Daf Ditty Yoma 33: Priority of Heart over Head

1
2
3
§ Abaye arranged the sequence of the daily services in the Temple based on tradition and in
accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul: Setting up the large arrangement of wood on the
altar on which the offerings were burned precedes the second arrangement of wood. This second
arrangement was arranged separately near the southwest corner of the altar, and twice every day
priests raked coals from it and placed them on the inner altar in order to burn the incense. The
second arrangement for the incense precedes setting up the two logs of wood above the large

4
arrangement to fulfill the mitzva of bringing wood. And the setting up of the two logs of wood
precedes the removal of ashes from the inner altar. And the removal of ashes from the inner
altar precedes the removal of ashes from five of the seven lamps of the candelabrum.

And removal of ashes from five lamps precedes the slaughter and the receiving and sprinkling
of the blood of the daily morning offering. The sprinkling of the blood of the daily offering

5
precedes the removal of ashes from the two remaining lamps of the candelabrum. And the
removal of ashes from two lamps precedes the burning of the incense. The burning of the
incense on the inner altar precedes the burning of the limbs of the daily offering on the outer altar.
The burning of the limbs precedes the sacrifice of the meal-offering which accompanies the daily
offering. The sacrifice of the meal-offering precedes the sacrifice of the High Priest’s daily
griddle-cake offering, half of which he sacrificed in the morning and half in the afternoon. And
the griddle-cake offering precedes the pouring of the libations of the daily offering.

6
7
And the libations precede the sacrifice of the additional offerings on days when the additional
offerings are sacrificed. And the additional offerings precede the vessels of frankincense that are
offered on Shabbat. And the vessels precede the sacrifice of the daily afternoon offering, as it is
stated:

‫בּוֹ ל ֹא‬-‫ַהִמְּזֵבַּח תּוַּקד‬-‫ה ְוָהֵאשׁ ַﬠל‬ 5 And the fire upon the altar shall be kept burning thereby,
‫ וִּבֵﬠר ָﬠֶליָה ַהֹכֵּהן ֵﬠִצים‬,‫ִתְכֶבּה‬ it shall not go out; and the priest shall kindle wood on it
,‫ַבֹּבֶּקר ַבֹּבֶּקר; ְוָﬠ ַר_ ָﬠֶליָה ָהֹעָלה‬ every morning; and he shall lay the burnt-offering in order
.‫ְוִהְקִטיר ָﬠֶליָה ֶחְלֵבי ַהְשָּׁלִמים‬ upon it, and shall make smoke thereon the fat of the peace-
offerings.
Lev 6:5

“And he shall lay out the burnt-offering on it, and burn on it the fat parts of the peace-offerings.

The term on it, means complete sacrifice of all other offerings, i.e., after the daily morning
offering rather than after the daily afternoon offering. In all cases, the daily afternoon offering is
the final offering sacrificed.

8
The Gemara proceeds to analyze the items listed by Abaye and seeks biblical or logical sources
for each. The Master said: Setting up the large arrangement of wood on the altar on which the
offerings were burned precedes the second arrangement of wood for incense. The Gemara asks:
From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: The verse
states:

‫ ז ֹאת‬,‫ָבָּניו ֵלאֹמר‬-‫ַאֲהֹרן ְוֶאת‬-‫ב ַצו ֶאת‬ 2 Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of
-‫ ִהוא ָהֹעָלה ַﬠל מוְֹקָדה ַﬠל‬:‫תּוַֹרת ָהֹעָלה‬ the burnt-offering: it is that which goeth up on its firewood
‫ ְוֵאשׁ‬,‫ַהֹבֶּקר‬-‫ ַﬠד‬,‫ַהַלּ ְיָלה‬-‫ַהִמְּזֵבַּח ָכּל‬ upon the altar all night unto the morning; and the fire of the
.‫ תּוַּקד בּוֹ‬,‫ַהִמְּזֵבַּח‬ altar shall be kept burning thereby.
Lev 6:2

“The burnt-offering itself shall go up on its bonfire upon the altar all night”
this is referring to the large arrangement of wood. “And the fire of the altar shall be kept
burning on it” this is referring to the second arrangement of wood near the corner of the altar,
from which coals are taken for the incense.

9
Abaye continued and said that the second arrangement for incense precedes the setting up of
the two logs. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is written:

‫בּוֹ ל ֹא‬-‫ַהִמְּזֵבַּח תּוַּקד‬-‫ה ְוָהֵאשׁ ַﬠל‬ 5 And the fire upon the altar shall be kept burning thereby,
‫ וִּבֵﬠר ָﬠֶליָה ַהֹכֵּהן ֵﬠִצים‬,‫ִתְכֶבּה‬ it shall not go out; and the priest shall kindle wood on it
,‫ַבֹּבֶּקר ַבֹּבֶּקר; ְוָﬠ ַר_ ָﬠֶליָה ָהֹעָלה‬ every morning; and he shall lay the burnt-offering in order
.‫ְוִהְקִטיר ָﬠֶליָה ֶחְלֵבי ַהְשָּׁלִמים‬ upon it, and shall make smoke thereon the fat of the peace-
offerings.
Lev 6:5

“And the priest shall burn wood upon it in the morning, in the morning” there is an obligation
to place new logs upon the large arrangement. The term upon it underscores that the wood is
placed only on the large arrangement, and not on the other arrangement from which coals are
taken for the incense. From the fact that this exclusionary term is necessary, it can be derived by
inference that there is another pile on the altar, meaning that when the new logs are placed on the
altar, the two arrangements are already there.

