ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 25
(a) According to Rav Nachman, the Mishnah in Tamid (which describes how the
Shamashim would first undress them, leaving them only in their pants) -
speaks about the Kohanim who *merited* in the Payis (see Tosfos, DH 'Mai').
Consequently, the Tana must be talking about changing from Bigdei Chol into
Bigdei Kehunah to proceed with the Korbanos - proving that the Kohanim wore
Bigdei Chol during the first Payis.
(b) Rav Sheshes establishes the Mishnah by those Kohanim who did *not* merit
to perform the Terumas ha'Deshen in the first Payis (and who were now
changing back into Bigdei Chol). Otherwise (if we were to learn like Rav
Nachman), how could they leave the Kohanim in the pants that were Bigdei
Chol, to be changed only later, seeing as we have already learned from
"u'Michnesei Bad Yilbash al Besaro" that the pants were the *first* of the
Bigdei Kehunah to be put on by the Kohanim, and not the *last*?
(c) Rav Sheshes is setting out to prove from here that the Kohanim wore
Bigdei Kehunah for the first Payis.
(d) Rav Nachman explains that whilst they were still wearing Bigdei Chol,
they would first change their pants. Then they would change the rest of
their clothes except for the pants which they had already changed earlier.
(a) 'Basilki' is a room built on top of an attic (see Sefer Ezras Kohanim).
(b) During the time that the Payis took place in the east of the Lishkas
ha'Gazis, an elder sat on the west to oversee it. The Kohanim stood in a
circle (like a tiara), and the Memuneh came and removed one of the Kohanim's
hats from his head. He was the Kohen from whose finger the count would
(c) Rav Sheshes was trying to prove from here that they must have worn
Bigdei Kehunah for the first Payis. Otherwise, why should they have been
(d) Rav Nachman counters this by citing a Beraisa from Daf 35b, which states
that the mothers of the Kohanim used to knit replicas of the Bigdei Kehunah
for their sons (as a sign of the extent that they endeared the Kehunah) to
wear whilst they performed the Avodas Yachid. Note: These clothes will be
explained in more detail later.
(a) We prove from the above procedure that the Lishkas ha'Gazis was at least
1. ... in the Chol - because otherwise, how could the elder sit down there,
seeing as nobody was permitted to sit down in the Kodesh section of the
Azarah except for the Kings of Yehudah.
(b) We also prove from there that it must have had two entrances - because
otherwise, any room that opened out to the Kodesh was Kodesh (irrespective
of where it was built), and a room which opened out to the Chol, was Chol.
2. ... in the Kodesh - because, as we learned earlier, the whole point of
the Payasos was to cause a stir and create excitement *in the House of
(a) The second Payis determined the Avodos of thirteen Kohanim. Nine of
these carried the various parts of the Tamid on to the ramp. The remaining
four merited the Shechitah, the Zerikah and clearing the Mizbe'ach
ha'Ketores and the Menorah respectively.
(b) Six of the nine carried the actual limbs of the lamb, the remaining
three, the flour, the Chavitin and the wine respectively.
1. The flour refers to the Minchas Nesachim that came with every Olah - one
tenth of an Eifah for a lamb.
2. The Chavitin - to the half-Isaron of the first half of the Minchas
Chavitin of the Kohen Gadol.
3. The wine - to the quarter of a Hin (three Lugin) of the Nesech that came
with every Olah.
1. Three of the six carried the head and the hind-leg, the two forelegs, and
the tail of the lamb, respectively. The hind-leg refers to the *right* hind-
(d) The other three carried the chest and the neck, the two flanks and the
stomach. The neck incorporated the wind-pipe, the lungs, the liver and the
2. The third Kohen carried the *left* hind-leg together with the tail.
(a) If they only made one Payis for all the Avodos mentioned in our Mishnah,
the twelve Kohanim who stood next to the Kohen who merited to win, would
receive the other twelve Avodos, in order - starting with the one who
followed the winner.
