(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 68

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) Before burning an Olah on the Mizbe'ach, the Kohen would skin it ('Hefshet') and cut it into pieces ('Nitu'ach').

(b) We learn from a 'Gezeirah Shavah' - "Rosho u'Kera'av" "Rosho u'Kera'av" from a regular Olah - that the Par Kohen Mashi'ach requireD Nitu'ach.

(c) And we learn from "ve'Kirbo u'Firsho" that just as the dung remained inside it, so too, did its skin remain attached to it (i.e. that it did not require Hefshet).

(d) Rebbi learns from the 'Gezeirah Shavah' "Or Basar u'Peresh" "Or Basar u'Peresh" - that the Par and the Sa'ir of Yom Kipur too, required Nitu'ach and not Hefshet.

(a) The Par He'elem Davar shel Tzibur and the Par Kohen Mashi'ach Were burned outside the three camps (the Azarah, the Har ha'Bayis and Yerushalayim), as we shall see shortly. We learn from "ve'Asah *la'Par* Ka'asher Asah le'Par ha'Chatas" - that the Par (and the Sa'ir) of Yom Kipur were burned there too.

(b) The Torah nevertheless writes by the Par and the Sa'ir of Yom Kipur "Yotzi el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - to teach us that, as soon as they left the first Machaneh (i.e. the Azarah), they were Metamei those who were carrying them, together with their clothes.

(c) We learn from the extra words "ve'Eis Par ha'*Chatas*, ve'Eis Se'ir ha'*Chatas*" (written by Yom Kipur) - that the Par He'elem Davar shel Tzibur and the Par Kohen Mashi'ach also rendered Tamei those who dealt with it together their clothes.

3) We learn from the superfluous phrases "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" (by the Par He'elem Davar shel Tzibur) and "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" (by the ashes) - that it must be taken outside all *three* camps to be burned.


(a) Rebbi Shimon (according to whom the Par and the Sa'ir are Metamei Begadim only after the fire had burned most of them) learns from the 'Gezeirah Shavah' "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - that the Parah Adumah too, had to be burned outside all three camps.

(b) And, with the same 'Gezeirah Shavah' he learns that the Par and the Sa'ir, like the Parah Adumah, had to be burned on the east side of Yerushalayim.




(a) According to the Rabbanan, the Par and the Sa'ir were burned on the north side of Yerushalayim (since, whatever had to do with a Chatas was performed on the north) - outside the three camps.

(b) Rebbi Yossi says that the Par and the Sa'ir had to be burned at a spot which was already a Beis ha'Deshen (i.e. where there were already ashes).

(c) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns from the Pasuk "el Shefech ha'Deshen Yishafech" - that the ashes should pour (i.e. that the location should be on a slope).

(d) This does not mean however, that he agrees with the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yossi (in whose opinion it is *not* necessary to place ashes there prior to the burning ceremony). He may in fact, agree with Rebbi Yossi (that it *is*) - only he is not concerned with that.

(a) Those who deal with the Par and the Sa'ir, as well as their clothes, become Tamei. According to the Tana of the Beraisa, this does ...
  1. ... not apply to the person who lit the fire.
  2. ... not apply to the person who arranged the Ma'arachah.
  3. ... apply to those who helped to burn the animals.
(b) The Tana of this Beraisa must hold like Rebbi Shimon - who says that it was only after the fire had burned most of the animals that it rendered those who dealt with it and their clothes Tamei (see Rashash).

(c) The Tana learns this from the word "ve'ha'Soref". From "Osam" he learns that once the flesh became ashes, it was no longer Metamei.

(d) According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, it was only as long as the flesh was intact that it was Metamei, but not once it had burned - even though it had not yet become ashes; according to the Tana Kama, it was still Metamei until it actually turned into ashes.

(a) They would then inform the Kohen Gadol that the goat had arrived in the desert. This was necessary - because, until that occurred, the Kohen Gadol was not permitted to proceed with the Avodah (since the Torah writes "ve'Shilach es ha'Sa'ir" and only then "ve'es Cheilev ha'Chatas Yaktir ha'Mizbei'ach").

(b) They would know when that was - through a series of men posted at intervals along the way from the Tzuk to Yerushalayim. Each one was holding a flag, which he would wave when he saw the man before him doing so. In this way, the message would be relayed to Yerushalayim within seconds.

