YOMA 58 (28 Sivan) - Dedicated in memory of Hagaon Rav Yisroel Zev [ben Rav Avrohom Tzvi] Gustman zt"l, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Netzach Yisrael-Ramailes (Vilna, Brooklyn, Yerushalayim), author of Kuntresei Shi'urim, and renowned Dayan in pre/post-war Vilna, on the occasion of his Yahrzeit. Dedicated by his Talmidim, Harav Eliezer Stern of Brooklyn, New York, and Dr. Yehoshua Daniel of Efrat.
1)
(a)Rami bar Chama asked Rav Chisda what the Din would be if the Kohen were to receive the blood in a Kli which was inside a Kli. On what grounds might such a Kabalah be Pasul?
(b)Why is there no proof that it is not a Chatzitzah from our Mishnah, which says 'Nasan es ha'Malei ba'Reikan'?
(c)But has the Mishnah not already said 'Irah Dam ha'Par l'Dam ha'Sa'ir'?
(d)Why is there no proof from the Beraisa in Zevachim which considers the feet of another Kohen a Chatzitzah?
1)
(a)Rami bar Chama asked Rav Chisda what the Din would be if the Kohen were to receive the blood in a Kli which was inside a Kli. Such a Kabalah might be Pasul - because it is a Chatzitzah (in which case, the Kohen would not be holding the Kli and would therefore not be making the Kabalah) - even though the Chatzitzah is caused by the same species (a different species would certainly be considered a Chatzitzah - see Tosfos DH 'Min b'Mino').
(b)There no proof that it is not a Chatzitzah from our Mishnah, which says 'Nasan es ha'Malei ba'Reikan' - because that could just as well mean that he poured the contents of the full bowl into the empty one, and not that he placed the one bowl inside the other.
(c)True, the Mishnah has already said 'Irah Dam ha'Par l'Dam ha'Sa'ir'. Nevertheless he would pour it back again in order to ensure that it was well mixed.
(d)Nor is there a proof from the Beraisa in Zevachim which considers the feet of another Kohen a Chatzitzah - because (in this regard) a foot is worse than a bowl since it is not subject to Bitul (whereas a bowl is).
2)
(a)From where do we learn that the Kohen is obligated to stand on the floor of the Azarah, and not on something else?
2)
(a)We learn that the Kohen is obligated to stand on the floor of the Azarah, and not on something else - from the fact that, like a Kli Shares, it renders Kadosh whatever is fit to become Kadosh. Consequently, it also has the same Din as a Kli Shares with regard to a Chatzitzah.
3)
(a)On what grounds might Kabalah in a Kli within a Kli be Pasul according to the second Lashon?
(b)How did Rav Chisda resolve this version of the She'eilah (see Tosfos Yeshanim DH Shnei Kelim) from the Beraisa, which in turn, quotes the Pasuk in Bamidbar "es Kol Klei ha'Shares Asher Yesharsu Bam ba'Kodesh"?
3)
(a)According to the second Lashon, Kabalah in a Kli within a Kli might be Pasul because it is not the regular way that Kabalah is performed.
(b)Rav Chisda resolves this version of the She'eilah from the Beraisa, which infers from the Pasuk in Bamidbar "es Kol Klei ha'Shares Asher Yesharsu Bam ba'Kodesh" - two Kelim but only one Sherus (Avodah), from which we see that a bowl within a bowl is Kasher.
4)
(a)Rami bar Chama also asked Rav Chisda whether or not, the soft bark that grows around the date-palms is considered a Chatzitzah if the Kohen placed it inside the bowl before receiving the blood. Seeing as it is made of a different species, why might it not be a Chatzitzah?
(b)May one use the water contained in a sponge in the water-trough (which in turn, is attached to the spring from which the Kohen is drawing the water for the Parah Adumah) for sprinkling?
(c)Is the sponge considered a Chatzitzah vis-a-vis the water in the trough?
(d)Then why can we not resolve Rami bar Chami's She'eilah from this Mishnah?
4)
(a)Rami bar Chama also asked Rav Chisda whether or not, the soft bark that grows around the date-palms is considered a Chatzitzah, if the Kohen placed it inside the bowl before receiving the blood. Although it is made of a different species, it might nevertheless not be a Chatzitzah - because the blood seeps through (and it is not therefore considered a real Chatzitzah).
