ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 62
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) Rav Shimi quotes Rava as saying that, according to the Chachamim in the
previous Beraisa, it is the *last* Par or Sa'ir that is sent out to be
burned. According to Rav Papi quoting Rava, it is the *first*.
(b) We establish Rav Papi Amar Rava like Rebbi Yossi.
(c) Rebbi Yossi says in a Mishnah in Shekalim that the three boxes with
which they emptied the Terumas ha'Lishkah were marked 'Aleph', 'Beis',
'Gimel' - is because 'Mitzvah ba'Rishon'.
(d) We refute that as being Rav Papi Amar Rava's source - because in that
case, at the time when the *first* box became ready for use, the *second*
one was still empty; whereas in the case of the two goats, even the *first*
goat was not fit to be brought before all the Matnos Damim had been
completed. Consequently, both goats became fit to be brought
simultaneously, and who says that even in such a case, Rebbi Yossi will
hold 'Mitzvah ba'Rishon?
(a) Rebbi Yossi says in Pesachim that, if someone's Pesach got lost, re-
placed and then found (but before the second lamb was brought), he should
bring the *original* one, and the other one becomes a Shelamim), because
***** Hadran Alach, Perek Hotzi'u Lo *****
(b) According to the Chachamim of Rebbi Yossi, he may bring whichever of
the two he pleases.
***** Perek Sh'nei Se'irei Yom *****
(a) The two goats had to be purchased simultaneously. In addition, they had
to be similar in color, height and value.
(b) All this was not crucial to their validity.
(c) If one of the goats died ...
1. ... before the lots had been drawn - they would simply purchase a second
2. ... after the lots had already been drawn - they would purchase another
pair, on which the lots would then be drawn.
(a) In the latter case, before drawing the second lots, the Kohen Gadol
would say (if it was the shel Sheim that died) 'The lot that came up for
Hashem should re-place the one that died; and if it was the Sa'ir la'Azazel
that died, he would say correspondingly.
(b) The first goat that remained alive - was sent to graze.
(c) The reason that it did not have to die (even if it was la'Hashem) - is
because it was a Chatas Tzibur, and we have already learned that 'Ein
Chatas Tzibur Meisah'.
(d) A Chatas Tzibur does not die - because the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai
that 'Chamesh Chata'os Meisos' was only said by a Chatas Yachid.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Tamus' - despite the fact that it is a Chatas
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah ...
1. ... if the blood spilled - the Mishtale'ach must die (which means that
they must bring two goats and start all over again).
2. ... if the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach died - the blood must be poured out.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Yikach *Sh'nei* Se'irei Izim" - that the two
goats should be similar (because we already know from the word "Se'irei" -
that the Kohen Gadol must take *two* goats). On the other hand, we learn
from the two extra times that the Torah writes "ha'Sa'ir" - that this is
not crucial (see Rabeinu Chananel).
(b) "Chukah" does not apply here - because "Chukah" pertains only to the
Avodah, and not to acts that preceded the Avodah (such as purchasing the
(c) If not for the extra "Sa'ir", from which we learned that the above Din
is *not* crucial, we would have thought that it *is* - from one or more of
the extra "Sh'nei" that the Torah inserts.
(d) We now learn from the fact that the Torah writes "Sh'nei" three times -
the three areas in which the two goats should be similar.
(a) The Torah writes, with regard to the Kivsei Metzora "Yikach Sh'nei
Kevasim". The word "Sh'nei" is redundant - because "Kevasim" automatically
implies two (since 'Mi'ut Rabim Shenayim'). We learn from it (like we
learned from the "Sh'nei" written by the Par and the Sa'ir) that they
should be equal.
(b) We learn from the fact that the Torah subsequently writes the word
"ha'Keves" twice - that this is not crucial.
(c) We learn from the word "Tihyeh" - that the other Halachos of the
Taharas Metzora are crucial.
(d) The third case - of "Sh'tei Tziporim" and "Tzipor" "Tzipor" (which
follows exactly the same pattern as the previous one) - speaks about the
initial purification process of a Metzora (whereas the previous case refers
to the continuation of that process on the eighth day). There too, if not
for "Tzipor" "Tzipor", we would have thought that the similarity of the two
birds is crucial - due to the word "Tihyeh".
(a) The two lambs of the Korban Tamid do not need to be similar - since
there is no Pasuk to teach us that they should.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Shenayim la'Yom" - that the Tamid shel Shachar
should be Shechted north-*west* of the Mizbe'ach, and the Tamid shel Bein
ha'Arbayim north-*east* (both in a position - bearing in mind that the
walls of the Beis Hamikdash were extremely tall - where they would be in
(c) The morning Tamid was Shechted by the *second* row of the north-western
side of the Mizbe'ach, and the afternoon Tamid by the *second* row of the
north-eastern side - so as to enable the Kohen who was Shechting the animal
to use the *first* ring to catch its, feet to prevent it from turning over
during the Shechitah.
(d) We learn from the Pasuk by the Korban Musaf (also in Pinchas) "*Sh'nei*
Kevasim" - that the two lambs of the Korban Musaf of Shabbos should be
similar (though this too, is not crucial, because there is nothing to
demonstrate that it is, and by Kodshim, a second Pasuk is required for it
to be crucial, or a word that indicates that it should be).
(a) If, after having performed the Hagralah (drawing the lots), the Kohen
Gadol Shechted the goats outside the Azarah, he would be ...
1. ... Chayav for the Sa'ir *la'Hashem* - for Shechutei Chutz, because it
*was* fit to be brought inside the Azarah.
(b) If he Shechted them outside the Azarah *before* the Hagralah, he would
be Chayav for both goats, according to Rav Chisda - because they were fit
to be brought as the Korban Musaf of Yom Kipur.
2. ... Patur for the Sa'ir *la'Azaz'el* - because it was *not*.
(c) Rav Chisda explains that both goats are fit to be brought as the Chatas
of Musaf, and not because they are fit to be brought as the Sa'ir la'Hashem
- because they still require Hagralah ('di'Mechusar Hagralah').
(d) He nevertheless considers them fit to be brought as Musaf offerings,
even though the Musaf too, is premature before the Avodos of the Par, the
Sa'ir and the Ketores have been concluded - because there is no *action*
missing vis-a-vis the animal itself (as in Mechusar Hagralah), and, in his
opinion, 'Mechusar Z'man' (the disadvantage of being premature) does not
apply to the same day - only when it is at least one day too early (as on
the seventh day of an animal's birth).
(a) Rav Chisda considers the lack of Hagralah like 'Mechusar Ma'aseh'. This
is not obvious - because although Hagralah is an action that is performed
*in connection* with the animal, it is not however, performed on the
*actual body* of the animal itself.
(b) Since Rav Chisda considers Mechusar Hagralah a Mechusar Ma'aseh (to
exempt from Shechutei Chutz), he will also exempt Shelamim that one
Shechted outside the Azarah before the doors of the Heichal were opened
from Shechutei Chutz (since that too, is an action that pertains to the
Korban, even though it is not actually performed on its body.