ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 77
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) In the Pasuk in Daniel, Gavriel (the angel) after informing Daniel that
his Inuyim were accepted, added that he (Gavriel) had been permitted to
return on account of him. This refers to the occasion when Gavriel was
expelled from his position in Heaven for disobeying Hashem's command (as
will be explained shortly). He was only permitted to return when he spoke up
in defense of Yisrael by referring to the righteousness of Daniel.
(b) After a hand had transported Yechezkel to the Beis Hamikdash by his hair
- he saw twenty-five men between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach, bowing down
towards the sun with their backs to the west.
(c) The Pasuk in Yechezkel finds it necessary to add that their backs faced
the west - to teach us that they were actually defecating in the direction
of the Kodesh Kodashim.
(d) When the Angel Micha'el argued that at least the best among them should
be saved - Hashem replied that He would kill *them* as well; because they
too, were guilty, for not rebuking those who sinned.
(a) The 'Ish Levush ha'Badim' - was the Angel Gavriel.
(b) He was told to take two hands-full of burning coals from among the
angels and to scatter it over Yerushalayim (to cause the Churban).
(c) They lashed him with sixty flashes of lightning - because now that he
did what Hashem told him to do (it would have been in order had he *not*, on
the basis that Hashem would retract from the evil decree), a. he should have
done it directly, and not asked Micha'el to hand him the coals (though had
he done so, Yerushalayim would have been completely destroyed); and b.
because he reported the completion of his Shelichus - and one does not
report bad news.
(d) He was replaced by Dubiel - the angel of Persia.
(a) Dubiel re-placed Gavriel - for twenty-one days (a prominent period of
punishment for Yisrael).
(b) As a result, twenty-one kings and twenty-one ports came under the
(c) Gavriel initially attempted to prevent Dubiel from having the Talmidei-
Chachamim pay the Persians taxes - because even their wives would shake
sleep from their eyes (waiting to greet their husbands upon their return
from the Beis-ha'Medrash).
(d) His initial request was ignored. When however, he cited the merits of
Daniel, who would outweigh all of the wise gentiles, Hashem commended
Gavriel for speaking out on behalf of Yisrael, and rewarded him by allowing
him to return to his former post.
(a) Some say that the letters of Dubiel (obligating the Talmidei-Chachamim
to pay head-taxes) were not yet sealed when Gavriel tried to take them by
force. So he swallowed them to prevent Gavriel from obtaining them.
(b) According to the second version of the story - the letters were already
sealed when Gavriel entered. However, when Dubiel swallowed them, some of
the letters were erased.
(c) The outcome of the above tussle - was that some Talmidei-Chachamim
subsequently had to pay taxes, and others did not.
(d) When the angel of Greece entered, Gavriel had to leave, because that
decree had already been sealed. No amount of pleading on his part was
(a) Evyasar ha'Kohen was Chayav Misah for joining Adoniyahu, in his
attempted coup d'etat against his father, David ha'Melech. Shlomoh ha'Melech
ordered him to go to his property in Anasos and to remain there. He did not
kill him outright - because he had suffered exile alongside David, when he
fled from his other son Avshalom.
(b) We cannot prove from the Pasuk in Shmuel, which describes the Inuyim of
David and his followers (as they fled from Avshalom) as "Ra'ev, *ve'Ayef*
ve'Tzamei" that bathing is called an Inuy - because "Ayef" could also mean
from going bare-footed.
(c) We finally prove from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Mayim Karim al Nefesh
Ayefah" - that "Ayef" in Shmuel means, not from not *wearing shoes*, but
from not *bathing*. And it cannot refer to not *drinking*, because the Pasuk
writes "*al* Nefesh Ayefah", and not "*be*Nefesh Ayefah".
(a) There is no proof from the Pasuk in Shmuel "ve'David Oleh be'Ma'aleh
ha'Zeisim ... ve'Yachef" that walking *barefoot* is considered an Inuy -
because "Yachef could mean *without a horse* or a staff.
(b) Yeshayah was not used to riding on a horse. Yet there is no proof from
the Pasuk written in connection with Hashem's command for him to display
Inuy, where the Pasuk writes "Vaya'as Kein Haloch Arum ve'Yachef" - because
it may mean that he walked with *patched shoes*.
(c) In fact, *Yachef* cannot mean literally, bare-foot - no more than "Arum"
can mean naked. Just as "Arum" must mean with patched clothes, so too, must
"Yachef" mean with patched shoes.
(d) We finally learn that going barefoot is considered an Inuy from the
Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Min'i Raglech mi'Yachef, u'Geronayich mi'Tzim'ah" - which
we interpret to mean: "Refrain from sin, so that your feet will not have to
walk barefoot; hold your tongue from speaking idle chatter, so that your
throat will not have to suffer thirst".
