YOMA 31 - Dedicated in memory of Max (Meir Menachem ben Shlomo ha'Levi) Turkel, by his children Eddie and Lawrence and his wife Jean Turkel/Rafalowicz. Max was a warm and loving husband and father and is missed dearly by his family and friends. His Yahrzeit is 5 Teves.
1) SHECHITAH WITH A LONG KNIFE
QUESTION: The Mishnah (30a) requires one to immerse himself in a Mikvah before he enters the Azarah. The Gemara asks whether this Tevilah is also necessary for a person who stands outside the Azarah and extends a long knife into the Azarah and performs Shechitah there. The Gemara's doubt is whether the person needs Tevilah because he is performing an Avodah inside the Azarah, or whether he is exempt because he is standing outside.
RASHI (DH Mahu she'Ya'aseh) explains that the case involves a person who "stands outside of the Azarah and stretches out his hand inside and slaughters."
Why does Rashi say that the person's hand is inside the Azarah, and not simply that the person extends the knife (and not his hand) into the Azarah? The Gemara previously established that one needs Tevilah even if he extends just a small part of his body into the Azarah. Why, according to Rashi, is the Gemara now in doubt about such a case?
(a) The SI'ACH YITZCHAK explains that Rashi's words are inexact. Rashi means that the person stretched only the knife -- which is in his hand -- into the Azarah, but his hand remained outside.
(b) The RASHASH adds that Rashi does not mean that the person actually extends his hand into the Azarah. Rather, he stretches his hand toward the Azarah in a motion of Shechitah. When Rashi writes the word "inside" ("Lifnim"), he means "toward" the inside, but not literally inside.
(c) Perhaps when Rashi says that the person extended "Yado" into the Azarah, he does not mean that the person extended "his hand" into the Azarah. Rather, Rashi means that the person extended "its handle" ("Yado") -- the handle of the knife -- into the Azarah!
Perhaps Rashi intends to address another difficulty. Even if a person does not need Tevilah in order to stand outside and slaughter an animal that is inside, there is still a concern that he might perform the Shechitah with the part of the knife that is outside of the Azarah (for example, if the animal walks closer to him), and such a Shechitah invalidates a Korban. A similar decree is mentioned in Chulin (15b, and ROSH to Chulin 1:21), where the Gemara says that one may not slaughter an animal with one part of a knife when the other part of the knife has a nick lest he use the blemished side to slaughter the animal. Similarly, in the case of the Gemara here, the person outside of the Azarah should not be permitted to slaughter an animal inside the Azarah with a long knife lest he slaughter the animal, if it moves closer to him, with the part of the knife near the handle (which is outside of the Azarah).
Rashi answers that there is no such fear, because the person extends the handle of the knife itself into the Azarah as well, and thus the entire length of the blade is inside the Azarah. (M. KORNFELD)
2) THE REQUIREMENT TO IMMERSE BEFORE ENTERING THE AZARAH
QUESTION: The Mishnah (30a) requires one to immerse himself in a Mikvah before he enters the Azarah. The Gemara asks whether this Tevilah is also necessary for a person who stands outside the Azarah and extends a long knife into the Azarah and performs Shechitah there. Even the Rabanan in the Mishnah in Midos (cited on 30b) who normally do not require one to immerse before he enters the Azarah might require Tevilah in this case, because when the person performs the Shechitah he does an actual Avodah and is not merely walking into the Azarah. The Gemara leaves this question unanswered.
The Rabanan who do not require one to immerse before he enters the Azarah disagree with the Tana of the Mishnah here (Ben Zoma) who requires one to immerse. However, the Mishnah here says that one must immerse before he enters the Azarah only when he intends "to do Avodah" ("la'Avodah"). Accordingly, the Rabanan who disagree must maintain that Tevilah is not required even when one intends to perform an Avodah inside the Azarah. Why, then, does the Gemara consider the possibility that the Rabanan agree that one must immerse when he intends to perform an Avodah inside the Azarah?
(a) RASHI on the Mishnah (30a, DH la'Avodah) and TOSFOS (30a, DH Ein Adam; 31a, DH Chotzetz) answer that the term "la'Avodah" in the Mishnah is inexact. The Mishnah means that one is required to immerse whenever he plans to enter the Azarah, even when he does not intend to perform an Avodah. Tosfos adds that according to the Mishnah (which expresses the opinion of Ben Zoma), a person who enters the Azarah in order to perform an Avodah is required mid'Oraisa to immerse in a Mikvah. One who enters the Azarah with no intention to perform an Avodah must immerse only mid'Rabanan.
