Saturday, July 15, 2006

Daf Yomi - Yoma 39 - LaHashem Chatos

The Tanna Kamma in the Mishna holds that the kohen gadol should say 'laHashem chatos' and Reb Yishmoel says that it is not necessary to say chatos. The Rishonim ask on the Tanna Kamma from a Gemora in Nedarim that states that a person should not say 'laHashem korban' for he might be negligent and not say korban causing him to be saying the name of Hashem in vain? The Ritva, Tosfos Harosh and Tosfos Yeshonim offer different answers. The Cheshek Shlomo says that the two cases are not similar for here, even without saying chatos it is still a chatos from the goral (lottery) and therefore we are not concerned that he might not say chatos. The Mefarshim in Mishnayos answer that here the kohen gadol says the שם המפורש, therefore he will be extra careful. It is brought from the Arizal that the shem would come out by itself.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 39 - Quick Hitters

Who was the זקן אחד that שמעון הצדיק used to see in the קדש הקדשים? (Ritva)

Was the שם המפורש used by ברכת כהנים? (Mikdash Dovid)

What is the connection between Yericho and Yerushalayim?

How were they allowed to have benefit from the aroma of the ketores?

How could the kohen gadol take the second lot with his left hand if avodah must be done with his right hand? (Tosfos Yeshonim & Gevuros Ari)

Why on daf 37 does it say הסגן מימינו and here it says הסגן בימינו ? (Seder Yoma 53)

Read more!

Friday, July 14, 2006

Yoma 38-NEW Sheim Reshaim Yirkav

First of all, why is Ben Kamtzar called a rasha for not revealing his special method of writing? Furthermore, according to the Gemara, it means that his name is supposed to fall into disuse. Do we know that no one else was called Ben Kamtzar? Also, from this Gemara it would seem to be very difficult to determine who is a rasha. For the record, Maharsha in Sanhedrin (Chelek) says that Korach was korcha (bald) baolam, becuse no one after him was named Korach. (There's a Medrash Rabbah that states that no one ever calls their children Sancheirev, Pharaoh, etc, and that implies that we only don't use names of wicked goyim.) Chasam Sofer asks the other way, how could Shevet Levi call their prize son Korach, if one of the alufim of Esav was called Korach. From Tosfos here s.v. delo it seems that if there's another Korach who was not a rasha, it's ok. I don't remember if Chasam Sofer says this answer or someone told me this.

Read more!

Yoma 38-NEW Doors of Copper?

The Gemara states that the doors of Nikanor were left as copper becaause of the miracles, or because their copper shone brilliantly. Is there any halacha regarding the color of the doors in the Bais HaMikdash? The others were made of gold. Was that a preference or just a requirement?

Read more!

Yoma 38 - NEW L'kovod Shabbos

The Gemara states that Rabbi Yishmael was once walking along the road and he found one of the descendants of the House of Avtinas. Rabbi Yishmael said to him, “your forefathers sought to increase their honor and wished to decrease the honor of HaShem. Now the honor of HaShem remains in its place and HaShem decreased their honor, because through the destruction of the Bais HaMikdash, there was no longer a need for their knowledge of the proper method of making the Ketores.” It is interesting that Rabbi Yishmael said that HaShem’s honor remains in its place. It is known that Shabbos is referred to as HaShem’s place. It is worth examining our preparations for Shabbos and the manner in which we observe the Shabbos to ensure that we are increasing the honor of HaShem and the Shabbos.

For more inspiring thoughts on Shabbos topics, see here.

Read more!

Yoma 38 Avtinas - Gnai or not?

Question from a scholar (la dude) we just received - does anyone have an answer? Thanks

l'maysa, being that Rebbi Akiva says about beis avitnas "assur l'saper bgnoosam shel eilu" due to the fact that their witholdhing of the ketores was done l'shma, then how come the mishna lists them b'gnus, as the Mishanyos were put together by Rebbi who lived after Rebbi Akiva?

Read more!


We have posted on Daf 37 and 38 for Friday and Shabbos. איה, there will be more coming soon (today). Let us be מתפלל that with the זכות of תורה ותפלה we should be זוכה to theישועה בקרוב

אחינו כל בית ישראל הנתונים בצרה ובשביה העומדים בין בים ובין ביבשה המקום ירחם עליהם ויוציאם מצרה לרוחה ומאפלה לאורה ומשעבוד לגאולה השתא בעגלא ובזמן קריב אמן

Read more!

