ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 26
YOMA 26 - by Reb Wolfe Rosengarten of Zurich, in honor of Rav Moshe
Soloveitchik, Zatzal, and the Yeshiva he established in Moscow.
(a) Before beginning the third Payis - they would announce 'Chadashim
li'Ketores Bo'u ve'Hefisu'!
(b) Only Chadashim were permitted to participate - because the Ketores
enriched, and it was only fair that, once a Kohen had had his turn (and was
assured of becoming wealthy, he should stand down and give other Kohanim a
chance to do likewise).
(c) They then not restrict the Kohanim in the same way by the Olah as they
did by the Ketores (even though, it too, is written in the same Pasuk) -
because it is more common that the Ketores, and logically speaking, 'Barech
Hashem Cheilo" pertains to what is uncommon (otherwise, every Kohen would
become rich (see Tosfos Yeshanim).
(a) Rava learns from the combination of the two Pesukim "Yoru Mishpatecha
le'Ya'akov" and "u'mi'B'nei Yisachar Yod'ei Binah la'Itim ... " - that one
cannot find (or it is hard to find) Talmidei-Chachamim who are able to issue
rulings from any tribes other than Levi and Yisachar.
(b) Yehudah too, by whom the Torah writes "Yehudah Mechokeki" - are able to
issue rulings, but not strictly in accordance with the Halachah in the way
that Levi and Yisachar are (though this distinction requires clarification -
see Agados Maharsha).
(a) Rebbi Yochanan says that the same Kohanim who merited to bring the Tamid
shel Shachar, also brought the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim.
establishes the Beraisa which says ...
1. ... 'Keshem she'Mefaysin Shachris, Kach Mefaysin Bein ha'Arbayim' - by
(b) The reason that they made a new Payas for the afternoon *Ketores*, even
though they did not make one for the afternoon *Tamid* - is because no Kohen
was allowed a second chance to merit the Ketores, as we learned earlier.
2. ... 'Keshem she'Mefaysin Lo be'Shachris (masculine), Kach Mefaysin Lo
Bein ha'Arbayim'? - to read 'Keshem she'Mefaysin *Lah* (feminine)
be'Shachris - so that it now pertains to the Ketores.
3. ... that just as they made a Payas for both the Ketores and the Tamid in
the morning, so too, did they make one in the afternoon - by Shabbos, when
the Mishmar who serves in the afternoon is not the same one that served in
the morning (in which case, they had no choice other to make new Payas).
(c) The Makshan will ascribe the four Payasos (and not five) - to the fact
that they made the Payas for the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim in the morning,
straight after the Payas for the Tamid shel Shachar.
(a) The fourth Payas, in which every Kohen was involved, comprised who would
carry the limbs from the ramp on to the Mizbe'ach.
(b) The author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - because
*he* holds that the same Kohen who carried the limbs *to* the ramp, also
carried them *from* the ramp to the Mizbe'ach (no Payis would therefore be
necessary for that).
(c) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov disagrees with the Tana of our Mishnah (in
spite of the fact that he (the Tana of our Mishnah) bases his opinion on the
Pasuk "be'Rov Am Hadras Melech") - because he considers it disrespectful to
convey the impression that carrying the limbs on to the Mizbe'ach is a
burden with which one cannot cope.
(d) All Tana'im agree that there were *four* Payasos. Consequently, since,
according to Rebbi Yehudah, the Kohen who carried the Machtah did not
require a Payas, the fourth Payas must have been the one to determine who
would carry the limbs from the ramp on to the Mizbe'ach (not like Rebbi
Eliezer ben Ya'akov). Similarly, since Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov does not
require a Payas to determine which Kohanim should carry the limbs from the
ramp on to the Mizbe'ach, the fourth Payas must have been to determine which
Kohen should take the Machtah (not like Rebbi Yehudah).
(a) We learnt earlier that *nine* Kohanim were needed to carry the limbs of
the Tamid (on to the ramp and) from the ramp on to the Mizbe'ach.
They needed ...
1. ... *ten* Kohanim on Sukos, one extra Kohen to carry the flask of water
for the Nisuch ha'Mayim.
(b) On the Shabbos of Sukos, they needed twelve Kohanim, two extra Kohanim
for the two bowls of Levonah, and one for the flask of water.
