(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 33

YOMA 32-35 - anonymously sponsored towards a REFU'AH SHELEMAH to Shmuel Yakov ben Ayala Hinda, Ilana Golda bas Chana and Klarees Marcia bas Mammie


QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the order of the Avodos on Yom Kipur according to the opinion of Aba Sha'ul as presented by Abaye: The Kohen Gadol prepares the first five Neros of the Menorah for lighting (Hatavas ha'Neros), after which he does the Shechitah of the Korban Tamid and the Zerikah of its blood, and then he prepares the last two Neros for lighting. The Gemara explains that the source for this is that the word "ba'Boker" appears twice in the verse referring to Hatavos ha'Neros, thus the actions of Hatavah (i.e. the Hatavah of the first five Neros as well as the Hatavah of the last two Neros) have two "ba'Boker"s (meaning *very* early), so to speak. In the verse of Zerikas ha'Dam, though, there is only one "ba'Boker" (meaning only "early," but not very early). Therefore, the Zerikas ha'Dam ought to be performed *after* all of the Neros have been prepared.

The Gemara points out, however, that in the earlier verse referring to the Shnei Gezirei Etzim, the word "ba'Boker" appears twice and they do not belong there with the Shnei Gezirei Etzim. Therefore, one "ba'Boker" is allotted to the Zerikas ha'Dam, and the other extra "ba'Boker" is allotted to the Hatavah of the five Neros. As a result, the Hatavah of the five Neros has three "ba'Boker"s, so it comes first. Zerikah has two "ba'Boker"s and is now on an equal standing with the Hatavah of the two Neros. Since it has the additional advantage of being a "Mechaper," it earns the right of precedence and comes before the Hatavah of the two Neros (that is, it comes between the Hatavos of the five Neros and the two Neros).

This reasoning does not seem to be consistent with the reasoning of the Gemara earlier on the Daf. We find (33a) that a logical advantage alone, such as "Mechaper" is sufficient to give precedence to one Avodah over another. When the Gemara discusses which is done first -- the Dishun Mizbe'ach Penimi or the Shnei Gezirei Etzim, the Gemara concludes that the bringing of the Shnei Gezirei Etzim is done first, because that Avodah is a "Machshir" for the Ketores. Even though the word "ba'Boker" appears twice in the verse of Shnei Gezirei Etzim, the Gemara says that those words are not used to show the precedence of the Shnei Gezirei Etzim (but are instead given to the Hatavas ha'Neros and the Zerikas ha'Dam, as we mentioned above) since it already has the advantage of being a Machshir. That advantage overrides the two appearances of "ba'Boker" in the verse of Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach.

Similarly, why does the advantage of being a Mechaper not override all of the "ba'Boker"s and give the Zerikas ha'Dam precedence over the Hatavas ha'Neros? If the Zerikas ha'Dam has the added advantage of being a Mechaper, then it should be performed first even *without* giving it an extra "ba'Boker!" Why is it necessary to manipulate the numbers of instances of the word "ba'Boker" in the verse, when Zerikas ha'Dam already has an advantage to place it before the Hatavas ha'Neros? In fact, Zerikas ha'Dam should come before *all* of the Neros!


(a) The RITVA and TOSFOS HA'ROSH answer that apparently the advantage of Machshir is stronger than that of Mechaper. Something which is a Mechaper, though, will not come first without first being on an equal standing (with numbers of "ba'Boker").

(The logic behind this distinction may be that when something is a Machshir, it is part of a logical progression from one event to the next. The logical advantage of Mechaper, though, has nothing to do with the progression of events.)

(b) The TOSFOS YESHANIM and TOSFOS HA'ROSH (in his second answer) explain that a logical advantage (such as Machshir or Mechaper) has the ability to put one Avodah before another *only* if both Avodos are already of equal standing (with numbers of "ba'Boker"), *or* if the Avodah with the logical advantage has *no* "ba'Boker" at all. In the case of Zerikas ha'Dam, though, the Torah writes one "ba'Boker." Since the Torah went out of its way to write one "ba'Boker" here, it must be telling us that this Avodah is supposed to come *after* an Avodah that has more "ba'Boker"s. Therefore, the advantage of being a Mechaper will not help in this case.

In the case of the Shnei Gezirei Etzim, regarding which there are two "ba'Boker"s, the advantage of being a Machshir will work equally well with two "ba'Boker"s as with no "ba'Boker"s (since the Torah does not tell us by writing just one "ba'Boker" that it must come after the other Avodah in question). Therefore, the two "ba'Boker"s are both unnecessary and are allotted to other Avodos.

QUESTIONS: The Gemara suggests that instead of adding one of the extra words "ba'Boker" to the Zerikas ha'Dam and one to the Hatavah of the five Neros, we should add one "ba'Boker" to the Zerikas ha'Dam and the other extra "ba'Boker" to the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach, thereby putting the Zerikas ha'Dam *before* the Hatavah of all of the Neros. (Zerikas ha'Dam has two "ba'Boker"s and is equal with the Hatavah of five Neros, *plus* it has the advantage of being a Mechaper.) The Gemara rejects this because the Torah writes regarding the Hatavas ha'Neros, "ba'Boker ba'Boker," teaching that the Hatavah must be split into two parts, and there must be another Avodah to separate between them. The only Avodah that is available to be put between the five and two Neros is the Zerikas ha'Dam.

