ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 66
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) The Mishnah in Shekalim says that nowadays ...
1. ... one may not declare anything Hekdesh, Erech or Cherem.
(b) 'Beheimah Te'aker' means that the animal is locked in a room until it
2. ... if one did, an animal must die, fruit, clothes and vessels must be
left to rot, and money and metal vessels thrown into the Yam ha'Melach.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah says 'Meisah', and not Yir'eh (that the animal should
graze) because of 'Takalah', he is worried that they might sacrifice the
animal before its time.
(d) Rebbi Yehudah is only concerned about Takalah by animals that are still
fit to bring on the Mizbe'ach, such as in our case, where the Par and the
Sa'ir are fit to be brought next Yom Kipur - but not by animals that are
*not*, such as those that must graze, where such a mistake is unlikely.
(a) One Beraisa permits a Pesach that was not even brought on Pesach
*Sheini* to be brought the following year, and one Beraisa forbids it. They
might be arguing about whether or not, one worries about Takalah. But they
might both hold that we are not concerned about Takalah - and the Tana who
permits it is Rebbi, who goes after the sun year (of 365 days).
Consequently, the lamb will still be permitted on the following Pesach;
whereas the Tana who forbids it holds like the Rabbanan, who go after the
lunar year, in which case, by the following Pesach, the lamb will be
(b) The Beraisa concludes however, 've'Chein ha'Ma'os' - meaning that the
same Machlokes pertains to the money which he set aside for the Pesach,
which is not subject to becoming Pasul because its year has passed.
Consequently, they must be arguing over Takalah (which applies to money no
less than to the animal itself), like we suggested at first.
(a) The Kohen Gadol then went to the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach and placed his
hands on its head - because this was a prerequisite for Viduy, which he
then proceeded to say.
They made a ramp to take the Sa'ir out of the Azarah and out of the city -
because of the Babylonians - who used to pull out its hair (which is
prohibited on Yom-Kipur), and say 'Take and go! Take and go!'
(b) When the Kohanim and the people who were standing in the Azarah heard
the Kohen pronounce Hashem's Holy Name - they knelt, prostrated themselves,
fell on their faces and said 'Baruch Sheim ... '.
(c) Anyone was eligible to take the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach out to the
(d) Nevertheless, it was almost always a Kohen who took it - because they
reserved the Mitzvah for themselves, not allowing a Yisrael to perform it.
In the Viduy over the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, the Kohen Gadol made no
mention of the Kohanim. This does not mean that the author of our Mishnah
is not Rebbi Yehudah, in whose opinion the Kohanim *were* included in the
Kaparah of the Sa'ir; all it means is that the Kohanim are intrinsically
part of the Jewish nation, and were automatically included in the Viduy of
the rest of Yisrael.
(a) The Torah writes in Acharei-Mos "ve'Shilach Oso be'Yad Meshale'ach
ha'Midbarah". we learn from ...
1. ... "Ish" - that even a Zar is valid to take the Sa'ir la'Azaz'el to the
(b) We learn that the goat should be taken out even on Shabbos, and even
be'Tum'ah from the word "Iti", too - since "Iti" implies in its time, come
2. ... "Iti" - that he must be designated for this task from the day
(a) If not for the word "Iti", we would have thought that a Zar is not
eligible to take out the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach - because the Torah
describes it as a Kaparah (like Kodshim).
(b) The problem with the Derashah "Iti" - 'va'Afilu be'Shabbos' is - why we
should need a Pasuk to permit taking the goat on Shabbos? Why should it
*not* be permitted?
(c) We establish the Derashah by a sick goat that has to be carried, which
would otherwise be an Isur d'Oraysa - even according to Rebbi Nasan,
because it is only by a *healthy* animal that he says 'Chai Nosei es
Atzmo', but not by a *sick* one.
