(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 49

YOMA 49-50 (6 & 7 Adar) were dedicated by Harav Avi Feldman & family in memory of his father, the Tzadik Harav Yisrael Azriel ben Harav Chaim (Feldman) of Milwaukee (Yahrzeit: 6 Adar)



(a) They asked Rav Chisda whether Holachah is Kasher if performed by a Zar. He answered with a Pasuk from Divrei ha'Yamim "Vayishchatu ha'Pesach Vayizreku ha'Kohanim mi'Yadam ... " - which he took to mean that the Yisrael would bring the blood to the Kohen, proving that Holachah performed by a Zar is Kasher.

(b) Rav Sheshes disagrees with Rav Chisda on the basis of the Beraisa that we quoted in the previous question, which specifically disqualifies Holachah performed by a Zar.

(c) He interprets the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim to mean - not that the Yisrael actually brought the blood to the Kohen, but that the Kohen who had received the bowl of blood placed it into the Yisrael's hands, from where the Kohen took it and brought it to the Mizbe'ach.

(d) When Rav Sheshes initially ruled that Holachah is Kasher with the left hand - he was not aware of the Beraisa; it was only later that he learned it and used it to query Rav Chisda.

2) Rav Papa asks whether if, another Kohen performed the Chafinah before transferring the Ketores into the hands of the Kohen Gadol - who has the same size hands as his, perhaps the Avodah ...
1. ... would *not* be Kasher - because the Kohen Gadol did not perform the Chafinah, and the Torah writes "ve'Lakach ve'Heivi", to teach us that the Kohen Gadol must take the Chafinah before he brings it into the Kodesh Kodashim.
2. ... would be Kasher - because the Torah does not write "ve'Chafan", only "u'Me'lo Chafnav", and it *is* "me'Lo Chafnav"!
(a) When Rebbi Chanina first heard the She'eilah whether, if the Kohen Gadol died, his successor would be permitted to take the Ketores into the Kodesh Kodshim without performing a fresh Chafinah - he exclaimed that the later generations (meaning himself, who, he was implying, was much younger than Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi) had merited the wisdom of the earlier ones (because *he* asked the very same She'eilah).

(b) The problem with this lies in the testimony of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - that he once received permission from Rebbi Chanina to eat cress on Shabbos - and there he referred to him as 'Rebbi', implying that Rebbi Chanina was senior to him.

(c) We therefore amend Rebbi Chanina's statement to read - that the later generations (Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi) merited the wisdom of the earlier ones (himself, because he too, asked the same She'eilah).

(a) The problem with Rebbi Chanina's concession for a sick person to eat cress on Shabbos - is that, in view of the Mishnah in Shabbos, which permits eating *all food* on Shabbos, even as a cure, what is the Chidush?

(b) Rebbi Chanina permitted Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi even to grind the cress on Shabbos, to use as a cure.

(c) One may grind herbs for a sick person on Shabbos provided he is in life- danger - Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's She'eilah was whether ground cress was an effective cure or not.

(d) He choose to ask specifically Rebbi Chanina, of all people - because he was an expert doctor. He testified that nobody had ever asked him about a bite from a white mule and lived (which we are about to discuss).

(a) It is possible to survive a bite sustained from a white mule.

(b) When Rebbi Chanina said that it was *not* - he was referring, not to the person, but to the wound ('ve'Chaysa' not 've'Chayah').

(c) He was in fact, referring to a red mule with white feet.

(a) When Rebbi Chanina says 'be'Par ve'Lo be'Damo shel Par' - he means that the Kohen Gadol is obligated to enter the Kodesh Kodashim on Yom Kipur with the bull ("be'Zos Yavo Aharon el ha'Kodesh, *be'Far*), and not just with the blood (of the bull which his predecessor Shechted before becoming Tamei).

(b) Rebbi Chanina also said that if the Kohen Gadol performed the Chafinah before the Shechitah of the bull - he would not be Yotze.

(c) In view of these two statements of Rebbi Chanina, if, on Yom Kipur, a Kohen Gadol died after having Shechted his bull, his successor would become obligated to bring another bull, in which case, he would also be obligated to perform the Chafinah again. So how could he praise Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's She'eilah, and even go so far as to claim that he had also asked it?

(d) We therefore amend his comment completely. What he said was that, since Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked this She'eilah, he must hold 'be'Par, va'Afilu be'Damo shel Par' (perhaps because of the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos 'Ki ha'Dam Hu ha'Nefesh').

