THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Yoma 045: Ma'arachah for the Menorah
Avrohom Adler asked:
The Gemora states that the flame of the menorah was taken from the
mizbeach hachitzon. Tosfos asks that it should require a maaracha by
itself just like the ketores had its own maaracha? He answers that
since it was not necessary to take any coals off the mizbeach for
this (like it was required for the ketores), they only needed to
light the wicks, it is not logical for there to be an independent
maaracha just for the menorah.
The Sfas Emes suggests another answer. When Klal Yisroel merited, the
Ner Ma'aravi did not extinguish and it was never necessary to get a
flame from the Mizbe'ach (as we learned previously on daf 39),
therefore it would not be proper to set up a special maaracha for the
menorah merely for those instances when Klal Yisroel did not deserve
I am bothered by a question (perhaps I saw it someplace, but I cannot
locate it now) from the same Gemora on daf 39. It states there that
when they merited the miracles, the fire on the large maaracha never
diminished and there was no necessity to bring other fire to kindle
it (besides for the mitzva of the two logs of wood), and nevertheless
there was a special maaracha on the mizbeach whose sole purpose was
to be used just in case the fire went out. According to the Sfas
Emes, this is illogical and not proper?
The Kollel replies:
That is a beautiful point indeed.
Rashi DH Kiyum indeed learns that the Ma'arachah of Kiyum ha'Esh was
meant to be used for adding wood to the main Ma'arachah if the latter
was not sufficiently strong. As you wrote, this was not necessary
when the Jews were meritorious, just like the Ner Ma'aravi did not
extinguish when they were meritorious. Rashi thus could not explain
like the Sefas Emes, l'Shitaso.
The Sefas Emes must have learned that the Ma'arachah of Kiyum ha'Esh
was needed to provide a constant fire, even when the main Ma'arachah
was dismantled at the end of the day to prepare the following day's
Ma'arachah. This might be the opinion of the Rambam (Temidin
u'Musafin 2:9), who implies that the only Ma'arachah that is lit from
the Beis ha'Moked is the one for Kiyum ha'Esh, and the other
Ma'arachot are then lit from it (see Avodas ha'Korbanos, #33:6).
This was necessary even when the Jews were meritorious.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
Posted by Avromi at 7/22/2006 10:55:00 PM
Friday, July 21, 2006
Please scroll down to view Daf 44 which is today's daf. Iy"H, there will be more on Daf 45 (there has been two more already) as the day proceeds.Read more!
Posted by Avromi at 7/21/2006 12:50:00 PM
The Gemora states that the flame of the menorah was taken from the mizbeach hachitzon. Tosfos asks that it should require a maaracha by itself just like the ketores had its own maaracha? He answers that since it was not necessary to take any coals off the mizbeach for this (like it was required for the ketores), they only needed to light the wicks, it is not logical for there to be an independent maaracha just for the menorah.
The Sfas Emes suggests another answer. When Klal Yisroel merited, the נר מערבי did not extinguish and it was never necessary to get a flame from the מזבח (as we learned previously on daf 39), therefore it would not be proper to set up a special maaracha for the menorah merely for those instances when Klal Yisroel did not deserve the miracle.
I am bothered by a question (perhaps I saw it someplace, but I cannot locate it now) from the same Gemora on daf 39. It states there that when they merited the miracles, the fire on the large maaracha never diminished and there was no necessity to bring other fire to kindle it (besides for the mitzva of the two logs of wood), and nevertheless there was a special maaracha on the mizbeach whose sole purpose was to be used just in case the fire went out. According to the Sfas Emes, this is illogical and not proper?
Posted by Avromi at 7/21/2006 12:27:00 PM
There is a beraisa that lists three different opinions of the Tanaim in regards to the amount of מערכות there were on the מזבח on Yom Kippur. Each Tanna holds that there was one additional maaracha more than a regular day. They all agree that there were two for the regular korbonos and the ketores. Rebbe Yosi holds that there was always a third one for the fulfillment of the mitzva of having fire on the מזבח and on Yom Kippur there was an extra one added. Rebbe Yehudah holds that on a regular day there were only two and on Yom Kippur, one was added.
