(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 60

YOMA 59-88 have been dedicated to the memory of the late Dr. Simcha Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens N.Y. by his wife and daughters. Well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah, he will long be remembered.



(a) It is because there is Me'ilah by the ashes of the Terumas ha'Deshen and the Bigdei Kohen Gadol of Yom Kipur - that we say 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad, Ein Melamdin' (i.e. Had the Torah written Me'ilah in *one* case, then we would apply it via a Binyan Av to the entire Torah. But now that the Torah sees fit to repeat it twice - unnecessarily - we treat the two cases as exceptions, and say that, in all other cases, there is no Me'ilah once the Mitzvah has been concluded.

(b) Rebbi Dosa replaces the Bigdei Kohen Gadol with the Eglah Arufah, which is also Asur be'Hana'ah, so that we remain with *two* cases that are Asur be'Hana'ah even after their Mitzvah has been concluded.

(c) According to those who maintain that we *do* learn a Binyan Av from two sources, we will not learn from Terumas ha'Deshen and Eglah Arufah (according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Dosa), that Me'ilah applies even *after* the Mitzvah has been completed - because the Torah writes two Mi'utin (exclusions) - "ve'Sam*o*" and "*ha*Arufah" - to teach us that Me'ilah applies *only* to those two cases, but not to any other cases (though why we need *two* Mi'utin is not clear).

(a) We need one of the three Pesukim written by blood: "Lachem", "Lechaper" and "Hu" - to preclude Kodshim whose Mitzvah has been concluded, from *Me'ilah*. The other two come to preclude the blood of Kodshim from Nosar and from *Tum'ah* (i.e. that someone who ate the blood of Kodshim which was *Nosar* or when he was Tamei, was Chayav for eating blood, but not for eating Nosar or for eating Kodshim be'Tum'ah).

(b) Neither of them comes to preclude the blood of Kodshim from Pigul - because it is only something which becomes permitted either to the Mizbe'ach or to a person that is subject to Pigul. Blood of Kodshim permits others, and is therefore not subject to Pigul.

(c) We learn this principle from Shelamim - whose flesh becomes permitted to the owner, and whose fat-pieces become permitted to the Mizbe'ach - both through the sprinkling of the blood.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah says that - if the Kohen Gadol changes the sequence of any Avodah of Yom Kipur from the sequence that is stated in the Torah, that Avodah is invalid.

(b) If the Kohen Gadol ...

1. ... sprinkled the blood of the goat before that of the bull - he must sprinkle it again after the blood of the bull.
2. ... spilled the blood before he concluded the Matanos of the bull (for example) in the Kodesh Kodshim, or those in the Heichal - he must bring another bull, Shecht it, and begin again with those Matanos that he was busy with when the blood spilled (e.g. to the beginning of the Matanos of the Kodesh Kodashim - if that is what he was doing when the blood spilled).
(c) The same will apply if the blood spilled before he had concluded the Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.

(d) If the blood spilled after he had concluded the Matanos ...

1. ... in the Kodesh Kodashim - he would resume with the Matanos in the Heichal.
2. ... in the Heichal - he would resume with the Matanos on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.
4) According to Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon - the Kohen Gadol resumed wherever he left off (even if he was in the middle of the Avodos of the Kodesh Kodashim, for example - he did not need to begin again).


(a) Rebbi Yehudah restricts the Din of our Mishnah to Avodos that the Kohen Gadol performed *in the Kodesh Kodashim* wearing the white garments, but not to Avodos that he performed *outside* wearing the four white garments - i.e. Hagralah, Viduy, Shefichas Shirayim and all the Matanos of the Paroches and of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah will agree however, by the Shechitah and the Chafinah, that the order is crucial, even though they are performed outside the Kodesh Kodashim - because they pertain to the Avodah of the Kodesh Kodashim.

(c) Rebbi Nechemyah says that the order is crucial - even by the Avodos that the Kohen Gadol performed *outside* wearing the white garments. According to him, it is only Avodos that he performed outside wearing the eight *golden* garments that are not crucial.




