ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 52
YOMA 52 - by Reb Wolfe Rosengarten of Zurich, in honor of Rav Moshe
Soloveitchik Zatzal and the Yeshiva he established in Moscow.
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Kohen Gadol walked between the
Mizbe'ach and the Menorah, rather than between the Menorah and the wall -
in order not to dirty his clothes (as he brushed past the wall which had
become blackened from the smoke from the Menorah.
1. ... the D'vir was the wall that divided the Kodesh Kodashim from the
Heichal (although the term is sometimes used to describe the Kodesh
Kodashim itself). It was called by that name because the word of Hashem
came out from there (Metzudas Tzi'on).
(c) The 'house' was sixty Amos long - of which the Heichal was 'forty' Amos
long and the Kodesh Kodashim, 'twenty'.
2. ... We have already explained the Amah Teraksin on the previous Amud. It
means literally 'inside and outside'.
(a) Rebbi Nasan initially explains that the Chachamim were not sure whether
the Amah Teraksin was included in the forty Amos of the Heichal, or the
twenty Amos of the Kodesh Kodashim.
(b) The above two areas are included in the hundred Amos, plus the eleven
Amos of the Ulam.
(c) All the four walls that are included in this area were either five Amos
thick or six.
(a) The Amah Teraksin was included in the hundred Amos.
(b) Ravina's problem with Rebbi Nasan's definition of the Safek surrounding
the Amah Teraksin - is that Rebbi Nasan presumed that the Amah Teraksin was
included either in the measurements of the *Heichal* or in those of the
*Kodesh Kodashim*; whereas from the way the Beraisa breaks up the hundred
Amos, it is clear that it is counted with *neither* of them.
(c) We therefore amend Rebbi Nasan's interpretation of the Safek - not that
he was uncertain to which of the two the Amah Teraksin *belonged*, but
whether the Amah Teraksin *had the Kedushah* of the Heichal or of the
(d) Yosef Ish Hutzal was uncertain how to explain the word *mi'Penimah* in
the Pasuk "u'D'vir be'Soch ha'Bayis mi'Penimah Heichin, Lesitan Shamah es
Aron B'ris Hashem" - whether it goes together with the D'vir, to say that
it too, was within the boundaries of the Kodesh Kodashim; or whether there
was a comma after the word "ha'Bayis", to say that it was only the section
that was within the D'vir that was part of the Kodesh Kodashim, but not the
D'vir itself (and that is Rebbi Nasan's Safek).
(a) The two possible ...
1. ... translations of "Ha'lo im Lo Seitiv *Se'eis* ve'Im Lo Seitiv" are:
'forgiven' (in which case "Se'eis" is read together with the preceding
phrase) or 'carry your sin' (in which case, it is read with the phrase that
follows it) - i.e. whether the comma comes before or after "Se'eis".
(b) The fact that Isi ben Yehudah presents these five Pesukim as ambiguous,
appears to contradict the uncertainty of Yosef Ish Hutzal in the previous
question (a *sixth* case) - because they happen to be one and the same
2. ... implications of "Arba'ah Gevi'im *Meshukadim* Kaftoreha u'Feracheha"
are: either that the *four goblets* were patterned (i.e. with shapes
engraved on them) or that the *balls and the flowers* were - i.e. whether
the comma comes before or after "Meshukadim". (Note: This is Pasuk 35. From
Pasuk 33 it appears obvious that the *goblets* were patterned. The Gemara's
doubt therefore, must be whether the balls and the flowers were patterned,
3. ... implications of "ve'Tzei Hilachem ba'Amalek *Machar* Anochi Nitzav
... " (Beshalach) are: whether Yehoshua should gather an army and go and
*attack Amolek tomorrow*, or whether he should *attack today*, and
*tomorrow Moshe would stand* on the mountain and Daven - i.e. whether the
comma comes before or after "Machar".
4. ... implications of "u'vi'Retzonam Ikru Shor *Arur* Apam ki Az" are:
whether it is the ox that they uprooted (that of Sh'chem) or whether
Ya'akov was declaring their anger that to be cursed - i.e. whether the
comma comes before or after "Arur".
5. ... implications of "Hincha Shochev im Avosecha *ve'Kam* ha'Am ha'Zeh"
are: whether it is *Moshe* who will (eventually) *arise* (from the dead - a
hint to Techi'as ha'Meisim) or whether it is the *people* who will *get up
and sin* - i.e. whether the comma comes before or after "ve'Kam".
