ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 27
YOMA 27, 28, 29 (16 Shevat), 30 - have been dedicated by Gitle Bekelnitzky
for the 38th Yahrzeit of Leah bas Mordechai Dovid and Chasya (Bikelnitzky),
mother of her late husband, Simcha Bekelnitzky.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk ..
1. ... "ve'Ata u'Vanecha Itach Tishmeru es Kehunaschem" -- that the Avodas
ha'Kohanim is forbidden to Zarim.
(b) Abaye now attempts to re-learn Chizkiyah's Derashah (quoted at the foot
of 26b.) from the Pasuk "ve'Nasnu B'nei Aharon ha'Kohen Eish Al
ha'Mizbe'ach" - that Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach do not require Kehunah (otherwise,
the Torah would not need to inform us that arranging the fire on the
Mizbe'ach ("ve'Nasnu") requires Kehunah - it is obvious, since it is written
2. ... "ve'Shachat es Ben ha'Bakar Lifnei Hashem, *ve'Hikrivu B'nei Aharon
ha'Kohanim*" - that it is only from the Kabalah and onwards (which is meant
in this Pasuk by "ve'Hikrivu") that Kohanim are required to perform it (in
which case we will explain "ve'Samach ve'Shachat" [which precedes
"ve'Hikrivu"] to mean that the owner who leans his hands on it may also
perform the Shechitah - even though he is a Zar).
(c) However, we refute this explanation, too - because arranging fire on the
Mizbe'ach is an Avodah that does not render the Korban Pasul (when it is not
performed) [and we would therefore not know from "ve'Hikrivu" that it too,
requires Kehunah]. Consequently, "ve'Nasnu" is intrinsically needed.
(a) It is not necessary to write "ve'Hikriv ha'Kohen es ha'Kol" (referring
to carrying the limbs on to the Mizbe'ach) because, like arranging the fire,
it does not render the Avodah Pasul (when it is not performed), so we can
learn from "ve'Nasnu" (by arranging the fire - see 1a), that it too, needs
(b) The Torah writes "ve'Hikriv" ... to infer from it that it is only the
carrying of the *limbs* on to the Mizbe'ach that requires Kehunah, but not
the carrying of the *wood* (which is permitted to Zarim).
(c) We also learn from the previous Derashah that it is specifically
*carrying* the wood on to the Mizbe'ach that does *not* require Kehunah, but
*arranging* the two blocks of wood on the Mizbe'ach, *does* - See Tosfos DH
(a) We learn from "ve'Hiktir *ha'Kohen* es ha'Kol ha'Mizbechah" - to
preclude Hefshet ve'Nitu'ach from Kehunah. It is not needed for itself as we
explained by arranging the two blocks of wood (in 2c).
(b) We learn from the Torah's use of the plural in the Pasuk "ve'Archu"
"B'nei Aharon" "ha'Kohanim" - that the lamb of the Tamid must be carried on
to the Mizbe'ach by six Kohanim (five to carry the limbs and one, the
(c) But how can we possibly learn the Din of the *lamb* of the Korban from a
Pasuk which speaks about a Korban brought from a *bull* (of a Korban Olas
(d) We resolve this difficulty from the continuation of the Pasuk "al
ha'Eitzim Asher al ha'Eish Asher Al ha'Mizbe'ach" - which is redundant. So
using the logic that it is the lamb of the Korban Tamid that requires a
fresh arrangement of wood and fire on the Mizbe'ach each morning, we apply
the Pasuk to the Korban Tamid, as we explained.
(a) "ve'ha'Eish al ha'Mizbe'ach Tukad Bo" refers to the Mitzvah of arranging
the wood on the Mizbe'ach each morning.
(b) The Pasuk writes "ve'Arach Aleha ha'Olah", from which we Darshan
'ha'Olah, Olah Rishonah' (precluding all other Korbanos from requiring a new
(c) The Torah took the opportunity of mentioning the Din of arranging the
wood here since it is speaking about the needs of an Olah, and we might
otherwise wonder how the wood and the fire came to be on the Mizbe'ach.
(a) 'Zar she'Sidar es ha'Ma'arachah, Chayav' (Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim).
So we amend Rebbi Yochanan's statement to read 'Zar she'Sider Sh'nei Gizrei
Eitzim, Chayav, Ho'il va'Avodas Yom Hu'.
(b) He *is* permitted to remove it - for the Kohen to re-arrange (It is
unclear however, what a Zar is doing on the Mizbe'ach in the first place, or
how he is permitted to remain there?) According to some Rishonim, the Zar
actually rectifies him sin by removing the wood that he placed.
(c) Rebbi Zeira objected to Rebbi Yochanan's first statement - There is no
such thing, he argues, as an Avodah that is Kasher by night (such as
arranging the wood) and Pasul for a Zar to perform?
(d) We cannot answer Rebbi Zeira's Kashya from ...
1. ... the Avodah the burning of the limbs and the fat-pieces - because they
are not a night-Avodah at all, but the conclusion of the day Korbanos.
2. ... the Terumas ha'Deshen - because it too, is not really a night-Avodah,
but the beginning of the day Avodos. This we learn from another statement of
Rebbi Yochanan's, where he says that if a Kohen performed Kidush Yadayim
ve'Raglayim for the Terumas ha'Deshen, he does not need to do so again,
since he has already done it at the beginning of the Avodah (See Tosfos
Yeshanim and Rabeinu Chananel).
(a) When Rava asked that if the Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei Eiztim was an Avodah,
then why did it not require a Payas - he forgot the Beraisa (quoted above
22a) that whoever merited the Terumas ha'Deshen, also merited arranging the
Ma'arachah and the Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei Eitzim.
(b) Despite the fact that only *day*-Avodos required a Payis, nevertheless
1. ... the burning of the limbs and fat-pieces - required a Payis because it
too, was really the end of the day Avodah - as we said above.
(c) In spite of the fact that only those Avodos which rendered a Zar Chayav
Misah, required a Payis - they nevertheless instituted a Payis by the
Shechitah, because it was the first Avodah of the Tamid.
2. ... the Terumas ha'Deshen required a Payas - (even if it *was*
considered a night-Avodah) because of the episode with the two Kohanim.
(a) In the next Mishnah, the Tana describes how the Memuneh would ask the
Kohanim to go and see whether it was light in the east - because it once
happened that, mistaking the light of the moon for the light of the sun,
they Shechted the Tamid shel Shachar before dawn, with the result that the
Tamid had to be taken to the Beis ha'Sereifah and burned.
(b) Even though the Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei Eitzim on the Mizbe'ach was
considered a *day*- Avodah, he nevertheless instructed them to go and see
whether the time of *Shechitah* of the Tamid had arrived, and not the time
of the Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei Eitzim - because, in the latter case, even if
they *had* placed the two blocks of wood on the Mizbe'ach by night, they
would have been able to rectify the mistake by removing it and re-placing it
after dawn-break (something which is of course, not possible by the
Shechitah of the Tamid).
(a) In the second Lashon, Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Yochanan (who declares a
Zar who arranged the Ma'arachah to be Chayav Misah), why he should be
Chayav, seeing as it is followed by the Avodah of Sidur Sh'nei Gizrei
(b) Rashi delete the Kashya from the carrying of the limbs and the fat-
pieces, and from the Terumas ha'Deshen, both of which are the beginning of
other Avodos, and yet a Zar is Chayav for performing them - because we have
already established both of those cases as Avodos Tamos (final Avodos) in
the Sugya of Rav and Levi (on 24a).