What was the purpose of this additional maaracha? Rashi states that it was used for the ketores which the kohen gadol would take into the kodesh hakodoshim. The Rambam disagrees and holds that this was purely to glorify the mizbeach and to give honor in the eyes of the people. It would seem from the Rambam that the fire from the second maaracha which was used daily for the ketores would be used for the special Yom Kippur ketores, as well.
Rav Moshe Mordechai Shulzinger explains that this argument is according to their own reasoning in regards to the third maaracha which was on the mizbeach every day. Rashi says that the purpose of this third maaracha was 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 and seems to hold that it was there just to fulfill the mitzva of retaining fire on the mizbeach at all times. (We mentioned this argument on daf 33 - check the archives on the sidebar.) Rashi is of the opinion that there always must be a substansiative reason for the fire to be there - either to replenish the maaracha gedola or to be used for the Yom Kippur ketores. Conversely, the Rambam differs and holds that there does not have to be any specific necessity for any korban to justify the existence of this third maaracha. It is its own independent mitzva during the year and likewise on Yom Kippur, there was an additional one for the sole purpose of giving honor to the Yom Tov.
There is a Tosefta, however, that does explicitly say like Rashi, that the extra maaracha was for the Yom Kippur ketores. This could be reconciled by saying that the Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of Rebbe Yehudah (as it states there), who holds that there was never a third maaracha and when Yom Kippur mandated an additional one, it must be for the ketores of Yom Kippur.
Posted by Avromi at 7/21/2006 08:19:00 AM
The Gemara states that there were certain changes in the service of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur that were done in honor of the Kohen Gadol. The Gemara is teaching us that because it was Yom Kippur, the Kohen Gadol was treated differently. Although this may sound obvious to us, we must remember that the Medrash states that on Shabbos, the shine of a person’s face is different than the shine during the week. The Jewish People are always special, but on Shabbos, HaShem considers His children, the Jewish People, to be extra special, and we must honor HaShem by properly observing the Holy Shabbos.
For more inspiring thoughts on Shabbos topics, see here.
Posted by ben at 7/21/2006 03:18:00 AM
The Gemora states that on Yom Kippur, the kohen gadol a rattle ring (according to Rashi) in order to make noise that everyone would realize he is coming and leave the heichal area. This presumably was because he didn't wear the מעיל which had bells on it on Yom Kippur. Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank brings a kasha on the Pirush Mateh Levi in his explanation of one of the payats that we recite on Yom Kippur. The לשון is קול הקשת הלכו היה נשמע על ידי הפעמונים כשהלך בהיכל עד שמגיע לפרוכת - the sound of the bells were heard when he entered into the kodesh hakodoshim. This is bewildering for he did not have the bells on during this part of the avodah? The מעיל is one of the בגדי זהב? The same question can be asked on the רשבם in תצוה who explains the passuk of ונשמע קולו regarding the bells that it is to prevent the issur of וכל אדם לא יהי באהל מועד?
I just found this:
"No one shall be in the ohel moed (literally 'tent of assembly,' but in the Beis Hamikdash this referred to the Sanctuary area), from when he (the kohen gadol) enters to achieve atonement in the Sanctuary until he goes out." (Vayikra 16:17)
This passage is part of the Torah's instructions for the sacred service on Yom Kippur. It refers to the kohen gadol entering the kodshei kodashim (inner Sanctuary, Holy of Holies) to offer the incense. No one was permitted to be present in the heichal (Sanctuary area which contained the table, menorah and golden incense altar) while the kohen gadol was in this most sacred area which contained only the holy ark.
The superficial interpretation of this passage presents a difficulty understanding what our great commentaries write regarding one of the kohen gadol's eight sacred garments, the meil.
The bottom hem of the meil was belled. The purpose of these bells was "that the sound should be heard when he enters the Sanctuary" (Shmos 28:35). Rashbam explains that the bells served as an alarm to warn all present in the sanctuary to depart when the kohen gadol entered to perform his service. Ramban adds that there is a hint in this passage that the bells summoned even the heavenly angels to leave the Sanctuary, allowing the kohen gadol to be alone with his King.
The problem with their approach is that the kohen gadol did not wear the meil when he entered the kodshei kodashim to offer the incense; rather he wore only the four garments worn by an ordinary kohen. How could the bells which the Torah assigned only to the meil serve as a warning for everyone to leave the heichal?
