(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 18


QUESTION: The Beraisa states that the Kohen Gadol has the right to take "four or five" of the twelve Chalos of the Lechem ha'Panim. Abaye explains that the Beraisa is following the opinion of the Rabanan who hold that the Kohen Gadol is entitled to *less than half* of the total products distributed to the Kohanim in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Since there are twelve Chalos of Lechem ha'Panim which are normally divided among the two Mishmaros (the one coming and the one leaving), when the Kohen Gadol takes Chalos he may take five, since that is just less than half. Why, though, does the Beraisa mention that he gets "*four* or five" Chalos?

Abaye says that when the Beraisa says that the Kohen Gadol may take four Chalos, that is according to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that when the outgoing and incoming Mishmaros divide the Chalos, the new Mishmar gets *seven* and the old Mishmar gets *five*. Two Chalos are always reserved for the new Mishmar as a reward for closing the doors of the Azarah which were opened by the outgoing Mishmar. Since the two Mishmaros, according to Rebbi Yehudah, are splitting only *ten* of the Chalos, the Kohen Gadol takes just less than half, which is *four*. He does not share the Chalos that are given as a reward; he shares only those Chalos which are given as part of the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash.

The GEVURAS ARI asks that the Gemara assumes that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the outgoing Mishmar must give *two* Chalos to the incoming Mishmar, leaving only ten Chalos from which the Kohen takes just less than half (i.e. four). However, if originally each Mishmar received *six* Chalos, then the outgoing Mishmar is not giving *two* Chalos as a reward to the new Mishmar, but it is giving only *one* Chalah, so that the new Mishmar gets seven and the old Mishmar gets five. Consequently, the Kohen Gadol should be entitled to all of the Chalos which are not used as a reward, and since only *one* is being used as a reward, that leaves eleven from which he is entitled to take just less than half. If so, even Rebbi Yehudah should hold that he gets *five* Chalos, and not four!


(a) The GEVURAS ARI answers that it is true that eleven Chalos, and not ten, are split among the two Mishmaros, and in theory, the Kohen Gadol should get five Chalos even according to Rebbi Yehudah. However, if he were to receive five Chalos, it would not be evident that he was receiving just less than half, because even if he gets exactly half, he would still only get five Chalos. This is because half of eleven is five and a half and it is not respectful to give the Kohen Gadol an incomplete loaf. Therefore, to show that he does not receive half but that he is getting less than half, we give him only four Chalos according to Rebbi Yehudah.

(b) According to the Gevuras Ari, the extra Chalah which the incoming Mishmar gets is being given to them by the outgoing Mishmar from their own portion, as a reward for closing the doors for them. If so, it must be that all twelve Chalos were split, and that is why the outgoing Mishmar gets five and the incoming Mishmar gets seven (since the outgoing Mishmar gives one of "their" Chalos to the incoming Mishmar). But if so, since all twelve Chalos were divided, the Kohen Gadol should still get five Chalos (one less than half)! (That would leave seven Chalos to be divided among the Mishmaros, each getting three and a half, and the outgoing Mishmar having to give one of those to the incoming Mishmar as its reward. That is, the reward would not be lessened by the amount that the Kohen Gadol took.)

Rather, it seems that it is *not* the outgoing Mishmar which gives of its own portion to the incoming Mishmar, but it is a Tenai Beis Din that the incoming Mishmar gets two extra Chalos. As such, it is given from the Chalos *before* they are divided, and thus there remain only *ten* Chalos to be divided. The Kohen Gadol is entitled to less than half, which is four. (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: The Beraisa states that the Kohen Gadol has the right to take "four or five" of the twelve Chalos of the Lechem ha'Panim. Rava explains that the Beraisa is following the opinion of the Rebbi, who holds that the Kohen Gadol normally is entitled to *half* of the total products distributed to the Kohanim in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Beraisa also holds like Rebbi Yehudah, who says that two Chalos were given to the incoming Mishmar as a reward for closing the doors of the Azarah. Thus, the Kohen gets half of the ten remaining Chalos, or five Chalos. When the Beraisa says that the Kohen Gadol gets "*four* or five" Chalos, it is referring to a case of a "Mishmar ha'Mis'akev," in which case the Mishmar ha'Mis'akev receives two Chalos, leaving only eight for distribution, of which the Kohen Gadol gets half, or four Chalos.

