Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yoma 31

1) SLAUGHTERING WITH A LONG KNIFE

QUESTION: The Mishnah requires that a person immerse himself in a Mikvah before entering the Azarah. The Gemara asks whether this Tevilah is necessary for a person who remains outside the Azarah and extends a long knife into the Azarah and performs Shechitah there. 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." The Gemara is in doubt whether Tevilah is required because he is performing an Avodah inside, or it is not required because he is standing outside.

Why does Rashi say that the person's hand is stretched inside the Azarah? The previous line of the Gemara just established that extending even a small part of one's body into the Azarah requires Tevilah! Rashi should have said that the person extends the *knife* (and not "his hand") into the Azarah, while his hand remains outside.

ANSWERS:

(a) The SI'ACH YITZCHAK explains that Rashi's words are Lav Davka. Rashi means that the person stretched the knife *which is in his hand* into the Azarah, but his hand itself remained outside.

(b) The RASHASH adds that Rashi does not mean that the person actually extended his hand into the Azarah, but that he stretched his hand *toward* the Azarah in a motion of Shechitah. The word "inside" ("Lifnim") in Rashi means "toward" the inside, but not literally inside.

(c) Perhaps Rashi is not saying that the person extended his *hand* into the Azarah. Rather, Rashi is saying that the person extended "*its handle*" ("Yado"), referring to the handle of the knife, into the Azarah!

It could be that Rashi is addressing another problem. Even if the person does not need Tevilah in order to stand outside and slaughter an animal that is inside, we should be concerned 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) which is Pasul l'Kodshim! We find a similar decree in Chulin (15b, and ROSH Chulin 1:21), where the Gemara says that a person is not allowed to slaughter an animal with one part of a knife if the other part of the knife has a notch, because of a decree lest he use the invalid side to slaughter the animal. Here, too, perhaps the person standing outside of the Azarah is not permitted to slaughter an animal inside the Azarah with a long knife, because perhaps the animal will come closer to him and he will slaughter the animal with the part of the knife near the handle (which is outside of the Azarah)! To this Rashi answers that there is no such fear, because the person extended *the handle* of the knife into the Azarah as well (and the entire length of the blade was inside the Azarah)! (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: The Mishnah requires that a person immerse himself in a Mikvah before entering the Azarah. The Gemara asks whether this Tevilah is necessary for a person who remains outside the Azarah and extends a long knife into the Azarah and performs Shechitah there. The Gemara leaves this question unanswered. Even the Rabanan (in the Mishnah from Midos cited on 30b), who normally do not require Tevilah before entering the Azarah, might require Tevilah in this case, because the person doing the Shechitah is actually performing an Avodah and is not just walking into the Azarah.

We know that the Rabanan who do not require Tevilah before entering the Azarah argue with the Tana of our Mishnah (Ben Zoma) who does require Tevilah. Yet the Mishnah only says that Tevilah is required by anyone who wants to enter the Azarah "to do Avodah" ("la'Avodah"). If so, the Rabanan who disagree must not require Tevilah even when one is going to perform an Avodah inside! Why, then, does the Gemara suggest that the Rabanan require Tevilah for performing an Avodah inside?

ANSWERS:

(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 Lav Davka. Rather, the Mishnah means that one is required to do Tevilah whenever one plans on entering the Azarah, even if he is *not* going to perform any Avodah. Tosfos adds that according to the Mishnah (which is expressing the opinion of Ben Zoma), when a person enters the Azarah to perform Avodah, the Tevilah then becomes a d'Oraisa obligation. When one enters the Azarah and performs no Avodah, the requirement of Tevilah is only mid'Rabanan.

(b) TOSFOS YESHANIM (30a DH Ein Adam) says in the name of his Rebbi, Rabeinu Yehudah ha'Chasid, that one needs Tevilah only if he is entering the Azarah in order to perform an Avodah. The word "la'Avodah" in our Mishnah is Davka in that respect. However, when it says "la'Avodah" it does not mean a full- fledged Avodah, but it means any act which involves an act that must be done in the Mikdash (such as doing Semichah, or a Metzora putting his fingers into the Azarah for Haza'ah). The Rabanan, though, require Tevilah only if one does an actual Avodah.

(c) TOSFOS YESHANIM (31a DH Tiba'i) also cites the opinion of RABEINU YOSEF who says that even according to the Tana of our Mishnah, Tevilah is only required when one enters to do an actual Avodah. (The Avodah, though, does not have to be the type that can only be performed by a Kohen. An Avodah which a Zar may perform, such as Shechitah, also requires Tevilah, as is clear from our Sugya.) The Rabanan, though, assert that one only requires Tevilah if he enters and *immediately upon entering* performs an Avodah. (Tosfos Yeshanim does not consider this explanation satisfactory.)

31b

QUESTION: The Mishnah lists the Avodos of the Korban Tamid which the Kohen Gadol performs on Yom Kipur. 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 omit the flour of the Minchas Nesachim which is also brought with the Tamid? The Mishnah earlier (25a) mentions it together with the Chavisin of the Kohen Gadol and the wine, so why does the Mishnah here omit it?

The answer cannot be that when the Mishnah mentions the Tamid that is brought upon the Mizbe'ach, it is including the flour, because the Mishnah lists wine separately, although it is also brought with the Tamid, and thus the flour of the Minchah should also be listed separately as well!

ANSWERS:

(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 our Mishnah which mentions wine but does not mention flour, he writes "Nesachim" instead of wine, including the wine and flour together.

Similarly, it must be that when our Mishnah mentions the "wine" of the Nesachim, it also means to include the flour, just like "Nesachim" includes both the wine and flour. The only reason the flour was mentioned separately in the earlier Mishnah was because that Mishnah was enumerating all of the Kohanim who were involved in the Avodos of the Tamid. Since one Kohen brought up the flour to the Mizbe'ach and a different one brought the wine, the Mishnah had to mention them separately.

(b) The RASHASH suggests that we know that the flour of the Nesachim and the wine do not have to be brought simultaneously with the Korban Tamid, but they may be brought later, even after several days have passed. The Rashash points out that from Tosfos in Rosh ha'Shanah (30b) it appears that even l'Chatchilah, the flour of the Nesachim may be brought later and not together with the Korban. It would seem that the wine, though, l'Chatchilah must be brought on the same day as the Korban, because the Shir Shel Yom (the Song of the Day) that is said with the Korban Tamid each day is said when the wine of the Korban is brought.

Since the flour does not have to be brought with the Korban even l'Chatchilah and it may be brought another day, perhaps it is not considered to be an Avodah unique to the day of Yom Kipur. Because of this, it is not necessary for the Kohen Gadol himself to bring it, and it may be brought by any Kohen. That is why our Mishnah, which is discussing the Kohen Gadol's work on Yom Kipur, does not list it. (This is based on the thesis of the RITVA (12b) who says that any part of the Avodah that does not belong exclusively to Yom Kipur does not have to be done by the Kohen Gadol; see Insights to 22:1(c)).