(b)One is not permitted to use the water contained in a sponge in the water-trough (which in turn, is attached to the spring from which the Kohen is drawing the water for the Parah Adumah) for sprinkling.
(c)The sponge is not however, considered a Chatzitzah vis-a-vis the water in the trough.
(d)We cannot however, resolve Rami bar Chami's She'eilah from this Mishnah - because water, being less dense than blood, seeps through to a much larger extent than blood.
5)
(a)According to some, Rav Chisda replied that by blood, it is not considered a Chatzitzah, whereas by the Kometz of a Minchah, it is. Why is that?
(b)What did Rav Chisda mean by 'the Kometz'? To which Avodah was he referring?
5)
(a)According to some, Rav Chisda replied that by blood (which is a liquid), it is not considered a Chatzitzah, whereas by the Kometz of a Minchah (which is a solid), it is.
(b)By Kometz, Rav Chisda meant the Kidush Kli (placing it inside a Kli after the Kemitzah) which was equivalent to the Kabalas ha'Dam of a Korban.
58b----------------------------------------58b
6)
(a)Which Mizbe'ach is described as "Lifnei Hash-m"?
(b)According to the Tana Kama, did the Kohen Gadol stand in one spot as he placed the two sets of blood on each of the four corners of the Mizbe'ach, or did he walk round it?
(c)Why does the Tana say 'Hischil Mechatei v'Yored'?
(d)With which corner did the Kohen Gadol begin? What is the significance of the last corner on which he placed the blood?
6)
(a)The Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav is described as "Lifnei Hash-m".
(b)The Tana Kama holds 'Hakafah b'Regel' - which means that the Kohen Gadol walked round the Mizbe'ach as he placed the two sets of blood on each of its four corners.
(c)Seeing as the Tana Kama holds 'Hakafah b'Regel', the Kohen Gadol will actually have been standing in front of each corner as he placed the blood on it. Consequently (bearing in mind that the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi was only two Amos tall), he had to hold his arm at an acute angle, and if he were to move his hand upwards, blood would pour up his sleeve. As a result, after dipping his finger into the bowl of blood, he would place the blood on the corner in a downward direction. That is why the Tana uses the expression 'Hischil Mechatei v'Yored'.
(d)The Kohen Gadol concluded with the south-eastern corner - the corner where the Kohen would begin placing the Matanos of a Chatas during the rest of the year.
7)
(a)According to Rebbi Eliezer, the Kohen Gadol stood on one spot as he placed the blood on the corners. Why was it in order, for him to move his finger upwards as he placed the blood on three of the four corners?
(b)Which corner was the exception, and why was that?
(c)What did the Kohen Gadol do after he had placed the blood on the four corners?
(d)Where did he place the Sheyarei ha'Dam ...
1. ... from the current Avodos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi?
2. ... from the Avodos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (throughout the year)?
7)
(a)It was in order for him to move his finger upwards as he placed the blood on three of the four corners - because he was sufficiently distant from them, and the angle sufficiently slight, for there to be no fear that the blood might run up his sleeve.
(b)The exception was the corner where he was standing, since there, the angle of his arm would be acute. Consequently there, he placed the blood in a downward direction (like the Chachamim hold by all the corners).
(c)After he had placed the blood on the four corners of the Mizbe'ach - he sprinkled the blood once on top.
(d)He placed the Sheyarei ha'Dam ...
1. ... from the current Avodos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi - onto the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon that was closest to the Heichal (i.e. the western Yesod).
2. ... from the Avodos of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (throughout the year) - onto the Yesod that was closest to the ramp (i.e. the one Amah of southern Yesod).
8)
(a)What happened to all the blood? Where did it all go?
(b)Was one permitted to derive benefit from it?
(c)Was it subject to Me'ilah?
8)
(a)The blood flowed from the Yesod into the Amah that flowed through the Azarah, and from there out to the valley of Kidron.
(b)One was permitted to derive benefit from the blood (the gardeners used it as manure) provided they paid Hekdesh for it.
(c)Someone who used it before having paid for it was Chayav Me'ilah (mid'Rabanan - as we shall see).
9)
(a)Why does the Torah need to write ...
1. ... with regard to the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur (after he had sprinkled the two sets of blood on the Paroches) "v'Yatza el ha'Mizbe'ach"?
2. ... by the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur "Mizbach Ketores ha'Samim Asher Lifnei Hash-m"?
(b)The author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yosi Hagelili, in whose opinion the Kohen Gadol would place the blood on the north-eastern corner first. What does Rebbi Akiva hold?