(a) If it is clear from the verse that Zerikas ha'Dam must be done between the two Hatavos, then why do we need the additional "ba'Boker" from the Shnei Gezirei Etzim to give the Zerikas ha'Dam precedence to the Hatavas Shnei Neros? Even without the extra "ba'Boker," the Zerikas ha'Dam would come between the Hatavos, because the verse requires that there be a separation between the Hatavos!

(b) Second, why does the Gemara assume that the only Avodah which could separate the Hatavos is Zerikas ha'Dam? We could also separate the Hatavos with the Avodah of the bringing the *Evarei* ha'Tamid to the Mizbe'ach!

ANSWER: The Gemara is assuming that the Derashah telling us to put an Avodah between the Hatavah of the five and two Neros is *not* enough reason to put the Zerikas ha'Dam there, because *another* Derashah tells us otherwise: the Zerikas ha'Dam has only one "ba'Boker" while the Hatavah of the two Neros has two "ba'Boker"s. The only way to move the Zerikas ha'Dam before the two Neros is by adding to it one additional "ba'Boker."

This answers why we do not separate the Hatavos with the Evarei ha'Tamid. There is only one "ba'Boker" in the verse of the Evarei ha'Tamid, and thus it cannot come before the two Neros, which has two "ba'Boker"s.

(However, we should still be able to take one of the extra "ba'Boker"s of the Shnei Gezirei Etzim and add it to the Evarei ha'Tamid, so that they are on equal standing, each having two "ba'Boker"s, and then the verse that teaches that something must separate between the two Hatavos will allow us to place the Evarei ha'Tamid there! The remaining extra "ba'Boker" may be given to Zerikas ha'Dam, so that it is on equal standing with the first Hatavah, and its advantage of Mechaper will then place it before all of the Neros! Why do we not use that way of learning to place the Evarei ha'Tamid between the Neros and the Zerikas ha'Dam before the Neros?

TOSFOS (DH Yukdam) explains that we cannot do that, because by giving one "ba'Boker" to the Evarei ha'Tamid and the other "ba'Boker" to the Zerikas ha'Dam of the Tamid, we will be giving both extra "ba'Boker"s to *one* Avodah (that is, the general Avodah of the Korban Tamid). It is not logical to add both extra "ba'Boker"s to the same general Avodah.)

QUESTION: The Gemara suggests that instead of placing the Zerikas ha'Dam between the two Hatavos, it should be placed *before* the Hatavos by re- distributing the extra "ba'Boker"s in a different way (see previous Insight).

The Gemara says that according to Reish Lakish, who maintains that there is no strict requirement to split the two Hatavos apart from each other, this is a good question, and it remains unanswered. According to Rebbi Yochanan, though, who says that the Torah does require that the two Hatavos be separated, there is no question, because there has to be an Avodah in between the Hatavos. The only Avodah that is available to be put between the five and two Neros is the Zerikas ha'Dam. Rebbi Yochanan says that we learn from the words "ba'Boker ba'Boker" which are written in the verse discussing the Hatavos ha'Neros that the Hatavah must be divided into two parts (one for each "ba'Boker").

If so, then each of the two Hatavos -- the Hatavah of the five Neros and the Hatavah of the two Neros -- has only *one* "ba'Boker." Why, then, does the Gemara earlier say that both Hatavos each have *two* "ba'Boker"s?


(a) The TOSFOS YESHANIM and RABEINU CHANANEL (quoting "the Ga'on," as cited by the Ritva) argue with Rashi's interpretation of the Gemara. They explain that the Gemara is not saying that according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Gemara has no question. Rather, the Gemara is saying the opposite -- according to Reish Lakish there is no question, but according to Rebbi Yochanan there *is* a question. According to Rebbi Yochanan, who holds that the phrase "ba'Boker ba'Boker" teaches that the Hatavos must be separated, the Gemara is asking our very question. How can we attribute two "ba'Boker"s to *both* the Hatavah of the five Neros and the Hatavah of the two Neros? Each should only have *one* "ba'Boker!" The Gemara's conclusion, according to Rabeinu Chananel, is that Rebbi Yochanan's opinion remains difficult.

(b) The RITVA explains the Gemara like Rashi. He answers our question by saying that we learn two things from the phrase "ba'Boker ba'Boker." First, the phrase teaches to separate the Hatavos into two sets. Second, it teaches that *each* of the sets of Hatavah have two "ba'Boker"s, since the *simple* understanding of the verse is that the phrase "ba'Boker ba'Boker" refers to both the Hatavah of the five Neros *and* the Hatavah of the two Neros. (See also Insights to 27:1)


Next daf


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