ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 55
(a) When the Torah in Acharei-Mos writes "Al ha'Kapores" (with regard to
the Matanos of the blood of both the Par and the Sa'ir) - it is not to be
taken literally; it means *towards* the Paroches (see also, next question).
(b) When the Kohen Gadol performed the Mitzvah of "*Al* ha'Kapores" - he
sprinkled the blood in an upward direction (underhand), whereas that of
"*Lifnei* ha'Kapores" - he performed in a downward direction (overhand).
(c) The Torah specifically writes ...
- ... by the Par - Shiv'ah Lematah, which it does not write by the Sa'ir.
- ... by the Sa'ir - Achas Lema'alah, which it does not write by the Par.
(a) The Pasuk "(written by the Sa'ir) "al ha'Kapores *ve'Lifnei
ha'Kapores*" initially appears to be redundant - since we anyway need to
learn the Sheva Lematah from the Par (as we shall see shortly).
(b) The Torah writes it in order to compare "Al" to "Lifnei" - just as by
"Lifnei", the blood does not touch the lid of the Aron (because that is the
implication of "Lifnei"), by "Al" it does not need to touch either.
(c) The Torah does not want the blood to touch the Aron - it writes "Al" to
teach the Kohen Gadol to sprinkle the blood underhand (as we explained
above in 1b.).
(d) We might say the opposite with regard to the "Al" of the Par - and say
that the Torah does not really need to write "Al" by the Par (since we
anyway need to learn 'Achas Lema'alah' from the Sa'ir, as we shall soon
see). So why does the Torah write it? In order to compare "Lifnei" to "Al"
- to teach us that "Lifnei", like "Al", must touch.
(a) Even though we use 'Lematah' of Sa'ir to compare the Lema'alah of Sa'ir
to it - we still need the 'Lema'alah' of Par (i.e. "al P'nei ha'Kapores
Kedmah") to teach us that "P'nei" always means on the east side.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Asah es Damo Ka'asher Asah *le'Dam ha'Par*"
- that all the Matanos of the Sa'ir should be equivalent to those of the
Par (i.e. even the 'Sheva Lematah', which are not explicitly written).
(c) We cannot learn that from the comparison of "Damim" by the Sa'ir to
"Damim" by the Par - written in both cases by "Lifnei" - because then,
perhaps we will learn "Damim" *Lematah* by Sa'ir from "Damim" *Lema'alah*
by Sa'ir, in which case the Kohen Gadol will have to make only *one*
Matanah Lematah, and not *seven*.
(a) We learn from the same Pasuk "ve'Asah es Damo *Ka'asher Asah* le'Dam
ha'Par" - that just as the Kohen Gadol made *one* Matanah *Lema'alah* by
the Sa'ir, so too did he do by the Par.
(b) We cannot learn that from the comparison of "Damim" written by
'Lema'alah' of *Par* to "Damim" written by 'Lema'alah' of *Sa'ir* - because
then we might just as well learn "Damim" by 'Lema'alah' of Par from "Damim"
by 'Lematah' of Par, and say that he must make *seven* Matanos 'Lema'alah',
and not *one*.
(a) Rebbi Meir cites the text of the wording of the Kohen Gadol as 'Achas,
Achas ve'Achas, *Achas u'Shetayim* ... ', like in our Mishnah. According to
Rebbi Yehudah - the text is 'Achas ... *Shetayim ve'Achas*' ... .
(b) Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah are not involved here in a basic
Machlokes. Each one simply follows the custom of his town: In Rebbi Meir's
town, when counting, they would mention first the tens before the units -
the original number first (e.g. twenty-one, twenty-two - like we do);
whereas in Rebbi Yehudah's town, they would mention the units (the new
number) first (e.g. one and twenty, two and twenty).
(c) According to Rebbi Elazar, the purpose of announcing the number each
time the Kohen Gadol sprinkled was to prevent him from erring. According to
Rebbi Yochanan - it is derived from the word "ve'Lifnei ha'Kapores *Yazeh*"
- which is redundant, to teach us that the Kohen Gadol needs to count and
that he must repeat the first Matanah (Lema'alah) with each subsequent
(d) The Halachic difference between the two opinions will be in a case
where he neither counted nor did he err - according to Rebbi Elazar he
*will* be Yotze; whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan, who holds that the
counting is d'Oraysa (and the Torah writes "Chukah"), he will *not*.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah in Shekalim, holds that there were no collecting boxes
for the Kinei Chovah (the obligatory bird-offerings - e.g. that of a Zav or
a Zavah), because they might become mixed. Rav Yosef initially interprets
this to mean that the Chovos might become mixed up with the Nedavos.
(b) It will not help to take *two* boxes, and write on the one 'Chovah',
and on the other, 'Nedavah' - because, in Rebbi Yehudah's opinion, writing
is not reliable, since sometimes one forgets to look at the writing.
(c) We try to prove from the single stand in our Mishnah, that Rebbi
Yehudah does *not* rely on the method of writing as a reminder - because if
he *did*, why does he disagree with the Tana Kama that there were *two*
stands on the grounds that the Kohen Gadol may become confused? Let them
place *two* stands, and write on the one 'Par' and on the other, 'Sa'ir'?
1. The box marked 'Tiklin Chadtin' - was for the current year's Shekalim,
the one marked 'Tiklin Atikin' - was for last year's.
(b) There were six boxes for Nedavah - one for each of the Batei Av of the
current Mishmar (each of whom served on one day of the week).
2. The box marked 'Kinin' - was for (older) pigeons, the one marked 'Gozlei
Olah' - for (young) doves.
(c) Considering the author of this Mishnah in Shekalim is Rebbi Yehudah,
this contradicts what we just wrote - that Rebbi Yehudah does *not*
consider writing to be a reliable reminder. But we now see that he *does*?
(a) We just established that, in principle, Rebbi Yehudah *does* rely on
writing. Rav Dimi from Eretz Yisrael now establishes why Rebbi Yehudah said
earlier that there were no boxes for Kinei Chovah - because of a decree in
case the owner of one of the Chata'os dies, in which case his money becomes
Ma'os Chatas Shemeisu Ba'aleha, which must be thrown into the Yam
ha'Melach; however, because it is now mixed with all the other money, it
renders it all Pasul.
The 'four Zuzim' in the previous question - was the value of a bird Chatas
in those days. Because their value is stated in a Mishnah in Kerisus as
being Riv'asayim (two Rova) = one Zuz Tzuri (for a pair of birds) - half a
Zuz for one bird, and the Zuz mentioned in our Sugya is a Zuz Medinah,
which is one eighth of a Zuz Tzuri.
(b) We refute this however, on the basis of a Mishnah in Gitin - which
rules that if someone sent his Chatas from overseas, the Kohanim would
bring it, on the assumption that the sender was still alive. So we see that
we do not suspect that someone may have died as long as we do not know that
(c) So we amend Rav Dimi's decree - to a case when we *know* that the owner
of one of the Chata'os died'.
(d) The Kohen cannot just take four Zuzim from the box and throw it into
the Yam ha'Melach (in order to fulfill the obligation of 'Chatas le'Misah
Azla') - because Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ein Bereirah'.