This problem disappears, however, when we learn in our gemara that the requirement for vacating an area of the Beis Hamikdash while sacred service was being performed was not limited to the kohen gadol's entry into the kodshei kodashim on Yom Kippur. The blood of the bull brought as the kohen gadol's special sin offering (Vayikra 4:6), or brought for the community to atone for a mistaken court ruling (ibid. 4:17), or of the goat brought by the community when such a mistake involved idol worship (Bamidbar 15:26), had to be sprinkled in the heichal. When the kohen entered the heichal for this purpose, everyone had to depart not only from there but also from the area between the altar in the courtyard and the entrance to the Sanctuary. The gemara derives this from the word "atonement" used regarding such a need for removal on Yom Kippur, which teaches us (through a "gezeirah shavah" according to Tosefos, or a "binyan av" according to Rambam) that this rule applies to all situations when the kohen enters the Sanctuary for atonement purposes. The above mentioned commentaries are, therefore, referring to a situation where such service is being performed by the kohen gadol, and the bells on his meil do indeed sound a warning for all to clear the area and enable this servant with a higher degree of spirituality be alone with his King.
Posted by Avromi at 7/21/2006 03:12:00 AM
The Gemara states that ketores atones for lashon hara, because the Jewish People accused Moshe and Aharon for killing Korach and his followers, so HaShem sent a mageifah against them. Moshe told Aharon to bring ketores and when Aharon did so, the mageifah stopped. Question here is, it is seen that the ketores removes mageifah, but why is it proof that it atones for lashon hara? Stopping a mageifah is one thing, and atonement for lashon hara is another thing. If you say, the passuk states ויכפר על העם, one can answer that Pinchas killed Zimri and that stopped the mageiafh, and there also it states ויכפר על בני ישראל, but that doesn't mean that Pinchas atoned for the sin of Bnei Yisroel, i.e that they were forgiven for their sin. It just means that he appeased HaShem's wrath. Proof of this is that Rashi in Ki Suisa writes on the words אולי אכפרה בעד חטאתכם, that אכפרה בעד חטאתכם - אשים כופר וקנוח וסתימה לנגד חטאתכם להבדיל ביניכם ובין החטא. Seems to be that HaShem will not be angry any more, but one stilll needs to repent, etc. Could be this is a question of symantics.Read more!
Posted by ben at 7/21/2006 02:01:00 AM
From the Gemora it is evident that there is a prohibition from the torah not to be in the Heichal (Ohel Moed) at the time when the kohen gadol is performing the avodas haketores. This is learned from the passuk וכל אדם לא יהי באהל מועד וגו. It is asked by the Acharonim as to why the Rishonim who list all the mitzvos in the Torah omit this particular one? Why is it not counted as its own commandment?
Rav Yeruchem Fishel Perlow in his explanation to the Resag (183) answers with an innovative approach to the issur. He explains that the issur is not on the individual (gavra) to make sure that he is not in that particular area of the Beis Hamikdosh during the avodas haketores. The mitzva is that the ketores should be done in the correct method. One of the dinim of the ketores is that there should not be anybody there throughout the avodas haketores. If someone was there, that renders the ketores invalid. Accordingly, this is why it is not regarded as its own mitzva. It is not an independent mitzva, rather it is a component in the mitzva of ketores.
One of the proofs that he brings is from our Gemora which states the reason for this prohibition. The ketores which is brought in a secret place, atones for the sin which one tends to perform in private, namely loshon hora. Analyzing the comparison, the sinner in private is compared to the kohen doing the ketores secretly and that is where the issur is - the performing of the ketores incorrectly, not in the person who entered during the avodah.
Another proof is from a Yerushalmi that relates the story with Shimon Hatzadik on Yom Kippur. The Yerushalmi asks (quoted by the Rishonim on daf 39), how could someone be in the Ohel Moed at that time and even the heavenly angels whose faces are like a person are included in the passuk of v'chol adam? The Yerushalmi answers that it was the shechina and not a malach or a person. The question on this is obvious. The Torah is not given to malachim, why is it necessary to expound from the passuk that malachim cannot be in the heichal during this time? Once again, it is evident that the issur is not on the person or malach entering, rather on the kohen, there is an onligation to perform the ketores correctly and that is only if there is nobody else around, including malachim.
Posted by Avromi at 7/21/2006 01:40:00 AM
Gemara states that there is gold and good gold and brings proof from pasuk that states "and the gold of this land was good." Questions is, if the gold is not good, what is it?Read more!