(a) The She'eilah of 'Chofen ve'Chozer ve'Chofen' - is whether the Kohen Gadol had to make a second Chafinah in the Kodesh Kodashim or not.

(b) Rav Papa thinks that if he was indeed obligated to perform a second Chafinah, then the Kohen would be permitted to enter with his friend's Chafinah - since he would then be able to fulfill the Mitzvah of Chafinah in the Kodesh Kodashim (see Tosfos DH 'I Chofen' and Tosfos Yeshanim DH 'Chaveiro').

(c) Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua disagrees with him. In his opinion, the opposite is true - if 'Chofen ve'Chozer ve'Chofen', then he would not be permitted to enter with his friend's Chafinah, since it would be impossible for his handful to tally *exactly* with his friend's (and the two Chafinos must be exactly the same).

(d) Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua agree however - that the She'eilah whether the Kohen Gadol is permitted to enter with his friend's Chafinah will apply if 'Ein Chofen ve'Chozer ve'Chofen'.




(a) The Kohen Gadol would hold the Kaf containing the Ketores either with his finger-tips or with his teeth, before emptying it into his hands.

(b) This took place inside the Kodesh Kodashim.

(c) The Machtah had been placed on the floor.

(d) He would then, using his thumbs, gently draw the handle of the Kaf (which was facing him) towards himself, until it reached the cupped palms of his hands, above which it was now perched. Then he would slowly tip its contents into his palms.

(a) From his palms, he would pour the Ketores into the Machtah containing the coals which was lying on the floor.

(b) Some say that he *piled* the Ketores on top of the ashes at one point in the pan - in order to delay the pillar of smoke (presumably, in order to avoid getting his hands burnt) others, that he *scattered* it across the entire area - in order to hasten it (presumably, in order to hasten the advent of the Shechinah).

(c) This second Chafinah was one of the three most difficult Avodos in the Beis Hamikdash - the other two, were the Melikah (the pinching of the bird's neck to kill it), and the Kemitzah.

(d) We have finally proved from this Beraisa - that there *was* a second Chafinah.

(a) According to Rebbi Chanina, should the Kohen Gadol die after he had Shechted his bull, his successor would not bring its blood into the Kodesh Kodshim for sprinkling (sice he now had to bring a second bull, and begin with its Shechitah). This is because he Darshens "be'Par" - 've'Lo be'Damo shel Par'.

(b) "be'Par" - 'va'Afilu be'Damo shel Par', in which case the Kohen Gadol's successor would indeed bring the blood of the bull (of his predecessor who died) into the Kodesh Kodshim for sprinkling.

(c) If, as Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha contends, it was still called a bull (or a lamb) even after it had died, then, seeing as the Torah writes in Bo "ve'Im Yim'at ha'Bayis Miheyos mi'*Seh*", why would one not have been able to join the group or withdraw from it (even after it had been Shechted) - until the blood had been sprinkled?

(d) Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha refutes this proof - because, he argues, the Korban Pesach was different - since the Torah writes "ve'Im Yim'at ha'Bayis *Miheyos mi'Seh*", implying that the lamb must still have been alive when the change in numbers took place.

(a) One cannot redeem a first-born donkey with ...
  1. ... a calf or with a deer - because the Torah specifically writes "Seh" (lamb).
  2. ... a *Shechted* lamb - because once an animal dies, it loses its identity.
  3. ... a Tereifah (one of seventy fatal blemishes) - because it too, is no longer considered alive (in this regard)?
(b) One can neither redeem it with Kil'ayim (of a goat and a lamb) - despite the fact that both of these animal are called 'Seh' - nor with a Kvi (a cross between a goat and a doe).
(a) The reason that we gave for the prohibition of redeeming the donkey with a Shechted lamb (in 11a 2.) - supports Rebbi Chanina's viewpoint (that a dead animal *does* lose its identity - "be'Par" 've'Lo be'Damo shel Par'.

(b) We refute this proof however, on the grounds that even if it did *not*, one would still not be able to redeem the first-born donkey with a Shechted lamb, because we learn a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Seh" "Seh" from the Korban Pesach.

(c) We learn from the redundant "Tifdeh" mentioned in Bo in the Parshah of Pidyon Peter Chamor - that even though we have just compared the redemption of the first-born donkey to the Korban Pesach inasmuch as the lamb had to be alive, it did *not* however, have to be a male, in its first year or without a blemish (as the lamb of the Korban Pesachdid).

Next daf


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