2. ... *eleven* Kohanim for the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim - two extra
Kohanim to carry the two blocks of wood for the Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei Eitzim,
and two extra Kohanim for Shabbos - to carry the two bowls of Levonah to
place on the Table beside the two rows of the Lechem ha'Panim.
(a) Rebbi Aba proves that the Nisuch ha'Mayim must have been performed on
Sukos *morning* (together with the Tamid shel Shachar) and not in the
afternoon (with the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim) - from the fact that the
Tana presents the case of twelve Kohanim specifically on Shabbos Sukos; now,
if the Nisuch ha'Mayim had taken place in the afternoon, then even on a
Sukos weekday they would have required twelve Kohanim, two (over and above
the nine) for the two blocks of wood, and one for the flask of water.
(b) Rav Ashi bears this out with the Mishnah in Sukah - which describes how,
on one occasion, when it came to the Nisuch ha'Mayim ceremony, the Kohen
poured out the water at his feet (in true Tzedoki style); and it goes on to
describe how the people stoned him with their Esrogim. Had the Nisuch
ha'Mayim taken place in the afternoon, Rav Ashi concludes, why would the
people have been holding their Esrogim? This proves therefore, that it must
have been performed in the morning.
(a) We already know from the Pasuk in Vayikra "u'Vi'er Aleha ha'Kohen
ba'Boker ba'Boker, ve'Arach ... " - that the Kohanim are obligated to add
two blocks of wood on the Mizbe'ach each morning when they brought the Tamid
shel *Shachar*. In that case, why does the Torah write in Vayikra "ve'Archu
Eitzim"? It must be, says Rebbi Shimon, to add the mitzvah of adding two
blocks of wood by the Tamid shel *Bein ha'Arbayim*.
The seventeen Kohanim who merited in the Payis comprised thirteen as listed
in the Mishnah, plus (on Shabbos which fell on Sukos) two for the bowls of
frankincense, and one for the flask of water (making sixteen); the
seventeenth must have been the Payas for carrying the limbs from the ramp on
to the Mizbe'ach - like Rebbi Yehudah (as we proved earlier) and not like
Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.
(b) We cannot establish both Pesukim by the Tamid shel Shachar, and the two
Pesukim come to teach us that ...
1. ... two sets of Kohanim need to place two blocks of wood each, one after
the other - because then, why did the Torah change from the singular
("u'Vi'er) to the plural ("ve'Archu")?
2. ... first one Kohen places one block of wood, and then two Kohanim place
another two blocks - because then the Torah should have written either
"u'Vi'er" and "u'Viaru" or "ve'Arach" and "ve'Archu". Since it changed from
"u'Vi'er" to "ve'Archu", it is clear that they are not referring to the same
event, but one to the *morning* Tamid and the other, to the *afternoon*
(a) There was no difference between the number of Kohanim who carried the
limbs of the lamb of the Tamid on to the Mizbe'ach and those who carried the
limbs of the ram of the Musaf. However, whereas, *one* Kohen sufficed to
carry each of the innards, the flour and the wine of the lamb, the innards,
wine and oil of the ram required *two* each.
(c) Three Kohanim carried each of the innards, the flour and the wine of the
bull and its Nesech respectively.
- Eleven Kohanim carried the ram of the Musaf.
- Twenty-four Kohanim carried the bull of the Musaf.
(d) One Kohen carried the head of the bull, and two, each of the hind legs.
- Two Kohanim carried its tail;
- three Kohanim, its neck;
- two Kohanim, each of its two forelegs,
- and two, each of its two flanks.
(a) The Kohen who brought the Korban Yachid was permitted to carry all the
parts of the Korban Yachid, if he so wished. (Note: Nevertheless, a Payas
was necessary - to prevent Machlokes - to determine which Kohen should bring
it [Tif'eres Yisrael]. See also Hagahos Rebbi Yechezkel Landau.
(b) The Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach (the stripping and the cutting-up into pieces)
of a Korban - could be performed by a Zar?
(c) We initially reject Chizkiya's contention that we derive a Zar's
eligibility to perform Hefshet ve'Nituach from the Pasuk in Vayikra
"ve'Nasnu B'nei Aharon ha'Kohen Esh Al ha'Mizbe'ach" - on the grounds that
the Pasuk is required to teach us that only Kohanim may arrange the fire on
the Mizbe'ach. So how can we learn anything from any inference (i.e. unless
there is a superfluous word or letter, we can only make inferences there
where the Pasuk has nothing intrinsic to teach us)?