10
Abaye continued: The setting up of the two logs precedes the removal of ashes from the inner
altar. Although here, with regard to the two logs, it is written: In the morning, in the morning,
meaning that the priest must arise early in the morning to perform this act, and here, with regard
to removal of the ashes from the inner altar, it is also written:

;‫ ְקֹט ֶרת ַסִמּים‬,‫ז ְוִהְקִטיר ָﬠָליו ַאֲהֹרן‬ 7 And Aaron shall burn thereon incense of sweet
--‫ַהֵנֹּרת‬-‫ ְבֵּהיִטיבוֹ ֶאת‬,‫ַבֹּבֶּקר ַבֹּבֶּקר‬ spices; every morning, when he dresseth the lamps, he
.‫ַיְקִטי ֶרָנּה‬ shall burn it.
Ex 30:7

“In the morning, in the morning” even so, an action that facilitates another service takes
precedence. Therefore, setting up the logs, from which coals are taken, facilitating the burning of
the incense, precedes removal of ashes from the inner altar. The Gemara asks: What is the act that

11
facilitates? It is the placement of the two logs. But didn’t you say that the two logs go to the
large arrangement of wood and not to the arrangement of wood from which the coals are taken
for the incense? These logs in no way facilitate the burning of the incense.

RASHI

Steinzaltz

12
Abaye continued: And removal of ashes from the inner altar precedes the removal of ashes
from five of the seven lamps of the candelabrum. What is the reason for this? Abaye said: I
learned this through tradition; however, I do not know the rationale behind it. And Rava said:
The reason is in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish said: One
may not forego performance of any of the mitzvot in order to perform another mitzva.

13
14
Rava said: Conclude from the statement of Reish Lakish that one may not forego performance
of any of the mitzvot, that it is prohibited to forego donning the phylacteries of the arm in order
to don the phylacteries of the head, as when donning phylacteries, one encounters the arm first.
How does he conduct himself? He proceeds from the phylacteries of the arm to the phylacteries
of the head.

RASHI

Steinzaltz

Tosafos

‫ת וס פ ות ד " ה ע ב ו ר י ד ר ע א א ט וט פ ת א‬
‫ פרש"י להניח תפילין בראש קודם שיניח תפילין של יד אסור דקא מעביר על מצות תפילין של יד דפגע ברישא בזרוע‬-
‫קודם שיגיע לראש‬

15
 Rashi's opinion:: This forbids putting Tefilin on the head before on the hand, for he
passes over the Mitzvah of hand Tefilin, for he e9c the arm before the head.
(.‫וקשה לפי' דמאי איריא מדריש לקיש תיפוק ליה מדאמר בפרק הקומץ רבה )מנחות דף לו‬

Question: Why does this depend on Reish Lakish's law? We know this from a Drashah
in Menachos (36a)!
‫כשהוא מניח מניח של יד ואח"כ של ראש דכתיב וקשרתם לאות על ידך והדר והיו לטוטפות בין עיניך‬
.
Citation (36a): One put Tefilin on the hand and afterwards on the head, for it says
"u'Kshartam l'Os Al Yadecha", and afterwards "v'Hayu l'Totafos Bein Einecha."
‫ומפרש רבינו תם בשם רב האי גאון זצ"ל דאיירי בשעה שחולץ תפילין ומניחן בתיק‬

Opinion #2 (R. Tam citing Rav Hai Gaon): Our Gemara discusses removing Tefilin
and putting them in their case;
‫שלא יעביר אותן של יד ויתנם בתיק תחילה ואח"כ של ראש למעלה‬

He may not pass over the hand Tefilin, and put it in the case first, and afterwards
the head Tefilin above it;
'‫דא"כ כשיבא להניח יפגע בשל ראש תחילה ויצטרך להעביר על המצות משום דשל יד יש להניח תחילה כדפי‬

If he would do so, the next time he dons Tefilin, he will put the head first, and he
will need to pass over Mitzvos and put on the hand Tefilin first, like I explained
(due to the Drashah in Menachos).
‫לפיכך צריך להניח בתיק של ראש תחילה ואח"כ של יד למעלה‬

Therefore, he must and put the head in the case first, and afterwards the hand Tefilin
above.
‫ורבי אליהו זצ"ל מפרש דלענין משמוש איירי‬

Opinion #3: R. Eliyahu explains that our Gemara discusses touching Tefilin;
‫דחייב אדם למשמש בתפילין כל שעה ק"ו מציץ‬

One must constantly touch his Tefilin. We learn from a Kal va'Chomer from the
Tzitz (the Kohen Gadol may not divert his mind from it);
.‫והשתא קאמר דבשל יד ממשמש תחילה משום דפגע בהן ברישא ואח"כ ממשמש בשל ראש‬

Our Gemara teaches that one touched the hand Tefilin first, and afterwards the head
Tefilin.

16
Ravina said to Rav Ashi with regard to the basis for Abaye’s argument: Is this term: In the
morning, in the morning, written with regard to the two logs actually superfluous and therefore
available to have other matters derived from it? Isn’t it necessary to teach its own basic halakha,
as the Merciful One states in the Torah: Have it precede the second arrangement of wood,
from which coals are taken for the incense? Rav Ashi said to him: And did we not establish
that it is written: Upon it, underscoring the fact that wood is placed only on the large arrangement
and not on the other arrangement from which coals are taken for the incense? From the fact that
this exclusionary term is necessary, it can be derived by inference that there is another pile on
the altar, meaning that when the new logs are placed on the altar, the two arrangements are already
there.

17
Sifre

8) "And the Cohein shall kindle wood on it every morning (lit., "in the morning, in the morning")":

‫ ַתֲּﬠֶשׂה ַבֹבֶּקר; ְוֵאת ַהֶכֶּבשׂ‬,‫ַהֶכֶּבשׂ ֶאָחד‬-‫ד ֶאת‬ 4 The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the
.‫ ַתֲּﬠֶשׂה ֵבּין ָהַﬠ ְרָבּ ִים‬,‫ַהֵשּׁ ִני‬ other lamb shalt thou offer at dusk;
Num 28:4

It is written here "in the morning, in the morning," and in respect to the daily burnt-offering (the
tamid) "in the morning" (Bamidbar 28:4): "And the one lamb shall you offer in the morning." I
would not know which takes precedence, (the placing of the two logs on the wood pile, "wood" in
our instance, or the slaughtering of the tamid). —

Let that of which it is written "in the morning, in the morning" take precedence to that of which
only one "in the morning" is written. It is written in respect to the wood:

18
 ‫ ְקֹטֶרת ַסִמּים; ַבֹּבֶּקר‬,‫ז ְוִהְקִטיר ָﬠָליו ַאֲהֹרן‬ 7 And Aaron shall burn thereon incense of sweet spices;
.‫ַיְקִטיֶרָנּה‬--‫ַהֵנֹּרת‬-‫ ְבֵּהיִטיבוֹ ֶאת‬,‫ַבֹּבֶּקר‬ every morning, when he dresseth the lamps, he shall burn
it.
Ex 30:7

"in the morning, in the morning," and in respect to the incense: "in the morning, in the
morning, when he cleans the lamps he shall burn it (the incense)." I would not know which
takes precedence.

Which is a prerequisite for which? The wood (i.e., the placing of the two logs) is a prerequisite for
the incense, (being a prerequisite for the entire altar service). — Let them precede the incense.

Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

Abaye listed the order of the daily Altar service in the name of tradition and in accordance with
Abba Shaul (who holds that the Menorah’s lamps were cleaned before the burning of the incense):

The large pyre (on the Altar) comes before the second pyre for the incense;
the second pyre for the incense comes before the arranging of the two logs of wood (which are
placed on the large pyre);
the arranging of the two logs of wood precedes the removing of the ashes from the inner Altar;
the removing of the ashes from the inner Altar precedes the cleaning of the five lamps (of the
Menorah);
the cleaning of the five lamps precedes the (slaughtering and the throwing of the) blood of the
Tamid offering;
the blood of the Tamid offering precedes the cleaning of the two lamps;
the cleaning of the two lamps precedes the (burning of the) incense (on the Inner Altar);
the incense precedes the (burning of the) limbs (on the Outer Altar);
the limbs come before the minchah (meal-offering);
the minchah precedes the chavitin (minchah offering of the Kohen Gadol);
the chavitin come before the (wine) libations;
the libations precede the Mussaf offerings;
the Mussaf offerings come before the spoons (of frankincense),
and the spoons precede the Tamid afternoon-offering, as it is written: And he shall burn upon it
the fat of the shelamim, i.e., upon “it” (the morning Tamid offering), all the offerings are
completed.

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Yoma_33.pdf

19
The master had stated: The large pyre (on the Altar) comes before the second pyre for the incense.
The Gemora asks: From where is this derived?

The Gemora cites a braisa: This is the law of the olah offering; on the flame, on the Altar, all night.
This verse refers to the large pyre. And the fire of the Altar shall be aflame on it; this refers to the
second pyre for the incense.

The Gemora asks: But perhaps I should reverse it? The Gemora answers: It seems more logical
that the large pyre has preference because it brings more atonement (from all the offerings). The
Gemora asks: On the contrary!? The second pyre is of greater value, for from it, the coals are taken
into the Inner Sanctuary!?

The Gemora answers: Nevertheless, the one which causes more atonement is of greater value.
And, if you like, say: If there would be no wood found for the second pyre, would one not bring
it into the Sanctuary from the large pyre?

It was stated: The second pyre for the incense comes before the arranging of the two logs of wood
(which are placed on the large pyre). The Gemora cites the Scriptural source for this. The next
step: The arranging of the two logs of wood precedes the removing of the ashes from the inner
Altar.

The Gemora explains: Although it is written ‘every morning’ by both of them, the preparatory act
(of arranging the blocks of wood for burning the incense) should take precedence (over the
removing of the ashes from the incense).

