ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 3
YOMA 3 (19 Teves) - has been dedicated to the memory of Hagaon Rav Yisrael
Avraham Abba ben Harav Chaim Binyamin Ze'ev Krieger ZT"L, author of Yad
Yisrael (on Rambam) and many other Sefarim, by his son, Benayahu Krieger.
1. Payis le'Atzmo - means that although the Kohanim took turns in rotation
to bring the Korbanos of Sukos (each of the twenty-four Mishmaros had three
turns to bring the bulls - which, due to their size, was considered a
privilege), when it came to Shemini Atzeres, they drew new lots, and any of
the groups could have had the good fortune to bring the one bull that was
brought on that day.
(b) We do not include the Musaf of *Shavu'os* (in the Mitzvah of Hafrashah)
from "Lechaper" - because we prefer to include *Yom Kipur*, which is similar
to the Milu'im, inasmuch as both consist of one bull and *one* ram, as
opposed to the Musaf of *Shavu'os*, which consists of one bull and *two*
2. Z'man le'Atzmo - that they recited Birchas Shehechiyanu afresh (as one
always does on a new Yom-Tov).
3. Regel le'Atzmo - that it is called 'Shemini Atzeres' (in Davening and
in Birchas ha'Mazon).
4. Korban le'Atzmo - that it had its own set pattern for the Musaf Korban
(one bull, one ram and seven lambs), and did not follow that of the rest of
Sukos (from thirteen down to seven bulls, two rams and fourteen lambs).
5. Shir le'Atzmo - that, although the Shir shel Yom of the rest of Sukos was
connected with Gezel Matnos Aniyim, that of Sukos does not fit into this
group of Mizmorim; what they said was Kapitel 12 ("Lam'natze'ach al
ha'Sheminis" - Rosh Hashanah DH 'Pezer Keshev').
6. Berachah le'Atzmo - that every eighth year, after the completion of the
Mitzvah of Hakhel, when the King sent the people home, they would bless him,
a Berachah that was not recited on the other days of Sukos.
(a) The answer that we just gave (to explain why we prefer to include *Yom
Kipur* in the Din of Hafrashah, rather than *Shavu'os*, is acceptable
according to Rebbi, who learns that the communal ram mentioned in Acharei-
Mos (among the Yom Kipur Korbanos) is the same as the one mentioned in
Pinchas (by the Musafin); but according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who
maintains that they are two different rams, what is the difference between
Yom Kipur and Shavu'os in this regard?
(b) Even according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, the second ram is not
part of the Musaf-offering, but a separate Yom Kipur obligation. The Musaf
therefore, remains one bull and *one* ram, just like the Korban of the
Milu'im; the Musaf of Shavu'os, on the other hand, consists of *two* rams.
(c) The proof for this is the fact that the Torah does not write "Milevad
Olas ha'Boker" (in Acharei-Mos), as it does by all the Musaf-offerings
(since they come to add to the Tamid of the day).
(a) We cannot include the Musaf of *Rosh Hashanah* from "Lechaper" - because
we prefer to learn *Yom Kipur* where, like by the Milu'im, the bull and the
ram came out of the Kohen Gadol's *own pocket* (unlike the Musaf of *Rosh
Hashanah*, which was paid for with *communal funds*).
(b) This provides us with an additional reason for not learning Hafrashah by
the Musaf of *Shavu'os* from the Milu'im.
(a) According to Rebbi Yashiyah, "Lecha" generally means from one's private
purse, whereas "Eilecha" means from public funds.
(b) Rebbi Yonasan interprets both to mean that they must come from public
(c) According to Rebbi Yonasan, even though "Kach-Lecha" implies a communal
obligation, the Torah uses the singular form to show Moshe that Hashem would
really have preferred the Ketores to come out of *his* pocket.
(d) 'Kevayachol' means as if it was possible to say such a thing (about
(a) Aba Chanan, quoting Rebbi Elazar, explains that the Pasuk "ve'Asisa
*Lecha* Aron Eitz" - speaks when Yisrael are *not* performing the will of
Hashem (when the Aron is ascribed to Moshe, and not to them); whereas the
Pasuk *"ve'Asu* Aron Atzei Shitim"- speaks when they *are* (so it is
ascribed to them).
(b) According to Rebbi Yonasan, the reason that the Torah writes "Kach
*Lecha*" by both the Milu'im, and "Asher *Lo*" by Yom Kipur - is because,
having already clarified that the Korbanos mentioned just before them were
to be brought communally, it needs to inform us that those two respective
Korbanos must be brought from private funds.
(a) Rav Ashi explains that we include Yom Kipur from "Lechaper", since both
cases had to bring a bull as a Chatas and a ram as an Olah. On Rosh Hashanah
and on Shavu'os they were both brought as Olos.
(b) Ravina refutes all the previous suggestions - by pointing out that on
Yom Kipur, like by the Milu'im, the entire Avodah was confined to the Kohen
Gadol; whereas in the case of all the other Korbanos (Yom-Tov, Pesach,
Succos, Shemini Atzeres, Shavu'os and Rosh Hashanah), they caould be
performed by any Kohen.
(c) In the second version of Ravina, the Gemara says 'Danin Avodah Techilah
me'Avodah Techilah' - meaning that both the Yom Kipur (of the first year in
the desert) and the Milu'im, had the distinction of being the first: Yom
Kipur was the first time that anybody entered the Kodesh Kodshim, and the
Milu'im was the first time that Korbanos were brought on the Mizbe'ach.
(d) True, Moshe had already performed the same Avodah (in the capacity of
Kohen Gadol) during the preceding seven days. However, he performed them
wearing a white linen garment, and as far as the regular Avodah (which the
Kohen performed wearing the four special garments) is concerned, that was
not considered a valid Avodah.
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Beraisa, which also includes the Parah
Adumah in the Mitzvah of Hafrashah - does so not because we learn it from a
Pasuk, but as a Ma'alah (mi'de'Rabbanan).
(b) Rebbi Yochanan's second statement, in which he learns the Parah Adumah
from "La'asos" and Yom Kipur from "Lechaper" (just like we did at the
beginning of the Sugya) - is not his personal opinion, but that of his
Rebbi, Rebbi Yishmael.
(a) Resh Lakish asks how Rebbi Yochanan can possibly learn Hafrashah from
the Milu'im. Because if that is so, then just as everything by the Milu'im
is Me'akev, everything by the Hafrashah of Yom Kipur will be Me'akev, too.
Then why does the Mishnah write 'u'Maskinin Lo Kohen Acher', and not
'u'Mafrishin Lo Kohen Acher', implying that the stand-in did not require
Hafrashah, and that, if the Kohen Gadol would become Tamei, he would serve
(b) Resh Lakish learns the Mitzvah of Hafrashah on Yom Kipur - from Sinai,
from the Pasuk ...
(c) ... "Vayishkon Kevod Hashem Al Har Sinai Vayechasehu he'Anan Sheshes
Yamim, Vayikra el Moshe ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i". The six days referred to here
are the six days that the Cloud covered *Moshe* before he appeared before
Hashem, which (according to Resh Lakish) serve as a Binyan Av for anyone who
wishes to enter the Kodesh Kodshim (i.e. the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur), who
also required six days Hafrashah.
(d) Resh Lakish may well learn Hafrashah from Har Sinai - he does however
admit that Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira disagrees, and the author of our
Mishnah is Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira.