Friday, August 18, 2006

Daf Yomi - Yoma 73 - Urim V'Tumim

The Gemora states the format and the position of the kohen gadol when a question is being asked to the Urim V'Tumim. There seems to be two arguments between Rashi and the Rambam. Rashi holds that the asker (the king) and the kohen were facing each other and the kohen's face was turned towards the choshen which encased the Urim V'tumim. The Rambam holds that the kohen was facing the aron and the asker faced the back of the kohen. Another argument pertains to the voice of the one asking. The Rambam holds that nobody else should hear him, similar to the way we daven and that is the proof of the Gemora to this form the tefillah of Chanah. Rashi, however (Tosfos Yeshonim is explicit regarding this) that the kohen hears the question which is being asked.

The sefer Imrei Chein explains these opinions. They are arguing as to who is the nishal - to whom are we asking the question. Rashi holds we are asking the kohen gadol and that is why the asker faces him and that explains why he must hear the question. Rambam disagrees and holds that the question is to the Shechina. The kohen is only a conduit to the Ribono Shel Olam. This is why they both are facing the aron, the place where the Shechina resides and this explains why the kohen does not have to hear the question.

Look in Ibn Ezra in Parshas Pinchos where the Torah informs us of the asking of the Urim V'Tumim and he says two explanations in the words of the passuk 'al piv yetzu'. One pshat is by the mouth of Elozar HaKohen through the Urim V'Tumim and his second explanation is by the words of the Urim V'Tumim. The two explanations are based on what we explained before.

According to this, perhaps we can explain a Gemora in Temurah. The Gemora relates that in the days when Klal Yisroel were mourning the loss of Moshe Rabbeinu, three thousand halochos were forgotten. They went to Yehoshua and Elozar (and others) and said "Go ask from Hashem these halachos." There were two responses given. One was that a prophet does not have permission to create new laws and a second answer to them was that Torah cannot be found in the heaven. What is the significance of these two responses?

The Brisker Rov asks on how would they have asked Hashem anyway? Moshe was the only one who had a direct channel to Hashem. They couldn't speak to Hashem whenever they wanted? He answers that the Gemora means that they would ask by utilyzing the Urim V'Tumim.

We now can understand the two responses of the Gemora (bderech drush ktzas), based on the two explanations of the Urim V'Tumim. If the question was asked to the Ribono Shel Olam and the kohen is only a conduit, the response that was given to Klal Yisroel at that time was Torah cannot be found in the heavens. A halachic shaila cannot be answered using the Urim V'Tumim. If the question was asked to the kohen and he would answer using the Urim V'Tumim, his response was that a prophet cannot create new halachos and therefore he doesn't have the power to return those halachos that were forgotten.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 73- Lekavod Shabbos

The Gemara states that in scared matters we elevate but do not lower. At the onset of Shabbos, one attains a neshama yeseira, an extra soul. When Shabbos ends, the neshama yeseira departs from a person. Although we always elevate in sacred matters, we must return to the mundane of the weekday. Yet, our consolation is that we always ascend in holiness, and when the following Shabbos arrives, we once again attain the neshama yeseira. Certainly on Shabbos itself one should constantly be engaged in ascending in holiness, by delighting in the Shabbos, studying Torah, praying, and singing zemiros to HaShem.

Read more!

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Daf yomi - Yoma 72 - Breakaway Shul

Currently we have been discussing the correct approach that one should have when engaging in Torah study. Tosfos poses a contradiction from two different Gemaras. One Gemara implies that one should only study Torah leshmo, whereas a different Gemara seems to indicate that one can even engage in Torah study shelo leshmo. Tosfos resolves this discrepancy by explaining that one can only be justified in studying Torah shelo leshmo if he is not seeking to aggravate others with his Torah studies. Regarding one who engages in Torah study for the sake of aggravating others, the Gemara states that it is better had he not even come into existence. The Netziv in Meishiv Dovor adopts a different approach to resolve this contradiction. The Netziv writes that there are two distinct forms of learning. One manner of learning is when one wishes to render conclusive rulings, and a dissimilar approach is one who engages in Torah study merely for the sake of attaining Torah knowledge. One who is engaged in Torah study with the intention of rendering a conclusive ruling must ensure that he is studying leshmo, for the Torah’s own sake, as any other motive will lead him to err in halachic rulings. The Netziv penned this response regarding a Jew who sought to distance himself from a congregation and create his own group of worshippers. When other Jews learned of this man’s intentions, they rebuked him for attempting to sow discord in the community. The man who was seeking to create his own prayer group approached the Netziv and explained to the Netziv that he felt justified in his aims, especially since the rabbis frown upon one who commences construction of a new synagogue and abandons his plans halfway through the project. The Netziv responded that when one is engaged in Torah study shelo leshmo when attempting to rule in halachic matters, the Torah that he studies does not stand in his merit and it would have been better that he had not come into existence. The rationale for this is that one who engages in Torah study that is not for the sake of Torah is not deemed to have truly studied Torah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 72 - Shelo Lishma

The Gemara states that if one is meritorious through Torah study, the Torah will be a balm of life for him. If he is not meritorious, however, the Torah will be like poison. Rav Refoel HaKohen Hamburger writes in his sefer Daas Kedoshim that the term the Gemara uses for meritorious, zoche, refers to one who studies Torah leshmo, for its own sake. Rav Hamburger writes further, based on the words of the Rambam in Hilchos Talmud Torah, that the Gemara states that one should always study Torah shelo lishmah, because one who studies Torah shelo lishmah will eventually study Torah leshmo. This is true if ones intention is to ultimately study Torah leshmo. When one is young and has just begun to study Torah, he may require an ulterior motive to spur him on in his studies. Upon attaining the degree of studying Torah which is referred to as leshmo, the Torah that he studies is a balm of life. When one does not succeed in studying Torah leshmo, then his Torah study is akin to poison.

The Sefer HaChinuch in mitzvah fourteen, however, appears to maintain that even one who studies Torah shelo leshmo, without the intention of ever studying Torah leshmo, will be effected by his Torah study and he ultimately will attain the level of studying Torah leshmo. The Chinuch posits that this is analogous to one who collects taxes illegally on behalf of the king. Eventually, such a person will transform into a thief, as his actions will influence him negatively. Conversely, if one performs positive actions, albeit for the wrong reasons, he will ultimately be influenced to perform those actions altruistically.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 72 - Talmid Chocham Compared to Aron

The Gemora learns from the fact that the aron was coated with gold on the outside and the inside that a talmid chochom should be the same. His inside should be as pure as his outside. The Hafloaa in Ponim Yofos comments that the comparison to the aron eludes to the learning of Torah 'lishmo'. The aron was pure gold on the outside and inside, yet the middle was wood. A person when he begins learning should try to learn 'lishmo', however when he sees that there are difficulties and stumbling blocks to this endeavor, he must adept and perhaps will be successful if he learns 'shelo lishma', providing that his goal is to 'reach for the gold' and eventually learn purely 'lishmo'.

Read more!

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Daf Yomi - Yoma 71 - Kesones was Shatnez?

It is stated in the Mishna that the kohen gadol wears eight begodim and the kohen hedyot dons four. The Yerushalmi comments that each one of the kohen's clothing served as an atonement for a specific aveira. The shirt is a forgiveness for the transgression of wearing shatnez (wool and linen together). The commentators on Midrash explain the connection between the shirt and shatnez because the shirt itself was shatnez. This is extremely bewildering for it is explicit that the shirt of the kohen was made solely from linen and there was no wool in it?