Rabbi Yirmiyah explains: Although these blocks of wood were used for the large pyre (which was
not used for the incense), nevertheless, it is designated as ‘wood,’ and once he started with the
large pyre, he concludes with the arranging of the logs. Rav Ashi answers: If there would be no
wood found for the second pyre, would one not bring it into the Sanctuary from the large pyre?
The next step: The removing of the ashes from the inner Altar precedes the cleaning of the five
lamps(of the Menorah).

Abaye said: This is a tradition with no logic. Rava said: This follows the dictum of Rish Lakish,
for Rish Lakish said: One should not pass over mitzvos, and when the Kohen entered the
Sanctuary, he reached the mizbeiach before he reached the menorah. [He, therefore, became
obligated in that mitzvah first.] This is proven from a braisa: The Table was to the north two and
one half amos away from the wall, the Menorah was to the south, two and one half amos away
from the wall, and the Altar stood in the exact middle, extending somewhat outward. The Gemora
asks: But let the Altar stand between them?

The Gemora answers: Since it is written: And the Menorah opposite the Table, it is required that
they see each other. Rava said: From what Rish Lakish said, we infer that it is forbidden to bypass
the arm in favor of the forehead (when it comes to putting on tefillin). How shall he do it? From
the arm, he shall proceed to the forehead. The next step of the service: The cleaning of the five
lamps precedes the (slaughtering and the throwing of the) blood of the Tamid offering. Abaye

20
concludes that the words “in the morning, in the morning” by the arranging of the logs on the fire
are superfluous.

Therefore, we can apply one of them to the removal of ashes from the Menorah and the other to
the blood services. This would give a total of three times the word “in the morning” is applied to
the Menorah, while is it applied to the blood service only twice. Consequently, the cleaning of the
menorah takes precedence.

This, however, was only true for five of the candles. Since the cleaning of the Menorah was split
up (as the Gemora will explain), the sprinkling of blood took place before the final two candles
were cleaned. This is due to the fact that although the word morning is used equally in both these
two services, the sprinkling of blood atones and therefore takes precedence.

Third Pyre

The Gemora states that there were two fires on the Altar every day - one called 'marachah gedolah'
which was used for all the burnings of the meat (Rashi) and one for the ketores. There actually
was a third one as well, as stated on daf 45a according to Reb Yosi that was there to fulfill the
requirement of the Torah to have fire on the Altar at all times.

Rashi (ibid) says that if there was not enough fire on the marachah gedolah, it would be replenished
from this one. The Rambam does not mention this halachah. The Chinuch (mitzva 132) states that
this third fire is an integral part of the mitzvah and if the kohanim kindled the two first, but not this
one, they would be negating the mitzvah.

The Meiri (here and on daf 45) comments similar to Rashi; however, in Tamid 29a, he states that
the third fire had no use whatsoever except to fulfill the requirement of having fire on the Altar. I
was wondering, do the Rambam and the Chinuch (and Meiri in Tamid) disagree with the halachah
of Rashi, that if fire was needed for the marachah gedolah, it could not be taken from this fire?
What would be done?

Touching the Tefillin

The Gemora cites Rish Lakish that one is not permitted to pass over a mitzvah and that is why the
Kohen cleans the Altar before the preparation of the menorah for the Altar is closer to the entrance
of the heichal. Rava (33b) states that we can learn from here regarding tefillin that the shel yad
should be before the shel rosh. Rashi says that this is referring to the putting on of the tefillin for
the arm comes before the head.

Rabbeinu Tam disagrees and says that it is referring to the removing and placing in the bag, that
the shel rosh should be placed first in order that the next day, one should come into contact with
the shel yad first. Rabeinu Eliyohu learns that it is referring to the touching of the tefillin during
davening.

21
The Shemuas Chaim learns from here that it is not sufficient to touch the straps of the shel rosh,
rather one is obligated to touch the bayis itself, for otherwise - one could touch the straps first and
then touch the shel yad, for he is not passing over any mitzvah.

Is there an inyon perhaps to touch the bayis of the shel yad itself and not
merely the sleeve which is covering the shel yad?

The placement of tefilin shel yad and tefilin shel rosh; the prohibition of passing over a mitzvah
Our Gemora teaches the prohibition of passing over a mitzvah.

Therefore, the Gemora concludes, one should not pass over the shel yad for the shel rosh. Rashi
understands this to mean that since one reaches his arm before reaching his head he has an
obligation to put the shel yad on first in order to avoid a situation of passing over a mitzvah.
Tosafos disagrees with this explanation.

Tosafos argues that one does not need the principal of not passing over a mitzvah to establish the
order of donning tefilin. The order of the verse establishes the correct order of donning tefillin.
The verse says, “You should bind them on your arm and it should be a sign between your eyes.”
The arm precedes the head.

Tosafos interprets the Gemora to mean when one places the tefillin in their bag, he should be sure
to place them so he accesses the shel yad first. In this way he will not be in a situation where he
would have to pass over the shel rosh in order to take the shel yad first.

The Shulchan Aruch rules like this Tosafos and says when putting tefillin away, one should put
the shel yad on top of the shel rosh. The Magen Avraham has a problem, however, with the simple
reading of the Shulchan Aruch. He asks how one is allowed to put the shel yad on top of the shel
rosh being that the shel rosh has more kedushah.

In general, we have a rule which forbids the placing of something of lesser kedushah on top of
something with more kedushah. Therefore, the Magen Avraham suggests that one should make a
wide bag in order that tefillin should be on the same level. This is our custom.

