ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 71
YOMA 59-88 have been dedicated to the memory of the late Dr. Simcha
Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens N.Y. by his wife
and daughters. Well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah, he
will long be remembered.
(a) If the Pasuk "u'Va Aharon el Ohel Mo'ed" belonged where it was written
(immediately after the Avodas ha'Yom) - then there would only be *three*
Tevilos and *six* Kidushei Yadayim ve'Raglayim.
(b) If it was only a matter of the right number of Tevilos etc., it would
not suffice to make the third Tevilah for the Sa'ir ha'Na'aseh ba'Chutz (of
the Musaf) - because the Torah writes "*ve'Yatza, ve'Asah* es Olaso ve'es
Olas ha'Am". Now this is the first time that "Yetzi'ah" is mentioned in the
Parshah, insinuating that the two rams immediately follow the Avodas ha'Yom
(before the removal of the Kaf and the Machtah, and not after it, as it
would appear from the Pasuk).
(c) Rava answers the initial Kashya from the Pasuk by pointing out that
"u'Fashat es Bigdei ha'Bad" (written in the same Pasuk as "u'Va Aharon ...
") seems to be superfluous (since a person can only remove clothes that he
has previously put on). Consequently, he explains the Pasuk can only mean
that, after taking out the Kaf and the Machtah, he removed the clothes that
he had already worn earlier (when he entered the Kodesh Kodashim the first
time). from which we see that something must have taken place in between
the two times that he entered the Kodesh Kodashim.
(a) The statement that all the Pesukim are written where they belong,
except for *"u'Va Aharon el Ohel Mo'ed" cannot be correct - because the
Pasuk of the burning of the Emurin of the Par and the Sa'ir ("ve'es Cheilev
ha'Chatas Yaktir ha'Mizbeichah") precedes that of the burning of their
bodies outside the Machaneh ("ve'es Par ha'Chatas ve'es Se'ir ha'Chatas"),
when in fact, it only came later, as is evident from the Mishnah (on 68b),
which gives the time of the burning of the Par and the Sa'ir as being
simultaneous with the Kohen Gadol's reading of the Torah (*before* the
bringing of the two rams); whereas the burning of their Emurim were burned
only *after* they had been brought.
According to Rava, the Pasuk "ve'ha'Meshale'ach es ha'Sa'ir ... " cannot
refer to later, for intrinsic reasons, because the Torah also wrote
"Yo'amad Chai" - and the goat needs to remain alive only until the Kaparah
(i.e. the Matan Damim of the Par and the Sa'ir), and no longer.
(b) We amend the statement 'she'Kol ha'Parshah Kulah Ne'emrah al ha'Seder
Chutz mi'Pasuk Zeh' - to 'Chutz mi'Pasuk Zeh *va'Eilech*'.
(c) We prefer to change the order of the Pesukim than to change the
Beraisa (to place the burning of the Par and the Sa'ir *after* the third
Tevilah)- because the Torah writes "ve'ha'Meshale'ach es ha'Sair ...
Yechabes Begadav ... " and "ve'ha'Soref Osam ... Yechabes Begadav ..." -
implying that just as "ve'ha'Meshale'ach" (although it is *written after*
the two rams), *refers to before* them, so too, does "ve'ha'Soref" *refer
(d) We learn "ve'ha'Soref" from "ve'ha'Meshale'ach" (to mean *before* the
two rams), and not vice-versa (to mean *after* them) - because the word
"ve'ha'Meshale'ach" implies *before* - because that is when it was sent,
and this Pasuk refers to the initial sending.
(a) The Ish Iti would say to the Kohen Gadol if, on the following day ...
1. ... he met him in a public shopping-area - 'My master, the Kohen Gadol,
we fulfilled *your* Shelichus' (in order to give honor to the Kohen Gadol
in the presence of the people).
(b) When taking leave from each other - the Rabbanan of Pumbedisa would say
to each other 'May the One who distributes life grant you a long, good and
2. ... he visited him at home - 'The One who distributes life, we fulfilled
(c) When David (as a fugitive) asked Hashem "Es'halech Lifnei Hashem
be'Artzos ha'Chayim" - he was requesting that Hashem should always place
him in a location of markets, so that he should have his food available at
(d) The "Shenos Chayim" that Shlomoh Hamelech referred to in Mishlei - were
the years of poverty that one experienced in one's youth, praying that they
turn into good years in one's old age - a form of Techi'as ha'Meisim.
(a) "Aleichem Ishim Ekra" refers to Talmidei-Chachamim who are weak like
women (since the Pasuk writes "Ishim", instead of "Anashim"), but who
display the strength of men in overcoming their Yetzer-ha'Ra - because
Chazal have said in Pirkei Avos: 'Eizehu Gibor, ha'Kovesh es Yitzro'!
(b) According to Rebbi Berechyah, the Pasuk refers to someone who wants to
pour wine on the Mizbe'ach nowadays ). What should he do? He should give
the Talmidei-Chachamim wine (since the word "Ishim" is both a Lashon of
"fire-offerings" - see also Agados Maharsha - as well as a reference to
Talmidei-Cahachamim, as we just explained).