Posted by ben at 7/21/2006 12:45:00 AM
Thursday, July 20, 2006
The Mishna lists many differences between the preparation of the ketores on Yom Kippur and the rest of the year. The Gevuros Ari comments that these differences apply by the regular ketores which is brought on Yom Kippur, as well. He explains that the reasons for these variations are due to the weakness of the kohen gadol on Yom Kippur and therefore the distinctions apply also by the ketores of the heichal. He is bothered by the fact that in the piyutim which we say on Yom Kippur, it states that the regular ketores was done in the identical manner as the rest of the year. The Mikdash Dovid asks from a Tosefta that states explicitly that a kohen hedyot is the one who performs the service of the regular ketores on Yom Kippur? The Reshash (and others) bring that it is actually an argument between the Rambam and the Ramban as to who would do the avodas haketores in the heichal on Yom Kippur.Read more!
Posted by Avromi at 7/20/2006 02:56:00 AM
The Gemora brings a rule - מילתא דאתיא בקל וחמר טרח וכתב לה קרא - something that can be learned from a kal v'chomer, the Torah will write it anyways. What is the rationale behind this? The Bnei Yisoschor explains that all droshos that are learned out are halacha l'Moshe misinai and they might not have any logical reason behind them and they are accepted. A kal v'chomer could be understood. It makes logical sense. One might mistakenly think that the halacha is true when learned with a kal v'chomer because he understands it. The Torah shows us that this is not the case. Even though it makes perfect sense and self explanatory without the Torah explicitly expressing it, nevertheless, the Torah writes the halacha down to illustrate to us that it is because of the Torah that this halacha is true.
There are Rishonim however, that apply this concept by a gzeira shova, as well. Tosfos in Shabbos applies it by a ma hatzadand there are others that relate it to a binyon av. All of these methods of droshos are not understood with logic, but yet the Torah finds it necessary to state those halochos.
Posted by Avromi at 7/20/2006 02:53:00 AM
The Gemora states a halacha that one should not take out another red cow together with the porah adumah. This is learned from the words in the Torah והוציא אותה and not another. The reason given is because people will say that he is shechting two of them and that would render it passul. The Nezer Hakodesh says that this Gemora proves that there are mitzvos in the Torah that are given solely as an injunction for something else. The Kesef Mishna explains similarly the issur of not cooking meat and milk together. He says that this is because the Torah did not want us to eat them together.
Are there other cases like this?
Posted by Avromi at 7/20/2006 02:23:00 AM
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
The Gemora states that the first porah adumah was done by Elozar, who was the sgan kohen gadol, but all future ones will either be done by a kohen gadol or a kohen hedyot. The Rogitchover Gaon explains why the first porah could not have been done by Aharon. The halacha is that even if a kohen gadol does the porah adumah, it must be done with the four בגדים and not the eight that the kohen gadol usually wears. This would signify that right then the kohen gadol is performing as a כהן הדיוט and not as a כהן גדול. The only way a kohen gadol can act like a regular kohen is if he was once a regular kohen, however אהרן הכהן was never a regular kohen - he was appointed a כהן גדול immediately and therefore he could not perform the פרה אדומה, for it was not possible for him to wear only four בגדים and be like a כהן הדיוט.
[There are those that say that every kohen gadol must be a sgan first - if so, aharon must have been an exception.]
Posted by Avromi at 7/19/2006 03:54:00 AM
There is one opinion in the Gemora that the shechita of the porah adumah cannot be done by a yisroel. The Gemora asks from the concept that is learned that shechita is not considered an avodah and hence would be kosher with a yisroel. The Gemora answers that this is similar to the seeing of נגעים. Just like there, it must be done by a kohen, and only a kohen can pronounce that the person has a נגע and therefore טמא, even though it is not an avodah, so too by the shechita of the porah adumah, it must be performed by a kohen. Tosfos Yeshanim comments that according to this opinion, the kohen must be wearing his בגדי כהונה when he does the shechita.
The Mishna in פרה states that the shechita would be פסולה if the kohen would not be wearing his בגדי כהונה or if he would not have washed his hands and feet beforehand like any other avodah. The Steipler Gaon (Minachos 1) asks that this is not true by the seeing of נגעים? There, it is not necessary to wear the בגדי כהונה? He is forced to say that the Mishna is referring to the avodos after shechita, however by the shechita, he would not need to wear the בגדי כהונה. This is contrary to the Tosfos Yeshonim.