(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah, this was not necessary - because from Yerushalayim until the beginning of the desert (the spot of which we are speaking) was three Mil. Consequently, those who accompanied the Kohen from Yerushalayim for a distance of one Mil, would just need to walk the one Mil return journey - leaving the time it would have taken the goat to arrive at its current destination as one Mil (a short enough time to assess quite easily).

(d) Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa, had yet another way of knowing when the Meshale'ach had arrived in the desert. One had only to watch the Lashon Zehoris (the piece of red wool hanging at the entrance of the Heichal); the moment it turned white they would know that the goat had reached the desert. (Note: We learned earlier that it was placed at the entrance of the Ulam. It is also unclear as to how one could rely on the Lashon Zehoris, since it did not *always* turn white - unless he refers specifically to the first forty years before the death of Shimon ha'Tzadik).

(a) Abaye learns from our Mishnah - that according to Rebbi Yehudah, as soon as the goat reaches the desert, its Mitzvah was performed (and strolling to the cliff and pushing it off were not crucial) (see Tosfos Yeshanim DH 've'Kamashma Lan').

(b) The ramifications of this fact were that the Kohen Gadol was then permited to proceed with stage of the Avodah (the Leining of the Parshah of Yom Kipur).

***** Hadran Alach Perek Sh'nei Se'irei *****

***** Perek Ba Lo *****


(a) The Kohen Gadol would then Lein the Parshah of Yom Kipur from Acharei Mos - for which he would wear either the Bigdei Lavan that he was still wearing from the Avodas P'nim, or his own fine white robe.

(b) The Leining was not considered an Avodah - otherwise, the Kohen Gadol would not have been permitted to wear his own clothes.

(c) The Shamash took the Sefer-Torah and handed it to the Gabai, who handed it to the S'gan (the deputy Kohen Gadol - who would hand it directly to the Kohen Gadol.

(d) After the Parshah from Acharei Mos, the Kohen Gadol Leined "Ach be'Asor la'Chodesh" from Emor.

(a) After closing the Sefer-Torah - the Kohen Gadol announced 'More than what I read to you is written here'. Then he Leined the Parshah of Maftir from Parshas Pinchas - by heart.

(b) After reciting the second Berachah over Leining, he recited three Berachos from the Amidah - Avodah ('Retzei' which concludes 'she'Oscha Levadecha be'Yir'ah Na'avod'), Hoda'ah ('Modim') and Mechilas ha'Avon (the middle Berachah - 'Mechol la'Avonoseinu ... ').

(c) He then recited another four Berachos: on the Mikdash and on Yisrael - on Yerushalayim and on the Kohanim.

(d) It was not possible to see both the Kohen Gadol Leining and the burning of the Par and the Sa'ir - because they both took place simultaneously, and they were too far apart to be able to get from one from one to the other.

(a) We attempt to prove from the fact that the Kohen Gadol was permitted to wear his own clothes when he Leined - that the Kohanim were permitted to derive benefit from the Bigdei Kehunah when not performing the Avodah.

(b) We refute this proof on the grounds that the Leining may not have been an Avodah but it was for the *needs* of the Avodah (and could not therefore, be considered personal benefit).

(c) Neither can we prove this from the Mishnah in Tamid, which forbids the Kohanim to sleep in the Bigdei Kehunah, implying that they *were* permitted to eat in them - because eating the Korbanos too, was considered the needes of the Avodah, as we learned in a Beraisa 'Kohanim Ochlin, u'Ba'alim Miskaprim' (the atonement only comes about through the eating of the Kohanim).

(d) Even if all benefit from the Bigdei Kehunah was permitted, sleeping in them would nevertheless be forbidden - because of a decree that they might desecrate their sanctity by emitting a smell during one's sleep.

12) We refute the proof (from the same Mishnah in Tamid, which implies that sleeping was forbidden, but that was permitted) that benefit was permitted - by forbidding strolling in them too - and the Mishnah mentions sleeping (not, to permit strolling but), because of the Seifa, which permits the Kohanim to place them under their heads as cushions (since now that they were no longer wearing them, Chazal were no longer concerned that they may emit a smell).

Next daf


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