ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 23
(a) Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, says that a Talmid-
Chacham who does not take revenge and bear a grudge like a snake - is not a
(b) "Lo Sikom ve'Lo Sitor" ... he says, relates to monetary issues, but not
to issues to do with Kavod (such as when someone denigrates him).
(c) 'Nekimah' means actually taking revenge; whereas 'Netirah' means bearing
a (verbal) grudge for what the person did.
(a) The Pasuk "ve'Ohavav ke'Tzeis ha'Shemesh bi'Gevuraso" - refers to people
who hear others shaming them, and not responding.
(b) We cannot reconcile this Pasuk with Rebbi Yochanan's statement, by
establishing the Pasuk to mean that he does not *act* (or say anything -
Netirah), and Rebbi Yochanan, when he just retains what the person did to
him in his heart - because Rava said that someone who learns to overlook
(even in his heart) the bad things that people do to them, will be forgiven
for all their sins (measure for measure).
(c) We reconcile Rebbi Yochanan with the Pasuk by establishing the latter
when the person who insulted the Talmid-Chacham subsequently asked for
forgiveness (and Rebbi Yochanan speaks when he did *not*).
(a) The Mishnah states that the Kohanim who participated in the Payis would
stick out one or two fingers - one finger, under normal circumstances, and
two, if, due to sickness or old age, he could not help the second finger
from extending together with the first.
(b) The 'Yechidim' who would stick out *two* fingers - were sick people who
generally tend to lie down or to sit alone (others say that it it refers to
the Rabbanan, who are described elsewhere as sick, because they were
generally weak - see Hagahos ha'Bach).
(c) The two fingers of a sick person counted as *one*.
(d) When the Tana says that if (together with the forefinger) he sticks out
the middle finger, it counts; the thumb, it doesn't - he means that, in the
former case, it counts as *one* finger, whereas in the latter case, it
doesn't even count as one finger either.
(a) If a Kohen stuck out his thumb - they would disqualify him from the
Payis and he would then be beaten with a Peki'a.
(b) Abaye initially explained the Mishnah in Shekalim 'Ben Biba'i Memuneh Al
ha'Peki'a' - to mean that Ben Biba'i was in charge of making the wicks for
the Simchas Beis ha'Sho'eivah on Sukos.
(c) He finally explained it to refer to the Peki'a currently being discussed
- namely, that he was in charge of administering corporal punishment, using
the Peki'a, to the errant Kohanim.
(d) A Peki'a is a whip which is cut into separate thin thongs at the ends
(unlike the whip that was used for delivering Malkos, which consisted of
only one strap, one Tefach thick all the way along).
(a) In the second incident in which two Kohanim raced up the ramp - the
Kohen who was behind actually stabbed the leading Kohen in the heart.
(b) Before his son was even dead, his father announced 'May his death be a
Kaparah for you all. He is still gasping but the knife has not yet become
Tamei' (he meant that they should quickly remove the knife from the body
before it became Tamei).
(c) They learned from the father's statement - that they were more concerned
with the Taharah of the Holy vessels than they were about the murder of
innocent people; and it proves it from the Pasuk which describes how
Menasheh spilt much innocent blood in Yerushalayim (even though Menasheh
lived in the time of the *first* Beis Hamikdash, and this incident took
place in the *second* - see Agados Maharsha).
(a) It is possible to say that the episode of the Beraisa occurred first.
However, in spite of its severity, they thought that this was only a chance
occurrence, and that it would not recur, so they did not institute a Payis.
But when the second incident occurred, and they saw that, even without any
deliberate act of murder, the Terumas ha'Deshen led to danger, they
introduced the Payis by the Terumas ha'Deshen, too.
(b) Rebbi Tzadok, standing on the steps of one of the halls that Herod
built, cried out in agony and asked who had to bring an Eglah Arufah, the
residents of Yerushalayim or the Kohanim who looked after the Azarah. This
She'eilah was not valid - a. because Yerushalayim is not subject to the Din
of an Eglah Arufah, and b. because an Eglah Arufah was only brought when
theidentity of the culprit was not known, whereas in this case, it was.
(c) He announced it - only in order to increase the agony.
(a) We know that the father of the murdered Kohen's concern for the Tum'ah
of the Azarah rather than for the murder of his son, was due to the fact
that murder was cheap, and not because of a deep concern for the Taharah of
the vessels of the Beis Hamikdash - because the Gemara cites Menasheh as an
(b) "u'Fashat es Begadav, ve'Lavash Begadim *Acheirim*" could mean that the
Kohen must change from Bigdei Kehunah into Bigdei Chol when carrying out the
ashes from the Mizbe'ach, or it could mean that he must change into inferior
Bigdei Kehunah - i.e. worn out ones.
(c) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from the Hekesh of the second half
of the Pasuk to the first (from the word "Acheirim") - that just as the
clothes that he took off (after performing the Terumas ha'Deshen) were
Bigdei Kehunah, so too, did the ones that he now donned have to be Bigdei
Kehunah. Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael draws an analogy to a king's servant,
who will not wear the same clothes that he wore whilst cooking, to pour out
the king's drinks.
(d) Rebbi Eliezer disagrees. According to him, the Torah writes the word
"Acheirim", to connect it to the word after it - "ve'Hotzi", to Darshen that
Kohanim Ba'alei Mumin are eligible to remove the ashes from the Mizbe'ach
and to carry them outside the camp.
(a) According to Resh Lakish, Rebbi Eliezer also argues with the Tana Kama
with regard to the Terumas ha'Deshen - because, he argues, who has ever
heard of an Avodah that a Kohen may perform wearing only *two* of the Bigdei
Kehunah (and in the Parshah of Terumas ha'Deshen the Torah only mentions the
shirt and the pants) Note: See Ritva, as to how Resh Lakish will then
explain the Tana Kama.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan holds that the Terumas ha'Deshen is an Avodah - even
according to Rebbi Eliezer (and it therefore requires all four Bigdei
Kehunah). The reason that the Torah mentions only the pants and the shirt is
to teach us a lesson by each one: We learn from"Mido Vad" (written by the
shirt) - that the Kohen is obligated to wear clothes that fit him properly;
and from "Yilbash Al Besaro" (written by the pants) - that none of the other
garments may precede the pants.
(c) Resh Lakish learns the first Derashah of Rebbi Yochanan from the fact
that the Torah writes "Mido" and not "Kutones"; and the second, from the
words "Al Besaro", which are superfluous.
(a) we initially suggest that Rebbi Yochanan holds like Rebbi Yehudah, (who
learns from "Yilbash" that the hat and the belt must also be worn for the
Terumas ha'Deshen); whereas Resh Lakish holds like Rebbi Dosa (who learns
from "Yilbash" that a Kohen Hedyot may wear the garments that a Kohen Gadol
wore on Yom Kipur - implying that, according to him, the Kohen would wear
only the shirt and the pants).
(b) We conclude that even Rebbi Dosa can hold that the Terumas ha'Deshen is
an Avodah which requires all four Bigdei Kehunah, and the reason that he
does not learn the hat and the belt from "Yilbash" is because he takes it
for granted that they must be worn.
(c) Rebbi learns from ...
1. ... "Yilbash" - that worn-out Bigdei Kehunah are Kasher for the Avodah.
2. ... "ve'Hinicham Sham" - that the Begadim worn by the Kohen Gadol on Yom
Kipur had to be placed in Genizah, and could never be worn again.