ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) We cannot interpret the Pasuk "u've'Ha'alos Aharon es ha'Neiros Bein ha'Arbayim Yaktirena" literally (i.e. that the Ketores comes last) - because we learn from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "me'Erev ad Boker" that the only (day) Avodah that is Kasher by night, is that of kindling the Menorah (and not the Ketores).
(b) We also learn from "me'Erev ad Boker" - that sufficient oil should be placed in the lamps to burn from evening until morning.
(c) Aba Shaul agrees with the Rabanan with regard to the order of the evening Avodah - where the Torah uses the word "Oso" (from which we infer that it is only the Avodah of the Menorah that is Kasher at night-time, but not that of the Ketores. Consequently, he too, explains the Pasuk "u've'Ha'alos Aharon es ha'Neiros Bein ha'Arbayim Yaktirenah" like the Rabanan; whereas the Pasuk "ba'Boker ba'Boker" etc., where the Torah does not write "Oso", he explains literally.
(a) Rav Papa establishes our Mishnah like the Rabanan, and the Mishnah in the next Perek (which gives the Hatavos precedence over the Ketores) like Aba Shaul. The fact that the Mishnah in the third Perek again places the Ketores before the Hatavas ha'Neiros (like the Rabanan), does not bother him. 'Reisha v'Seifa Rabanan', he says, 'u'Metzi'asa Aba Shaul'.
(b) Abaye cannot possibly learn that the Tana of the Seifa is referring to the Hatavas Chameish Neiros - because nobody maintains that the Ketores precedes the Hatavas Chameish Neiros.
(c) Rav Papa not want to learn like Abaye (to establish our Mishnah by Hatavas Shtei Neiros and the Mishnah in the second Perek by Hatavas Chameish Neiros - both like the Rabanan) - because he objects to establishing the first Mishnah by Hatavas Shtei Neiros, and the second Mishnah by Hatavas Chameish Neiros, inverting their natural order.
(d) Abaye explains that, since the Tana of the first Mishnah is not dealing with the actual Avodah on Yom Kipur - and is only coming to teach us that the Kohen Gadol is obligated to perform all the Avodos during the seven days of Hafrashah, he is not fussy about the order in which he presents it. But as soon as he starts to deal with the Avodah on Yom Kipur, he puts everything in the right perspective - first the Hatavas Chameish Neiros, and then the Hatavas Shtei Neiros.
(a) The Kohen place the Matnos Dam of a Chatas on the Mizbe'ach with his finger, once on each of the four corners, starting with that of the south east.
(b) From the fact that the Torah seems to refer to the Olas Tamid as a Chatas - we learn that, when the Kohen comes to sprinkle the blood on the south-western corner, he must sprinkle the west and the south separately, like he did by a Chatas.
(c) It would make no sense to sprinkle first, Shtayim she'Hen Arba (two on the two diagonally opposite corners of the Mizbe'ach - like the Olah that it is) and then four (like a Chatas) - because we never find the blood atoning again, after it has atoned already.
(d) This answer is acceptable, because all we are doing is splitting the regular sprinkling into two (which, on its own, does not really give the Avodah the appearance of a Chatas); whereas to learn from the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv what we suggested above (in c.) - that the blood should require two Kaparos, is too radical a Chidush.
(a) The Kohen placed the blood that was divided into two (like a Chatas), below the red thread, the same as the first Matanah on the north-eastern corner.
(b) Despite the fact that the blood was deliberately divided into two to resemble a Chatas, he did not place it above the red thread - because we never find half the blood placed above the red thread and half below it.
(c) When the Mishnah says 'Hizah Mimenu Achas l'Ma'alah v'Sheva l'Matah' - it does not mean one on the top half of the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav and seven on the lower half - but the first one near the top, and the remaining seven, below it (each one a little lower than the other) but all above the half-way mark.
(d) 'ke'Matzlif' or 'ki'Menagda' - means like they used to give Malkus - one stroke below the other.
(a) In another Mishnah later, the Tana, describing how the Kohen Gadol would sprinkle the blood on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, writes 'Hizah Mimenu al Taharo shel Mizbe'ach', which we think, means by the middle of the (vertical) wall of the Mizbe'ach (from the word Tzaharayim, which means mid-day). In that case, we will be faced with the problem of how it is possible to sprinkle so many times towards the middle of the wall of the Mizbe'ach without the blood sometimes falling above the halfway mark, and sometimes below it?
(b) Rabah bar Shilo interprets 'al Taharo' to mean in the middle of the top of the Mizbe'ach - from the Pasuk "u'che'Etzem ha'Shamayim la'*Tohar*" which means in the middle of the sky, which is horizontal.
(a) It is natural to follow first the procedure of an Olah (by the north-eastern corner), and then that of a Chatas (by the south-western corner) - since it was, after all, an Olah.
(b) They sprinkled the blood specifically on those two corners (and not on the south-east and the north-west) - because the Olah required the Yesod, and there was no Yesod by the south-east and the north-western corners.
(c) They started with the north-eastern corner and not with the south-west - because of the principle 'be'Chol Pinos she'Ata Poneh, Le'olam Al Tifneh Ela li'Yemin' (one should always make a point of going towards the right).
(d) This principle applies exclusively to a Chatas (where the Kohen had to place the blood on the four Keranos (blocks on the corners), which in turn, required climbing the ramp. Consequently, when he reached the top, he would arrive at the north-eastern corner before the south-western one). It did not apply to an Olah, where the Kohen would stand on the ground and sprinkle. Chazal nevertheless fixed that order even by an Olah, presumably for the sake of uniformity.
(a) The concept of splitting the second sprinkling into two (like a Chatas) is derived from the Pasuk "... l'Chatas, al Olas ha'Tamid Ye'aseh v'Nisko" - which implies that one should apply the Din of the Chatas to an Olah (and not vice-versa).
1. The 'Lishkas ha'Chosmos' - was the room which contained the discs for the Nesachim (about which we learned in Shekalim 7b.) marked Eigel, Gedi, Zachar and Chotei. Anybody who wanted the flour, wine and oil for his Nesech, would pay the officer in charge of the discs, and would receive the appropriate commodities.
2. The 'Lishkas Beis ha'Mokad' - was the room where a fire burned constantly, for the Kohanim (who had to serve bare-footed) to be able to warm their feet.
(b) The Lishkas Beis ha'Tela'im was where they always had at least six lambs examined for blemishes, ready to be brought as the Korban Tamid.
(c) We reconcile the Mishnah in Tamid, which places the Lishkas Beis ha'Tela'im on the north-west of the Beis ha'Mokad, with the Mishnah in Midos, which describes it as being in the south-west - by establishing Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov as the author of the latter (and of all Stam Mishnayos in Midos), and that of the Mishnah in Tamid as the Rabanan.
(a) The four corners of the Lishkas Beis ha'Mokad was divided into two - inasmuch as two of the corners were in the Kodesh and two in the Chol.
(b) The division was marked by means of short wooden posts.
(c) In the north-eastern room, the Chashmona'i Kings hid the stones of the Mizbe'ach which the Greek kings had defiled by sacrificing on it in the name of their idols.
(d) The north-western room (according to the Tana in Midos) - contained the entrance to the Mikvah.