement that occurred once a year was included in Chukah. Only
according to Rebbi Yehudah - this is confined to the Kodesh Kodashim.
(c) The Gemara rejects this interpretation of Rebbi Yehudah's opinion - on
the grounds that the Torah makes no mention of location, that would prompt
Rebbi Yehudah to make such a Derashah.
(d) We then explain Rebbi Yehudah's opinion from the words "Zos" and
"Achas" - one of which comes to exclude Avodos of the Bigdei Lavan ba'Chutz
from Chukah (i.e. that it is not crucial), and the other, to exclude the
Avodos of the Bigdei Zahav.
(a) Rebbi Nechemyah agrees that one of the words comes to exclude the
sequence of all Avodos that he performed in the Bigdei *Zahav* from
'Chukah' - the other word comes to exclude the sequence of the Shirayim
(b) Rebbi Yehudah counters that the Shirayim are no different than all
other Avodos that are performed with Bigdei Lavan ba'Chutz. Consequently,
if *their* sequence is crucial, so is *its* sequence crucial; and if
their's is not, neither is its.
(a) "ve'Chilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh". Rebbi Akiva explains 'Im Kipar,
Kilah, ve'Im Lo Kipar, Lo Kilah' - meaning that if the Kohen Gadol
performed the Kaparah (i.e. the Matanos), he has finished (and the pouring
of the Shirayim is not crucial to the Avodah).
(b) Rebbi Yehudah says 'Im Kilah, Kipar, ve'Im Lo Kilaah Lo Kipar'.
(c) Our Sugya, which holds that Rebbi Yehudah comes to argue with Rebbi
Akiva, explains his words to mean that he has finished the Kaparah only if
he finishes everything (including the pouring of the Shirayim), otherwise,
he is not Yotze. In any event, we have proved from here that according to
Rebbi Yehudah, the Shirayim are a crucial part of the Avodah, and their Din
vis-a-vis sequence, will be no different that any other Avodah which is
performd ba'Chutz wearing the Bigdei Lavan.
(a) How can Rebbi Yochanan say that, according to Rebbi Nechemyah, the
Shirayim is *not* crucial to the Avodah - when in Zevachim, he
specifically said that Rebbi Nechemyah holds that it *is*?
(b) We remain with a Kashya, making no attempt to answer it.
(a) Rebbi Chanina says that if the Kohen Gadol performed the (first)
Chafinah before Shechting the Par, he is not Yotze. This can well go like
Rebbi Yehudah - because, as we explained earlier, the Chafinah is
considered part of the Avodas P'nim, since it is for the needs of the
Ula says that if the Kohen Gadol Shechted the goat before having performed
the Matanos of the bull, he will have to Shecht another goat. When the Tana
of our Mishnah says that if he performed the Matanos of the goat before
those of the bull, he must sprinkle the blood of the goat again, he is
speaking about the Matanos of the Heichal, when the goat was Shechted
earlier - *after* the conclusion of the Matanos of the bull in the Kodesh
Kodashim, in which case, Ula too, will agree, that it will not be necessary
to Shecht another goat.
(b) The problem with this from our Mishnah, which says that if the blood of
the Par spilled before the Kohen Gadol had concluded the Matanos in the
Kodesh Kodashim, he must sprinkle all over again (i.e. Shecht another bull
... ) is - that according to Rebbi Chanina, the Tana ought to have added
that he is obligated to perform the Chafinah again.
(c) We answer that the Tana is concerned with the Avodos of the *Matnos
Dam*, and not those of the *Ketores* - therefore he did not mention the
Chafinah (even though, the Kohen Gadol is Chayav to perform it).