The explains the words of the Shulchan Aruch by saying the shel yad should be slightly elevated
in order to ensure that one takes it before he takes the shel rosh. It is also brought in the poskim
that one should have a designated side where he places each of the tefillin in order not to
accidentally take the wrong one and create a situation where he would have to pass over a mitzvah.

22
RECITING ABAYE'S ORDER OF KORBANOS IN THE DAILY PRAYERS

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

Abaye teaches the Seder ha'Ma'arachah, the order of the daily Avodah, according to Aba Shaul.
He lists fourteen steps of the Avodah, starting with the Ma'arachah Gedolah and concluding with
the afternoon Tamid. The Gemara goes on to justify each step in his order. The Gemara concludes
that according to the Rabanan, the order of the daily Avodah is not the order that Abaye teaches.
Although the Gemara does not clearly state what the Halachah is, the RAMBAM (Hilchos
Temidin u'Musafin 6:3) rules like the Rabanan who say that the Ketores separates between the
Hatavah of the first five Neros and the Hatavah of the last two Neros, which is not like Abaye's
order according to Aba Shaul, who puts the Zerikas ha'Dam between the two Hatavos.

In the daily prayers, Abaye's Seder ha'Ma'arachah, as recorded in the Gemara here, is recited before
Shacharis to conclude the description of the daily Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Why is Abaye's
Seder ha'Ma'arachah recited if the Halachah does not follow his opinion?

BEIS YOSEF (OC 48) answers that perhaps the Chachamim who arranged the prayers in the
Sidur understood that the Halachah follows Abaye, since Abaye provides a clear description of the
order of the Ma'arachah. The Beis Yosef may intend to say that the Rambam's ruling is not
accepted as the Halachah, but rather the Halachah follows Abaye who taught the order "mi'Shmei
d'Gemara" --"according to the tradition." RASHI explains that these words refer to "the entire
Yeshivah of the Rabanan."

Why, then, does the Rambam not rule like Abaye? The PERISHAH writes that perhaps the
Rambam understands the words "mi'Shmei d'Gemara" like the ARUCH, who explains that they
mean that Abaye related his teaching anonymously, without quoting any source. It is interesting to
note that in the Rambam's own description of the prayer service (printed in the end of Sefer
Ahavah), he makes no mention of the Seder ha'Ma'arachah of Abaye.

Perhaps there are grounds to recite Abaye's Seder ha'Ma'arachah even according to the Rambam.
The TUR explains that the reason why the Seder ha'Ma'arachah is included in the daily prayers is
because of Hash-m's assurance that "whenever they recite the Seder ha'Korbanos, I consider it as
if they offered Korbanos before Me, and I forgive them for their sins" (Ta'anis 27b). Accordingly,
it suffices to "recite" and learn the order of the Korbanos, and it is not necessary to recite
the exact order of every Avodah to earn the merit of having offered Korbanos.

Therefore, even if the Halachah does not follow Abaye, his Seder ha'Ma'arachah certainly qualifies
as a valid recitation of the order of the Avodah. (Since Abaye arranged a clear, organized list of
all of the Avodos in their proper order, it is preferable to recite his words than to list the Avodos
by citing one statement from one place and another statement from a different place.)

MISHNAH BERURAH (beginning of OC 48) writes that the point of reciting the Seder
ha'Korbanos in the daily prayers is to understand it and to delve into it, and not merely to recite it

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-033.htm

23
by rote. It has the status of "Talmud Torah," and thus it must be learned and understood. (M.
Kornfeld)

WHAT GIVES ONE AVODAH PRECEDENCE OVER ANOTHER?

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

The Gemara discusses the order of the Avodos on Yom Kippur according to the opinion of Aba
Shaul as presented by Abaye. According to Aba Shaul, the Kohen Gadol prepares the first five
Neros of the Menorah for lighting (Hatavas ha'Neros), after which he does the Shechitah of the
Korban Tamid and the Zerikah of its blood, and then he prepares the last two Neros for lighting.

The Gemara explains that the source for this order is the repetition of the word "ba'Boker" in the
verse that discusses the Hatavas ha'Neros. This repetition teaches that the acts of Hatavah (the
Hatavah of the first five Neros and the Hatavah of the last two Neros) are performed "very early"
(signified by the two words, "ba'Boker"). In contrast, in the verse of Zerikas ha'Dam only one word
"ba'Boker" is written, which implies that the Zerikas ha'Dam is performed "early" but not "very
early." This teaches that the Zerikas ha'Dam is performed after the Neros have been prepared.

However, the Gemara points out that in the earlier verse that discusses the Shnei Gezirei Etzim,
the word "ba'Boker" appears twice. Since that word is not appropriate in the context of the Shnei
Gezirei Etzim, one "ba'Boker" is allotted to the Zerikas ha'Dam, and the other "ba'Boker" is allotted
to the Hatavah of the five Neros.

As a result, the Hatavah of the five Neros has three words "ba'Boker," and thus it is performed
first. Zerikah has two words "ba'Boker," which puts it on an equal standing with the Hatavah of
the last two Neros. Since the Zerikah has the additional advantage of being a "Mechaper" (it attains
atonement), it deserves precedence and is performed before the Hatavah of the last two Neros (that
is, it is performed between the Hatavos of the first five Neros and the last two Neros).

