POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
by Rabbi Ephraim Becker
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf
Yoma 40
|
YOMA 36-40 have anonymously sponsored towards a REFU'AH SHELEMAH to Shmuel
Yakov ben Ayala Hinda, Ilana Golda bas Chana and Klarees Marcia bas Mammie
|
1) TWO LESHONOS AS TO WHETHER THE GORAL IS ME'AKEV (cont'd)
(a) Question: The Beraisa teaches that Hagralah is a Mitzvah
which is *not* Me'akev?!
1. This fits nicely according to the first Lashon.
2. According to the second Lashon, however, there is an
opinion which maintains that Hagralah *is* Me'akev!?
(b) Answer: The Beraisa is correctly taught that *Hanachah* is a
Mitzvah.
(c) The Beraisa teaches that it is a Mitzvah to do both Goral
and Vidui, but that neither are Me'akev, and here the Goral
*cannot* mean Hanachah!?
1. R. Shimon disagrees and holds that Vidui *is* Me'akev.
2. This reading implies that R. Shimon concurs that the
Goral is *not* Me'akev.
(d) Question: If the Goral here means Hanachah, then R. Shimon
would hold that our Goral (Aliyah) *is* Me'akev (Yet, R.
Shimon holds that it is *not* Me'akev as we see from the
case where one of the Seirim died)?!
(e) Answer: R. Shimon was unsure of the position of the Rabanan
and taught his position that both Hagralah and Vidui are
Me'akev regardless of what the Rabanan mean by Hagralah.
(f) We see the positions of R. Shimon and R. Yehudah as two
alternate explanations for the Beraisa regarding the order
of the Par and Sair.
1. The Beraisa teaches that preempting the Par with Avodah
of the Sair is Me'akev that Sair, but the reverse is
not.
2. What is being referred to as the Par before the Sair?
3. It cannot be the Matanos of the Par in the Heichal
before the Matanos BiFnim, since Chukah does not allow
for error there.
4. It must be the Matanos of the Par BiFnim before the
Goralos, thus indicating R. Shimon's position that the
Goralos are not Me'akev.
5. Alternately, it could be R. Yehudah's position, and
while the order is not Me'akev, Hagralah is.
40b---------------------------------------40b
(g) We see the positions of R. Shimon and R. Yehudah regarding
the indispensable nature of Vidui inferred from the Beraisa.
1. The Pasuk Yo'omad Chai is understood by R. Yehudah to
mean until the Matan Dam of the other Sair, while R.
Shimon takes it to mean until the Vidui.
2. R. Yehudah learns that the Kaparah of the Pasuk is
Kaparas Damim while R. Shimon learns that the Kaparah
is Devarim.
(h) Question: From R. Akiva's response to his students it seems
that (had it not been for our concern over the Tzedukim
that) the Goral is *not* Me'akev (contrary to what we have
been taught)?!
(i) Answer: They actually asked about moving the left Sair and
the Goral to his right side, and to that R. Akiva said no,
because of the Tzedukim.
(j) Question: From the Beraisa (explaining the word Alav) it
seems that Hagralah is Me'akev and that Hanachah is not.
(k) Answer: No, the Alav teaches that once we know which animal
is which, it is purely a Mitzvah to place the Goral on the
animal, and still, both Aliyah and Hanachah may not be
Me'akev.
(l) Question: The Beraisa (a Sifra-Toras Kohanim) teaches that
the *Goral* makes the Kedushah, and not the Kohen's words?!
1. This is taught to counter the effect of a Kal VaChomer
which one might draw to learn that the Name *should*
make it a Chatas.
2. The Pasuk thus teaches that it is the Goral creating
the Chatas, and not the Name.
(m) An unnamed Sifra is the position of R. Yehudah.
(n) We thus resolve conclusively in favor of the those who hold
that Hagralah *is* Me'akev.
Next daf
|