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


by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Yoma 40

YOMA 36-40 have anonymously sponsored towards a REFU'AH SHELEMAH to Shmuel Yakov ben Ayala Hinda, Ilana Golda bas Chana and Klarees Marcia bas Mammie


(a) Question: The Beraisa teaches that Hagralah is a Mitzvah which is *not* Me'akev?!
1. This fits nicely according to the first Lashon.
2. According to the second Lashon, however, there is an opinion which maintains that Hagralah *is* Me'akev!?
(b) Answer: The Beraisa is correctly taught that *Hanachah* is a Mitzvah.
(c) The Beraisa teaches that it is a Mitzvah to do both Goral and Vidui, but that neither are Me'akev, and here the Goral *cannot* mean Hanachah!?
1. R. Shimon disagrees and holds that Vidui *is* Me'akev.
2. This reading implies that R. Shimon concurs that the Goral is *not* Me'akev.
(d) Question: If the Goral here means Hanachah, then R. Shimon would hold that our Goral (Aliyah) *is* Me'akev (Yet, R. Shimon holds that it is *not* Me'akev as we see from the case where one of the Seirim died)?!
(e) Answer: R. Shimon was unsure of the position of the Rabanan and taught his position that both Hagralah and Vidui are Me'akev regardless of what the Rabanan mean by Hagralah.
(f) We see the positions of R. Shimon and R. Yehudah as two alternate explanations for the Beraisa regarding the order of the Par and Sair.
1. The Beraisa teaches that preempting the Par with Avodah of the Sair is Me'akev that Sair, but the reverse is not.
2. What is being referred to as the Par before the Sair?
3. It cannot be the Matanos of the Par in the Heichal before the Matanos BiFnim, since Chukah does not allow for error there.
4. It must be the Matanos of the Par BiFnim before the Goralos, thus indicating R. Shimon's position that the Goralos are not Me'akev.
5. Alternately, it could be R. Yehudah's position, and while the order is not Me'akev, Hagralah is.

(g) We see the positions of R. Shimon and R. Yehudah regarding the indispensable nature of Vidui inferred from the Beraisa.
1. The Pasuk Yo'omad Chai is understood by R. Yehudah to mean until the Matan Dam of the other Sair, while R. Shimon takes it to mean until the Vidui.
2. R. Yehudah learns that the Kaparah of the Pasuk is Kaparas Damim while R. Shimon learns that the Kaparah is Devarim.
(h) Question: From R. Akiva's response to his students it seems that (had it not been for our concern over the Tzedukim that) the Goral is *not* Me'akev (contrary to what we have been taught)?!
(i) Answer: They actually asked about moving the left Sair and the Goral to his right side, and to that R. Akiva said no, because of the Tzedukim.
(j) Question: From the Beraisa (explaining the word Alav) it seems that Hagralah is Me'akev and that Hanachah is not.
(k) Answer: No, the Alav teaches that once we know which animal is which, it is purely a Mitzvah to place the Goral on the animal, and still, both Aliyah and Hanachah may not be Me'akev.
(l) Question: The Beraisa (a Sifra-Toras Kohanim) teaches that the *Goral* makes the Kedushah, and not the Kohen's words?!
1. This is taught to counter the effect of a Kal VaChomer which one might draw to learn that the Name *should* make it a Chatas.
2. The Pasuk thus teaches that it is the Goral creating the Chatas, and not the Name.
(m) An unnamed Sifra is the position of R. Yehudah.
(n) We thus resolve conclusively in favor of the those who hold that Hagralah *is* Me'akev.
Next daf


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