(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Yoma 23



(a) Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, says that a Talmid- Chacham who does not take revenge and bear a grudge like a snake - is not a Talmid-Chacham.

(b) "Lo Sikom ve'Lo Sitor" ... he says, relates to monetary issues, but not to issues to do with Kavod (such as when someone denigrates him).

(c) 'Nekimah' means actually taking revenge; whereas 'Netirah' means bearing a (verbal) grudge for what the person did.

(a) The Pasuk "ve'Ohavav ke'Tzeis ha'Shemesh bi'Gevuraso" - refers to people who hear others shaming them, and not responding.

(b) We cannot reconcile this Pasuk with Rebbi Yochanan's statement, by establishing the Pasuk to mean that he does not *act* (or say anything - Netirah), and Rebbi Yochanan, when he just retains what the person did to him in his heart - because Rava said that someone who learns to overlook (even in his heart) the bad things that people do to them, will be forgiven for all their sins (measure for measure).

(c) We reconcile Rebbi Yochanan with the Pasuk by establishing the latter when the person who insulted the Talmid-Chacham subsequently asked for forgiveness (and Rebbi Yochanan speaks when he did *not*).

(a) The Mishnah states that the Kohanim who participated in the Payis would stick out one or two fingers - one finger, under normal circumstances, and two, if, due to sickness or old age, he could not help the second finger from extending together with the first.

(b) The 'Yechidim' who would stick out *two* fingers - were sick people who generally tend to lie down or to sit alone (others say that it it refers to the Rabbanan, who are described elsewhere as sick, because they were generally weak - see Hagahos ha'Bach).

(c) The two fingers of a sick person counted as *one*.

(d) When the Tana says that if (together with the forefinger) he sticks out the middle finger, it counts; the thumb, it doesn't - he means that, in the former case, it counts as *one* finger, whereas in the latter case, it doesn't even count as one finger either.

(a) If a Kohen stuck out his thumb - they would disqualify him from the Payis and he would then be beaten with a Peki'a.

(b) Abaye initially explained the Mishnah in Shekalim 'Ben Biba'i Memuneh Al ha'Peki'a' - to mean that Ben Biba'i was in charge of making the wicks for the Simchas Beis ha'Sho'eivah on Sukos.

(c) He finally explained it to refer to the Peki'a currently being discussed - namely, that he was in charge of administering corporal punishment, using the Peki'a, to the errant Kohanim.

(d) A Peki'a is a whip which is cut into separate thin thongs at the ends (unlike the whip that was used for delivering Malkos, which consisted of only one strap, one Tefach thick all the way along).

(a) In the second incident in which two Kohanim raced up the ramp - the Kohen who was behind actually stabbed the leading Kohen in the heart.

(b) Before his son was even dead, his father announced 'May his death be a Kaparah for you all. He is still gasping but the knife has not yet become Tamei' (he meant that they should quickly remove the knife from the body before it became Tamei).

(c) They learned from the father's statement - that they were more concerned with the Taharah of the Holy vessels than they were about the murder of innocent people; and it proves it from the Pasuk which describes how Menasheh spilt much innocent blood in Yerushalayim (even though Menasheh lived in the time of the *first* Beis Hamikdash, and this incident took place in the *second* - see Agados Maharsha).

(a) It is possible to say that the episode of the Beraisa occurred first. However, in spite of its severity, they thought that this was only a chance occurrence, and that it would not recur, so they did not institute a Payis. But when the second incident occurred, and they saw that, even without any deliberate act of murder, the Terumas ha'Deshen led to danger, they introduced the Payis by the Terumas ha'Deshen, too.

(b) Rebbi Tzadok, standing on the steps of one of the halls that Herod built, cried out in agony and asked who had to bring an Eglah Arufah, the residents of Yerushalayim or the Kohanim who looked after the Azarah. This She'eilah was not valid - a. because Yerushalayim is not subject to the Din of an Eglah Arufah, and b. because an Eglah Arufah was only brought when theidentity of the culprit was not known, whereas in this case, it was.

(c) He announced it - only in order to increase the agony.




(a) We know that the father of the murdered Kohen's concern for the Tum'ah of the Azarah rather than for the murder of his son, was due to the fact that murder was cheap, and not because of a deep concern for the Taharah of the vessels of the Beis Hamikdash - because the Gemara cites Menasheh as an example.

(b) "u'Fashat es Begadav, ve'Lavash Begadim *Acheirim*" could mean that the Kohen must change from Bigdei Kehunah into Bigdei Chol when carrying out the ashes from the Mizbe'ach, or it could mean that he must change into inferior Bigdei Kehunah - i.e. worn out ones.

(c) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from the Hekesh of the second half of the Pasuk to the first (from the word "Acheirim") - that just as the clothes that he took off (after performing the Terumas ha'Deshen) were Bigdei Kehunah, so too, did the ones that he now donned have to be Bigdei Kehunah. Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael draws an analogy to a king's servant, who will not wear the same clothes that he wore whilst cooking, to pour out the king's drinks.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer disagrees. According to him, the Torah writes the word "Acheirim", to connect it to the word after it - "ve'Hotzi", to Darshen that Kohanim Ba'alei Mumin are eligible to remove the ashes from the Mizbe'ach and to carry them outside the camp.

(a) According to Resh Lakish, Rebbi Eliezer also argues with the Tana Kama with regard to the Terumas ha'Deshen - because, he argues, who has ever heard of an Avodah that a Kohen may perform wearing only *two* of the Bigdei Kehunah (and in the Parshah of Terumas ha'Deshen the Torah only mentions the shirt and the pants) Note: See Ritva, as to how Resh Lakish will then explain the Tana Kama.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan holds that the Terumas ha'Deshen is an Avodah - even according to Rebbi Eliezer (and it therefore requires all four Bigdei Kehunah). The reason that the Torah mentions only the pants and the shirt is to teach us a lesson by each one: We learn from"Mido Vad" (written by the shirt) - that the Kohen is obligated to wear clothes that fit him properly; and from "Yilbash Al Besaro" (written by the pants) - that none of the other garments may precede the pants.

(c) Resh Lakish learns the first Derashah of Rebbi Yochanan from the fact that the Torah writes "Mido" and not "Kutones"; and the second, from the words "Al Besaro", which are superfluous.

(a) we initially suggest that Rebbi Yochanan holds like Rebbi Yehudah, (who learns from "Yilbash" that the hat and the belt must also be worn for the Terumas ha'Deshen); whereas Resh Lakish holds like Rebbi Dosa (who learns from "Yilbash" that a Kohen Hedyot may wear the garments that a Kohen Gadol wore on Yom Kipur - implying that, according to him, the Kohen would wear only the shirt and the pants).

(b) We conclude that even Rebbi Dosa can hold that the Terumas ha'Deshen is an Avodah which requires all four Bigdei Kehunah, and the reason that he does not learn the hat and the belt from "Yilbash" is because he takes it for granted that they must be worn.

(c) Rebbi learns from ...

1. ... "Yilbash" - that worn-out Bigdei Kehunah are Kasher for the Avodah.
2. ... "ve'Hinicham Sham" - that the Begadim worn by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur had to be placed in Genizah, and could never be worn again.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,