(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 4


QUESTION: The Gemara says that just like Haza'ah with blood was performed on Aharon for seven days in the Mishkan at the time of the Milu'im, so, too, Haza'ah with water is performed on the Kohen Gadol before Yom Kipur, and on the Kohen who prepares the Parah Adumah, for all seven days of their Perishah. Even though the original Haza'ah was done with blood, "water comes and takes the place of blood" ("Nichnas Mayim Tachas Dam").

What does the Haza'ah of water have to do with the Haza'ah of blood? How can one be learned from the other? Water is used for the purpose of being Metaher the Kohen from Tum'as Mes, which has nothing to do with the Haza'ah of blood!


(a) TOSFOS HA'ROSH says that granted, the two Haza'os are not similar to each other. The Gemara is merely deriving the general requirement to have a Haza'ah from the Haza'ah of Milu'im, but it is not trying to learn the specific type of Haza'ah.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Nichnesu) suggests that according to this Tana, the entire Limud from Milu'im is only an Asmachta. The simple understanding of the verse is that it is saying that the procedures which are done on the first day of Milu'im must also be done *all seven days* of Milu'im, and it is not referring to Yom Kipur or Parah Adumah. The verse, rather, is merely an Asmachta which the Rabanan relied upon as an allusion that just as Perishah was done for Milu'im, it is also done for Yom Kipur and Parah Adumah.

Tosfos proves this from the Gemara later (8a), which gives a different reason for the Haza'ah, saying that each day of the Perishah might be the third or seventh day after the Kohen touched a corpse. We see, then, that the reason for Haza'ah has nothing to do with the verse of Milu'im. It must be that the verse is only an Asmachta. (It would appear that Tosfos is saying this only according to this Tana, that authored the Beraisa which mentions only one Perishah -- see previous Insight. According to the Tana who mentions two Perishos, Perishah is mid'Oraisa, as seems clear from the discussion at the beginning of the Perek of how to learn the Pasuk.)

The Gemara cites support from a Beraisa for Reish Lakish's opinion that we learn Perishah from Sinai. In the Beraisa, Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili says that a cloud covered Moshe Rabeinu for six days, and only on the seventh day did Moshe Rabeinu completely ascend the mountain to where the Shechinah was resting (Machaneh Shechinah). From there we see that the Perishah of Yom Kipur is learned from Har Sinai, as Reish Lakish maintains.

Where do we see from Har Sinai anything about the Perishah of Yom Kipur? All we see from there is that there was a Perishah at Har Sinai! How can it be proven from there that this law affects the yearly Yom Kipur ceremony?


(a) TOSFOS (DH Tanya) answers that we see later (4b) that Rebbi Elazar, a student of Rebbi Yochanan, agreed with the opinion of Rebbi Akiva who said that the six-day Perishah at Sinai was done *prior* to Matan Torah. It is likely, then, that Rebbi Elazar's teacher, Rebbi Yochanan, also ruled like Rebbi Akiva (as the Gemara said in Shekalim 7b).

Why did Rebbi Yochanan rule like Rebbi Akiva, if Rebbi Akiva's opinion appears more forced in the verses than Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili's opinion? Besides, another two Tana'im in the Beraisa agree to Rebbi Yosi, that the Perishah *followed* Matan Torah, and if so Rebbi Yochanan should have agreed with the majority. It must be that Rebbi Yochanan sided with Rebbi Akiva only because he had a Kabalah that the Milu'im is the source for Perishah, and if Moshe Rabeinu made a Perishah before ascending Har Sinai, it would be obvious that Reish Lakish is correct, and that we learn the Perishah of Yom Kipur from the Perishah of Sinai and not from the Milu'aim. It is much more logical to learn Perishah from Sinai, which involves the entrance into Machaneh Shechinah, than to learn it from Milu'im.

Therefore, it is correct to state that Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili's opinion is support for Reish Lakish. (This appears to be the intention of Tosfos, see Gevuras Ari who discusses the Tosfos at length.)

(b) The GEVORAS ARI and SI'ACH YITZCHAK suggest that it may be proven from the Beraisa that Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili holds that Sinai is the source for the Kohen Gadol's Perishah on Yom Kipur. If not, on what point does he disagree with Rebbi Nasan, who says that the Perishah of Moshe Rabeinu was to "digest the remains of food in his intestines." Both Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Yosi agree that the Perishah was after Matan Torah, as Rashi explains, so how is Rebbi Yosi disagreeing with Rebbi Nasan?

It must be that they disagree as to whether the Kohen Gadol, every year, needs Perishah. Rebbi Nasan says that only Moshe needed Perishah, since he would not eat in heaven for forty days and would live like an angel (as Rashi explains). Rebbi Yosi asserts that the Perishah was a preparation for entering Machaneh Shechinah, and if so the Kohen Gadol should need Perishah before every Yom Kipur!


Next daf


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