This reasoning seems to contradict the reasoning of the Gemara earlier. The Gemara (33a) implies
that a logical advantage alone, such as "Mechaper," is sufficient to give precedence to one Avodah
over another. When the Gemara discusses which is performed first -- the Dishun Mizbe'ach
ha'Penimi or the Shnei Gezirei Etzim, the Gemara concludes that the Shnei Gezirei Etzim is done
first because that Avodah is a "Machshir" for the Ketores.

Even though the word "ba'Boker" appears twice in the verse of Shnei Gezirei Etzim, the Gemara
says that those words are not used to establish the precedence of the Shnei Gezirei Etzim (but
instead are given to the Hatavas ha'Neros and the Zerikas ha'Dam, as mentioned above), since it
already has the advantage of being a Machshir. That advantage overrides the two appearances of
the word "ba'Boker" in the verse of Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach.

3
https://dafyomi.co.il/yoma/charts/yo-ct-034.htm

24
Similarly, why does the advantage of being a Mechaper not override the repetition of the words
"ba'Boker" and give the Zerikas ha'Dam precedence over the Hatavas ha'Neros, just as the
advantage of being a Machshir gives the Shnei Gezirei Etzim precedence? If the Zerikas ha'Dam
has the advantage of being a Mechaper, then it should be performed first even without an extra
"ba'Boker." Why is it necessary to manipulate the number of instances of the word "ba'Boker" in
the verse, when Zerikas ha'Dam already has an advantage that should place it before the Hatavas
ha'Neros? In fact, Zerikas ha'Dam should come before all of the Neros because of its advantage as
a Mechaper.

The RITVA and TOSFOS HA'ROSH answer that the advantage of Machshir is stronger than that
of Mechaper. An Avodah which is a Machshir has precedence over other Avodos. In contrast, an
Avodah which is a Mechaper does not have precedence over other Avodos unless it first has an
equal standing with the other Avodos. It obtains an equal standing with the word "ba'Boker."
(The logic behind this distinction may be that when an Avodah is a Machshir, it is part of a logical
progression from one act to another. The advantage of being a Mechaper, though, is unrelated to
the logical progression of acts. See TOSFOS YESHANIM DH Afilu.)

The TOSFOS YESHANIM and TOSFOS HA'ROSH (in his second answer) explain that a logical
advantage (such as Machshir or Mechaper) has the ability to put one Avodah before another only
in one of two circumstances: either when both Avodos are already of equal standing (with the same
number of words "ba'Boker"), or when the Avodah with the logical advantage has no "ba'Boker"
at all. In the case of Zerikas ha'Dam, the Torah writes one "ba'Boker." By writing one "ba'Boker"
with regard to this Avodah, the Torah intends to teach that this Avodah is supposed to
come after an Avodah which has more words "ba'Boker." Therefore, the advantage of being a
Mechaper does not give Zerikas ha'Dam precedence.

In the case of the Shnei Gezirei Etzim, for which two words "ba'Boker" are written, the Gemara
seeks to determine whether or not it has precedence over Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi which also
has two words "ba'Boker." The advantage of being a Machshir would work whether Shnei Gezirei
Etzim has two words "ba'Boker" or no words "ba'Boker." (The only circumstance in which the
advantage of being a Machshir would not work is if the Torah had written a single "ba'Boker" for
Shnei Gezirei Etzim. By writing just one "ba'Boker," the Torah would have taught that it must
come after the Avodah of Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach which has two words "ba'Boker.") Therefore, the
two words "ba'Boker" of Shnei Gezirei Etzim are unnecessary and are allotted to other Avodos.

THE ORDER OF THE DAILY AVODAH ACCORDING TO

ABAYE

("SEDER MA'ARACHAH D'ABAYE")

