(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 66

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) The Mishnah in Shekalim says that nowadays ...
1. ... one may not declare anything Hekdesh, Erech or Cherem.
2. ... if one did, an animal must die, fruit, clothes and vessels must be left to rot, and money and metal vessels thrown into the Yam ha'Melach.
(b) 'Beheimah Te'aker' means that the animal is locked in a room until it dies.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah says 'Meisah', and not Yir'eh (that the animal should graze) because of 'Takalah', he is worried that they might sacrifice the animal before its time.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah is only concerned about Takalah by animals that are still fit to bring on the Mizbe'ach, such as in our case, where the Par and the Sa'ir are fit to be brought next Yom Kipur - but not by animals that are *not*, such as those that must graze, where such a mistake is unlikely.

(a) One Beraisa permits a Pesach that was not even brought on Pesach *Sheini* to be brought the following year, and one Beraisa forbids it. They might be arguing about whether or not, one worries about Takalah. But they might both hold that we are not concerned about Takalah - and the Tana who permits it is Rebbi, who goes after the sun year (of 365 days). Consequently, the lamb will still be permitted on the following Pesach; whereas the Tana who forbids it holds like the Rabbanan, who go after the lunar year, in which case, by the following Pesach, the lamb will be forbidden.

(b) The Beraisa concludes however, 've'Chein ha'Ma'os' - meaning that the same Machlokes pertains to the money which he set aside for the Pesach, which is not subject to becoming Pasul because its year has passed. Consequently, they must be arguing over Takalah (which applies to money no less than to the animal itself), like we suggested at first.

(a) The Kohen Gadol then went to the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach and placed his hands on its head - because this was a prerequisite for Viduy, which he then proceeded to say.

(b) When the Kohanim and the people who were standing in the Azarah heard the Kohen pronounce Hashem's Holy Name - they knelt, prostrated themselves, fell on their faces and said 'Baruch Sheim ... '.

(c) Anyone was eligible to take the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach out to the desert.

(d) Nevertheless, it was almost always a Kohen who took it - because they reserved the Mitzvah for themselves, not allowing a Yisrael to perform it.

4) They made a ramp to take the Sa'ir out of the Azarah and out of the city - because of the Babylonians - who used to pull out its hair (which is prohibited on Yom-Kipur), and say 'Take and go! Take and go!'

5) In the Viduy over the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, the Kohen Gadol made no mention of the Kohanim. This does not mean that the author of our Mishnah is not Rebbi Yehudah, in whose opinion the Kohanim *were* included in the Kaparah of the Sa'ir; all it means is that the Kohanim are intrinsically part of the Jewish nation, and were automatically included in the Viduy of the rest of Yisrael.




(a) The Torah writes in Acharei-Mos "ve'Shilach Oso be'Yad Meshale'ach ha'Midbarah". we learn from ...
1. ... "Ish" - that even a Zar is valid to take the Sa'ir la'Azaz'el to the desert.
2. ... "Iti" - that he must be designated for this task from the day before.
(b) We learn that the goat should be taken out even on Shabbos, and even be'Tum'ah from the word "Iti", too - since "Iti" implies in its time, come what may.
(a) If not for the word "Iti", we would have thought that a Zar is not eligible to take out the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach - because the Torah describes it as a Kaparah (like Kodshim).

(b) The problem with the Derashah "Iti" - 'va'Afilu be'Shabbos' is - why we should need a Pasuk to permit taking the goat on Shabbos? Why should it *not* be permitted?

(c) We establish the Derashah by a sick goat that has to be carried, which would otherwise be an Isur d'Oraysa - even according to Rebbi Nasan, because it is only by a *healthy* animal that he says 'Chai Nosei es Atzmo', but not by a *sick* one.

(d) From the fact that we need a Derashah for Yom Kipur that fell on Shabbos, despite the fact that the Melachos of Shabbos are forbidden on Yom Kipur anyway - we can prove that this Tana holds 'Ein Eruv ve'Hotza'ah le'Yom ha'Kipurim' (the prohibition of carrying does not apply to Yom Kipur).