(a) We learn that refraining from Tashmish is considered an Inuy from the
words of Lavan in Vayetzei "Im Te'aneh es Benosai, ve'Im Tikach Nashim". "Im
Te'aneh es Benosai" - from Tashmish (to grant them their due Onah); "ve'Im
Tikach Nashim" - not to marry any other wives.
(b) "ve'Im Tikach Nashim" cannot simply be an explanation of "Im Te'aneh es
Benosai" - because then, the Pasuk would have written "*Im* Tokach Nashim",
and not *ve*'Im ... ".
(c) The Gemara then suggests that both phrases refer to not taking Tzaros
(rival wives) to Rachel and Leah - one to taking Bilhah and Zilpah (who were
also daughters of Lavan, from a concubine), meaning that he should not put
them on a par with Rachel and Leah, and the other, that he should not take
any other wives from the outside.
(d) And we answer that, in that case, the order of the phrases should have
been inverted - because, surely, it would be worse for Rachel and Leah if
Ya'akov were to take strangers from the outside, than to marry Bilhah and
Zilpah and treat them as equals. Consequently, Lavan should have mentioned
the worst scenario first, as that is the way one normally speaks ('Lo Zu, Af
(a) The Pasuk written in connection with Shechem's abduction of Dinah
"va'Yishkav Osah va'Ye'aneha" is not referring to the Inuy of *Tashmish* -
but to his *withholding Tashmish* from her, because, once he had abducted
and raped Dinah, she had a desire for him, and after the initial rape, he
refrained from further Tashmish.
(b) Rashi prove that the Gemara's answer cannot mean that he had abnormal
relations with her - because, if it *did*, then why can we not also explain
Lavan's request of Ya'akov in the same way? And besides, the Gemara ought
then to have said 'she'Inah *be*'Bi'os Acheiros', and not *mi*Bi'os
(a) Washing even part of one's body on Yom Kipur is forbidden, too.
(b) One is permitted to wash or even to take a bath - if one is very dirty.
(c) It is forbidden to anoint even a part of one's body. Someone who ...
(d) A woman is permitted to wash one hand to feed her baby.
- ... has scabs on his head may anoint his head.
- ... is ill, may even anoint his whole body if need be.
1. Her hand needs to be washed - because of the Ru'ach Ra'ah that appears on
the finger-tips in the morning. Since, if not for the need to feed her
child, the woman had no reason to wash her hands in the morning (see Tosfos
DH 'Mishum'), she now became obligated to wash it before doing so.
2. They made Shamai wash both of his hands in order to feed his baby - to
ensure that people would comply with the Halachah, and not follow in the
footsteps of Shamai, and not wash at all.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa permits someone who is on his way to greet his
father, his Rebbi or anyone who is greater than he is in Torah, to wade
through water on Yom Kipur.
(b) Rav Ashi disagreed with Rav Yitzchak bar bar Chanah, who proved that
even a Rebbe may wade through water to visit his Talmid, from the fact that
Ze'iri did so when he went to visit Rav Chiya bar Ashi his Talmid -
because, according to him, it was *Rav Chiya bar Ashi* who waded through
water on his way to visit his Rebbe, Ze'iri.
(c) Rava gave express permission to the residents of Eiver Yemina to wade
through water on Yom Kipur - in order to guard their fruit.
(d) Abaye disagreed, when Rav Yosef permitted the people of Tarbu to wade
through water to go and hear the Derashah on Yom Kipur, but not on the
return journey - in future, he argued, they would not want to go and listen
to the Derashah (since they were not able to return). Consequently, once
they are permitted to wade through water on the outward journey, they must
also be permitted to do so on the return journey.
(a) Rav Yehudah permitted Rami bar Papa to wade through the river to ask him
and his son Rav Shmuel some Kashyos - provided that he did not remove his
hand from the hem of his cloak, to remind him not to raise the cloak on to
his shoulders, which looks like carrying.
(b) The concession to wade through water up to one's neck on Yom Kipur
pertains to a river that is not fast-flowing, and is therefore not dangerous
- whereas the Pasuk in Yechezkel, regarding the river which flowed through
the Beis Hamikdash from the Kodesh Kodashim, and which later become a
turbulent, impassable river, is confined to a very fast-flowing one, asis
evident from the context.
(c) One may cross a fast-flowing river which is ...
(d) It will *not* be possible ...
- ... ankle-deep.
- ... knee-deep.
- ... loin-deep.
- ... to swim across the stream that will flow from the Kodesh Kodashim, one it becomes impassable on foot.
- ... to cross it by boat.
- ... for the Angel of Death to cross it.