25
26
(1) Furthermore, if no wood was found other than that placed on the Ma'arachah Gedolah, coals would be brought from there for
the Ketores. Consequently, the Ma'arachah Gedolah also has the advantage that it is [potentially] brought into the Heichal ("Nichnas
Bifnim").
(2) This implies that there is already another Ma'arachah.
(3) Vayikra 6:6. However, since it is not necessary to write those words there, the Gemara expounds them using the principle of
"Im Eino Inyan" and says that one "ba'Boker" belongs with the Avodah of the five Neros, and one with the Zerikah of the blood of
the Tamid.
(4) That is, if no Ma'arachah Sheniyah was arranged, coals from the Ma'arachah Gedolah -- upon which the Shnei Gezirei Etzim
would be burned -- for burning the Ketores.
(5) Shemos 30:7. Actually, it only says "ba'Boker ba'Boker" once in the verse. However, the implication is that it refers to each
Avodah mentioned in the verse -- Hatavas ha'Neros, Haktaras ha'Ketores, and Dishun Mizbe'ach Penimi (since there can only be
Haktaras ha'Ketores after Dishun, Rashi). It is as if it said "ba'Boker ba'Boker" separately with each of those Avodos.
(6) That is, the Gemara learns that it is as if it said an additional "ba'Boker" regarding this Avodah, since it is using the "ba'Boker"
which is written in the verse of the Shnei Gezirei Etzim. (The reason that the Torah did not simply write an additional "ba'Boker"
in the verse of Hatavas ha'Neros is because nowhere does the Torah mention the Avodah of the five Neros by itself. As such, it
would not have been possible to attribute an additional "ba'Boker" in the verse exclusively to the Avodah of the five Neros. RITVA)
(7) One of the two words "ba'Boker" written in the verse of Shnei Gezirei Etzim is actually referring to the Avodah of the five
Neros (thereby bringing the total number of words "ba'Boker" to three), thus making it precede some other Avodah (which only
has the word "ba'Boker" twice) which serves to separate between the first five Neros and the last two Neros. The separating Avodah
according to Abaye (who is expressing the opinion of Aba Sha'ul), cannot be the Ketores, so it must be the Shechitas ha'Tamid.
(8) Shemos 29:39
(9) See Insights. One of the two words "ba'Boker" written in the verse of Shnei Gezirei Etzim must be referring to the Zerikas
ha'Dam, and thus it comes before the Hatavah of the last two Neros, in order to fulfill the need for a separation between the first
five and last two Neros.
(10) This is the opinion of Aba Sha'ul. According to the Rabanan, the Ketores indeed comes before the Neros and serves to separate
between the Hatavah of the first five Neros and the last two Neros.
(11) This is derived from the extra letter "Heh" in "ha'Olah," since it could have written "Olah" (this is the intention of RASHI,
34a, DH Talmud Lomar, as the RASHASH points out).
(12) There is an opinion that argues and holds that the Korban Musaf is brought after the Shnei Bezichim. This opinion learns that
the Bezichim come first because of their association with the Minchas Chavisin ("Chukah Chukah") -- just like the Minchas
Chavisin comes before the Musafim, so, too the Bezichim come before the Musafim. Nevertheless, since the verse says "b'Yom"
twice regarding the Bezichim, they are brought after the Nesachim. Thus, they are brought between the Nesachim and the Musafim.
(13) That is, "Aleha Hashlem" ("on it complete all other Korbanos") refers to the morning Tamid. It means that only after the
morning Tamid may one bring other Korbanos, but after the afternoon Tamid no additional Korbanos may be brought.
(14) Bamidbar 28:9
(15) Vayikra 24:8. So should read the text of RASHI, DH b'Yom (RASHASH).
(16) Also, the Lechem ha'Panim (RITVA).

Based on tradition

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

One of the first sections of the daily prayer book is korbanot, where there is a basic description of
the Temple service, including the Biblical passages (beginning with a sacrifice that was not
brought - Akedat Yitzhak, the binding of Isaac), Mishnayot, and statements from the Gemara.

One of the selections that appears there is Abaye's description of the daily Temple service, which
begins with the ma'arakha - setting the wood on the mizbe'ah on which the korbanot are to be
burned - and concluding with the tamid shel bein ha-arbayim - the afternoon tamid (continual
daily) sacrifice that closes the day on the Temple.

4
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

27
Abaye arranged the sequence of the daily services in the Temple based on tradition [mishmei
d'gemara] and in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul.

Generally speaking, the Sages of the Gemara make every attempt to attribute a statement they
make to its source. In this case, where it is quoted in the name of "tradition [the Gemara]" (and
similarly when the Gemara uses the term naktinan - "we hold"), it means that this teaching was
well known in the Beit Midrash, so it could not be attributed to a particular sage; rather, it was part
of the general tradition.

With regard to Abba Shaul, it should be noted that "Abba" is a title that was given to sages before
the title "Rabbi" came into common use. He was one of the tanna'im who, apparently, lived while
the second Temple was still standing.

Many of the teachings quoted in his name involve his recollections of the Temple and its service.
It is likely that he was one of the students of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, which would place him
during the period of the destruction of the Temple.

Of the many mitzvot with which he was involved, burying the dead appears to be one that he was
specifically devoted to. He is described as "long in his generation" which probably refers to both
his physical appearance and the respect he commanded among his peers. Many of the rulings that
are quoted in Abba Shaul's name appear to be his own opinion, yet they became the basis for
practical halakhic rulings over generations.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:5

Some weeks ago I learnt a fascinating insight explaining a well-known Gemara and then today,
when pondering a curious statement in today’s daf (Yoma 33b), I realised that perhaps these two
are connected. Let me explain.

To begin with, at the back of the Sefer ‘Ma’alot HaTorah’ of Rabbeinu Avraham the brother of
the Vilna Gaon is a section containing some of his ‘Biurim U’Ma’amarim’ – insights and sayings,
and among this is a section where Rabbeinu Avraham explains the Gemara (Shabbat 31a) where
the prospective convert comes to Shamai, and then to Hillel, and asks to be taught Torah while
standing on one foot. As we know, Shamai dismissed him ‘with the builder’s cubit in his hand’,
while Hillel converted him and taught him: ‘that which is hateful to you do not do to another; that
is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation - go study!’

Reflecting on this Gemara, Rabbeinu Avraham struggles to make sense of the notion that the Torah
- in whatever measure - can be communicated to someone ‘while standing on one foot’. Given
this, he offers a remarkable insight that this prospective convert was standing at the threshold of
the Beit Midrash – with one foot in the Beit Midrash and another outside - thereby indicating his
interest not only in studying Torah but also in engaging in the world of business. Simply put, he
was saying to Shamai and Hillel, ‘convert me, but though I want to be engaged in Torah, I also
want to be engaged in the world of business, finance and in the marketplace’.