(b) The TOSFOS YESHANIM (30a, DH Ein Adam) says in the name of his Rebbi, Rabeinu Yehudah he'Chasid, that one needs Tevilah only when he enters the Azarah in order to perform an Avodah. The word "la'Avodah" in the Mishnah is exact in that respect. However, "la'Avodah" does not mean a full-fledged Avodah, but it refers to any act which must be done in the Mikdash (such as Semichah, or a Metzora's insertion of his fingers into the Azarah for the sake of Haza'ah). The Rabanan in Midos require Tevilah only when one performs an actual Avodah.
(c) The Tosfos Yeshanim (31a, DH Tiba'i) cites the opinion of RABEINU YOSEF who says that even according to the Tana of the Mishnah here, one needs Tevilah only when he enters to do an actual Avodah. (The Avodah, though, does not have to be the type that may be performed only by a Kohen. An Avodah which a Zar may perform, such as Shechitah, also requires Tevilah, as is clear from the Gemara.) The Rabanan in Midos argue and maintain that one needs Tevilah only when he performs an Avodah immediately upon entering the Azarah. (The Tosfos Yeshanim does not consider this explanation satisfactory.)
3) THE MISSING FLOUR
QUESTION: The Mishnah lists the Avodos of the Korban Tamid which the Kohen Gadol performs on Yom Kippur. It says that he brings the Evarim (limbs) of the Tamid up to the Mizbe'ach "along with the Chavisin and the wine."
Why does the Mishnah make no mention of the flour of the Minchas Nesachim which is also brought with the Korban Tamid? The Mishnah earlier (25a) mentions it together with the Chavisin of the Kohen Gadol and the wine. Why does the Mishnah here omit it?
The answer cannot be that the Mishnah includes the flour when it mentions the Tamid brought on the Mizbe'ach, because the Mishnah itself lists wine separately even though it is also brought with the Tamid. The flour of the Minchah should be listed separately as well.
(a) The SI'ACH YITZCHAK cites the RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 2:1; Perush ha'Mishnayos, introduction to Menachos) who writes that the word "Nesachim" includes both the wine and the flour that are brought with the Korban Tamid. When the Rambam (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 4:1) quotes the Mishnah here which mentions wine but not flour, he omits the word "wine" and writes "Nesachim" instead, and thereby includes the wine and flour together.
Similarly, when the Mishnah mentions the "wine" of the Nesachim it also intends to include the flour, just as the word "Nesachim" includes both the wine and flour. The only reason the earlier Mishnah mentions the flour separately is because that Mishnah enumerates all of the Kohanim involved in the Avodos of the Tamid. Since one Kohen brought the flour up to the Mizbe'ach and a different Kohen brought the wine, the Mishnah there needs to mention them separately.
(b) The RASHASH suggests a different reason for why the Mishnah here does not mention the flour of the Nesachim. The Halachah is that the flour of the Nesachim and the wine do not need to be brought concurrently with the Korban Tamid. The flour and wine may be brought later, even after several days have passed. The Rashash points out that TOSFOS in Rosh Hashanah (30b) implies that even l'Chatchilah the flour of the Nesachim may be brought at a later time. However, there is reason to say that the wine must be brought l'Chatchilah on the same day as the Korban, because the Shir Shel Yom (the Song of the Day), which is part of the Avodah of the Korban Tamid, must be recited when the wine of the Korban is brought.
Since the flour does not need to be brought with the Korban even l'Chatchilah and it may be brought on a later day, perhaps the bringing of the flour for the Korban on Yom Kippur is not considered an Avodah unique to the day of Yom Kippur. Consequently, it is not necessary for the Kohen Gadol himself to bring it, and it may be brought by any Kohen. For this reason, the Mishnah, which discusses the Kohen Gadol's tasks on Yom Kippur, does not mention it. (This answer is based on the proposition of the RITVA
(12b) that any part of the Avodah not unique to Yom Kippur does not need to be done by the Kohen Gadol. See Insights to Yoma 22:1:c