There is a famous answer given based on a riling of the Rama. He rules that one is forbidden to wear shoes of linen and socks from wool, even though they are two different articles. The reason for this is because it is considered like one since the socks cannot be removed without first taking off the shoes. The same can be said regarding the kohen's shirt. The kohen gadol wore the robe on top of the shirt and the robe was made from wool. Since the shirt could not be removed without first taking off the robe, this can be considered shatnez.

There are those that say that this can be the reason why the kohen gadol puts the headplate (tzitz) on last. In truth, he can lift his hands in the air and wiggle out of the shirt without removing the robe. However, there is a halacha that he cannot lift his hands higher than the tzitz because it has Hashem's name inscribed on it. It comes out that the wearing of the tzitz is what creates the shatnez of the shirt and the robe, hence we delay the placing of the tzitz until the end.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 71 - Out of Order

The Gemora states that all the pesukim which are written in the Torah regarding the avodah on Yom Kippur are written in their precise order and must be adhered to except for the possuk which refers to the removal of the ladle and pan from the Kodesh Kodoshim. This is written together with the other avodos that were done with the bigdei lovon, while in truth, the kohen gadol would first change to the golden clothes and later don a new set of bigdei lovon to enter the Kodesh Kodoshim and remove these two utensils.

Rav Chisda explains the reasoning for this. There is a halacha l'Moshe misinai dictating that the kohen gadol must immerse himself in the mikvah five times on Yom Kippur. He did that every time he changed clothing. If there wasn't this additional changing, he would be immersing only three times.

The Chachmas Adam brings from the Vilna Gaon that it would seem odd that the Torah wrote it in this manner and not according to the correct sequence. The Gaon states that it is correct. It is written in Midrash that Aharon was able to enter the Kodesh Kodoshim whenever he wanted (even not on Yom Kippur), providing that he would enter in the same fashion and bring the exact korbonos as Yom Kippur. The Gaon proposes that during the rest of the year, he would do the avodos according to the precise order of the pesukim for there is no halacha l'Moshe misinai that five immersions are required on those days.

There is a question in the mefarshim if other kohanim gedolim (besides Aharon) were permitted to enter in this manner, as well.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 71 - Out of Order # 2

It is stated in Tosefta that any avodah on Yom Kippur which is done in an imprecise order is deemed invalid except for the removal of ladle and the firepan from the Kodesh Kodoshim. If this was done in the wrong order, it is still valid. The Brisker Rov explains that this is because it is written in the wrong order in the Torah. The only reason it is switched is because of the halacha l'Moshe misinai that there must be five immersions by the kohen gadol and hence five changing of clothes. However, it is not included in the 'seder' of the avodos of Yom Kippur.

The Mikdash Dovid posits a simpler reason. If he removed the utensils from the Kodesh Kodoshim in the wrong order, what can possibbly be done. It is impossible to correct. What was done was done. There is no option to remove it again.

Read more!

Yoma 70 - Question and Answer

In learning today's daf, the following question occurred to me:
One of the reasons that the Gemora gives as to why the Kohen Gadol reads the parsha from Pinchas b'al peh is that taking out a 2nd sefer would necessitate an unnecessary brocha. Why could they not take out 2 Sifrei Torah at the same time as we do and read from each one as needed? Wouldn't the Kohen gadol be able to say the same brocha on both seforim?
Dov Dubovick
Chicago, IL

From learning the gemora and the fact that the gemora asked only on the second reason your question and not on the first reason, it seems evident that a second sefer torah would require another brocha and for the kohen gadol to recite both would be unnecessary.

I will check more though

A little further research seems to say that the reshash asks your kasho and adds that he has in mind on the second torah, so there should be only one brocha. The sevara I mentioned before is stated that each sefer should have its own brocha due to kovod hatorah.

Read more!

