Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ABA SHAUL AND RABANAN ON NEIROS AND KETORES

(a) Question: There is a contradiction between the two orders here in Yoma?
(b) Answer (Abaye): One is speaking after the Hatavah of the five candles; one after the two.

1. Question: Does Abaye hold that the interruption is filled with the Ketores, but we know that he holds that it is the Dam Tamid!?
2. Answer (Abaye): This is resolved by the existence of a Machlokes Rabanan (Ketores then Neiros) and Aba Shaul (Neiros then Ketores interrupting the Neiros with Zerikas HaTamid).
3. The rationale of Aba Shaul is "B'haitivo" then "Yaktirenah."
4. The Rabanan take that to mean that the Ketores should have already been offered at the time of Hatavas HaNeiros.
5. Otherwise we would end up with the Ketores being brought after the Neiros in the afternoon!?
6. Question: Maybe that is so?
7. Answer: But the Neiros is the end, continuing all night.
8. Thus, both he Hatavah and the Hadlakah are done with the Ketores already having been done.
9. Question: What will Aba Shaul do with this?
10. Answer: That restricts only the night (Oso).

(c) Answer (R. Papa) One listing (our Mishnah) is Rabanan (Ketores first) and one (the Payis listing) is Aba Shaul (Neiros first).

1. Question: But the Seifa of the Payis listing appears to follow Rabanan (Ketores in the middle).
2. Answer: The opening and closing are Rabanan, while the middle is Aba Shaul.

(d) Abaye did not agree with R. Papa in order to avoid this change of authorship in mid-Mishnah.
(e) R. Papa did agree with Abaye to avoid the switch from speaking of the five candles to the two.
(f) Abaye responds that the first Mishnah is listing the Avodos with which the Kohen needs to be familiar, not the actual order of the Avodah (listed later).

(a) We were taught that the Kohen sprinkled the Tamid on the NE corner and then on the SW corner (two corners as one).
(b) R. Shimon Ish HaMitzpeh taught that after the NE sprinkling (as two) the SW sprinkling was split (West then South, separately).
(c) R. Yochanan (citing a member of R. Yanai's Yeshiva) taught that R. Shimon learned from the Pasuk where the Torah gives this Olah (the Tamid) some of the laws of a Chatas.
(d) Question: Then do the two (as four) sprinklings as an Olah and then the four (separate) as a Chatas?
(e) Answer: We do not find blood at a second Kaparah.
(f) Question: But neither do we find blood half-Olah half- Chatas (the Torah is forcing our hand here)!?
(g) Answer: It is only Pisuk (it is not truly the sprinkling of a Chatas).
(h) Question: Why not sprinkle the one-as-two below (Olah) and the two-as-two above (Chatas)?
(i) Answer: We do not find such a split above/below.
(j) Question: But we find such by Yom HaKipurim!?
(k) Answer: That is Matzlif (like lashes) and not actual above/below the midline.
(l) Question: Again, we find such a split on the "Taharo Shel Mizbeach (implying above/below the midline)?"

(m) Answer: No, it speaks of a clear area on the Mizbeach itself, not above/below.
(n) Question: Why the Olah sprinkling first?
(o) Answer: It is, after all, an Olah.
(p) Question: Why at the NE and SW corners?
(q) Answer: The sprinkling of an Olah requires Yesod.
(r) Question: Why NE first, not SW first?
(s) Answer: Since we must turn East, we get to NE first.
(t) Question: Maybe a Chatas should have characteristics of an Olah, not the reverse?
(u) Answer: The Pasuk implies that a quality of Chatas is done on to the Olah.

(a) Question: In one Mishnah we are taught that this Lishkah was in the NW, and in another we are taught that it was SW!?
(b) Answer: The Mishnah in Midos is R. Elazar b. Yakov.