It is interesting to note that the Tiferes Yisroel in his introduction to Kodoshim seems to hold that the kohen must wear his בגדי כהונה when he is looking at a נגע. (It would seem that ultimately, he does not hold of this למעשה.)
Rav Moshe Mordechai Shulzinger (זבחים לו) says that according to the Steipler, one would wonder what the din is regarding a חלל (the son of a a kohen who married a divircee) by the shechita of the porah. The Rambam holds that a חלל is prohibited to look at a נגע and decide if it's טמא or not, even though he could perform a regular avodah (בדיעבד), but a kohen with a blemish would be allowed. This is the exact opposite of what the halacha is by a regular avodah. What would be the din by the porah adumah according to those that say that a kohen is needed? Could a בעל מום perform the shechita?
Posted by Avromi at 7/19/2006 03:03:00 AM
The Gemora brings an argument regarding the validity of a yisroel doing the shechita by the porah adumah. The Rambam in the beginning of Hilchos Pesulei Hamukdashin paskins clearly that it is kosher. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yochanan (Yoma 43) that the porah adumah and the kohen gadol's par can both be shechted by a yisroel. The Ein Mishpat on our Gemora notifies us of a Rambam in Hilchos Porah. The Rambam states (1, 11) that even a kohen hedyot is permitted to burn the porah. This implies that a yisroel is not permitted. However, it is strange to bring this Ranbam, (as Reb Zev Volf asks in the back of our Gemora) for this Rambam is not referring to shechita at all and everyone would agree that after shechita, the service can only be done by a kohen? The Ein Mishpot denotes another Rambam later in perek daled. There, the Rambam states that all the actions of the porah from beginning to end must be done by a kohen. The Ein Mishpat learned that this is referring to shechita as well (and then there would be a contradiction between this Rambam and the one in Pesulei Hamukdashin) and the other acharonim would be forced to say that the Rambam is discussing from after the shechita, but the shechita itself could be performed by a yisroel.Read more!
Posted by Avromi at 7/19/2006 02:25:00 AM
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Yoma 040: Par before Seir
Avrohom Adler asked:
The Gemora is discussing cases where one switches around the order of
the bull and the goat, does he have to start all over again. At one
junction in the Gemora, we think that the case is as follows: the
kohen sprinkles the blood of the bull on the mizbeach before he
sprinkled the blood of the goat on the Paroches in the Heichal.
QUESTION: what happened in this case? Normally, the two bloods are
mixed together and sprinkled on the Mizbeach after he completed all
the sprinklings on the Paroches. Here, that can't be the case because
he subsequently went and sprinkled the blood of the goat on the
Paroches afterwards and presumably this was done by itself. If he did
not mix the blood, then how could he sprinkle the blood of the Par on
the Mizbe'ach? What was done?
Avrohom Adler, Cleveland, USA
The Kollel replies:
Beautiful question! Perhaps that is one of the reasons for the Vilna
Gaon's erasure of this section of the Gemara. (However, all of the
Rishonim and Kisvei Yad have the section.)
Perhaps the Gemara is suggesting that the Beraisa maintains "Ein
Me'arvin le'Keranos," the blood is mixed after sprinkling on the
corners of the Mizbe'ach and before sprinkling on the top of the
Mizbe'ach (see Yoma 57b).
Posted by Avromi at 7/19/2006 02:00:00 AM
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
A few days ago we asked this question on the Beis Halevi. We have received a response from Kollel Iyun Hadaf. Here it is.
The Beis Halevi explains the Tosfos Yeshonim that there is a
distinction between pesach and other korbonos. Pesach, there is an
obligation on the individual and he is required to eat a kezayis. By
the other korbonos, the mitzva is that the korban should be eaten,
and if accumulatively the korban was eaten, even though there was no
kohen who had a kezayis, that is sufficient.
According to the Beis Halevi, we do not understand why the righteous
ones held back from eating when it was only the size of a bean, as
long as everyone ate the entire lechem hapanim, the mitzva would be fulfilled?
