ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 14
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Kohen Gadol must marry another wife
before Yom Kipur, because we are afraid that his wife may die. We will not
stop him from doing the Avodah if she does, in spite of the fact that he is
an Onan (whom we would not permit to continue with the Avodah during the
year, since he may forget and eat Kodshim) - because it is Yom Kipur (and
seeing as nobody else is eating, we are not afraid that he may eat Kodshim).
(b) If not for the fact that it was Yom Kipur, we would have decreed, and
forbidden him to continue with the Avodah if his wife died, because even
though he is not an Onan, he will nevertheless be forbidden to eat Kodshim
because he is sad, and someone who is sad is forbidden to eat Kodshim (since
the Torah writes "le'Moshchah" - 'li'Gedulah').
(a) Throughout the seven days of Hafrashah, the Kohen Gadol sprinkled the
blood, brought the Ketores, prepared the Menorah and brought the head and
the leg (of the Tamid) on the Mizbe'ach.
(b) The Kohen Gadol did not belong to any Mishmar. He performed the Avodah
whenever he chose, and could receive any portion that he wished.
(a) The author of our Mishnah, which rules that the Kohen Gadol had to
perform the major Avodos throughout the seven days of Hafrashah cannot be
Rebbi Akiva - because according to him, a Tahor person on whom Mei Chatas
falls, becomes Tamei and requires Tevilah; so how could the Kohen Gadol
continue with the Avodah in a state of Tum'ah?
(b) Rebbi Akiva learns his Din from the words "ve'Hizah ha'Tahor al
*ha'Tamei*" - 'al ha'Tamei, Tahor, ve'al ha'Tahor, Tamei'.
(c) The Rabbanan learn from "al ha'Tamei" - that the Haza'ah is only
effective on something that can receive Tum'ah (e.g. a person) but not on
something that does not (such as a live animal).
(d) The ramifications of this Derashah are - whether the Kohen needs to dip
the hyssop into the ashes a second time (before he goes on to sprinkle a
Tamei person or object), or not.
(a) A live animal is never subject to Tum'ah.
(b) If the Kohen ...
1. ... meant to sprinkle the ashes on an animal, but, by mistake, they fell
on a person - he will *not* need to dip them into the ashes again (should he
subsequently wish to sprinkle a Tamei person or object).
2. ... meant to sprinkle on a person, but, by mistake, he sprinkled on an
animal - he *will* need to dip them in again. (See Bach, 5).
(a) The Rabbanan learn from a Kal va'Chomer (from the Tamei person who was
sprinkled with the ashes) that the Tahor person remains Tamei. Rebbi Akiva
counters this with the Pasuk in Koheles "Amarti Echkamah, ve'Hi Rechokah
Mimeni" (from which we learn that the Parah Adumah is beyond logic - into
which Rebbi Akiva incorporates his opinion here).
(b) According to the Rabbanan, the Pasuk in Koheles "Amarti Echkamah, ve'Hi
Rechokah Mimeni" - teaches us that although the *Tamei person* who is being
sprinkled and the sprinkler are Tahor, a *Tahor person* who touches them
(c) The Torah writes "u'Mazeh Mei ha'Nidah Yechabes Begadav" - not to inform
us that the Kohen who sprinkles the ashes becomes Tamei (because, in fact,
he does *not*) - but to require the Shiur of Haza'ah, before someone who
touches them will become Tamei.
(d) Someone who *touches* the Mei ha'Nidah becomes Tamei, but the clothes he
is wearing do not; whereas someone who *carries* them becomes Tamei,
together with the clothes that he is wearing.
(a) Those who hold (in Zevachim) that Haza'ah does *not* require a specific
Shiur, are speaking about the moment they make contact with the person who
is being sprinkled - they agree however, that when the Kohen dips the hyssop
into the Mei Parah, there must be a Shiur Haza'ah.
(b) The Shiur Haza'ah is sufficient water on its tip to sprinkle (and that
is the Shiur referred to by the Chachamim).
Abaye reconciles the Tana of our Mishnah with Rebbi Akiva (who says that the
Haza'ah rendered Tamei a Tahor person who was sprinkled) by restricting the
Haza'ah of the Kohen Gadol during the seven days of Hafrashah to close to
sunset. The Kohen Gadol does the Avodah during the day, and then, close to
sunset, they would sprinkle him with the Mei Parah, and at sunset, he
becomes completely Tahor.
(a) According to the Tana of our Mishnah, the Kohen Gadol would bring the
Ketores during the seven days of Hafrashah, and prepare the Menorah,
implying that the *Ketores preceded* the Hatavas ha'Neiros. This appears to
clash with the Mishnah in Tamid, which lists the *Hatavas ha'Neiros before*
(b) We try to establish the Mishnah (and all Stam Mishnayos) in *Tamid* -
like Rebbi Shimon Ish ha'Mitzpeh (in which case, the author of our Mishnah
will be the Rabbanan).
(a) Everyone agrees that, even when sprinkling the blood of the Korban
Tamid, the Kohen would first place the blood on the *north-eastern* corner
in one stroke (starting from the east and ending on the north).
arrived at the *south-western* corner ...
1. ... according to the Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Tamid - he would do the
same as he did on the *north-eastern* corner i.e. place the blood on the
corner in *one* stroke.
(b) This clashes with the answer that we gave earlier - that Rebbi Shimon
Ish ha'Mitzpeh is the author of every Stam Mishnah in Tamid. From here we
see that he is *not* (since *he* is the one to argue with the *Tana Kama* -
and not vice-versa?
2. ... according to Rebbi Shimon Ish Mitzpeh - he placed the blood in *two*
strokes, first on the west, and then, on the south.
(c) So we amend the original answer, and say that the author of all Stam
Mishnayos in *Yoma* is Rebbi Shimon Ish ha'Mitzpeh.
(a) The Tana of *our Mishnah* (who places the Ketores before the Hatavas
ha'Neiros) - is referring to the Hatavas *Sh'tei* Neiros; whereas the S'tam
Mishnah in the *second Perek*, which lists the preparing of the Menorah
(each morning) in the *second* Payas ('lottery'), and the Ketores in the
*third* - to the Hatavas *Chameish* Neiros.
(b) Abaye, who has a tradition that it was the *sprinkling of the blood* (of
the Tamid) that divided between the preparation of the first five lamps and
that of the last two, is based on the opinion of Aba Shaul - whereas the
Tana of our Mishnayos, who holds that it was the *Ketores* that divided
between them, is the Chachamim of Aba Shaul.
(a) When the Rabbanan say 'Yaktir ve'Achar-Kach Yeitiv' - they mean that one
must interrupt the Hatavah with the Ketores (as we have already explained),
but not that it preceded the Hatavas ha'Neiros completely.
(b) Aba Shaul learns from the sequence in the Pasuk "ba'Boker ba'Boker
be'Heitivo es ha'Neros Yaktirenah" - that the Hatavas ha'Neiros must
completely precede the Ketores.
(c) The Rabbanan interpret this Pasuk to mean that, when the Hatavah is
completed, the Ketores should have already been performed.