ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 36
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) The bull had to be Shechted in the same spot as where the Viduy took
place. Consequently, it was also Shechted between the Ulam and the
(b) The author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - in
whose opinion Tzafon must correspond to the north side of the Mizbe'ach, but
not to the area of between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach.
(c) We initially think that Rebbi, who adds the north side of the Azarah
which is situated in the area incorporating the Ezras Yisrael and the Ezras
Kohanim (i.e. the twenty-two Amos in the main Azarah up to the Mizbe'ach) -
only comes to add to the area specified by *Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah*
(i.e. due north of the Mizbe'ach), in which case he cannot be the author of
our Mishnah. We conclude however, that Rebbi comes to add also to the area
of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (i.e. who permits even Bein ha'Ulam
ve'la'Mizbe'ach), permitting the entire north section of the Azarah, east of
the Beis ha'Chalipos. In that case, he too could be the author of our
(d) Everyone agrees however, that the section of the Azarah next to the Beis
Chalipos is not eligible for the Shechitah of Kodshei Kodshim. That is the
area adjoining the north side of the Ulam - which is not eligible for the
Shechitah of Kodshei Kodshim, since one cannot see the Mizbe'ach from there
(and the Torah writes in Tzav "Al Yerech ha'Mizbe'ach Tzafonah").
(a) According to Rebbi, the Mishnah confines the Viduy and the Shechitah to
Bein ha'Ulam ve'la'Mizbe'ach, instead of just saying 'anywhere in the
Azarah' - for the same reason as it does so according to Rebbi Elazar
b'Rebbi Shimon (who also agrees that he could Shecht them north of the
Mizbe'ach): because Chazal want to make it as easy as possible for the Kohen
Gadol on Yom Kipur so that he should not become weak - so they both
mentioned between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach, giving him less walking
distance from the place where he receives the blood and his destination with
the bowl of blood (into the Heichal and Kodesh Kodshim).
(b) Everyone agrees that (under normal circumstances) the ideal location to
Shecht Kodshei Kodshim - is due north of the Mizbe'ach.
(a) The bull had to stand crooked, with its back facing northwards and its
face westwards, rather than with its back towards the east and its face
towards the west - because we are afraid that, if it is allowed to stand
with its back facing the Mizbe'ach, it will debase the Mizbe'ach, by leaving
droppings whilst standing with its back to the Mizbe'ach.
(b) According to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, the confession for an Olah was on
Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah - which had no Kaparah or Viduy of their own,
whereas Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser Ani had their own Viduy on Erev Pesach of
each fourth year.
(c) According to Rebbi Akiva - an Olah atoned for any Asei and 'La'av
ha'Nitak la'Asei', since these have no punishment of their own.
(d) It cannot come to atone for an ordinary La'av - which already has the
punishment of Malkos.
(a) The La'av of Neveilah and those of Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah are
comparable inasmuch as all of them are followed by an Asei ("la'Ger Asher
bi'She'arecha Titnenah" and "le'Ani ve'la'Ger Ta'azov Osam" respectively).
(b) None of these however, fall under the category of 'La'av ha'Nitak
la'Asei' (which is Patur from Malkos - according to all opinions) -
Neveilah, because it is only possible to fulfill the Asei if one has *not*
transgressed the La'av (since, once one has eaten it, how can one possibly
give it to a Ger?), and the other three, because the Torah seems to be
saying 'Do not collect Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah - but rather leave them for
the poor'. (That is why, in Rebbi Akiva's opinion, they are all subject to
(c) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili nevertheless holds that they are Patur from Malkos,
seeing as the Torah follows each La'av with an Asei (unlike the La'av of
Chasimah - "Lo Sachsom Shor be'Disho", which is placed next to the Parshah
of Malkos, and which therefore serves as the example of La'avin for which
one receives Malkos).
(a) According to Abaye, even Rebbi Yossi Hagelili will agree that Neveilah
is subject to Malkos - because, as we just explained, the Asei is only
applicable if one has not transgressed the La'av.
(b) He argues with Rebbi Akiva specifically by the La'av of Leket, etc.,
where the Torah writes "Ta'azov", implying that, *after* one has
transgressed the La'av, he should then fulfill the Asei of leaving it for
the poor, making it a La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei; whereas, according to Rebbi
Akiva, "Ta'azov" implies *before* transgressing the La'av (as we explained
earlier), and he will therefore receive Malkos.
(a) Rebbi Meir (the author of our Mishnah) bases the order of Viduy 'Avisi,
Pasha'ti ve'Chatasi' on two Pesukim in the Torah: one of them, is in
Acharei-Mos "ve'Hisvadah Alav es Kol Avonos B'nei Yisrael, ve'es Kol
Pish'ehem le'Chol Chatosam". The other, in Ki Sisa - is "Nosei Avon
va'Fesha, ve'Chata'ah ve'Nakei".
(b) According to the Chachamim, Avonos means - iniquities, Pesha'im -
rebellious sins and Chata'os - sins performed inadvertently. In that case,
why does Rebbi Meir give the order as 'Avisi, Pasha'ti ve'Chatasi', seeing
as it is not the done thing to confess first on sins transgressed on
purpose, and then on sins transgressed by mistake.
(c) The order of the Viduy according to the Chachamim - is therefore
Chatasi, Avisi u'Fasha'ti (progressing from the less serious to the more
(d) According to the Chachamim, when Moshe followed the order of Avon, Fesha
and Chatas - he was asking Hashem that, when Yisrael did Teshuvah, He should
consider the sins that they transgressed *on purpose* as if they had
performed them *by mistake*.
(a) Rav found it necessary to rule like the Chachamim, in spite of the fact
that they were in the majority - because he had the backing of the Pasuk, we
might otherwise have ruled like him.
(b) When Rabah asked that Chazen why he followed the Nusach of Rebbi Meir
and not of the Chachamim - he replied that he held like Rebbi Meir.
(a) "*ve'Chiper* Ba'ado u've'Ad Beiso" (written by the Kohen's bull) -
either refers to verbal Kaparah, or to Kaparas Damim.
(b) We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah from "ve'Chiper" and "Lechaper" (written
by the Sa'ir ) that the Kaparah by the bull is Kaparas Devarim (since by the
Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach there was no Damim).
(c) "ve'Chiper" written by the Sa'ir la'Hashem can only refer to Kaparas Dam
- because, firstly, it is written immediately after the Parshah of Matan
Damim, and secondly, because there is no Viduy there to which it could
(d) We ultimately conclude that "Ve'Chiper" can only mean Kaparas Devarim -
because it is written before the bull was even Shechted, so how can it refer
to Kaparas Damim?
(a) We learn that the Viduy on Yom Kipur starts with 'Ana' - from a Gezeirah
Shavah 'Kaparah' 'Kaparah' from Har Sinai where, after the Eigel ha'Zahav,
Moshe said to Hashem "Ana Chata ha'Am ha'Zeh".
(b) We learn from the 'Gezeirah Shavah' "Kaparah" "Kaparah" from Eglah
Arufah - that the Viduy on Yom Kipur must contain the Name of Hashem, just
as there, the Kohanim mentioned the Name of Hashem ("Kaper le'Amcha Yisrael
Asher Padisa *Hashem*").
(c) Why, asks the Gemara, do we not learn Eglah Arufah from Sinai, to
require that the Kohanim begin their Viduy there with the word 'Ana'.