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
The Kollel replies:
It seems that Beis ha'Levi 1:2:7 understands Tosfos Yeshanim 39a DH
SHE'MAGIO as follows. Since the Lechem ha'Panim would anyway be eaten
completely by the greedy Kohanim, it follows that the basic Mitzvah
of eating Kodashim would always be fulfilled, as B.H. writes that
there is no Mitzvah at all on any particular person to eat Kodashim
but rather merely that the Kodashim should be eaten, no matter by
whom. This way, by the modest Kohanim, B.H. writes that someone who
possesses Kodashim is entitled to give it to someone else to eat and
the Mitzvah is thereby fulfilled through this. Therefore, even though
the greedy Kohanim ate less than a Kezayis of the Lechem ha'Panim,
the Mitzvah was still fulfilled adequately this way by the modest Kohanim.
However, if the modest Kohanim would be satisfied by eating the
Lechem ha'Panim, they therefore felt it was preferable to do the
Mitzvah themselves rather than leave it to others. This is what
Tosfos Yeshanim means when he writes "Ki Dimu" to fulfil the Mitzvah
of eating, which can be translated "They wanted to do something
similar to the Mitzvah", i.e. even though the basic Mitzvah would be
performed without their participation, nevertheless if they could do
a complete Mitzvah of eating, i.e. by being satisfied, which is the
best kind of eating, then it was better to take part rather than
leave everything to others. On the other hand when there was only a
bean-size and they were not satisfied, T.Y. writes there was no
Mitzvah "Le-Gamri" i.e. no Mitzvah at all, because the modest Kohanim
were not satisfied and therefore did not perform a complete Mitzvah
of eating and consequently the Mitzvah could be done just as well by
(See also RITVA who writes something similar to the above - if there
was a blessing in the eating of the modest, they would not refrain
from this because this did involve an element of a Mitzvah. See also
MAHARATZ CHAYES here and TESHUVAS CHASAM SOFER OC 49.)
Posted by Avromi at 7/18/2006 08:30:00 AM
The Chasam Sofer answers based on a Gemora Shabbos that states that Hashem punishes each person according to what he can afford. A rich person who sins will lose his cow. A poor person, on the other hand, will lose his chicken or some eggs. Therefore, there is a distinction between the קרבן of a מצורע or יולדת (a woman who gave birth) and the קרבן עולה ויורד. A מצורע is not required to bring a קרבן because he sinned, it is to purify him and allow him to eat kodoshim. If a poor מצורע decides to bring the rich man's קרבן, he will be יוצא. Conversely, a sinner who does that will not be יוצא, for here the Torah prescribed for him the קרבן which will give him atonement according to his status. The קרבן is in place of the punishment. It is not decided by the עני what his punishment should be and therefore when he brings the קרבן of an עשיר, he does not fulfill his obligation.
The Sfas Emes (here and quoted in Moadim U'zmanim as a story which occured by a כנסיה גדולה) answers that there is a basic distinction. A מצורע disregarding if he is an עשיר or an עני is required to bring a חטאת and an עולה. The rich man brings animals and the pauper brings birds. If the עני brings the קרבן of an עשיר, he fulfills his obligation, for he brought the prescribed amount. A קרבן עולה ויורד is different. A rich person brings an animal for a קרבן חטאת and an עני brings two birds, one for a חטאת and one for an עולה. If an עני will force himself to bring the קרבן of an עשיר, he will not fulfill his obligation because he cheated the מזבח out of one קרבן - namely the עולה.
There are two questions on this explanation (look in שמועת חיים and in מצות המלך from Harav Ezriel Cziment). Firstly, the chinuch says a different reason for his not being יוצא. He says because the Torah doesn't want the עני to overburden himself. He does not say the reason of the Sfas Emes that he missed a קרבן? Secondly, one must ask, why is it that an עני is required to bring two קרבנות and an עשיר only brings one? The אבן עזרא explains the reason for this: A חטאת העוף is completely eaten and an עולת העוף is completely burned on the מזבח. These two birds together replace a regular קרבן which entails אכילת אדם and אכילת מזבח. They are actually one קרבן. Therefore, one can say that the עני is not missing a קרבן by bringing one animal instead of two birds?
It would seem, however, that this question can be answered. Even according to the אבן עזרא, the two birds are not one קרבן. They are two קרבנות complimenting one another. The rationale behind bringing the two קרבנות could be because the Torah wants אכילת אדם and אכילת מזבח, nevertheless, it is still two קרבנות and the עני is missing one קרבן when he brings the קרבן of an עשיר.