Yoma 38 Four Pens in One Hand

The Gemora states that Ben Kamtzar had a unique talent that he was able to write four letters with one hand at the same time and he did not teach this talent to anyone else. The Gemora says that was considered a shame and due to this, he was called a רשע. What were the חכמים concerned about? Rashi comments that this was referring to the name of Hashem which has four letters. The Tosfos Yom Tov explains that there is an advantage for the name of Hashem to be written at one time, so that His name should not be missing for a moment. The Minchas Chinuch has a novel approach and says that if one writes the first two letters of the name of Hashem which is the yud and the hey, that itself is one of the names of Hashem and by subsequently writing the third letter, the vav, it constitutes erasing Hashem's name. Ben Kamtzar was able to avoid with his special skill. The עמק ברכה asks that if the name of Hashem is written without proper intent, there is no prohibition to erase it, so why should there be an issur here when the scribe did not intend to write the 'two letter' name of Hashem, but rather His 'four letter' name?

Read more!

Yoma 38 Ingredients of the Ketores

The Gemora relates that there was a family named Avtinas that knew how to make the ketores but they didnt want to teach anyone else. Experts were brought in without success. Avtinas knew how to make it that it would be מעלה עשן - the smoke would rise in a column and the experts from Mitzrayim could not duplicate this. Rashi says they didn't know which עשב (herb, grass) was the correct one. The Beis Yosef (133) learns from here that even if this particular ingredient is missing, the ketores is still good. The Mishna L'melech and others are bewildered that the Beis Yosef is against a later Gemorah that states explicitly that if this ingredient is missing, there is a chiyuv misah? מהריץ חיות answers that there will not be a chiyuv if the ingredient is not available. Tosfos Yeshonim explains our Gemora by saying that they had an ingredient which was called מעלה עשן and therefore it was כשר, however it was not the one that could produce the smoke in the correct way. Rav Elozar Landau notes that they had the correct one, but they couldn't ascertain which was the best quality for the correct result.

Read more!

Yoma 38 Throw me Overboard!

The Gemora tells us that on Niknor's way back from Mitzrayim with the doors, there was a terrible storm. They were forced to throw one of them overboard. The storm did not subside and they subsequently wanted to throw the second one off, as well. Niknor proclaimed that if so, throw me overboard with it. With that proclamation, the storm subsided. What was the heter for him to make such a statement? (See אסיפת זקנים)

Read more!

Yoma 38 Going to Mitzrayim?

Nikinor went to get the doors for the azarah from Alexandria, Egypt. The Ritva asks that there is a prohibition in the Torah to go back to Mitzrayim? He answers that this applies only if his intent is to dwell there, but for businees it will be permitted. He proceeds to ask on the Rambam and others who lived in Mitzrayim on a permanent basis? The Rishonim give different answers on this question. Some say that the cities were destroyed and rebuilt and therefore the issur does not apply. The סמג answers that סנחריב mixed up the world and the people living there are not מצריים and the reason behind the prohibition is not to emulate the Egyptians actions. Reb Eliexer MiMitz answers that the issur is only if one goes back to Mitzrayim in the same way Bnei yisroel left there. (That could explain how the passuk in the תוכחה says that Hashem will take us back there on ships, for that is not the way we left.) The Ritva concludes that the prohibition is only when Klal Yisroel are all living in Eretz Yisroel, however now that there is a decree of exile, all lands are equal. The גבורת ארי seems to hold that it is אסור even nowadays. The חידא says that there is a מקור to what the Ritva says from the Arizal. It is brought down in some seforim that the Rambam used to sign his name "I am Moshe the son of Maimon who is transgressing three aveiros every day." Obviously, he held that under the conditions, he was compelled to stay.

Read more!

Yoma 37 Shlomo's pool in Bayis Sheini

The Gemora tells us that a pully system was made in order to lower the כיור every night underneath the ground, so that the water should not become פסול by remaining overnight. Tosfos Yeshonim (printed on 38a) comments that they would lower it into the pool that Shlomo Hamelech built and he concludes that he is not sure if the pool was still in existence in the times of the second Beis Hamikdosh. Reb Yaakov Emden asks on him that there is an explicit passuk at the end of Melachim that this was taken away by the Kasdiyim and it is not mentioned in Mishnayos Middos or Tamid which discusses the halachos pertaining to the second Beis Hamikdosh? The Rambam in ביאת המקדש פרק ה הלכה טו discusses the halachic status of this pool and the מעשי למלך wonders why the Rambam makes mention of it since it wasn't there in Bayis Sheini and therefore not revelant?

Read more!

