REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 66
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) We still have not established why Rebbi Yehudah rules that the Par and
the Sa'ir have to die, and cannot be brought the following year. Rava says
because of Takalah. The source for Takalah is a Beraisa in Shekalim. What
does the Mishnah say with regard to ...
What must he do with them?
- ... declaring Hekdesh, Erech or Cherem nowadays?
- ... someone who did declare fruit, clothes etc. or money etc. Hekdesh?
(b) What does 'Beheimah Te'aker' mean?
(c) If Rebbi Yehudah says 'Meisah', and not 'Yir'eh' (that the animal
should graze) because of 'Takalah', is he worried that they might sacrifice
the animal or that they might shear or work with it?
(d) Why then, is Rebbi Yehudah not concerned that all animals that must
graze, might inadvertently be brought on the Mizbe'ach?
(a) One Beraisa permits a Pesach that was not even brought on Pesach
*Sheini*, to be brought the following year, and one Beraisa forbids it.
How else might we explain the Machlokes, besides whether we are worried
about Takalah or not?
(b) The Beraisa concludes however, 've'Chein ha'Ma'os'.
What do we prove
(a) The Kohen Gadol then went to the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach and placed his
hands on its head.
Why did they make a ramp to take the Sa'ir out of the Azarah and out of the
(b) What did the Kohanim and the people who were standing in the Azarah do
and what did they say, when they heard the Kohen pronounce Hashem's Holy
(c) Who was eligible to take the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach out to the desert?
(d) Then how come that it was almost always a Kohen who took it?
In the Viduy over the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, the Kohen Gadol made no
mention of the Kohanim.
Does this mean that the author of our Mishnah is
not Rebbi Yehudah, in whose opinion the Kohanim were included in the
Kaparah of the Sa'ir.
Answers to questions
(a) The Torah writes in Acharei-Mos "ve'Shilach Oso be'Yad Meshale'ach
What do we learn from ...
(b) From where do we learn that the goat should be taken out even on
Shabbos, and even be'Tum'ah?
- ... "Ish"?
- ... "Iti" (with regard to the man who takes the goat out)?
(a) If not for the word "Iti", why would we have thought that a Zar is not
eligible to take out the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach?
(b) What is the problem with the Derashah "Iti" - 'va'Afilu be'Shabbos'?
(c) We establish the Derashah by a sick goat that has to be carried. Does
this preclude Rebbi Nasan (who holds 'Chai Nosei es Atzmo' - 'an animal
bears its own weight') from being the author of the Beraisa?
(d) What can we prove from the fact that we need a Derashah for Yom Kipur
that fell on Shabbos, despite the fact that the Melachos of Shabbos are
forbidden on Yom Kipur anyway?
(a) We learned above "Iti" - 'va'Afilu be'Tum'ah'.
Why should this
require a special Pasuk? What can be wrong with a Tamei person taking the
goat into the desert?
(b) What did they do if ...
(c) Why did Rebbi Eliezer not want to answer these questions?
- ... the Meshale'ach became sick?
- ... the goat did not die after the Meshale'ach pushed it off the cliff?
(a) According to some, they asked Rebbi Eliezer whether Avshalom had
forfeited his portion in the world to Come (see Tosfos DH 'Peloni') - for
committing adultery with his father's concubines; according to others, they
asked him the same question about Shlomoh Hamelech (about whom it is
written "ve'Lo Hayah Levavo Shalem ... ki'Levav David Aviv".
Why might ...
(b) What did Rebbi Eliezer answer his questioners when they asked him ...
- ... Avshalom nevertheless *not* have lost his portion in the world to Come?
- ... Shlomoh nevertheless not have lost *his*?
- ... David Hamelech not have been Chayav for committing adultery with Bas Sheva?
- ... Uri'ah ha'Chiti not have been Chayav for calling Yo'av 'my master' in David's presence?
- ... whether a Mamzer inherits?
- ... whether nowadays, it is permitted to whiten one's house with lime?
(a) That wise woman asked Rebbi Eliezer why there were *three* different
sets of punishments - even though there was *only* one sin.
If the entire tribe of Levi did not sin by the Eigel, as Ravina quoted Rav
Yehudah as saying, then what does the Torah mean when it describes in
ve'Zos ha'Berachah, how the B'nei Levi had no pity even on their own
parents, their brothers or their sons - implying that all of these (who
must have been Levi'im, too) sinned by the Eigel?
What was his
(b) Rav and Levi answered her Kashya: one of them explained that those who
Shechted or burned the Eigel were killed by the sword; those who embraced
or kissed it, died by pestilence, and those who merely rejoiced with it,
died by dropsy.
Why was the first group killed by the sword and not by
stoning (the regular punishment for Avodah-Zarah)?
(c) What did the other one answer?
(a) In fact, Rabah bar bar Chanah concludes, it was the Alexandrians, not
the Babylonians, who used to tear out the hair of the Sa'ir la'Azaz'el on
Answers to questions
Then why does the Tana of our Mishnah refer to them as
(b) Why was Rebbi Yossi pleased with this explanation?
(c) What would the Alexandrians say as they tore out the hair of the Sa'ir