The Gemora is discussing cases where one switches around the order of the bull and the goat, does he have to start all over again. At one junction in the Gemora, we think that the case is as follows: the kohen sprinkles the blood of the bull on the mizbeach before he sprinkled the blood of the goat on the פרכת in the היכל.
QUESTION: what happened in this case? Normally, the two bloods are mixed together and sprinkled on the מזבח after he completed all the sprinklings on the פרכת. Here, that can't be the case because he subsequently went and sprinkled the blood of the goat on the פרכת afterwards and presumably this was done by itself. If he did not mix the blood, then how could he sprinkle the blood of the פר on the מזבח?
What was done?
Posted by Avromi at 7/18/2006 05:14:00 AM
Monday, July 17, 2006
The students asked Rebbe Akiva if the lot For the korbon laHashem camo out in the kohen gadol's left hand, can he return it to his right. This question was based on it being a good omen for the goat which will be used for the chatos to emerge in his right hand. Rebbe Akiva answered that we should not leave room for the tzidukkim to ridicule us. The Gemora asks on the question, how could one possibly switch according to the Tanna that holds that the lottery is essential to the service.
Tosfos HaRosh and Gevuros Ari ask that this question should be universally accepted, fr even the Tanna who holds that the lottery is not essential would agree that if it was done, the lots have established which goat is for which korban, so how can the kohen gadol possibly switch it? The Mikdash Dovid (24 -3) answers that it is evident from here that according to the Tanna that holds that the lottery is not necessary, even if it was done, that was not what designated each goat to its particular destiny, rather it was the words of the kohen. Even if the lots indicated one way, the kohen (if not for the tzidukkim problem) could have switched them.
Another question can be asked. What would the benefit be to switch the left to the right? The result of the lots already shattered our hopes of the good omen?
Posted by Avromi at 7/17/2006 05:46:00 AM
The Pardas Yosef (Vayikra p. 197) brings a question that is asked on the 'Taz Hayodua' - the famous Taz. The Taz, in three places in Shulchan Aruch states a rule that the chachamim cannot prohibit something that is explicitly stated in the Torah. According to this, how could the chachamim prohibit certain kinds of lotteries on Shabbos (as an injunction that it is similar to business or it might lead to writing), when the Torah explicitly said that this was done on Yom Kippur with the two goats?
the Seder Yoma (63) answers according to the Taz himself. The Taz is bothered as to why the chachamim did not prohibit the blowing of the shofar on Yom Tov (because of the injunction of perhaps one would come to fix musical instruments) in the same way they prohibited it on Shabbos. He answers that the Torah explicitly commands to blow shofar on Rosh Hashana and that cannot be uprooted, however a gezeira that it should not be blown on Shabbos does not uproot the passuk, for it will still be blown on Yom Tov when it is not Shabbos. Similarly, evn though the Sages prohibited lotteries on Shabbos, that did not uproot the passuk of having the raffle on Yom Kippur.
Posted by Avromi at 7/17/2006 05:29:00 AM
The Raavad in Tamid (34b) discusses the different sounds from the Beis Hamikdash that were heard in Yericho. In one explanation, he comments that it was only heard there for on the way to Yericho from yerushalayim, there were no mountains and there wasn't anything that would prevent the sound from travelling or perhaps because Yericho was situated on a high ground. However, these sounds would not be heard from Yerushalayim to other directions. Then he brings from his Rebbe Hachasid that the sounds being heard in Yericho were a miracle and only there it was heard and nowhere else. He explains that Yericho was similar to Yerushalayim for it was the initial city that was captured in Eretz Yisroel. He compares Yericho to the taking of terumah from grain, so too Yericho was chosen to be the terumah of Eretz Yisroel and that is why Yehoshua made it kodosh. It was for this reason that the sounds from the Beis Hamikdosh were heard there, so the people should realize that there is kedusha in Yericho just like Yerushalayim. Look there as to the reason why it was only certain sounds that were heard, such as the announcements to wake the kohanim, the sound of the pully from the kiyor and the gates of the azarah opening.
There is a midrash that says Yericho was chosen as a city with kedusha before Yerushalayim was chosen as the mokom hakodosh.
This Raavad and the midrash need explanation.
