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 73
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) THE EIGHT GARMENTS OF THE KOHEN GADOL
(a) (R. Dimi) These same garments are worn by the Kohen Mashuach
Milchamah during his daily Avodah (this additional Kohen is
learned from the extra work Acharav).
2) CONSULTING THE URIM VETUMIM
(b) Question: But that would make the Kohen Mashuach Milchamah
fitting to go into the Kodesh HaKodoshim (which hinges on
Begadim) and his son should inherit his position, not as we
are taught that the position does not pass to his son!?
(c) Answer: The Pasuk requires that the person be primarily
dedicated to the Ohel Moed in order to confer the position
on his son, thus excluding one whose anointment is primarily
(d) Question: But the Beraisa teaches that he does *not* wear
the eight Begadim, nor the four of a Kohen Hedyot!?
(e) (Abaye) Then you have invalidated him from Avodah entirely!?
(f) Rather, he *is* fitting for Avodah, but does not do so.
1. He does not wear the Begadim of the Kohen Gadol out of
concern for enmity (Eivah).
(g) Question: But according to the Tana who is not concerned
about enmity, he *should* be able to function, thus proving
that he is *not* fit to function at all!?
2. He does not wear the four Begadim of a Kohen Hedyot
owing to his elevated status.
1. The Tana who is not concerned about Eivah demonstrates
this by allowing a former Kohen Gadol to continue to
(h) Answer: There is no Eivah when the other Kohen is at the
same level, but for a lesser Kohen (the Mashuach Milchamah)
to function would engender Eivah.
2. At the same time he does not permit the Kohen Mashuach
Milchamah to function, thus demonstrating that the
Torah does not permit him to function (and it is not
only because of our concern for enmity).
(i) When R. Avahu reported R. Dimi's teaching (that the Mashuach
Milchamah wears eight Begadim) citing R. Yochanan, R. Ami
and R. Asi turned away from him (to indicate that R.
Yochanan did not teach that Din).
1. Others say it was R. Chiya b. Aba who reported it.
(j) R. Yochanan (as cited by Ravin) actually taught that the
Mashuach Milchamah wore the Urim VeTumim upon going out to
battle, and was thus consulted by the King (as supported in
2. Question: I would understand why R. Ami and R. Asi
could not openly state their disapproval of R. Avahu
owing to his political position, but why could they not
have spoken directly to R. Chiya b. Aba!?
(a) Question: How is this accomplished?
(b) Answer: The petitioner faces the Kohen Gadol, and the Kohen
Gadol faces the Shechinah (the Shem HaMeforash on the
1. The petitioner asks the request of Dovid HaMelech, and
the Kohen Gadol responds (either with or without Ko
Amar HaShem) Aleh VeHatzlach.
2. The petitioner may not ask his question in a full voice
(VeSha'al *Lo*) nor merely *think* the question, but
rather utters it as Chanah spoke with HaShem.
3. He must not ask two questions at once, and if he does,
the response comes to the first question (proof text).
4. Question: But we see that Dovid received an answer to
his *second* question!?
3) ONLY A KING MAY ASK OR ONE WHO IS NEEDED
5. Answer: Dovid asked out of order (whether the city
would turn him over to Shaul, and whether Shaul would
come down to the city).
(c) The decree of a Navi may be reversed (as by Yonah) but not
that of the Urim VeTumim (proof text and Beraisa).
i. The Shechinah corrected him by answering the
second (properly the first) question.
6. When the matter is urgent (as by Shaul), both questions
will receive an answer.
ii. Dovid then asked the second question properly.
(d) Question: Why was the prophecy regarding the Pilegesh
B'Giv'a (to go to battle with Binyamin) not fulfilled (and
many B'nei Yisrael fell in those two days)?
(e) Answer: They only asked if to go to battle, not if they
would be victorious (proof text regarding the third day).
(f) Question: How would the answer appear?
(g) Answer: R. Yochanan says the letters would stand out (in
their place) and Resh Lakish says they would organize into
(h) Question: But the names of the Shevatim are missing the
(i) Answer: The names Avraham Yitzhok and Yakov also featured on
(j) Question: But we are still missing a Tes?
(k) Answer: The words Shivtei Yeshurun appeared there, as well.
