ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 68
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) Before burning an Olah on the Mizbe'ach, the Kohen would skin it
('Hefshet') and cut it into pieces ('Nitu'ach').
(b) We learn from a 'Gezeirah Shavah' - "Rosho u'Kera'av" "Rosho u'Kera'av"
from a regular Olah - that the Par Kohen Mashi'ach requireD Nitu'ach.
(c) And we learn from "ve'Kirbo u'Firsho" that just as the dung remained
inside it, so too, did its skin remain attached to it (i.e. that it did not
(d) Rebbi learns from the 'Gezeirah Shavah' "Or Basar u'Peresh" "Or Basar
u'Peresh" - that the Par and the Sa'ir of Yom Kipur too, required Nitu'ach
and not Hefshet.
(a) The Par He'elem Davar shel Tzibur and the Par Kohen Mashi'ach Were
burned outside the three camps (the Azarah, the Har ha'Bayis and
Yerushalayim), as we shall see shortly. We learn from "ve'Asah *la'Par*
Ka'asher Asah le'Par ha'Chatas" - that the Par (and the Sa'ir) of Yom Kipur
were burned there too.
We learn from the superfluous phrases "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" (by the Par
He'elem Davar shel Tzibur) and "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" (by the ashes) - that
it must be taken outside all *three* camps to be burned.
(b) The Torah nevertheless writes by the Par and the Sa'ir of Yom Kipur
"Yotzi el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - to teach us that, as soon as they left
the first Machaneh (i.e. the Azarah), they were Metamei those who were
carrying them, together with their clothes.
(c) We learn from the extra words "ve'Eis Par ha'*Chatas*, ve'Eis Se'ir
ha'*Chatas*" (written by Yom Kipur) - that the Par He'elem Davar shel
Tzibur and the Par Kohen Mashi'ach also rendered Tamei those who dealt with
it together their clothes.
(a) Rebbi Shimon (according to whom the Par and the Sa'ir are Metamei
Begadim only after the fire had burned most of them) learns from the
'Gezeirah Shavah' "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - that the
Parah Adumah too, had to be burned outside all three camps.
(b) And, with the same 'Gezeirah Shavah' he learns that the Par and the
Sa'ir, like the Parah Adumah, had to be burned on the east side of
(a) According to the Rabbanan, the Par and the Sa'ir were burned on the
north side of Yerushalayim (since, whatever had to do with a Chatas was
performed on the north) - outside the three camps.
(b) Rebbi Yossi says that the Par and the Sa'ir had to be burned at a spot
which was already a Beis ha'Deshen (i.e. where there were already ashes).
(c) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns from the Pasuk "el Shefech ha'Deshen
Yishafech" - that the ashes should pour (i.e. that the location should be
on a slope).
(d) This does not mean however, that he agrees with the Tana Kama of Rebbi
Yossi (in whose opinion it is *not* necessary to place ashes there prior to
the burning ceremony). He may in fact, agree with Rebbi Yossi (that it
*is*) - only he is not concerned with that.
(a) Those who deal with the Par and the Sa'ir, as well as their clothes,
become Tamei. According to the Tana of the Beraisa, this does ...
(b) The Tana of this Beraisa must hold like Rebbi Shimon - who says that it
was only after the fire had burned most of the animals that it rendered
those who dealt with it and their clothes Tamei (see Rashash).
- ... not apply to the person who lit the fire.
- ... not apply to the person who arranged the Ma'arachah.
- ... apply to those who helped to burn the animals.
(c) The Tana learns this from the word "ve'ha'Soref". From "Osam" he learns
that once the flesh became ashes, it was no longer Metamei.
(d) According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, it was only as long as the
flesh was intact that it was Metamei, but not once it had burned - even
though it had not yet become ashes; according to the Tana Kama, it was
still Metamei until it actually turned into ashes.
(a) They would then inform the Kohen Gadol that the goat had arrived in the
desert. This was necessary - because, until that occurred, the Kohen Gadol
was not permitted to proceed with the Avodah (since the Torah writes
"ve'Shilach es ha'Sa'ir" and only then "ve'es Cheilev ha'Chatas Yaktir
(b) They would know when that was - through a series of men posted at
intervals along the way from the Tzuk to Yerushalayim. Each one was holding
a flag, which he would wave when he saw the man before him doing so. In
this way, the message would be relayed to Yerushalayim within seconds.
