(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 56



(a) One is obligated to separate from crops or wine that one purchased from Kutim - Terumah Gedolah, Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser Sheini.

(b) According to Rebbi Meir, someone who purchased a hundred Lugin of wine from the Kutim shortly before Shabbos, and had no vessels to contain them, would declare the two Lugin that he would later separate, Terumah; the ten Lugin (minus a fifth), Ma'aser Rishon, and the nine, Ma'aser Sheini.

(c) Rebbi Meir's underlying principle - is 'Yesh Bereirah'.

(d) The Tana of this Mishnah in D'mai permits the wine of Kutim - before Chazal decreed on them, giving them the Din of gentiles in all matters.




(a) Considering that Rebbi Yehudah is one of the Tana'im who disagree with Rebbi Meir (in the previous question), we are trying to prove from this Mishnah - that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ein Bereirah'.

(b) We reject this proof however, on the basis of the Mishnah itself, which gives the reason of those who argue with Rebbi Meir as being -because they are afraid that, after declaring the Ma'asros, the jar containing the wine will break (and he will have drunk Tevel retroactively).

(a) Ultimately, we prove our contention (that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ein Bereirah') from a Beraisa in Eruvin, where Ayo (quoting Rebbi Yehudah) says 'Ein Adam Masneh al Sh'nei Devarim ke'Echad ... '. The 'Sh'nei Devarim' refers to two Talmidei-Chachamim, and what Ayo is saying is that since, when Shabbos came in, he did not know which Talmid-Chacham he wanted to go and hear, he cannot decide this on Shabbos, because that would be Bereirah, and Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ein Bereirah'.

(b) Ayo concedes however, that if only *one* Chacham is due, the Eiruv is valid - because he is referring to a case when the Chacham had already arrived before Shabbos came in, so it was not a matter of choosing a direction - only of discovering where he had been when Shabbos came in. *That* is not Bereirah.

(a) On principle, Rebbi Yehudah does indeed concede the concept of writing as a reminder. The Kohen Gadol, however, is different - because, due to his state of weakness, he is likely to forget to read the writing, and to confuse the bowls.

(b) We prove this ...

1. ... from the fact that even without any writing, he ought to recognize easily which bowl is which, seeing as the bowl with the blood of the bull will automatically contain more blood than that containing the blood of the goat. So how could he possibly become confused? Unless it is due to his state of weakness.
2. ... from the fact that, even taking into account the possibility of some of the blood spilling, he should easily be able to distinguish between the two bloods - from the difference between the deep color of the blood of the bull, and the paler hue of the goat's.
(a) The Chazen in Rava's Shul, whilst reciting the Avodah on Yom Kipur, once described how the Kohen Gadol would place the bowl with the blood of the Sa'ir on the second stand, before taking the bowl of blood of the bull, and how he would then place the bowl with the blood of the goat. Now this doesn't make any sense - because if there was a second stand (like the Rabbanan maintain), then why would he first need to take the bowl with the blood of the bull before placing that of the goat's blood (like Rebbi Yehudah)?

(b) The Chazen therefore amended his text, omitting the final phrase (about then placing the bowl with the blood of the Sa'ir).

(a) The Pasuk "ve'Chein Ya'aseh le'Ohel Mo'ed" (Acharei-Mos) comes to teach us - that just as he sprinkled in the Kodesh Kodashim 'Achas Lema'alah ve'Sheva Lematah', both from the blood of the bull and from that of the goat, so too, should he proceed to do in the Heichal (towards the Paroches).

(b) When that Tzedoki referred to the Pasuk "Tum'asah be'Shulehah" - he was suggesting that since Yisrael had now rendered themselves impure (with sin), Hashem was no longer in their midst.

(c) Rebbi Chanina replied with the last four words in the Pasuk that we just quoted (in a.) "ha'Shochen Itam be'Soch Tum'osam", from which we see that Hashem remains with us even when we are Tamei (albeit in a more concealed manner, as we mentioned above).

Next daf


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