(c) When Isi ben Yehudah presented these five Pesukim as ambiguous - he was
referring to Pesukim in the *Torah*. The Pasuk of "u'D'vir Besoch ha'Bayis"
is in *Nevi'im*.
(a) Rav Chisda is uncertain whether, in the Pasuk "Vayishlach es Na'arei
B'nei Yisrael Vaya'alu *Olos* va'Yizbechu Zevachim la'Hashem Parim" the
word "Parim"is confined to "Zevachim" i.e. Shelamim) - to say that the
*Shelamim* were *bulls*, but that the *Olos* were *sheep or goats*; or
whether it covered the Olos, too - to say that both the Shelamim and the
Olos were bulls.
(b) This case is not included in Isi ben Yehudah's list - because although
this was a Safek to Rav Chisda, it was obvious to Isi ben Yehudah
(presumably due to the fact that the word "Parim" the source of Rav
Chisda's doubt, appears at the *end* of the Pasuk, in which case it will
certainly not cover the "Olos" that comes much before it - as opposed to
all the cases of Isi, where the Safek is in the middle).
1. ... The *outer* curtain (of the Amah Teraksin) was folded open - on the
(b) Once the Kohen Gadol entered the southern opening - he turned to the
right and proceeded northwards until he reached the inner opening. From
there, he turned left and followed the curtain until he reached the Aron.
2. ... The *inner* curtain - was folded open on the north side.
(c) He then stood in between the two poles where he placed the Machtah,
before placing the Ketores on top of the boiling coal that it contained.
(d) After that, the whole room filled with smoke.
(a) The Kohen Gadol took leave from the Kodesh Kodashim - by retracing his
steps, walking backwards the same way as he entered.
(b) When he reached the Heichal - he recited a short Tefilah.
(c) He was obligated to keep his Tefilah short - so that the Kohanim who
were awaiting his return should not worry that maybe he had died (as so
many Kohanim Gedolim in the second Beis Hamikdash really did).
(a) It is difficult to establish our Mishnah ...
1. ... in the time of the *first* Beis Hamikdash - because then there was
(b) Yoshiyahu ha'Melech hid the Aron - because he knew (from the Pasuk in
Ki Savo "Yolech Hashem Oscha ve'es Malkecha ... ") that the Beis Hamikdash
would soon be destroyed, and he did not want the Aron to be taken into
captivity to Bavel.
2. ... in the time of the *second* Beis Hamikdash - because then there was
(c) We know that the golden box which the P'lishtim sent Yisrael was hidden
together with the Aron - because of the Pasuk in Shmuel, which states that
it was placed together with it. In that case, whatever happened to the
Aron, happened to it.
(d) Together with it, were hidden ...
1. ... the jar containing a sample of the Man - which we learn from the
'Gezeirah Shavah' "Shamah" "Shamah" (from the Aron).
2. ... the jar of anointing oil - which we learn from the 'Gezeirah Shavah'
"Doros" "Doros" (from the jar of Man).
3. ... Aharon's stick together with its almonds and blossoms - which we
learn from the 'Gezeirah Shavah' "Mishmeres" "Mishmeres" (also from the jar
(a) We know that Yoshiyah hid the Aron - because the Pasuk in Divrei
Hayamim describes how he told the Levi'im to place the Aron in the House
that Shlomoh had built. Strange, considering that it was there already!
Unless we say that he was telling them to hide it there permanently.
(b) Our Mishnah is speaking about the *second* Beis Hamikdash - and, the
Aron of which the Tana speaks, does not refer to the actual Aron, but to
the *location* of the Aron.
(c) Even this answer is insufficient however - because how will we then
explain the continuation of the Mishnah 'Nasan es ha'Machtah le'Bein Sh'nei
(d) So we amend the words 'Nasan es ha'Machtah *le'Bein Sh'nei ha'Badim' -
to 'Nasan es ha'Machtah ke'Bein Sh'nei ha'Badim' (which means that he
should imagine that the poles were there, and place the poles in between
(a) The wording of our Mishnah 'Tzavar es ha'Ketores al Gabei Gechalim' -
is a proof for the opinion (above on 49b) which holds that the Kohen Gadol
would pile the Ketores high (as opposed to those who hold that he scattered
it across the entire Machtah).
(b) There are actually two opinions as to whether he poured the Ketores
into the pan, from the far side towards him, or from the near side away
(c) Abaye prefers the second explanation - because that way, he was less
likely to get burned (as the Mishnah in Tamid says 'We teach him to be
careful not to start piling the Ketores from himself outwards, so as not to