Posted by Avromi at 7/17/2006 05:05:00 AM
Sunday, July 16, 2006
The Gemora states that in the times of Shimon Hatzadik, there was a blessing in the lechem hapanim and a kohen who would eat a kezayis would be satisfied, but afterwards they would only receive a portion the size of a bean and therefore the righteous people would not partake for they would not be fulfilling the mitzva. Tosfos Yeshonim comments that if they would have become satiated from a portion the size of a bean, they would have fulfilled their mitzva.
Chasam Sofer says a chidush in the mitzva of achilas kodoshim. If one person eats from the korban the size of a kezayis and the rest of the kohanim all have less than a kezayis, that is sufficient in respect to the korban. The first kohen is the only one that fulfilled his mitzva. This is why the righteous ones held back from eating when it was only the size of a bean.
The Beis Halevi explains the Tosfos Yeshonim that there is a distinction between pesach and other korbonos. Pesach, there is an obligation on the individual and he is required to eat a kezayis. By the other korbonos, the mitzva is that the korban should be eaten, and if accumulatively the korban was eaten, even though there was no kohen who had a kezayis, that is sufficient.
According to the Beis Halevi, we do not understand why the righteous ones held back from eating when it was only the size of a bean, as long as everyone ate the entire lechem hapanim, the mitzva would be fulfilled?
(Shemuas Chaim attempts to answer this, however it is not clear to me )
Posted by Avromi at 7/16/2006 02:17:00 AM
Rashi in Taanis states that the סגן כהן גדול was appointed to be ready to step in if something would happen to the kohen gadol on Yom Kippur. Tosfos (15b) quotes a Yerushalmi that we would not appoint a kohen gadol unless he was initially a segan kohen gadol.
The Aruch Hashulchan Heosid (and others) ask on the language of the first Mishna in Yoma that says we would prepare another kohen just in case etc. Why didn't the Mishna explicitly say that we perpare the segan to be ready?
Posted by Avromi at 7/16/2006 01:42:00 AM
The Gemora states that the reason that the קלפי - box for the lots were not made out of gold or silver, rather out of wood, was beacause the Torah has sympathy on the money of Klal Yisroel. The Ritva explains that even though there were many things in the Beis Hamikdosh that were made out of gold, the box for the lots was not really used for an avodah and it was only used once and it wasn't actally min haTorah, therefore it was wood.
The Gevuros Ari asks from a Gemora in Rosh Hashana that states that the shofar which was used on a taanis was made out of silver because the Torah has sympathy on the money of Klal Yisroel, but on Rosh Hashana it was coated with gold because it was an honor for Yom Tov. Shouldn't we apply the same logic regarding the box used for the lots on Yom Kippur? The Turei Even answers that the shofar is an integral component of Rosh Hashana and there the honor of Yom tov is the superior logic, however the box for the lots is not the central theme of Yom Kippur and therefore we are not as concerned with the honor of Yom Tov and we apply the logic that the Torah has sympathy on the money of Klal Yisroel.
There are two sources for the logic of the Torah has sympathy on the money of Klal Yisroel. One is from the plague of tzaraas on a house which the Torah commands a person to remove everything from the house before the kohen proclaims the house to be tamei. The Torah does not want the possessions in the house to become tamei. The other basis is from Hashem telling Moshe to speak to the rock which will produce water for the people and their cattle. The Chasam Sofer and the Noda B'Yehuda both say that a second passuk is required to teach us even when there is a slight rationale for the Torah not to have compassion on their money, nevertheless, the Torah does. However, they differ as to which passuk teaches this to us. The Chasam Sofer says that this is learned from the possuk of tzaraas where in truth, the kohen should pronounce that the house is tamei immediately and not delay at all, nonetheless we wait in order that one should have the time for the removal of his possessions. The Noda B'Yehuda learns this from the passuk regarding the water and the cattle. He explains using the concept of something that is not in the order of nature, rather a miracle, Hashem's will is to minimize the miracle and yet He was concerned of the thirst of the animals as well.
In the sefer, Teshuva Meahava, he comments that there are four times in Shas that the Gemora brings התורה חסה על ממונן של ישראל regarding the utensils in the Beis Hamikdash and corresponding to that there are four times the Gemora brings the concept of אין עניות במקום עשירות.
Posted by Avromi at 7/16/2006 12:40:00 AM