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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Yoma 22


***** Perek Shiv'as ha'Yamim *****


(a) Before they initiated the Payas for Terumas ha'Deshen - any Kohen who wanted to, would perform it.


1. If two people wanted to perform it - they would race up the Mizbe'ach. The Kohen who arrived first within the top four Amos of the ramp would merit the Mitzvah.
2. If they both arrived within the last four Amos simultaneously - then they would organize a Payis.
(c) In the latter case, all the Kohanim present would participate in the ensuing Payis.

(d) They withdrew the original method of determining which Kohen would merit the Terumas ha'Deshen, after it once happened that two Kohanim were racing, and the Kohen who was behind pushed the Kohen who was in the lead off the Mizbe'ach, causing him to break his leg.

(a) The reason they did not institute a Payis for the Terumas ha'Deshen together with the other Payasos - is because they figured that the Kohanim would not attach sufficient importance to a night-Avodah, as to come so early in the morning, seeing as they were not certain to merit it anyway.

(b) They *did* however, initiate a Payis for bringing up the limbs of the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim on to the Mizbe'ach, even though it too, was an Avodah that was performed by night - because although it was performed in the night, it was really the tail-end of a *day*-Avodah.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan said that a Kohen who had made Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim for the Terumas ha'Deshen did not need to do so again in the morning, since he had already sanctified them at the *beginning of the Avodah* (implying that Terumas ha'Deshen was not a night- Avodah, but part of the *day*- Avodah. This repudiates the distinction between Terumas ha'Deshen and bringing up the limbs - that we just made.

(d) We amend Rebbi Yochanan's statement to read, instead of 'mi'Techilas Avodah' ('from the beginning of the Avodah') to mi'Techilah' ('earlier on').

(a) According to the Gemara's second explanation, Chazal did not include Terumas ha'Deshen in the original Payasos, because they assumed that the Kohanim would have difficulty in getting up in the morning. They nevertheless included the bringing of the limbs of yesterday's Korban (which also took place at night-time) - because it is much easier to remain awake at night than it is to get up early in the morning?

(b) In fact, the Gemara explains, there were two decrees: Initially, Chazal thought that the Kohanim would not come so early in the morning; then they saw that they *did* come, and that as things stood, the Terumas ha'Deshen involved danger, so they instituted a Payis for it, too. But then the Kohanim, who were not willing to come so early in the morning on the off- chance that the Payis would fall on *them*, stopped coming. So, in order to encourage them to come, they instituted that, whichever Kohen merited the Terumas ha'Deshen, would also merit the Avodah of arranging the wood on the Ma'arachah and the placing of the two logs of wood there.

(c) When the two Kohanim raced up the ramp, the one who reached within four Amos performed the Avodah. Rav Papa takes for granted that this does not refer to ...

1. ... the four Amos preceding the ramp - because the Tana specifically wrote 'Ratzin *ve'Olin ba'Kevesh*'.
2. ... the first four Amos from the foot of the ramp and upwards - from the same phrase, which implies that the Kohanim actually ran up the ramp (see Tosfos Yeshanim).
3. ... Somewhere in the middle of the ramp - because we would not know exactly where that is.
(d) Rav Papa's She'eilah is whether the four Amos (which definitely refer to the last four Amos of the ramp) were four Amos from the end (where the ramp reached the *top* of the Mizbe'ach) or four Amos from the *beginning* of the Mizbe'ach - i.e. minus two Amos (the Amah of the Yesod at the foot of the Mizbe'ach, and the Amah of the Sovev in the middle of the Mizbe'ach).



(a) They counted the fingers and not the people - because it is forbidden to count people.

(b) We initially try to present the source for this as the Pasuk in Shmuel "Vayifkedem be'*Bezek*" - which we take to mean 'with pieces of earthenware'.

(c) We refute this contention on the grounds that "be'Bezek' may well mean 'in a place called Bezek'.

(d) The true source for the prohibition of counting Yisrael is a Pasuk in Hoshei'a "Vehayah B'nei Yisrael ke'Chol ha'Yam Asher Lo Yimad ve'Lo Yisafer".
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak learns from "Lo Yimad ve'Lo Yisafer" that someone who counts them transgresses *two* La'avin.

