(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yoma 3

YOMA 3 (19 Teves) - has been dedicated to the memory of Hagaon Rav Yisrael Avraham Abba ben Harav Chaim Binyamin Ze'ev Krieger ZT"L, author of Yad Yisrael (on Rambam) and many other Sefarim, by his son, Benayahu Krieger.


QUESTION: The Gemara quotes Rebbi Yochanan as saying that the Torah requires Perishah only for Yom Kipur, but not for Parah Adumah. The Perishah of Parah Adumah is merely a "Ma'aleh b'Alma." The Gemara asks that Rebbi Yochanan was quoted elsewhere (2a) to have said that *both* require Perishah. The Gemara answers that the conflicting statement of Rebbi Yochanan was said in the name of his teacher, Rebbi Yishmael. Rebbi Yochanan himself, though, holds that only Yom Kipur needs Perishah.

How can Rebbi Yochanan, an Amora, argue with Rebbi Yishmael, a Tana? (TOSFOS in Kesuvos 8a DH Rav proves that Rebbi Yochanan, unlike Rav, was a full- fledged Amora and cannot argue with a Tana.)


(a) TOSFOS (DH d'Rabei) explains that the Gemara (4a) cites proof from a Beraisa for Rebbi Yochanan's opinion that the requirement for Perishah is derived from Milu'im. Our Girsa of that Beraisa says that both the Perishah of Yom Kipur and the Perishah of *Parah Adumah* are derived from Milu'im. TOSFOS says that from Rashi's words it is apparent that the Girsa in the Beraisa should *not* include the Perishah of Parah Adumah, but it should say that only one Perishah is derived from Milu'im (the Perishah of Yom Kipur). If so, there is a Tana that holds like Rebbi Yochanan as well. Rebbi Yochanan is siding l'Halachah like that Tana when he argues with Rebbi Yishmael.

(b) TOSFOS gives a second answer. If Rebbi Yochanan quoted Rebbi Yishmael as saying that the Torah requires Perishah for both Yom Kipur and Parah Adumah, it must be that Rebbi Yochanan had a Beraisa which we do not have. Apparently, in that Beraisa Rebbi Yishmael said that the Torah requires two Perishos while the Rabanan said that there is only one Perishah (i.e. for Yom Kipur). That is the Tana on whom Rebbi Yochanan relies.


QUESTION: Reish Lakish derives the obligation to do Perishah from the Torah's account of Moshe's ascent to Har Sinai. Just like Moshe Rabeinu was required to do Perishah for six days before coming closer to the Shechinah, so, too, the Kohen Gadol is required to do Perishah before entering the Kodesh ha'Kodashim on Yom Kipur.

From where, though, do we learn the *seventh* day of Perishah, asks the Gemara. The Gemara answers that the Rabanan decreed that he separate for an additional day out of fear that he might have had relations with his wife when she was a Nidah (that is, she discovered that she was a Nidah immediately after they separated), and thus he would be Tamei for seven days (as Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah says later, on 6a).

If that is the reason for the seventh day of Perishah, then why do we need to learn anything from Sinai? The seven days of Perishah are necessary for the simple reason that he might have had relations with a Nidah! The reason for Perishah is to ensure that he is Tahor, a practical consideration!


(a) TOSFOS ROSH says that indeed, according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah, no other source is needed to teach the requirement for Perishah. (Those who derive it from Sinai or from Milu'im hold like the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah and are not concerned that he will have relations with a Nidah. Consequently, perhaps they indeed require only six days of Perishah.)

(b) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH in his second answer, and the TOSFOS YESHANIM, say that six days of Perishah are required mid'Oraisa, as we learn from Sinai. It was the *Rabanan* added a seventh day of Perishah to be concerned for a Kohen who had relations with a Nidah. (However, without a source for Perishah to begin with, the Rabanan would not have instituted Perishah just because of their concern of a Kohen who might have relations with a Nidah.)

(c) The RITVA says that if Perishah was necessary only for the concern of a Kohen who had relations with a Nidah, it would suffice to send him out of his house, away from his wife. Why do we sequester him in the *Lishkas Parhedrin*? It must be that it is to prepare him for an act of *Kedushah* (i.e. to prepare him for entering the Machaneh Shechinah, the Kodesh ha'Kodashim). How do we know that the Kohen Gadol must be prepared for Kedushah? We learn that from Har Sinai.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,