(d) From the fact that we need a Derashah for Yom Kipur that fell on
Shabbos, despite the fact that the Melachos of Shabbos are forbidden on Yom
Kipur anyway - we can prove that this Tana holds 'Ein Eruv ve'Hotza'ah
le'Yom ha'Kipurim' (the prohibition of carrying does not apply to Yom
(a) We learned above "Iti" - 'va'Afilu be'Tum'ah' - to teach us that if the
Meshale'ach became Tamei, he is even permitted to enter the Azarah, to
receive the goat from the Kohen Gadol before taking it out to the desert
(since this was an integral part of the procedure).
(b) If ...
1. ... the Meshale'ach became sick - they would send the goat with somebody
2. ... the goat did not die after the Meshale'ach pushed it off the cliff -
the Meshale'ach would follow it down and kill it.
(a) According to some, they asked Rebbi Eliezer whether Avshalom had
forfeited his portion in the world to Come (see Tosfos DH 'Peloni') - for
committing adultery with his father's concubines; according to others, they
asked him the same question about Shlomoh Hamelech (about whom it is
written "ve'Lo Hayah Levavo Shalem ... ki'Levav David Aviv". It is possible
1. ... Avshalom did not lose his portion in the world to Come - because we
might follow the opinion of Rav who defines a concubine as a woman with
whom the king lives without Kidushin and without a Kesubah (in which case,
they are not married, and someone - even the king's son - who lives with
her will not have committed adultery).
(b) When Rebbi Eleizer's Talmidim asked him ...
2. ... Shlomoh did not lose *his* portion in the world to Come - if we
follow the opinion of those who maintain that the Pasuk, which describes
Shlomoh as being guilty of idolatry, modifies itself when it writes
elsewhere that Shlomoh did not go in the ways of David (implying that he
was not guilty of actually sinning, only of not emulating his father's
3. ... David Hamelech was not guilty of committing adultery with Bas Sheva
- if we follow the opinion of those who say that it was customary for the
soldiers in King David's army to give their wives a Get (divorcing them -
some say retroactively, should they not return from the battlefront).
4. ... Uri'ah ha'Chiti not have been Chayav for calling Yo'av 'my master'
in David's presence - if we follow the opinion of those who hold 'Cholkin
Kavod le'Talmid bi'Mekom ha'Rav' (that one is permitted to show respect for
a Talmid in front of the Rav).
1. ... whether a Mamzer inherits - he replied 'Did you ask me whether he
2. ... whether nowadays, it is permitted to whiten one's house with lime -
'Did you ask me whether one whitens one's grave'?
(a) When that wise woman asked Rebbi Eliezer why there were *three*
different sets of punishments even though there was *only one* sin, he
retorted that a woman's wisdom should be confined to her spindle.
The entire tribe of Levi did not sin by the Eigel, as Ravina quoted Rav
Yehudah as saying. When the Torah described how the B'nei Levi had no pity
even on their own parents and mothers, their brothers or their sons - it
meant their *maternal* grandparents, their *maternal* half-brothers and the
sons of *their daughters* (all of whom were Yisre'elim).
(b) Rav and Levi answered her Kashya: one of them explained that those who
Shechted or burned the Eigel were killed by the sword; those who embraced
or kissed it died by pestilence, and those who merely rejoiced with it,
died by dropsy (Hadrokun). The first group was killed by the sword and not
by stoning - because the four methods of killing (employed by the Beis-Din)
had not yet been taught, so they were still punished like the B'nei No'ach
(who are always put to death by the sword).
(c) The other one answered that those who sinned in front of witnesses who
warned them, were killed by the sword, those who had witnesses but no
warning died by pestilence, whereas those who did not even have witnesses,
died by dropsy.
(a) In fact, Rabah bar bar Chanah concludes, it was the Alexandrians, not
the Babylonians, who used to tear out the hair of the Sa'ir la'Azaz'el on
Yom Kipur. The reason that the Tana of our Mishnah refers to them as
Babylonians - is because they hated the Babylonians Jews (a sin that was
rampant during the second Beis Hamikdash, and which eventually caused its
(b) Rebbi Yossi was pleased with this explanation - because he was of
(c) As they tore out the hair of the Sa'ir la'Azaz'el, the Alexandrians
would say 'What is this goat still doing here, when it is carrying so many
sins of the generation'?