(a) We learned above "Iti" - 'va'Afilu be'Tum'ah' - to teach us that if the Meshale'ach became Tamei, he is even permitted to enter the Azarah, to receive the goat from the Kohen Gadol before taking it out to the desert (since this was an integral part of the procedure).

(b) If ...

1. ... the Meshale'ach became sick - they would send the goat with somebody else.
2. ... the goat did not die after the Meshale'ach pushed it off the cliff - the Meshale'ach would follow it down and kill it.
(a) According to some, they asked Rebbi Eliezer whether Avshalom had forfeited his portion in the world to Come (see Tosfos DH 'Peloni') - for committing adultery with his father's concubines; according to others, they asked him the same question about Shlomoh Hamelech (about whom it is written "ve'Lo Hayah Levavo Shalem ... ki'Levav David Aviv". It is possible that ...
1. ... Avshalom did not lose his portion in the world to Come - because we might follow the opinion of Rav who defines a concubine as a woman with whom the king lives without Kidushin and without a Kesubah (in which case, they are not married, and someone - even the king's son - who lives with her will not have committed adultery).
2. ... Shlomoh did not lose *his* portion in the world to Come - if we follow the opinion of those who maintain that the Pasuk, which describes Shlomoh as being guilty of idolatry, modifies itself when it writes elsewhere that Shlomoh did not go in the ways of David (implying that he was not guilty of actually sinning, only of not emulating his father's righteousness).
3. ... David Hamelech was not guilty of committing adultery with Bas Sheva - if we follow the opinion of those who say that it was customary for the soldiers in King David's army to give their wives a Get (divorcing them - some say retroactively, should they not return from the battlefront).
4. ... Uri'ah ha'Chiti not have been Chayav for calling Yo'av 'my master' in David's presence - if we follow the opinion of those who hold 'Cholkin Kavod le'Talmid bi'Mekom ha'Rav' (that one is permitted to show respect for a Talmid in front of the Rav).
(b) When Rebbi Eleizer's Talmidim asked him ...
1. ... whether a Mamzer inherits - he replied 'Did you ask me whether he makes Yibum'?
2. ... whether nowadays, it is permitted to whiten one's house with lime - 'Did you ask me whether one whitens one's grave'?
(a) When that wise woman asked Rebbi Eliezer why there were *three* different sets of punishments even though there was *only one* sin, he retorted that a woman's wisdom should be confined to her spindle.

(b) Rav and Levi answered her Kashya: one of them explained that those who Shechted or burned the Eigel were killed by the sword; those who embraced or kissed it died by pestilence, and those who merely rejoiced with it, died by dropsy (Hadrokun). The first group was killed by the sword and not by stoning - because the four methods of killing (employed by the Beis-Din) had not yet been taught, so they were still punished like the B'nei No'ach (who are always put to death by the sword).

(c) The other one answered that those who sinned in front of witnesses who warned them, were killed by the sword, those who had witnesses but no warning died by pestilence, whereas those who did not even have witnesses, died by dropsy.

11) The entire tribe of Levi did not sin by the Eigel, as Ravina quoted Rav Yehudah as saying. When the Torah described how the B'nei Levi had no pity even on their own parents and mothers, their brothers or their sons - it meant their *maternal* grandparents, their *maternal* half-brothers and the sons of *their daughters* (all of whom were Yisre'elim).


(a) In fact, Rabah bar bar Chanah concludes, it was the Alexandrians, not the Babylonians, who used to tear out the hair of the Sa'ir la'Azaz'el on Yom Kipur. The reason that the Tana of our Mishnah refers to them as Babylonians - is because they hated the Babylonians Jews (a sin that was rampant during the second Beis Hamikdash, and which eventually caused its destruction).

(b) Rebbi Yossi was pleased with this explanation - because he was of Babylonian extract.

(c) As they tore out the hair of the Sa'ir la'Azaz'el, the Alexandrians would say 'What is this goat still doing here, when it is carrying so many sins of the generation'?

Next daf


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