ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 56
(a) One is obligated to separate from crops or wine that one purchased from
Kutim - Terumah Gedolah, Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser Sheini.
(b) According to Rebbi Meir, someone who purchased a hundred Lugin of wine
from the Kutim shortly before Shabbos, and had no vessels to contain them,
would declare the two Lugin that he would later separate, Terumah; the ten
Lugin (minus a fifth), Ma'aser Rishon, and the nine, Ma'aser Sheini.
(c) Rebbi Meir's underlying principle - is 'Yesh Bereirah'.
(d) The Tana of this Mishnah in D'mai permits the wine of Kutim - before
Chazal decreed on them, giving them the Din of gentiles in all matters.
(a) Considering that Rebbi Yehudah is one of the Tana'im who disagree with
Rebbi Meir (in the previous question), we are trying to prove from this
Mishnah - that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ein Bereirah'.
(b) We reject this proof however, on the basis of the Mishnah itself, which
gives the reason of those who argue with Rebbi Meir as being -because they
are afraid that, after declaring the Ma'asros, the jar containing the wine
will break (and he will have drunk Tevel retroactively).
(a) Ultimately, we prove our contention (that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ein
Bereirah') from a Beraisa in Eruvin, where Ayo (quoting Rebbi Yehudah) says
'Ein Adam Masneh al Sh'nei Devarim ke'Echad ... '. The 'Sh'nei Devarim'
refers to two Talmidei-Chachamim, and what Ayo is saying is that since,
when Shabbos came in, he did not know which Talmid-Chacham he wanted to go
and hear, he cannot decide this on Shabbos, because that would be Bereirah,
and Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ein Bereirah'.
(b) Ayo concedes however, that if only *one* Chacham is due, the Eiruv is
valid - because he is referring to a case when the Chacham had already
arrived before Shabbos came in, so it was not a matter of choosing a
direction - only of discovering where he had been when Shabbos came in.
*That* is not Bereirah.
(a) On principle, Rebbi Yehudah does indeed concede the concept of writing
as a reminder. The Kohen Gadol, however, is different - because, due to his
state of weakness, he is likely to forget to read the writing, and to
confuse the bowls.
(b) We prove this ...
1. ... from the fact that even without any writing, he ought to recognize
easily which bowl is which, seeing as the bowl with the blood of the bull
will automatically contain more blood than that containing the blood of the
goat. So how could he possibly become confused? Unless it is due to his
state of weakness.
2. ... from the fact that, even taking into account the possibility of some
of the blood spilling, he should easily be able to distinguish between the
two bloods - from the difference between the deep color of the blood of the
bull, and the paler hue of the goat's.
(a) The Chazen in Rava's Shul, whilst reciting the Avodah on Yom Kipur,
once described how the Kohen Gadol would place the bowl with the blood of
the Sa'ir on the second stand, before taking the bowl of blood of the bull,
and how he would then place the bowl with the blood of the goat. Now this
doesn't make any sense - because if there was a second stand (like the
Rabbanan maintain), then why would he first need to take the bowl with the
blood of the bull before placing that of the goat's blood (like Rebbi
(b) The Chazen therefore amended his text, omitting the final phrase (about
then placing the bowl with the blood of the Sa'ir).
(a) The Pasuk "ve'Chein Ya'aseh le'Ohel Mo'ed" (Acharei-Mos) comes to teach
us - that just as he sprinkled in the Kodesh Kodashim 'Achas Lema'alah
ve'Sheva Lematah', both from the blood of the bull and from that of the
goat, so too, should he proceed to do in the Heichal (towards the
(b) When that Tzedoki referred to the Pasuk "Tum'asah be'Shulehah" - he was
suggesting that since Yisrael had now rendered themselves impure (with
sin), Hashem was no longer in their midst.
(c) Rebbi Chanina replied with the last four words in the Pasuk that we
just quoted (in a.) "ha'Shochen Itam be'Soch Tum'osam", from which we see
that Hashem remains with us even when we are Tamei (albeit in a more
concealed manner, as we mentioned above).