(a) Both Tana'im derive their respective opinions from the Pasuk "Vehaysah Zos Lachem le'Chukas Olam Achas ba'Shanah". Both Tana'im learn from "Achas ba'Shanah" - that the order of whatever is performed with the Bigdei Lavan bi'F'nim is crucial (only Rebbi Nechemyah extends that even to outside the Kodesh Kodashim).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan initially explains, according to Rebbi Nechemyah that every atonement that occurred once a year was included in Chukah. Only according to Rebbi Yehudah - this is confined to the Kodesh Kodashim.

(c) The Gemara rejects this interpretation of Rebbi Yehudah's opinion - on the grounds that the Torah makes no mention of location, that would prompt Rebbi Yehudah to make such a Derashah.

(d) We then explain Rebbi Yehudah's opinion from the words "Zos" and "Achas" - one of which comes to exclude Avodos of the Bigdei Lavan ba'Chutz from Chukah (i.e. that it is not crucial), and the other, to exclude the Avodos of the Bigdei Zahav.

(a) Rebbi Nechemyah agrees that one of the words comes to exclude the sequence of all Avodos that he performed in the Bigdei *Zahav* from 'Chukah' - the other word comes to exclude the sequence of the Shirayim from "Chukah".

(b) Rebbi Yehudah counters that the Shirayim are no different than all other Avodos that are performed with Bigdei Lavan ba'Chutz. Consequently, if *their* sequence is crucial, so is *its* sequence crucial; and if their's is not, neither is its.

(a) "ve'Chilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh". Rebbi Akiva explains 'Im Kipar, Kilah, ve'Im Lo Kipar, Lo Kilah' - meaning that if the Kohen Gadol performed the Kaparah (i.e. the Matanos), he has finished (and the pouring of the Shirayim is not crucial to the Avodah).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah says 'Im Kilah, Kipar, ve'Im Lo Kilaah Lo Kipar'.

(c) Our Sugya, which holds that Rebbi Yehudah comes to argue with Rebbi Akiva, explains his words to mean that he has finished the Kaparah only if he finishes everything (including the pouring of the Shirayim), otherwise, he is not Yotze. In any event, we have proved from here that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the Shirayim are a crucial part of the Avodah, and their Din vis-a-vis sequence, will be no different that any other Avodah which is performd ba'Chutz wearing the Bigdei Lavan.

(a) How can Rebbi Yochanan say that, according to Rebbi Nechemyah, the Shirayim is *not* crucial to the Avodah - when in Zevachim, he specifically said that Rebbi Nechemyah holds that it *is*?

(b) We remain with a Kashya, making no attempt to answer it.

(a) Rebbi Chanina says that if the Kohen Gadol performed the (first) Chafinah before Shechting the Par, he is not Yotze. This can well go like Rebbi Yehudah - because, as we explained earlier, the Chafinah is considered part of the Avodas P'nim, since it is for the needs of the Avodas P'nim.

(b) The problem with this from our Mishnah, which says that if the blood of the Par spilled before the Kohen Gadol had concluded the Matanos in the Kodesh Kodashim, he must sprinkle all over again (i.e. Shecht another bull ... ) is - that according to Rebbi Chanina, the Tana ought to have added that he is obligated to perform the Chafinah again.

(c) We answer that the Tana is concerned with the Avodos of the *Matnos Dam*, and not those of the *Ketores* - therefore he did not mention the Chafinah (even though, the Kohen Gadol is Chayav to perform it).

11) Ula says that if the Kohen Gadol Shechted the goat before having performed the Matanos of the bull, he will have to Shecht another goat. When the Tana of our Mishnah says that if he performed the Matanos of the goat before those of the bull, he must sprinkle the blood of the goat again, he is speaking about the Matanos of the Heichal, when the goat was Shechted earlier - *after* the conclusion of the Matanos of the bull in the Kodesh Kodashim, in which case, Ula too, will agree, that it will not be necessary to Shecht another goat.

Next daf


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