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Daf Yomi - Yoma 70 - Glorifying Mitzvos Only in Public

The Gemora states that after the kohen gadol concluded his reading of the Torah, each and every person would take their own sefer Torah out and read from it. Rashi learns that that the purpose is to show the glory of the Torah and the toil involved in beautifying the mitzva. There are those that learn from here that the mitzva of glorifying a mitzva learned from the passuk of זה קלי ואנוהו is only when it is in public but not when performing a mitzva in private. There are examples that seem to prove otherwise. This is a good issue to discuss at length.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 70 - 100 Brochos

The Gemora states that two reasons explaining why a second sefer Torah was not brought to the kohen gadol for Parshas Pinchas. One is because it will look like the first one was possul. Secondly, it will cause him to make a new brocha unnecessarily.

The latter reason is brought down in Shulchan Aruch regarding a shochet who has many animals ready to be shechted. He should not talk in between the slaughterings for then he would be required to recite another brocha.

The Shalah rules that on Shabbos it is permitted to delay eating the fruits that were brought in middle of the meal and rather wait for the conclusion of the meal in order to enable a recital of a brocha acharona which will help one reach the goal of reciting one hundred brochos every day (which can be difficult on Shabbos).

The Magen Avrohom asks on this from our Gemora. Yom Kippur is even more difficult to reach this goal and nevertheless we do not permit the kohen gadol to bring another sefer Torah enabling him the opportunity of reciting another brocha.

Perhaps we can answer that this would be applicable only to the kohen gadol and therefore we apply the regular halacha of ברכה שאינה צריכה, however the fruits on Shabbos pertains to everyone and would be beneficial for all, so there we permit the extra brocha.

I just found in the אליהו רבה that the kohen gadol did not have the problem of one hundred brochos for he recited eight brochos on krias haTorah and he made a brocha on each and every avodah according to the Ramban.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 70 - Removal of the Ladle

Two Acharonim (Mikdash Dovid and Toras Hakodesh) have a similar chakirah regarding the removal of the כף from the Kodesh Hakodoshim. Which hand does the kohen gadol use to remove the ladle? He entered with it in his left hand, but here it is a shaila. The reason he holds it in his left hand when entering is because the machta (firepan) was heavy and he was compeled to carry that with his right hand. Do we say that in the removal of these keilim, he should use his right hand for the כף, which is more important or do we say that he should use his left hand, for once the carrying of the ladle was done with his right hand, it should always remain that way?

I was wondering as to why they are assuming that it had to be done with two hands. Could he not remove both of them with his right hand? They were not heavy or hot at this time?

Read more!

Two Earlier Comments from Reb Reuven Levitin

1. You had a question about why the path of the Kohen Gadol reflected the second bais hamikdosh, and not bayis Rishon, or the eagerly anticipated bayis Shlishi. I would suggest that the Mishnayos were written by Tanoim, many of which lived during bayis Sheni. They were giving examples based on what their current experience was. Even though Rebbi lived a good 100 years after the BM II was destroyed, the Tanoim of his time were very familar with that which wasn't all that long before. I also believe that Rebbi is a compiler of mishnayos, not the writer, many of them predated him.
2. On Perek Alef Eicha (Farkas) the comments had some skepticism on Rav Gifter's quote from the Gra'Y. (I think one of them was Ben) First of all, Rav Gifter was an Eidim by R' Zalman Bloch, not the Gra'y. Also, I have heard that story Beshem Rebetzin Ausband, who is a daughter of R' Avrohom Yitzchok. THe skepticism was related to how did the story get out. R' AY B (and much of the Yeshiva) was killed on 20 Tamuz. Most of the city, however, including the Nashim vetaf, were killed on 7 ellul, almost 2 months later. So there was adequate time for such a story to get out. Either way, however, it is efsher levarer, as Rebetzin Ausband is still in Cleveland.

Read more!