Yoma 37 Krias Shema before Sunrise

Rabbeinu Tam holds that the correct time to recite Krias Shema is after sunrise and the וותיקין - the meticulous ones would recite it before sunrise incorrectly because they wanted to juxtapose geulah (the brochos after shema) with Tefillah, which they said immediately after sunrise. From Tosfos, it is not clear if they fulfilled the mitzva of krias shema in that time (בדיעבד), or would they have to recite krias shema afterwards. The משכנות יעקב says that they were יוצא. Rashi in Brochos does hold this way that one could fulfill his obligation of connecting geulah with Tefillah even though he did not fulfill the mitzva of krias shema. (See שמועת חיים for further discussion.)

Read more!

Yoma 37 What was Written on the Lots?

The Gemora states that the lots could be made from any material. One might have thought that it would be required to be from gold. Just like the ציץ (headband) of the kohen gadol said la'Hashem on it and it was made from gold, so too the lots, which one of them said la'Hashem on it, should be made from gold. The Gemora brings a passuk to show why we don't make this comparison.
The Sfas Emes asks how did the Gemora know that the word Hashem was actually on one of the lots? Would it not have been sufficient to write some sort of hint on one of the lots that this was for Hashem and not the azazel?

Read more!

Yoma 37 Lots on the Goats 2 or 4?

The Gemora needs a passuk to learn out that there was one lot placed on each of the two goats which were used as korbanos on Yom Kippur. We would have thought (from a different passuk) that there would be two lots on each.
How would the raffle work with four lots for two goats? Would two be blank? Would two say for Hashem and two for the azazel? What would happen if the kohen picked out one of each for each goat?
(Look in אסיפת זקנים and שיח יצחק)

Read more!

Yoma 37 Changing the כיור

The vessels in the Mishkan had an exact measurement explicitly delineated in the Torah such as the Mizbeach, Shulchan and Menorah. These keilim could not be changed ever. What about the other ones such as the kiyor? Did they have to be made in the same way they were made in the times of Moshe? Rashi in Chumash says that they must and the Ramban there disagrees and holds that they could be made in any way they wanted and he prooves it from the Mizbeach Hanechoshes that was built to a much larger size in the times of Shlomo Hamelech. Look in the Mikdash Dovid (2) where this issue is discussed.

Our Mishna states that Ben Katin changed the amount of spouts that were on the כיור. Originally there were just two and he instituted that there should be twelve. How would Rashi explain the permissibility of this? Is that not considered a change?

Read more!

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Yoma 36 Purpose of an Olah

Rav Yosi Haglili states that a korban olah is brought for the sin of not giving the poor people from your grain, which one is obligated to do. Rebbe Akiva disagrees and holds that a korban olah is brought to atone for transgressing a positive commandment. Chazal say that an olah is a doron - a present to Hashem. The Seforim say that an olah shows a tremendous amount of love between the person and Hashem. The Ramban writes that when one brings a chatos or an asham, he should feel as if he is bringing himself as a sacrifice, for in truth, that is what he deserves. By an olah, it is as if he is giving himself to Hashem out of love.

How do we reconcile an olah being a present and a sign of love with the fact that Chazal say it is brought for transgressing certain aveiros?

Read more!

Yoma 36 Language of Confession

The Gemora states that one confesses the sins that would require him to bring a korban chatos by a chatos and similarly by an asham and an olah. The Rambam holds that when one brings any korban, he should say חטאתי עוויתי פשעתי. Even though his sin was either by mistake or intentional or it was a rebellious act, nevertheless, he says all three. Why? Rav Shach explains that every sin, even an unintentional one has an element of intention in it for he could have learned better. He could have been more careful.

There is a proof to this from the Vilna Gaon's pshat on a passuk in Shmuel. After Nosson rebuked Dovid for his actions with Batsheva, Dovid said חטאתי - I sinned. There is a פסיק a pause in the middle of Dovid's statement. The Gaon explains that Dovid wanted to confess in the proper way by saying חטאתי עוויתי פשעתי, however Nosson stopped him and said Hashem considers your sin only a mistake and there was no intention or rebellion on your part.

The minchas Chinuch (364) has a different opinion and holds that one says the language which suits his sin the best and if it was unintentional, he would only say חטאתי. He quotes our Gemora and the Rambam as a proof to his opinion. However the Rambam in Maaseh Hakorbonos פרק ג הלכה טו seems clearly not like him.

Read more!