(c) Rebbi Berechyah advises someone who sees that Torah is not continuing
in his children - to marry the daughter of a Talmid-Chachamim, who will
influence their children to follow the same path that she saw being
followed in her parental home.
(a) When Shemayah and Avtalyon came to take leave of that Kohen Gadol, he
said to them 'Let the foreigners come in peace'.
(b) He was making a snide reference to the fact that they were descendants
(c) He did it out of jealousy because the people were accompanying *them*
home (after Yom Kipur), and not *him*?
(d) They answered him 'Let the foreigners who behave like Aharon (who
always pursued peace) come in peace, but not the son of Aharon who does not
behave like Aharon!'
(a) The four garments of ...
(b) Besides a King and Beis-Din (ha'Gadol) - anyone whom the community
needed could consult the Urim ve'Tumim.
- ... a Kohen Hedyot - were the shirt, the breeches, the hat and the belt.
- ... a Kohen Gadol - were the Choshen (breastplate), the Eifod (apron), the cloak (Me'il) and the Tzitz (golden plate).
(a) When the Torah uses the word ...
(b) The only (part of a) garment by which "Moshzar" (only) is written - is
the pomegranates that were sewn on to the hem of the Me'il.
- ... "Sheish" - each thread was folded *six* times.
- ... "Moshzar" - each thread was folded *eight* times.
(c) The Me'il comprise *twelve* threads.
(d) The Paroches comprised twenty-four threads (4x6); the Choshen and the
Eifod *twenty-eight* (4x7).
(a) The Torah writes five times "Sheish" (incorporating once "Bad"). One of
them teaches us that the four garments: the shirts, the hat of the Kohen
Gadol (which resembled a turban), the hats of the Kohan Hedyot and the
breeches, had to comprise linen.
(b) We do not include the mention of "Sheish" by the belt (a fifth time) in
the list - because, on account of the other kinds which it also comprised,
it needed to mention that it contained Sheish, too (though this answer
would appear to be confined to those who hold that the belt of the Kohen
Hedyot was not similar to that of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur).
(c) The second "Sheish" comes to teach us that each thread had to comprise
six threads, and the third, that all the threads had to be twined together;
the fourth time, to include those garments where Sheish is not mentioned,
and the fifth, to teach us that all this is crucial.
(d) We learn from the fact that the Torah calls "Sheish" 'Bad' - that
"Sheish" is linen (because 'Bad' means single, and linen does indeed grow
in single stalks).
(a) We know that "Bad" means linen and not wool, which also appears in
single strands - because, whereas wool automatically splits into many
strands, linen only does so when it is beaten.
(b) Ravina learns the fact that "Bad" means linen from the Pasuk "Pa'arei
Pishtan Yiheyu al Rosham ... ", which specifically uses the word "Pishtan"
in connection with the Bigdei Kehunah. But what happened *before* Yechezkel
came and informed us of this, asks Rav Ashi?
(c) Ravina answers that in fact, they knew already before Yechezkel, that
Sheish means linen, from a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai. All Yechezkel did
was to lend support to that Halachah, through a Pasuk (known as an
(d) And he proves his point from another Pasuk in Yechezkel "Kol ben
Neichar Areil Leiv ve'Areil Basar Lo Yavo el Mikdashi" - which teaches us,
among other things, that an Areil is invalidated from performing the
Avodah. There too, one could ask, how did they know this before Yechezkel?
The answer is - from a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.
(a) The Torah writes in Pikudei (with regard to the Me'il) "Vaya'as al
Shulei ha'Me'il Rimonei Techeiles ve'Argaman ve'Sola'as Shani, Moshzar". We
initially learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Moshzar" "Moshzar" from the
Paroches - that the pomegranates should consist of twenty-eight threads
(8x3), just like those of the Paroches (6x4).
(b) We think that it is preferable to learn the Rimonim of the Me'il from
the Paroches than from the Choshen and the Eifod (which comprised twenty-
*eight* threads), because the latter contained gold, whereas the former did
not. On the other hand, there is a strong reason to rather learn it from
the Choshen and the Eifod - which, like the Me'il, was a garment, whereas
the Paroches was *not*.
(c) So we learn it neither from the one nor from the other - but from the
belt, which was a garment, contained no gold, and comprised twenty-four
threads (like the Paroches).
(d) Rav Mari and Rav Ashi both learn the Rimonim from the Paroches (like we
learned initially). They both dispense with the suggestion that we rather
learn them from the Choshen and the Eifod in different ways.
1. Rav Mari does this from the word "Ta'asenu" (written in connection with
the Choshen) - which implies that, in certain regards, 'you shall make *it*
like that, but not something else (a cue to learn the pomegranates from the
*Paroches* rather than from the *Choshen*.
2. ... Rav Ashi learns it from the Paroches in the basis of the word
"ve'Asisa" (that the Torah used by the Rimonim themselves) - implying that
all the components must be equal (i.e. that each of the three threads
should consist of eight strands - something that would not be possible if
we were to learn a total of twenty-eight strands from the Choshen.