(l) Question: We see that the operation of the Urim VeTumim was
based on the level of Shechinah in the Kohen Gadol and so
(according to Rashi) there is no need for the letters to
stand out or to organize at all!?
(m) Answer: The Kohen would assist the Urim VeTumim to function.
(a) Question: How is this known?
Hadran Alach Perek Ba Lo Kohen Gadol
(b) Answer: It is based on the Pasuk:
1. The referent of the Pasuk is the King.
2. VeChol B'nei Yisrael is the Mashuach Milchamah.
3. VeChol HaEidah refers to the Sanhedrin.
*****PEREK YOM HAKIPURIM*****
1) MISHNAH: THE RESTRICTIONS OF YOM KIPUR
(a) It is Asur on Yom Kipur to eat, drink, bath, anoint, wear
shoes or cohabit.
2) CHAZTI SHIUR
(b) A King and a Kalah wash their face.
(c) A nursing mother wears shoes; while R. Eliezer prohibits.
(d) One who eats the equivalent of a plump dried date (Koseves)
with its pit is Chayav, as is one who drinks a cheek-full
(e) Foods combine with other foods as do liquids with others,
but foods and liquids do not combine.
(a) Question: The Mishnah should have referred to the Isur as
Chayav Kares (not merely Asur)!?
(b) Answer: The Mishnah means to refer to Chatzi Shiur (Asur,
but not a Kares).
(c) Question: But what of Resh Lakish who holds (in his
Machlokes with R. Yochanan) that Chatzi Shiur is *Mutar*
from the Torah!?
(d) Answer: Resh Lakish admits that Chatzi Shiur is Asur
Mid'Rabanan (and thus the Mishnah refers to it as Asur).
(e) Question: But then how can Resh Lakish explain that his
Shevu'ah applies to his eating less than a Shiur (according
to Rabanan, in the following discussion from Shevu'os),
given that he is already bound not to eat this!?
1. One who takes a Shevu'ah not to eat, and violates his
oath by eating forbidden foods is, according to
Rabanan, Chayav for violating his Shevu'ah.
2. According to R. Shimon he is Patur.
3. The Gemara there asks why he is Chayav, since he is
already under oath from Har Sinai, and his Shevu'ah
should not take hold!?
4. The Gemara there provides two answers:
i. Rav, Shmuel and R. Yochanan explain that he is
Chayav because he included *permitted* foods in
his oath, and was thus able to be bound even
regarding forbidden foods (Isur Kolel, while R.
Shimon holds that such a Kolel cannot cause the
Shevu'ah to apply to the Isur).
ii. Resh Lakish explained that he can be Chayav (even
though a Shevu'ah cannot apply to any Isur, even
Kolel) in one of two ways:
(1) He specifies in his Shevu'ah that he will not
eat Chatzi Shiur (according to Rabanan who
hold that one who does not specify means to
prohibit only a full Shiur, and thus only one
who specifies less will become prohibited in
(f) Answer: Since it is permitted by the Torah, he is not
considered Mushba VeOmed, and his Shevu'ah can thus apply.
5. According to Resh Lakish who holds that there is an
Isur Mid'Rabanan on Chatzi Shiur, how can the Rabanan
hold that his Shevu'ah can apply to less than a Shiur
(even if he is explicit) given his standing
(2) He does not specify (according to R. Akiva
who holds that one who does not specify means
to include even a trace amount).
(g) Question: But the Mishnah regarding Shevu'as HaEidus teaches
that a Shevu'ah *cannot* apply to an Isur Mid'Rabanan!?
1. The requirement of bringing a Korban for Shevu'as
HaEidus (if he is sworn to testify but then denies,
falsely, that he has any information) applies only to
one who is otherwise fit as a witness.
(h) Answer: Shevu'as HaEidus is different since it cannot apply
to the gambler who, having been excluded D'Rabanan, is not
subject to the Lav of "not testifying."
2. Who does this exclude?
3. (R. Papa) It excludes the King (who may not testify due
to his honor) and is Patur from bringing a Korban.
4. (R. Acha b. Yakov) It excludes (and exempts) those who
are Pasul Mid'Rabanan to testify, such as a gambler.
5. A gambler is only excluded Mid'Rabanan and yet the
Shevu'ah does not apply to him!
6. By extension, the same should be true for a Shevu'as
Bitui which should not apply to an Isur D'Rabanan!?