(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah, this was not necessary - because from
Yerushalayim until the beginning of the desert (the spot of which we are
speaking) was three Mil. Consequently, those who accompanied the Kohen from
Yerushalayim for a distance of one Mil, would just need to walk the one Mil
return journey - leaving the time it would have taken the goat to arrive at
its current destination as one Mil (a short enough time to assess quite
(d) Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa, had yet another way of knowing when the
Meshale'ach had arrived in the desert. One had only to watch the Lashon
Zehoris (the piece of red wool hanging at the entrance of the Heichal); the
moment it turned white they would know that the goat had reached the
desert. (Note: We learned earlier that it was placed at the entrance of the
Ulam. It is also unclear as to how one could rely on the Lashon Zehoris,
since it did not *always* turn white - unless he refers specifically to the
first forty years before the death of Shimon ha'Tzadik).
(a) Abaye learns from our Mishnah - that according to Rebbi Yehudah, as
soon as the goat reaches the desert, its Mitzvah was performed (and
strolling to the cliff and pushing it off were not crucial) (see Tosfos
Yeshanim DH 've'Kamashma Lan').
(b) The ramifications of this fact were that the Kohen Gadol was then
permited to proceed with stage of the Avodah (the Leining of the Parshah of
***** Hadran Alach Perek Sh'nei Se'irei *****
***** Perek Ba Lo *****
(a) The Kohen Gadol would then Lein the Parshah of Yom Kipur from Acharei
Mos - for which he would wear either the Bigdei Lavan that he was still
wearing from the Avodas P'nim, or his own fine white robe.
(b) The Leining was not considered an Avodah - otherwise, the Kohen Gadol
would not have been permitted to wear his own clothes.
(c) The Shamash took the Sefer-Torah and handed it to the Gabai, who handed
it to the S'gan (the deputy Kohen Gadol - who would hand it directly to the
(d) After the Parshah from Acharei Mos, the Kohen Gadol Leined "Ach be'Asor
la'Chodesh" from Emor.
(a) After closing the Sefer-Torah - the Kohen Gadol announced 'More than
what I read to you is written here'. Then he Leined the Parshah of Maftir
from Parshas Pinchas - by heart.
(b) After reciting the second Berachah over Leining, he recited three
Berachos from the Amidah - Avodah ('Retzei' which concludes 'she'Oscha
Levadecha be'Yir'ah Na'avod'), Hoda'ah ('Modim') and Mechilas ha'Avon (the
middle Berachah - 'Mechol la'Avonoseinu ... ').
(c) He then recited another four Berachos: on the Mikdash and on Yisrael -
on Yerushalayim and on the Kohanim.
(d) It was not possible to see both the Kohen Gadol Leining and the burning
of the Par and the Sa'ir - because they both took place simultaneously, and
they were too far apart to be able to get from one from one to the other.
(a) We attempt to prove from the fact that the Kohen Gadol was permitted to
wear his own clothes when he Leined - that the Kohanim were permitted to
derive benefit from the Bigdei Kehunah when not performing the Avodah.
We refute the proof (from the same Mishnah in Tamid, which implies that
sleeping was forbidden, but that was permitted) that benefit was permitted
- by forbidding strolling in them too - and the Mishnah mentions sleeping
(not, to permit strolling but), because of the Seifa, which permits the
Kohanim to place them under their heads as cushions (since now that they
were no longer wearing them, Chazal were no longer concerned that they may
emit a smell).
(b) We refute this proof on the grounds that the Leining may not have been
an Avodah but it was for the *needs* of the Avodah (and could not
therefore, be considered personal benefit).
(c) Neither can we prove this from the Mishnah in Tamid, which forbids the
Kohanim to sleep in the Bigdei Kehunah, implying that they *were* permitted
to eat in them - because eating the Korbanos too, was considered the needes
of the Avodah, as we learned in a Beraisa 'Kohanim Ochlin, u'Ba'alim
Miskaprim' (the atonement only comes about through the eating of the
(d) Even if all benefit from the Bigdei Kehunah was permitted, sleeping in
them would nevertheless be forbidden - because of a decree that they might
desecrate their sanctity by emitting a smell during one's sleep.