(c)What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(d)Why did he not place the blood first on the north-*western* corner (according to Rebbi Yosi Hagelili) or on the south-*western* corner (according to Rebbi Akiva), since that is the first corner he would arrive at after the previous Avodah?
9)
(a)The Torah needs to write ...
1. ... with regard to the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur (after he had sprinkled the two sets of blood on the Paroches) "v'Yatza el ha'Mizbe'ach" - to teach us, says Rebbi Nechemyah, that when he sprinkled the blood on the Paroches, he had been standing close to it (i.e. between the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi and the Paroches). Otherwise, we would have assumed that he stood outside the Mizbe'ach - like the Kohen did when he sprinkled the blood from the Par He'elam Davar and the Par Kohen Mashi'ach.
2. ... by the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur "Mizbach Ketores ha'Samim Asher Lifnei Hash-m" - to teach us, says Rebbi Nechemyah, that the Kohen who sprinkled the blood from the Par He'elam Davar and of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach had to stand outside the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores ('Mizbe'ach Lifnei Hash-m, v'Ein Kohen Lifnei Hashem'). Otherwise, we would have learned from the Kohen Gadol who, when he sprinkled the blood from the Par and the Sa'ir on Yom Kippur, stood in between the Mizbe'ach and the Paroches.
(b)The author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yosi Hagelili, in whose opinion the Kohen Gadol would place the blood on the north-eastern corner first. According to Rebbi Akiva, he would first sprinkle on the south -eastern corner (like he did throughout the year).
(c)Rebbi Akiva concurs with Rebbi Yehudah (that there were two curtains in the second Beis Hamikdash, dividing between the Kodesh and the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, and that the entrance to the Amah Teraksin was on the south). Consequently, when the Kohen Gadol concluded the Avodah in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, he would enter the Heichal on the south, in which case, the south side was closer to him than the north. Whereas Rebbi Yosi Hagelili holds like Rebbi Yosi (that there was only one curtain in the time of the second Beis Hamikdash, and that it opened into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim on the north). Consequently, in his opinion, it would be the north side that was nearer to the Kohen Gadol, and not the south.
(d)He did not place the blood first on the north-*western* corner (according to Rebbi Yosi Hagelili) or on the south-*western* corner (according to Rebbi Akiva) - the first corner he would arrive at after the previous Avodah - since the Torah writes "v'Yatza el ha'Mizbe'ach", which they both understand to mean that the Kohen Gadol must go to the far end of the Mizbe'ach.
10)
(a)The Yam (Mikvah) that Shlomo made stood on twelve copper oxen. The first three mentioned in the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim faced north. In which order are the second, the third and the fourth sets of three listed there? What does Rami bar Yechezkel learn from that order?
(b)On what grounds do we reject the contention that both Rebbi Yosi Hagelili and Rebbi Akiva (in whose opinion, the Kohen Gadol moves to the left) concur with Rami bar Yechezkel's statement, but, whereas the former learns Penim from Chutz, the latter does not?
(c)In that case, still assuming that Rebbi Akiva concurs with Rami bar Yechezkel's statement, why, in his opinion, was the Kohen Gadol obligated to move to the left, from the south-eastern corner to the south-west and so on (instead of moving to the right)?
10)
(a)The Yam (Mikvah) that Shlomo made stood on twelve copper oxen. The first three mentioned in the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim faced north, the second three, west, the third three, south and the fourth three, east. Rami bar Yechezkel learns from that order - that by the Avodas Chutz, the Kohen always turns to the right.
(b)We reject the contention that both Rebbi Yosi Hagelili and Rebbi Akiva (in whose opinion, the Kohen Gadol moves to the left) concur with Rami bar Yechezkel's statement, but, whereas the former learns Penim from Chutz, the latter does not - because even if Rebbi Akiva does not learn Penim from Chutz, there is no reason why he should have to go towards the left, so why should he not be able to go towards the right, if he so wished?
(c)Assuming that Rebbi Akiva concurs with Rami bar Yechezkel's statement, the reason for moving to the left, from the south-eastern corner to the south-west and so on (instead of moving to the right) - is because, since he really ought to have begun with the south-*western* corner (the one he arrived at first - and we have a principle 'Ein Ma'avirin al ha'Mitzvos'), then he makes up for his omission by sprinkling on it second (rather than last).
