ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 49
YOMA 49-50 (6 & 7 Adar) were dedicated by Harav Avi Feldman & family in
memory of his father, the Tzadik Harav Yisrael Azriel ben Harav Chaim
(Feldman) of Milwaukee (Yahrzeit: 6 Adar)
(a) They asked Rav Chisda whether Holachah is Kasher if performed by a Zar.
He answered with a Pasuk from Divrei ha'Yamim "Vayishchatu ha'Pesach
Vayizreku ha'Kohanim mi'Yadam ... " - which he took to mean that the Yisrael
would bring the blood to the Kohen, proving that Holachah performed by a Zar
Rav Papa asks whether if, another Kohen performed the Chafinah before
transferring the Ketores into the hands of the Kohen Gadol - who has the
same size hands as his, perhaps the Avodah ...
(b) Rav Sheshes disagrees with Rav Chisda on the basis of the Beraisa that
we quoted in the previous question, which specifically disqualifies Holachah
performed by a Zar.
(c) He interprets the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim to mean - not that the
Yisrael actually brought the blood to the Kohen, but that the Kohen who had
received the bowl of blood placed it into the Yisrael's hands, from where
the Kohen took it and brought it to the Mizbe'ach.
(d) When Rav Sheshes initially ruled that Holachah is Kasher with the left
hand - he was not aware of the Beraisa; it was only later that he learned it
and used it to query Rav Chisda.
1. ... would *not* be Kasher - because the Kohen Gadol did not perform the
Chafinah, and the Torah writes "ve'Lakach ve'Heivi", to teach us that the
Kohen Gadol must take the Chafinah before he brings it into the Kodesh
2. ... would be Kasher - because the Torah does not write "ve'Chafan", only
"u'Me'lo Chafnav", and it *is* "me'Lo Chafnav"!
(a) When Rebbi Chanina first heard the She'eilah whether, if the Kohen Gadol
died, his successor would be permitted to take the Ketores into the Kodesh
Kodshim without performing a fresh Chafinah - he exclaimed that the later
generations (meaning himself, who, he was implying, was much younger than
Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi) had merited the wisdom of the earlier ones (because
*he* asked the very same She'eilah).
(b) The problem with this lies in the testimony of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi -
that he once received permission from Rebbi Chanina to eat cress on Shabbos
- and there he referred to him as 'Rebbi', implying that Rebbi Chanina was
senior to him.
(c) We therefore amend Rebbi Chanina's statement to read - that the later
generations (Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi) merited the wisdom of the earlier ones
(himself, because he too, asked the same She'eilah).
(a) The problem with Rebbi Chanina's concession for a sick person to eat
cress on Shabbos - is that, in view of the Mishnah in Shabbos, which permits
eating *all food* on Shabbos, even as a cure, what is the Chidush?
(b) Rebbi Chanina permitted Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi even to grind the cress
on Shabbos, to use as a cure.
(c) One may grind herbs for a sick person on Shabbos provided he is in life-
danger - Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's She'eilah was whether ground cress was an
effective cure or not.
(d) He choose to ask specifically Rebbi Chanina, of all people - because he
was an expert doctor. He testified that nobody had ever asked him about a
bite from a white mule and lived (which we are about to discuss).
(a) It is possible to survive a bite sustained from a white mule.
(b) When Rebbi Chanina said that it was *not* - he was referring, not to the
person, but to the wound ('ve'Chaysa' not 've'Chayah').
(c) He was in fact, referring to a red mule with white feet.
(a) When Rebbi Chanina says 'be'Par ve'Lo be'Damo shel Par' - he means that
the Kohen Gadol is obligated to enter the Kodesh Kodashim on Yom Kipur with
the bull ("be'Zos Yavo Aharon el ha'Kodesh, *be'Far*), and not just with the
blood (of the bull which his predecessor Shechted before becoming Tamei).
(b) Rebbi Chanina also said that if the Kohen Gadol performed the Chafinah
before the Shechitah of the bull - he would not be Yotze.
(c) In view of these two statements of Rebbi Chanina, if, on Yom Kipur, a
Kohen Gadol died after having Shechted his bull, his successor would become
obligated to bring another bull, in which case, he would also be obligated
to perform the Chafinah again. So how could he praise Rebbi Yehoshua ben
Levi's She'eilah, and even go so far as to claim that he had also asked it?