We were away from civilization (Goshen, Indiana) for a few days and posting has been light. We hope, with Hashem's help, that now that we are back (if South Haven, Michigan can be called civilization), we will be able to provide you with insights, questions and answers related to the daf that will excite you and propel all of us to greater heights in learning. We thank Ben for manning the fort. Please scroll down for four new posts on today's daf plus a response from Kollel Iyun Hadaf to one of our participant's question. Please take the time to visit Daf Notes Discussion, located on the sidebar, where we have a new posting from Reb Eliezer Jacobovits. Thank you.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 69 - Boruch Sheim

Whenever a bracha was recited in the Beis Hamikdosh, the people would respond with ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד. Would this response be required to be in a quiet tone like we say it in krias shema or perhaps it can be answered loudly?

There are two reasons as to why we recite ברוך שם quietly. The Gemora in Pesachim relates that the שבטים said שמע ישראל and Yaakov responded with ברוך שם. The chachamim had a dilema as to how we should recite shema. Perhaps we should not say ברוך שם for it is not in the Torah, however it is not proper to refrain from saying it for Yaakov did recite it. They resolved this by ruling that it should be recited quietly.

There is a Midrash that relates what transpired when Moshe went up th שמים. He heard the malachim praising the רבונו של עולם with ברוך שם. He was greatly impressed with this and brought it down for Klal Yisroel to say as well. The Midrash brings a parable and concludes that it would not be proper to recite this tefillah out loud for it is considered stolen from the angels, however on Yom Kippur, when we are compared to malachim, it can be said out loud.

We will iy"H write more about this issue later in the day.

Read more!

Monday, August 14, 2006

Daf Yomi - Yoma 69 - Avodah Zara and Arayos

The Gemara states that after vanquishing the desire for idolatry, the Chachamim sought to curb the desire for immorality. I was just wondering if there is a difficulty with this idea because the Gra (quoted in Margolias HaYam to Sanhedrin 63b, note 23) writes that whenever the Jewish People worshipped idols, it was always with the intent to permit immoral relationships, so once the desire of idolatry disappeared, why would they even desire immorality? Perhaps the two ideas are only related in that one who worshipped idols would do so with the ulterior motive being immorality, but essentially immorality is mutually exclusive from the desire for idolatry.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 69 - Sitting in a Sukkah During the Rain

The Gemora states that the kohanim were permitted to derive pleasure from their clothing in the Mikdash even when they were not performing the avodah of the Beis Hamikdosh. The Gemora in Kidushin says that this was allowed for the Torah was not given to the heavenly angels and it cannot be expected of them to remove their clothes at the precise moment that they finished the avodah.

The Rama rules that one who stays in a sukkah when it is raining is called a 'hedyot.' The Oneg Yom Tov asks that this should be forbidden completely? One is not allowed to derive any pleasure from the sukkah all seven days. A person sitting in the sukkah while it is raining is not fulfilling any mitzva and therefore is unlawfully deriving benefit from the protection of the sukkah? (If one covers the sukkah with a shlock, it is not a problem for this now becomes a sukkah pesulah.)

He concludes, based on the aforementioned Gemora that it is allowed for the Torah was not given to malachim and therefore one cannot be expected to leave the sukkah the moment it begins to rain and hence it is permitted even after that.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 69 - Careful as he Sleeps

The Sages created an injunction that one should not lie down on clothing that has shatnez in it for perhaps some of the threads will wrap around his skin. According to this, the Gemora questions the permissibility of the kohanim resting on their clothing (according to the opinion that there was shatnez in the belt).

The Maharatz Chayus brings a proof to the opinion of the Maharsha who holds that the concept of אין שבות במקדש - "there are no injunctions in the Mikdash" only applies by laws pertaining to Shabbos, however other halachos would be applicable even in the Mikdash. However, he rebuts this proof by explaining the reason behind the concept of אין שבות במקדש. This is because the kohanim are meticulous and extremely careful and therefore there is no justifiable cause for the injunction. However, here we are concerned of what might happen when the kohanim are asleep and therefore the logic does not apply.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Yoma 69 - Gidlo, Gidel

