Previous Daf

YOMA 51

Ask A Question

1) R. SHEISHES RENDERS ZEVACH AS EILO SHEL AHARON

(a) Question: R. Sheishes could have rendered Zevach as the Korban Pesach, since it fits the criteria as well as does Eilo Shel Aharon?
(b) Answer: He holds, like R. Yehudah, that one may not slaughter a Korban Pesach for one person alone.
(c) Question: Pesach Sheini fits the criteria!?
(d) Answer: Not so, since Pesach Sheini is not Docheh Tum'ah.

(a) Question: Why is Pesach grouped among the Korbanos Yachid (on 50a) while Chagigah is grouped among the Korbanos Tzibur (ibid) since the Tzibur gathers for both?
(b) Answer: The Tzibur is not gathered for Pesach Sheini.
(c) Question: Would Pesach Sheini otherwise fit the grouping such that it is Docheh Tum'ah and Shabbos?!
(d) Answer: Indeed, this Tana holds that Pesach Sheini is Docheh Tum'ah, as the cited opinion of R. Yehudah indicates.
(e) Question: What is the rationale for the Tana Kama (that Pesach Sheini is not Docheh Tum'ah?
(f) Answer: It is logical that since he is only bringing the Pesach Sheini on account of his earlier Tum'ah that it is not Docheh Tum'ah.
(g) Question: How will R. Yehudah respond?
(h) Answer: The Pasuk, "ke'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach" allows it to be brought be'*Tum'ah* (if it did not work out to bring it be'Taharah, the Torah allows it to be brought 'be'*Tum'ah*).

3) TO WHOM BELONGS THE PAR YOM HAKIPURIM?

(a) The words "Asher Lo" should clearly indicate that the Korban is his own (the three-fold repetition of "Asher Lo" indicates that he must bring it from his own funds regardless of how is atoned by it).
(b) But following that reasoning how are the Kohanim atoned without any ownership at all?
(c) Rather, the Torah allows the Kohanim access to Aharon's Par, and, by extension, the Par Yom ha'Kipurim could belong to all of them (be'Keviyusa, not only be'Kufia).

(a) The Kohen Gadol proceeded (from the 4th row in the Azarah) through the Heichal and walked along the Amah between the two curtains until he entered the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim.
(b) (R. Yosi): There was only one curtain (based on the singular language of the Pasuk).

(a) Question: What is the response of the Rabanan to R. Yosi?
(b) Answer: That Pasuk spoke of the Mishkan.

1. The second Beis ha'Mikdash needed two curtains owing to the doubt regarding the exact demarcation between the Heichal and the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim.
2. This area was once covered by the Amah Teraksin.

(a) The Beraisa teaches three opinions regarding the route of the Kohen Gadol through the Heichal:

1. R. Yehudah- at the Southern side of the Heichal between the Mizbe'ach and the Menorah.
2. R. Meir- at the Northern side between the Shulchan and the Mizbe'ach.
3. Others- between the Shulchan and the Northern wall.

(b) Question: Who is the Others?
(c) Answer: R. Yosi (who holds that there is only one Paroches) and he walked along the North to the entrance there.
(d) R. Yehudah holds that the entrance was in the South.
(e) R. Meir's position does not seem to accept the entrance at the North or at the South.
(f) He holds like R. Yosi (one Paroches) but the Shulchanos were arranged such that they blocked his access.
(g) Alternately, the Shulchanos were arranged East to West (and he could have walked along the North wall, but he holds like R. Meir that it is not Derech Eretz to walk straight into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim.
(h) Question: How will R. Yosi relate to this Derech Eretz?
(i) Answer: Yisrael is precious, not needing an agent (see Rashi and Rach).
(j) Question: According to R. Yehudah, why did he not walk along the Southern wall (behind the Menorah)?
(k) Answer: To avoid blackening his garments there.