(d) We therefore amend his comment completely. What he said was that, since
Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked this She'eilah, he must hold 'be'Par, va'Afilu
be'Damo shel Par' (perhaps because of the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos 'Ki ha'Dam Hu
(a) The She'eilah of 'Chofen ve'Chozer ve'Chofen' - is whether the Kohen
Gadol had to make a second Chafinah in the Kodesh Kodashim or not.
(b) Rav Papa thinks that if he was indeed obligated to perform a second
Chafinah, then the Kohen would be permitted to enter with his friend's
Chafinah - since he would then be able to fulfill the Mitzvah of Chafinah in
the Kodesh Kodashim (see Tosfos DH 'I Chofen' and Tosfos Yeshanim DH
(c) Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua disagrees with him. In his opinion, the
opposite is true - if 'Chofen ve'Chozer ve'Chofen', then he would not be
permitted to enter with his friend's Chafinah, since it would be impossible
for his handful to tally *exactly* with his friend's (and the two Chafinos
must be exactly the same).
(d) Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua agree however - that the
She'eilah whether the Kohen Gadol is permitted to enter with his friend's
Chafinah will apply if 'Ein Chofen ve'Chozer ve'Chofen'.
(a) The Kohen Gadol would hold the Kaf containing the Ketores either with
his finger-tips or with his teeth, before emptying it into his hands.
(b) This took place inside the Kodesh Kodashim.
(c) The Machtah had been placed on the floor.
(d) He would then, using his thumbs, gently draw the handle of the Kaf
(which was facing him) towards himself, until it reached the cupped palms of
his hands, above which it was now perched. Then he would slowly tip its
contents into his palms.
(a) From his palms, he would pour the Ketores into the Machtah containing
the coals which was lying on the floor.
(b) Some say that he *piled* the Ketores on top of the ashes at one point in
the pan - in order to delay the pillar of smoke (presumably, in order to
avoid getting his hands burnt) others, that he *scattered* it across the
entire area - in order to hasten it (presumably, in order to hasten the
advent of the Shechinah).
(c) This second Chafinah was one of the three most difficult Avodos in the
Beis Hamikdash - the other two, were the Melikah (the pinching of the bird's
neck to kill it), and the Kemitzah.
(d) We have finally proved from this Beraisa - that there *was* a second
(a) According to Rebbi Chanina, should the Kohen Gadol die after he had
Shechted his bull, his successor would not bring its blood into the Kodesh
Kodshim for sprinkling (sice he now had to bring a second bull, and begin
with its Shechitah). This is because he Darshens "be'Par" - 've'Lo be'Damo
(b) "be'Par" - 'va'Afilu be'Damo shel Par', in which case the Kohen Gadol's
successor would indeed bring the blood of the bull (of his predecessor who
died) into the Kodesh Kodshim for sprinkling.
(c) If, as Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha contends, it was still called a bull (or a
lamb) even after it had died, then, seeing as the Torah writes in Bo "ve'Im
Yim'at ha'Bayis Miheyos mi'*Seh*", why would one not have been able to join
the group or withdraw from it (even after it had been Shechted) - until the
blood had been sprinkled?
(d) Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha refutes this proof - because, he argues, the
Korban Pesach was different - since the Torah writes "ve'Im Yim'at ha'Bayis
*Miheyos mi'Seh*", implying that the lamb must still have been alive when
the change in numbers took place.
(a) One cannot redeem a first-born donkey with ...
(b) One can neither redeem it with Kil'ayim (of a goat and a lamb) - despite
the fact that both of these animal are called 'Seh' - nor with a Kvi (a
cross between a goat and a doe).
- ... a calf or with a deer - because the Torah specifically writes "Seh" (lamb).
- ... a *Shechted* lamb - because once an animal dies, it loses its identity.
- ... a Tereifah (one of seventy fatal blemishes) - because it too, is no longer considered alive (in this regard)?
(a) The reason that we gave for the prohibition of redeeming the donkey with
a Shechted lamb (in 11a 2.) - supports Rebbi Chanina's viewpoint (that a
dead animal *does* lose its identity - "be'Par" 've'Lo be'Damo shel Par'.
(b) We refute this proof however, on the grounds that even if it did *not*,
one would still not be able to redeem the first-born donkey with a Shechted
lamb, because we learn a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Seh" "Seh" from the Korban
(c) We learn from the redundant "Tifdeh" mentioned in Bo in the Parshah of
Pidyon Peter Chamor - that even though we have just compared the redemption
of the first-born donkey to the Korban Pesach inasmuch as the lamb had to be
alive, it did *not* however, have to be a male, in its first year or without
a blemish (as the lamb of the Korban Pesachdid).