ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 8
(a) Both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon learns from "Al Mitzcho" - that that
is where the Tzitz must be worn.
(b) Rebbi Shimon learns from "Al Metzach ve'Nasa" - that the Tzitz atones
only as long as it is fit to be worn (i.e. when it is not broken).
(c) Rebbi Shimon does not consider the extra 'Vav' redundent - in his
opinion, it is a regular manner of speech.
(a) Rebbi Meir obligates the Kohen who prepared the Parah Adumah to be
sprinkled with the ashes of all the cows that had been used to date on *each
of the seven days* that he was separated from his house. According to Rebbi
Yossi, he was only sprinkled on the *third and the seventh* days.
(b) We try to explain that Rebbi Meir holds 'Tum'ah *Dechuyah* Hi
be'Tzibur', and Rebbi Yossi, "Hutrah*.
(c) Rebbi Meir holds 'Tum'ah *Dechuyah* Hi be'Tzibur - therefore, the
purification had to be done properly, and, since, on each day there was a
Safek whether the Kohen Gadol required Haza'ah or not, it was necessary to
sprinkle him every day. But according to Rebbi Yossi, who holds 'Tum'ah
*Hutrah* Hi be'Tzibur' - the need to sprinkle him was no more than a Ma'alah
de'Rabbanan, and Chazal did not require more than the two (necessary)
Haza'os on the third and the seventh days.
(d) If Rebbi Yossi held 'Tum'ah hi be'Tzibur' the Gemara retorts, then he
would not have required Haza'ah at all!
(a) We conclude that in fact, both Tana'im hold 'Tum'ah Dechuyah Hi
be'Tzibur': - Rebbi Meir holds 'Tevilah bi'Zemanah Mitzvah' (and we are
comparing Haza'ah to Tevilah), in which case it was necessary to sprinkle
the Kohen Gadol on each day that may have been his third day or his seventh
days; Rebbi Yossi holds 'Tevilah bi'Zemanah La'av Mitzvah', so it sufficed
to sprinkle him on one of the days which might be the third day, and then
four days later.
(b) Rebbi Yossi permits someone who has the Name of Hashem written on his
skin to Tovel without the need to tie a string around it - because, since he
holds 'Tevilah bi'Zemanah Mitzvah', we are afraid that if we require that he
ties a string around the Name of Hashem, he may not find a piece of string
and will postpone the Tevilah; whereas the Rabbanan hold 'Tevilah bi'Zemanah
La'av Mitzvah', and therefore required him to tie a string around it (should
he not find a string yoday, then he will Tovel tomorrow).
(c) The reason that Rebbi Yossi does not require the Kohen who prepared the
Parah Adumah to be sprinkled every day (in spite of the fact that he holds
'Tevilah bi'Zemanah Mitzvah') - is because he does not compare Haza'ah to
Tevilah in this regard.
(a) We learn from the juxtaposition of "ve'Ibadtem es Shemam" to "Lo Sa'asun
Kein la'Hashem Elokeichem" - that it is forbidden to erase the Name of
(b) Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi argue whether they sprinkled the Kohen Gadol
on all *seven* days or only on *two*, both with regard to the Kohen who
prepared the cow and the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur.
Rebbi Chanina S'gan
ha'Kohanim holds like Rebbi Meir by the Kohen who prepares the Parah Adumah,
but like Rebbi Yossi by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur.
(c) In fact, the Gemara concludes, he does not compare Haza'ah to Tevilah
(like Rebbi Yossi). Nevertheless, he requires Haza'ah on each of the seven
days by the Kohen who prepares the Parah - because of a Ma'alah de'Rabbanan.
(a) According to the Beraisa, the only practical difference between the
Kohen who separates the cow, whose separation was for Taharah purposes, and
the Kohen Gadol, who separated for additional Kedushah (according to the
Tana of the Beraisa currently under discussion) - is that as far the latter
is concerned, the Hafrashah also served to remind his to be humble as well
as keeping him away from anything that led to lightheadedness.
(b) The author of this Beraisa cannot be Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim,
because according to him, there was another difference between the two
Hafrashos - namely, that the one was sprinkled *seven* times (in fact, he
was only sprinkled five or six times, as we shall soon see) the other
(a) The problem with sprinkling him on the *fourth* day, according to Rebbi
Meir (who says that the Kohen had to be sprinkled every day of the seven
days of Hafrashah) - is that there was really no reason to do so, seeing as
it could neither be the third day (after Tevilah) nor the fifth day after
the first Haza'ah (as is the seventh after the fourth).
(b) Rebbi Meir cannot have meant that the Kohen Gadol is literally sprinkled
on each of the seven days - because Haza'ah on Shabbos is anyway forbidden
(mi'de'Rabbanan - as we learnt in Pesachim on 65a). Consequently, 'every
day' is not literal because it precludes Shabbos, in which case, we can go a
little further and say that it also precludes the fourth day.
(c) As a result of this, we separate the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur on the
third of Tishri (seeing as we have no choice in choosing the date on which
Yom Kipur is to fall that year), and if the fourth day of the Hafrashah does
not fall on Shabbos (in which case there will be *two* days that year on
which the Kohen Gadol is not sprinkled - so be it. But as far as the Kohen
who prepares the Parah Adumah is concerned, we will make sure that he begins
his Hafrashah on Wednesday, so that the fourth day falls on Shabbos, and
there will only be *one* day on which he is not sprinkled.
(a) Initially, the room designated for the Hafrashah of the Kohen Gadol was
called 'Lishkas Belavti' - meaning the Room of the Princes.
(b) They change its name to 'Lishkas Farhedrin' - because the Kohanim
Gedolim, (who, having obtained their positions by means of bribery, were
unworthy incumbents of the position, and) who used to (therefore) invariably
die on the first Yom Kipur after taking office, would, immediately following
their appointment, rebuild it, to perpetuate their names. So they named it
after the officers (some say of the market-ministers) whom the king tended
to change year by year - who were called 'Farhedrin'.
(a) Chazal obligated bakers to give from the produce that they purchased
from Amei ha'Aretz - Terumas Ma'aser (from the Ma'aser Rishon, which they
separated but kept themselves) and Chalah.
(b) They did not obligate them to give ...
1. ... Terumah Gedolah - because (since they knew that it carried with it a
Chiyuv Misah) all the Amei-ha'Aretz used to give it, so there was no reason
to decree on the purchaser.
(c) Strictly speaking, the bakers should have been obligated to take Ma'aser
Sheini to Yerushalayim (just like everybody else). However, Chazal relieved
them of the obligation, to make up for the Farhedrin, who used to beat them
and force them to sell their confectionery cheaply (perhaps to help them pay
for the new rooms that they used to build in the Beis-Hamikdash).
2. ... Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser Ani - since these are purely monetary
considerations, and in money-matters we say 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro, Alav
ha'Re'ayah' (the onus is on the claimant to prove that the seller had not
already given them before selling the crops).
(d) This is perfectly justifiable - because the whole Takanah of Demai is
purely mi'de'Rabbanan (since the majority of Amei-ha'Aretz used to give
Ma'asros anyway). So Chazal reserved the right to waive it whenever they see