(b) If each Avodah required a separate Payis (which the Gemara suggests in
the second side of the She'eilah), then how can the Tana list only *four*
Payasos, and not as many as there were Avodos?
(c) It may well be, replies the Gemara, that they made a Payis for *each*
Avodah. Nevertheless, the Tana lists only *four* Payasos, referring to the
four *main* occasions when they gathered to make as many relevant Payasos as
(a) The reason that the Kohen who merited the Ketores (in the third Payis)
would ask a second Kohen to go with him with the Machtah, and that he was
not chosen by means of a separate Payis - is because the Ketores and the
Machtah were part of the same Avodah.
(b) The Avodah of the Machtah entailed taking a shovel-full of burning ashes
from the Mizbe'ach ha'Olah, which he then placed on to the Mizbe'ach
ha'Ketores. The Kohen who was performing the Ketores would then place the
Ketores on top of those ashes.
(c) It is possible, the Gemara says, that no other Avodah requires its own
Payis either, and that the reason that Rebbi Yehudah needs to mention the
Ketores and Machtah - is because specifically *there* we may otherwise have
thought that we would divide them into two, seeing as: 1. it was rare, and
occurred only twice daily (unlike the Korbanos, of which many were brought
each day); and 2. the Kohen who merited it subsequently became rich.
Consequently, it deserved its own Payis.
(d) We prove conclusively that there were only *four* Payasos, and that each
Payis covered many Avodos - from a Beraisa which emphatically states that
not each Avodah requires its own Payis, and that the twelve Kohanim (listed
in our Mishnah after the Shochet) would merit their respective Avodos
automatically (as we described in 5a).
(a) The Gemara is in doubt as to which Kohen had to perform the Kabalas
ha'Dam (to receive the blood in a bowl), the Shochet or the Zorek - because
the Tana failed to include the Mekabel among the thirteen listed Avodos.
(b) It would be preferable for ...
1. ... the Shochet and not the Zorek to receive it - because we are afraid
that in his eagerness to sprinkle the blood, the Zorek will not wait to
sprinkle it before he has received *all* the blood in the bowl.
(c) Ben Katin manufactured *twelve* taps for the Kiyor (and not *thirteen*)
- because Shechitah is not considered an Avodah, and a Zar is eligible to
2. ... Zorek and not the Shochet - because sometimes it may be a Zar who
Shechts (and *he* is forbidden to sprinkle the blood).
(d) We finally resolve from here that it must have been the Zorek who
received the blood - because had it been the Shochet, then Ben Katin should
have manufactured *thirteen* taps (one for the Shochet, who would also need
to make Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim because of the Kabalah which he would
(a) Ben Azai quoting Rebbi Yehoshua, told Rebbi Akiva that the order in
which they brought the limbs on the Mizbe'ach followed the order that the
animal walked. According to Rebbi Yossi, it was the way the animal was
stripped - starting from the hind-legs and going towards the head.
(b) Rebbi Akiva holds that they followed the order that the animal was cut
(c) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili holds 'Derech Iluyav Hayah Karev' - meaning the
order of the value of the limbs.
(d) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who places the shoulder before the thigh, is
speaking about a *strong* animal - whereas the Pasuk in Yechezkel "Kol
Netach Tov, *Yerech ve'Katef*", refers to a *weak* one.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah follows the order of the *size* of the limbs -
whereas Rebbi Yossi Hagelili is speaking about their *succulence*.
(b) All the above Tana'im learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "es Rosho ve'es
Pidro ve'Arach" - that the head comes first.
(c) The Torah writes a second time "es ha'Nesachim es ha'Rosh ve'es
ha'Pader". The Torah finds it necessary to mention separately ...
1. ... the head - to teach us that even though the head had already been
severed before the Olah was cut into pieces, it was nevertheless to be
included in the Arichah (arranging the pieces on the Mizbe'ach).
2. ... the Pader - to teach us the obligation to cover the place of
Shechitah with the fat (because it was so full of blood that it was gruesome
to look at).