(a) We initially explain that the *beginning* of the above Pasuk "Vehayah B'nei Yisrael ke'Chol ha'Yam" (implying that the numbers of Yisrael will be countable) speaks when Yisrael do *not* behave as they should, whereas its continuation "Asher Lo Yimad ve'Lo Yisafer" (which implies that the numbers of Yisrael are limitless) - speaks when they *do*.
According to the Gemara's second answer - Yisrael will be too numerous to be counted by human beings (who are also not able to count the sand by the sea-shore), but will be countable at the Hand of Hashem.

(b) Shmuel (who interprets Bezek like we first explained in 4b.) explaining the change in the Pesukim in Shmuel (which describes how Shaul counted the people with pieces of earthenware, and later with lambs) - points out how, once a person is appointed leader over the community, Hashem grants him wealth.

(a) The Pasuk in Shmuel writes about King Shaul "Vayarev ba'Nachal". If 'Nachal" is a hint to 'the Nachal Eisan' (in the Parshah of Eglah Arufah), the Pasuk refers to when Shaul queried Hashem, as to what the animals and the children of Amalek had done wrong to deserve to be exterminated.

(b) A Heavenly Voice announced - "Al Tehi Tzadik Harbeh" (one should not try to be cleverer than Hashem).

(c) Later, he went from extreme to the other, inasmuch as, on another occasion, he ordered an entire town of innocent Kohanim to be killed - as Chazal have stated 'someone who is kind to the cruel, will later go on to be cruel to the kind (i.e. the Kohanim, whose quality is kindness). That is when a Heavenly Voice announced "Al Tirsha Harbeh".

(a) 'Shaul be'Achas ve'Alsah Lo, David bi'Shetayim ve'Lo Alsah Lo' means - 'Shaul performed only *one* sin, which caused him to die and lose his kingship; whereas David performed *two*, yet he did not lose *his*.

(b) The Gemara learns from here that when Hashem is on someone's side, he does not need to worry about anything.

(c) Shaul lost his kingship - through the episode of Amalek, for taking the animals as spoil and keeping Agag alive.

(d) The Gemara does not include the unjust killing of Nov, the city of Kohanim, making it *two* - because Hashem had rejected him already *before* that.

(a) The two sins of King David to which the Gemara refers are those of sending Uriah to the front to be killed and counting Yisrael.

(b) The sin of Bas Sheva is not included, making it *three*, because David was punished for that directly - fourfold.

(c) He lost the next baby that was born to him, the raping of Tamar, and the deaths of Amnon and Avshalom.

(d) This answer is rejected on the grounds that all these punishment did not strike his body. Otherwise, we could not have included the sin of counting the people either - since there too, he was punished by the ensuing plague that struck the people, but not him.

(a) In the final analysis, the sin of Bas Sheva is not included - because David received a bodily punishment in the form of Tzara'as, which remained with him for six months, during which time the Sanhedrin and the Shechinah both left him.

(b) Even if we were to learn like Rav (that David *did* in fact accept Lashon ha'Ra), Rav Huna would still be justified in not including this sin - because he was punished for that, when Hashem responded to his statement (of 'You and Tziva shall divide the field') with the words 'Rechav'am and Yerav'am shall divide the Kingdom'! (which is an intimately personal punishment (as if it had struck *him* - Agados Maharsha).

(a) "Ben Shanah Shaul be'Molcho" - means that, at the time that Shaul was crowned King, he was without sin, like a baby in his first year.

(b) When Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak ...

1. ... suggested that perhaps the Pasuk means to say that Shaul was dirty with sin like a year-old baby - he was shown a group of fearful angels who threatened him for daring to make such a suggestion. See also Tosfos Yeshanim.
2. ... asked for forgiveness from the bones of Shaul ben Kish - he was again shown the group of angels, because he referred to the bones of Shaul and not to his whole body (see Agados Maharsha).
(c) King David had a Pesul Dofi (otherwise referred to as a box of Sheratzim hanging around his neck). This means that he began with a stigma to his name, on account of the not very nice episode of Yehudah and Tamar. This would serve to prevent all the Malchei Beis David from allowing their power to go to their heads - this is something that King Shaul did *not* have, and the lack of it would cause *his* descendants to become proud. Consequently, they did not inherit the kingship from him.

(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav ascribes Shaul's losing his kingdom to his extreme (unwarranted) humility - for foregoing his honor (which, by a king, is a reflection of the honor of Hashem, and therefore not his to forego).

Next daf


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