REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 27
YOMA 27, 28, 29 (16 Shevat), 30 - have been dedicated by Gitle Bekelnitzky
for the 38th Yahrzeit of Leah bas Mordechai Dovid and Chasya (Bikelnitzky),
mother of her late husband, Simcha Bekelnitzky.
(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk ..
(b) How does Abaye now attempt to re-learn Chizkiyah's Derashah (quoted at
the foot of 26b.) from the Pasuk "ve'Nasnu B'nei Aharon ha'Kohen Eish Al
- ... "ve'Ata u'Vanecha Itach Tishmeru es Kehunaschem" (Korach)?
- ... "ve'Shachat es Ben ha'Bakar Lifnei Hashem, ve'Hikrivu B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim"(Vayikra)? Which Avodah does "ve'Hikrivu" refer to?
(c) How do we refute this explanation too?
(a) We have already explained why the Torah needs to write "ve'Nasnu B'nei
Aharon *ha'Kohen* Eish al ha'Mizbe'ach". "ve'Hikriv ha'Kohen es ha'Kol"
refers to *carrying the limbs* on to the Mizbe'ach. Why is it not
necessary to write that for its own sake?
(b) Then why *does* the Torah write it? What does it come to exclude?
(c) Does the arranging of the two blocks of wood require Kehunah?
(a) What do we learn from "ve'Hiktir *ha'Kohen* es ha'Kol ha'Mizbeichah"?
Answers to questions
(b) What do we learn from the Torah's use of the plural in the Pasuk
"ve'Archu" "B'nei Aharon" "ha'Kohanim"?
(c) What is the problem with this Derashah from its source?
(d) How do we resolve this difficulty from the continuation of the Pasuk "al
ha'Eitzim Asher al ha'Eish Asher Al ha'Mizbe'ach"?
(a) To which Mitzvah does the phrase in Parshas Tzav "ve'ha'Eish al
ha'Mizbe'ach Tukad Bo" refer?
(b) Does every Korban require the arranging of the pile of wood on the
(c) Then why does it mention it here in Parshas Vayikra, by the bull of the
(a) Rebbi Asi quoting Rebbi Yochanan, declares that a Zar who arranges the
wood on the Mizbe'ach is Chayav.
So we amend Rebbi Yochanan's statement to a different (day) Avodah.
What is he Chayav?
(b) What *is* he permitted to do?
(c) What objection does Rebbi Zeira raise to Rebbi Yochanan's first
(d) Why can we not answer that we have a precedent from the following
Avodah, which is kasher by night yet a Zar is invalidated from performing
- The Avodah the burning of the limbs and the fat-pieces?
- The Terumas ha'Deshen? How do we learn this from another statement of Rebbi Yochanan?
(a) Rava asked that if arranging the two blocks of wood (the Sidur Sh'ei
Gizrei Eiztim) was an Avodah, then why did it not require a Payas.
Beraisa did he forget?
(b) If only *day*-Avodos required a Payis, then why did a Payis determine
who should perform ...
(c) If only those Avodos which render a Zar Chayav Misah require a Payis,
how do we then account for the fact that the Shechitah requires one, too?
- ... the burning of the limbs and fat-pieces?
- ... the Terumas ha'Deshen?
(a) In the next Mishnah, the Tana describes how the Memuneh would ask the
Kohanim to go and see whether it was light in the east.
Why was this
(b) If the Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei Eitzim on the Mizbe'ach was considered a
*day*- Avodah, then why did he tell them to go and see whether the time of
*Shechitah* of the Tamid had arrived, and not the time of the Sidur Sh'nei
Gizrei Eitzim (which preceded the Tamid)?
(a) In the second Lashon, Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Yochanan (who declared a
Zar who arranged the Ma'arachah to be Chayav Misah), why he should be
Chayav, seeing as it is followed by another Avodah.
Answers to questions
(b) Why does Rashi delete the Kashya from the carrying of the limbs and the
fat-pieces, and from the Terumas ha'Deshen, both of which are the beginning
of other Avodos, and yet a Zar is Chayav for performing them?