ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 15
(a) We cannot interpret the Pasuk "u've'Ha'alos Aharon es ha'Neiros Bein
ha'Arbayim Yaktirena" literally (i.e. that the Ketores comes last) - because
we learn from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "me'Erev ad Boker" that the only (day)
Avodah that is Kasher by night, is that of kindling the Menorah (and not the
(b) We also learn from "me'Erev ad Boker" - that sufficient oil should be
placed in the lamps to burn from evening until morning.
(c) Aba Shaul agrees with the Rabbanan with regard to the order of the
*evening* Avodah - where the Torah uses the word "Oso" (from which we infer
that it is only the Avodah of the *Menorah* that is Kasher at night-time,
but not that of the *Ketores*. Consequently, he too, explains the Pasuk
"u've'Ha'alos Aharon es ha'Neiros Bein ha'Arbayim Yaktirenah" like the
Rabbanan; whereas the Pasuk "ba'Boker ba'Boker" etc., where the Torah does
not write "Oso", he explains literally.
(a) Rav Papa establishes our Mishnah like the Rabbanan, and the Mishnah in
the next Perek (which gives the Hatavos precedence over the Ketores) like
Aba Shaul. The fact that the Mishnah in the third Perek again places the
Ketores before the Hatavas ha'Neiros (like the Rabbanan), does not bother
him. 'Reisha ve'Seifa Rabbanan', he says, 'u'Metzi'asa Aba Shaul'.
(b) Abaye cannot possibly learn that the Tana of the Seifa is referring to
the Hatavas Chameish Neiros - because nobody maintains that the Ketores
precedes the Hatavas Chameish Neiros.
(c) Rav Papa not want to learn like Abaye (to establish our Mishnah by
Hatavas *Sh'tei* Neiros and the Mishnah in the second Perek by Hatavas
*Chameish* Neiros - both like the Rabbanan) - because he objects to
establishing the first Mishnah by Hatavas *Sh'tei* Neiros, and the second
Mishnah by Hatavas *Chameish* Neiros, inverting their natural order.
(d) Abaye explains that, since the Tana of the first Mishnah is not dealing
with the actual Avodah on Yom Kipur - and is only coming to teach us that
the Kohen Gadol is obligated to perform all the Avodos during the seven days
of Hafrashah, he is not fussy about the order in which he presents it. But
as soon as he starts to deal with the Avodah on Yom Kipur, he puts
everything in the right perspective - first the Hatavas Chameish Neiros,
and then the Hatavas Sh'tei Neiros.
(a) The Kohen place the Matnos Dam of a Chatas on the Mizbe'ach with his
finger, once on each of the four corners, starting with that of the south
(b) From the fact that the Torah seems to refer to the Olas Tamid as a
Chatas - we learn that, when the Kohen comes to sprinkle the blood on the
south-western corner, he must sprinkle the west and the south separately,
like he did by a Chatas.
(c) It would make no sense to sprinkle first, Shetayim she'Hen Arba (two on
the two diagonally opposite corners of the Mizbe'ach - like the Olah that it
is) and then four (like a Chatas) - because we never find the blood atoning
again, after it has atoned already.
(d) This answer is acceptable, because all we are doing is splitting the
regular sprinkling into two (which, on its own, does not really give the
Avodah the appearance of a Chatas); whereas to learn from the Gezeiras
ha'Kasuv what we suggested above (in c.) - that the blood should require
*two* Kaparos, is too radical a Chidush.
(a) The Kohen placed the blood that was divided into two (like a Chatas),
*below* the red thread, the same as the first Matanah on the north-eastern
(b) Despite the fact that the blood was deliberately divided into two to
resemble a Chatas, he did not place it *above* the red thread - because we
never find half the blood placed above the red thread and half below it.
(c) When the Mishnah says 'Hizah Mimenu Achas *le'Ma'alah* ve'Sheva
*le'Matah'* - it does not mean one on the top half of the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav
and seven on the lower half - but the first one near the top, and the
remaining seven, below it (each one a little lower than the other) but all
above the half-way mark.
(d) 'ke'Matzlif' or 'ki'Menagda' - means like they used to give Malkos - one
stroke below the other.
(a) In another Mishnah later, the Tana, describing how the Kohen Gadol would
sprinkle the blood on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, writes 'Hizah Mimenu al
*Taharo* shel Mizbe'ach', which we think, means by the *middle of the
(vertical) wall* of the Mizbe'ach (from the word *Tzaharayim*, which means
mid-day). In that case, we will be faced with the problem of how it is
possible to sprinkle so many times towards the middle of the wall of the
Mizbe'ach without the blood sometimes falling above the halfway mark, and
sometimes below it?
(b) Rabah bar Shiloh interprets 'al Taharo' to mean in the *middle of the
top* of the Mizbe'ach - from the Pasuk "u'che'Etzem ha'Shamayim la'*Tohar*"
which means in the middle of the sky, which is *horizontal*.
(a) It is natural to follow first the procedure of an Olah (by the north-
eastern corner), and then that of a Chatas (by the south-western corner) -
since it was, after all, an *Olah*.
The concept of splitting the second sprinkling into two (like a Chatas) is
derived from the Pasuk "... le'Chatas, al Olas ha'Tamid Ye'aseh ve'Nisko" -
which implies that one should apply the Din of the Chatas to an Olah (and
(b) They sprinkled the blood specifically on *those* two corners (and not on
the south-east and the north-west) - because the Olah required the Yesod,
and there was no Yesod by the south-east and the north-western corners.
(c) They started with the *north-eastern* corner and not with the *south-
west* - because of the principle 'be'Chol Pinos she'Ata Poneh, Le'olam Al
Tifneh Ela li'Yemin' (one should always make a point of going towards the
(d) This principle applies exclusively to a Chatas (where the Kohen had to
place the blood on the four Keranos (blocks on the corners), which in turn,
required *climbing the ramp*. Consequently, when he reached the top, he
would arrive at the *north-eastern* corner before the *south-western* one).
It did not apply to an Olah, where the Kohen would stand *on the ground* and
sprinkle. Chazal nevertheless fixed that order even by an Olah, presumably
for the sake of uniformity.
1. The 'Lishkas ha'Chosmos' - was the room which contained the discs for the
Nesachim (about which we learned in Shekalim 7b.) marked Eigel, Gedi, Zachar
and Chotei. Anybody who wanted the flour, wine and oil for his Nesech, would
pay the officer in charge of the discs, and would receive the appropriate
(b) The Lishkas Beis ha'Tela'im was where they always had at least six lambs
examined for blemishes, ready to be brought as the Korban Tamid.
2. The 'Lishkas Beis ha'Mokad' - was the room where a fire burned
constantly, for the Kohanim (who had to serve bare-footed) to be able to
warm their feet.
(c) We reconcile the Mishnah in Tamid, which places the Lishkas Beis
ha'Tela'im on the *north*-west of the Beis ha'Mokad, with the Mishnah in
Midos, which describes it as being in the *south*-west - by establishing
Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov as the author of the latter (and of all Stam
Mishnayos in Midos), and that of the Mishnah in Tamid as the Rabbanan.
(a) The four corners of the Lishkas Beis ha'Mokad was divided into two -
inasmuch as two of the corners were in the Kodesh and two in the Chol.
(b) The division was marked by means of short wooden posts.
(c) In the north-eastern room, the Chashmona'i Kings hid the stones of the
Mizbe'ach which the Greek kings had defiled by sacrificing on it in the name
of their idols.
(d) The north-western room (according to the Tana in Midos) - contained the
entrance to the Mikvah.