Yoma 36 Confessing for the Sins of our Fathers

The Maharsha points out that when confessing a sin which is unintentional we say that we sinned together with our fathers, however by an intentional sin, we say that we sinned but make no mention of our fathers. He explains that when we sin with intent or to rebel, that is obviously the person's own fault and nothing to do with his father, however by an unintentional sin, we can say that his father could have taught him better. It is interesting to note that the Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva does not mention that we confess the sins of out fathers, however by his nusach hatefilah, he does, in accordance with our minhag. For further discussion, look at Shearim Mitzuyanim B'halacha.

Read more!

Yoma 35 - NEW - שם המפורש

The Rivash (219) states that when we say on Yom Kippur אנא השם and אנא בשם, that is the way it should be said and we should not say Hashem's name. His reasoning is that if we would say Hashem's name the way we pronounce it now, people might think that is the way the Kohen Gadol would recite in the Beis Hamikdash and that is incorrect for there he said Hashem's name with the שם המפורש. However he concludes that when he says לפני השם תטהרו, here he can say Hashem's name even though the Kohen Gadol said His name with the שם המפורש. There are those that disagree and hold that the minhag is to say השם and not Hashem's name here as well.

What is the logic of the Rivash to make this distinction?

Read more!

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Yoma 35 היא תקום

The Gemora concludes נמצא הלל מחייב את העניים רבי אלעזר בן חרסום מחייב את העשירים יוסף מחייב את הרשעים There is a hint to this in the passuk רבות מחשבות בלב איש ועצת ה היא תקום - The היא stands for הלל יוסף אליעזר. (heard from Rav Meir Bergman this morning)

Read more!

Yoma 35 Bittul Torah

The Gemora states that a rasha will be asked why he wasnt busy in learning Torah and his answer will be because he was engrossed in his evil inclination. What kind of excuse is that and why would he even attempt that? Reb Leib Chasman answered that he would rather answer this way and not have to admit to the truth that he was not busy in learning. Wow!

Read more!

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Yoma 35 Yosef Hatzadik

The Gemora states that Hillel obligates the poor people to learn torah, Rebbe Elozar obligates the rich and Yosef Hatzadik obligates the reshoim for each one of them had an excuse and didn't use it. The question is asked - while it is true that Yosef conquered his evil inclination, where do we find that Yosef learned Torah? Rav Meir Bergman answers (based on the post above) according to the words of the Mesillas Yesharim - the only cure to combat the yetzer hora is Torah and since we find that Yosef was victorious in his battle, he obviously learned Torah.

I once said this over on a Shabbos morning drasha and someone asked me from the words of Chazal that reciting krias shema or reminding oneself about the yom hamisah can also inspire one to be victorious over the yetzer hora - not only Torah, and perhaps this is what inspired Yosef?


In the comments section, a reader answered that these methods only work after learning Torah, then krias shema and yom hamisa will have the correct inspirational effect. Rav Meir Bergman was here in Cleveland this morning, so I asked him this question and he gave the same answer. He added that we can explain the Gemora in Menochos with the talmid who saved himself from doing an aveira by looking at his tzitzis was not because of the mitzva itself, rather it was the learning that happened at that time (look at the Gemora there).

He added that this is only true at the time that the yetzer hora has you in his grip already, then Torah is the only antidote, however beforehand, the limmud of mussar will certainly help as is stated in the Gemora Brochos לעולם ירגיז אדם יצר טוב על יצר הרע.

Read more!

Yoma 35 Why didn't you learn?

The Gemora states that Hillel obligates the poor people to learn torah, Rebbe Elozar obligates the rich and Yosef Hatzadik obligates the reshoim for each one of them had an excuse and didn't use it. The Tosfos Yeshonim (printed on 36a) brings the Gemora in Sanhedrin (7) that this is the initial din on a person in the world to come - why didn't you learn Torah.

Tosfos in Kiddushin asks from the Gemora in Shabbos that explicitly states that the first question one is asked is did you deal honestly in business? Rav Shach explains Tosfos' answer that one always has an excuse as to why he didn't fulfill any particular mitzva for he didn't know the halochos so well which caused him to stumble. On that, we are told that the first punishment will be on bittul Torah for that was the cause for the sin. The Mesilas Yeshorim explains the words of Chazal that Hashem created the evil inclination and He created the antidote as well, which is the Torah. The Torah is the only remedy for the yetzer hora and if a person sinned, it is ultimately because of the lack of learning.

Read more!

Yoma 34 Asara B'Teves on Shabbos?

The Chasam Sofer (Orach chaim 9) asks on this Gemora that the pesukim are clear that there are nesachim by the morning tamid and the afternoon as well. One pasuk is explicit that the primary nesachim is in the morning. He comments that there are many that ask these kashos without finding a satisfactory answer. Look there how he answers it. The Chasam Sofer ends the teshuva by signing his name and dating it Sunday, the 11th of Teves 5578. Was Asara B'Teves on Shabbos that year?