The Mishmar ha'Mis'akev is a Mishmar (or group of Mishmaros) who stayed an extra day in the Mikdash at the beginning of the week (Sunday, if Yom Tov was already over by Thursday), or who came a day early to the Mikdash at the end of the week (Friday; if Yom Tov began on the following Monday) and had to remain there over Shabbos. That Mishmar is not included in the division of the Chalos of Lechem ha'Panim, which is divided among the Mishmaros that are in the Mikdash on Shabbos (the incoming and outgoing Mishmaros), but rather they receive only two Chalos. The rest are given to the two Mishmaros on duty.

The GEVURAS ARI and MAHARSHAM ask that the Mishmar that stays behind is not required to be there. On the contrary, they are not supposed to be there, as Rashi implies. If so, why should the Kohen Gadol receive less than he would normally receive as a result of that Mishmar? If anything, we should lessen that Mishmar's share, and not the Kohen Gadol's! Why, then should the Kohen Gadol lose because of them?

ANSWER: The GEVURAS ARI answers that it is a Takanah of the Rabanan that the Mishmar that stays behind gets two Chalos. They do not get it because they deserve it; they get it out of the generosity of the Rabanan who made the Takanah for their benefit. Since they receive the Chalos by virtue of a Takanah and not through an apportionment (Chalukah), then just like they diminish the amount which the two Mishmaros get, they also diminish the amount that the Kohen Gadol gets, since the two Mishmaros and the Kohen Gadol get their Chalos through Chalukah.


QUESTION: The Gemara relates that Rav and Rav Nachman (and presumably other Amora'im), when traveling to distant towns, would marry another wife in their destination town, in order to prevent any nocturnal mishaps from occurring.

The Gemara then asks that it will not help to marry a wife in the new town, because she would not be permitted to him for at least seven days, for the excitement of the marriage causes the woman to see "Dam Chimud" and become a Nidah right away. The Gemara answers that either the Rabanan informed the women they intended to marry 7 days ahead of time, or that indeed, they did not actually marry them, but were only "Misyached" (did Yichud) with them. Even though they were not actually married, nevertheless she was "Pas b'Salo" ("bread available in his basket") which has a psychological effect such that it prevents any nocturnal mishaps from occurring.

According to this final answer of the Gemara, what sort of "Pas b'Salo" was it if the woman was forbidden to him because of Dam Chimud? (TOSFOS DH Yechudi)


(a) RASHI (as explained by Tosfos) and the RAMBAM (Isurei Bi'ah 11:10) explain that the Gemara means "Pas b'Salo *l'Achar Zeman*," for she becomes permitted to him after seven days. That is called "Pas b'Salo" since he knows that she will be permitted to him in a matter of days. (That is, she is "available" to him as far as the Isur of being with an unmarried woman is concerned, even though she is not available to him as far as the Isur of Nidah is concerned. Since it is natural for a Nidah to eventually become permitted, she is called Pas b'Salo.)

(b) TOSFOS and other Rishonim answer that the Amora'im were only "Tove'a l'Yichud" -- they asked the women only to marry them in order to be *Misyached* with them after marriage, but not to have marital relations. Since the women were not expecting intimacy, they would not see Dam Chimud. [On the other hand, if the Chachamim later decided to have relations, there would still be no Dam Chimud, since the women were already married to them. Dam Chimud is only seen when a proposal is made to a woman who is *not* married.]

This also answers the previous question of the Gemara, which asked that it is not permitted to have two wives in two different places lest it lead to Mamzerus. Since he was normally only Misyached with the second woman, there is no fear of Mamzerus occurring; if he would have relations with her, he would bring her to his home town.

(c) The RI HA'LAVAN and RA'AVAD (Isurei Bi'ah 11:10) explain that the word "Yichud" in this Sugya does not mean "isolate themselves." It means "set aside for themselves"; that is, the Chachamim would ask a woman not to marry them, but to be "on call" for marriage. This was considered Pas b'Salo since at any moment, the woman would be ready to marry him and move in with him.

For reasons similar to those suggested by Tosfos, there is no problem of Dam Chimud in such a situation. When he asks her to "be ready" for him, he has not made a formal marriage proposal, so there is no Dam Chimud. When he later proposes to her and marries her, she will not have Dam Chimud since the proposal was, in a sense, expected and did not "catch her by surprise." (According to this approach too, the first question of the Gemara is answered, as described above in (b).)

Next daf


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