The Gemara states מאי גדול א"ר יוסף אמר רב שגדלו בשם המפורש, רב גידל אמר וכו The Mahretz Chiyas writes elsehwere (I believe in Bav Metzia or Taanis) that many times the Gemara attributes a statement to an amora because the name of the amora is similar to the statement. This Gemara is proof to this concept as the name גידל is similar to the word גידלו. Otehr proofs to this is a medrash quoted by Ramban in Parashas Ki Sitzei regarding having רחמנות on animals and the name of the one making the statement is רבי רחמאי. Another proof is in Gemara Eiruvin 53a מאי מכפלה שכפולה בזוגות ממרא קרית ארבע אמר רבי יצחק קרית הארבע זוגות אדם וחוה אברהם ושרה יצחק ורבקה יעקב Another Gemara similar to this is in Megillah 6a ואמר רבי יצחק מאי דכתיב יוחן רשע בל למד צדק אמר יצחק לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא רבונו של עולם. Please submit others if you know any.

Read more!

Response to Question Posted Here Previously


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld


Yoma 059: The relevance of discussing the Second Beis ha'Mikdash

Michael Post asked:

There's a long buildup to the question, but here it goes.

In the first Beis HaMikdash, there was a wall separating the Kodesh
from the Kodesh HaKadashim, with a curtain in the middle. In the
second Beis HaMikdash, there was no wall and either 1 or 2 curtains.
According to Yechekel's accounting of the third Beis Mikdash, the
entrance to the Kodesh HaKadashim will be 6 amos by 7 amos, which
sounds again like the case of a wall with a paroches in the middle.

When describing the blood applications for the Incense Altar, the
Gemara discusses at some length the different opinions for what
corner should be started at. This is based on the two opinions for
whether there was 1 curtain or 2, since one opinion had the Kohen
Gadol emerging from the North, and the other from the South. The
Gemara never discusses the order that was used for the Incense Altar
applications in the first Beis HaMikdash, where the Kohel Gadol
presumably emerged from the center. Given that it seems like the
Third Beis HaMikdash will be more like the first, and the second is
already destroyed, (a) why does the Gemara spend time discussing
issues pertaining to the second temple curtains, which will never
again be relevant, and (b) why does the Gemara NOT discuss how this
procedure was done in the first Temple, which is more likely to have
relevance to the third Temple?

There are a number of other places already covered in Yoma where a
similar question could be asked, but I only thought of it here.

Michael Post, University Heights, OH
The Kollel replies:

Yechezkel 41:3 states that the opening of the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim will
be 6 Amos and the width of the opening 7 Amos. See MALBIM there who
writes that the outer Paroches will open from the south side and the
inner Paroches will open from the north like it was in the 2nd Beis
ha'Mikdash as Tana Kama states in MISHNAH YOMA 51b that there were 2

According to this we can understand why the Gemara discusses the 2nd
Temple curtains because this is how it will be in the 3rd Beis
ha'Mikdash, may it be rebuilt speedily in our days.

With regard in general to the similarity between the 2nd Temple and
Yechezkel's Temple, I sent an answer on 28/02/06 to Rabbi Pesach
Feldman's observation on RASHI YOMA 16b DH VE'HAMOSAR who writes that
the Tanna did not need to specify how much space the tables occupied
because their width is stated explicitly in Yechezkel. As a rule, one
can say that if we do not know that the 2nd Beis ha'Mikdash was
different to Yechezkel's, we can assume they are the same.

See also RAMBAM HILCHOS BEIS HA'BECHIRAH 1:4 that I cited in the
above answer, that the 2nd Beis ha'Mikdash is similar to Yechezkel's,
and see TOSFOS YOM TOV in the OPENING to MASECHES MIDOS that the
purpose of learning the above Maseches (which discusses the 2nd Beis
ha'Mikdash) is so we shall know the measurements of the 3rd Beis
ha'Mikdash, when we shall be Zocheh to receive it.


Read more!