In the Likutei Heoros on the Chasam Sofer, he comments that asara b'Teves cannot fall out on Shabbos and in the year 5578 it happened to be a Friday, so there seemingly is a printers mistake and it should say Sunday, the 12th of Teves.

Read more!

Monday, July 10, 2006

Which Mitzva takes Precedence? - Yoma 34 - Daf yomi

The Gemora on Daf 34a learns out the obligation of nesachim - the wine libations by the two temidin which were brought every day. There is an argument there if we learn the morning tamid from the afternoon or vice-versa. Tosfos comments that there would be a difference l'halacha if they would have only enough nesachim for one korban, Which tamid should have the nesachim. Is the primary tamid the morning or the afternoon. Rabeinu Chananel says that there is no difference l'halacha, it's just a matter as to how we expound the pesukim. The Sfas Emes asks on Tosfos that the din should be clearly that whichever mitzva one is holding by, that is the one he should perform and if one is ready to bring the morning tamid, he should bring the nesachim with that one, even if the afternoon tamid is the primary one.

This actually is an argument between the Radvaz (187) and the Chacham Tzvi (106) regarding a person who was in jail and he did not have the ability to perform any mitzvos and his captors gave him one day that he can choose to be released and perform the mitzvos of that day, which day should he choose. The Radvaz says he should choose the first opportunity that he has and the Chacham Tzvi disagrees and holds that one should wait until there is a mitzva of great prominence.

The Biur Halacha (109) has a shaila if one davens normally a long shemone esrei and he will certainly miss kedusha, should he daven with the tzibur and fulfill the mitzva of tefila b'tzibur or should he wait and fulfill the mitzva of reciting kedusha.

Read more!

Yoma 33 Lighting Shabbos candles on the table where you eat

The Gemara states that the Menorah and the Shulchan in the Bais HaMikdash must see each other. The halacha is that the Shabbos candles should be lit where one eats the Shabbos meal. Perhaps the idea is that the Menorah symbolizes wisdom and spirituality, and the Shulchan symbolizes materialism. By placing the Menorah opposite the Shulchan, and by placing the Shabbos lights on the Shabbos table, we are demonstrating that even our physical pleasures are synthesized with our spiritual endeavors.

For more insights on Shabbos, see

Read more!

Yoma 33 Touching your Tefillin

The Gemora on 33a cites Rish Lakish that one is not permitted to pass over a mitzvah and that is why the kohen cleans the mizbeach before the preparation of the menorah for the mizbeach is closer to the entrance of the heichal. Rava (33b) states that we can learn from here regarding tefillin that the shel yad should be before the shel rosh. Rashi says that this is referring to the putting on of the tefillin for the arm comes before the head. Rabeinu Tam disagrees and says that it is referring to the removing and placing in the bag, that the shel rosh should be placed first in order that the next day, one should come into contact with the shel yad first. Rabeinu Eliyohu learns that it is referring to the touching of the tefillin during davening. The Shemuas Chaim learns from here that it is not sufficient to touch the straps of the shel rosh, rather one is obligated to touch the bayis itself, for otherwise - one could touch the straps first and then touch the shel yad, for he is not passing over any mitzva.

Is there an inyon perhaps to touch the bayis of the shel yad itself and not merely the sleeve which is covering the shel yad?

Read more!

Yoma 33 Third Maracha on the Mizbeach

The Gemora on Yoma 33a states that there were two fires on the mizbeach every day - one called 'maracha gedola' which was used for all the burnings of the meat (Rashi) and one for the ketores. There actually was a third one as well, as stated on daf 45a according to Reb Yosi that was there to fulfill the requirement of the Torah to have fire on the mizbeach at all times. Rashi (ibid) says that if there was not enough fire on the maracha gedola, it would be replenished from this one. The Rambam does not mention this halacha. The Chinuch (mitzva 132) states that this third fire is an integral part of the mitzva and if the kohanim kindled the two first, but not this one, they were mevatel the mitzva. The Meiri (here and on daf 45) comments similar to Rashi, however in Tamid 29a, he states that the third fire had no use whatsoever except to fulfill the requirement of having fire on the mizbeach.

I was wondering, do the Rambam and the Chinuch (and Meiri in Tamid) disagree with the halacha of Rashi, that if fire was needed for the maracha gedola, it could not be taken from this fire? What would be done?

Read more!

Daf notes

The first post for Daf Yomi Yoma 33 will be up shortly. Enjoy!

Read more!