5
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

28
Understood this way, then Shamai’s reaction - dismissing him ‘with the builder’s cubit in his hand’
– is profoundly symbolic as if to say that while it is possible to blend Torah and an occupation (nb.
some learn from here that Shamai was a builder), someone who is yet to commit themselves to
Judaism and who wishes to convert needs, at that moment, to make an absolute commitment to the
world of the four cubits of halacha (i.e. the Beit Midrash), and if they are unprepared to do so, then
they are not a suitable convert and should simply return to their world of business and building.

In contrast to this, when Hillel said ‘that which is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the
entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation - go study!’, he communicated how that the laws of
the Torah apply to the marketplace, and that by being ethical in the marketplace, while continuing
to study, the individual could successfully exist with a foot in both worlds.

And how does this connect with our daf? Because it quotes Shemot 26:35 which states – with
reference to the Mishkan - that ‘the Menorah should be placed opposite the Shulchan (table)’ which
our daf (Yoma 33b) then explains to teach that ‘we require that these two (i.e. the Menorah and
the Shulchan) ‘see’ one another’. The obvious question is what is meant by this?

We are taught elsewhere (Bava Batra 25b) that the Shulchan symbolized wealth, while the
Menorah symbolized Torah knowledge. Given this, by requiring that each ‘see one another’, this
means that there should be a direct correlation between our world of Torah learning and our world
of business - the Beit Midrash and the marketplace - where one should ‘see’ the other and be aware
of the other’; Torah should be taught with an awareness of its application beyond the walls of the
Beit Midrash, and we should continue to be cognizant of Torah laws and ethics while in the
marketplace.

Rachel Scheinerman writes:6

On today’s daf, Abaye describes the daily Temple service as originally recounted by Abba Shaul.
Abba Shaul was a Tanna, an early rabbi, who is cited throughout the Talmud because of his
knowledge of the Temple and its operations. He may have lived early enough that he witnessed
the Temple workings himself. (Incidentally, he was also a grave digger who reminded his
colleagues frequently of the important mitzvah of burying the dead and was known for his
impressive height.)

Abba Shaul’s descriptions of Temple procedures are often given without justification — they are
his memories or opinions. Today is no different. Abaye recounts the order of the daily Temple
service in Abba Shaul’s name and it includes: arranging various piles of wood on the altars,
removing old ashes from the altar and from the menorah, offering the morning and afternoon
sacrifices, the meal offering, the griddle-cake offerings, the libation and the frankincense (if it’s
Shabbat).

For most of our daf, the rabbis of the Gemara seek proofs for Abba Shaul’s prescribed order for
these procedures. They ask: How do we know that the large pile of wood for the sacrificial limbs
was placed on the altar before the smaller pile for frankincense? How do we know that the

6
Myjewishlearning.com

29
placement of two logs on the large pile of wood on the altar precedes the removal of ashes from
the inner altar?

Let’s dip into one of those conversations, starting with Abaye’s original statement:

Abaye continued: And removal of ashes from the inner altar precedes the removal of ashes
from five of the seven lamps of the menorah.

Gemara: What is the reason for this?

Abaye: I learned this through tradition; however, I do not know the rationale behind it.

In this case, Abaye admits that although he was taught this rule, he never learned the justification.
Luckily, his colleague and interlocutor Rava has an answer (which he learned from another
teacher):

Rava said: The reason is in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish
said: One may not forego performance of any of the mitzvot in order to perform another
mitzvah. When he enters the sanctuary it is the altar that he encounters first.

Rava explains that the ashes are cleared from the altar first and the menorah second because of
simple geography: When one enters the sanctuary, one encounters the altar first.

While some of Abaye’s teachings today are justified from scripture, Rava’s justification relies on
a principle: One does not skip an opportunity to perform a mitzvah in order to perform another
mitzvah. All mitzvot are significant and beautiful and we do not wish to give the impression that
some are less important.

Rava then supplies us with another example of this principle. When donning tefillin, one must put
them on the arm before the head because one “encounters” the arm first. (Admittedly, I find this a
little more difficult to picture, but I suppose one could make an argument that if one is holding
tefillin in one hand, it is more natural to place them on the other hand than it is to place them on
the forehead.)

Maimonides, the great medieval halakhist, supplies this addendum to the rule about tefillin: One
should store the arm tefillin on top of the head tefillin, so that one does not have to move aside the
head tefillin in order to access the arm tefillin first.

(If your tefillin are stored incorrectly, and you accidentally grab the head tefillin first, most
authorities think you should still set down your head tefillin and secure your arm tefillin first,
though this is obviously not ideal because of the principle of not bypassing a mitzvah.)

In a move that seems to anticipate the early 21st-century mania for organization, the rabbis call on
us to glide smoothly from mitzvah to mitzvah, and also to thoughtfully arrange our objects so that
we can do just that.

30
Rashi explains that the Gemara is teaching how to go about placing the tefillin on the body. We
first take the tefillah box for the arm, and then we place the tefillah box on the head.7

Tosafos notes that the issue dealt with in the Gemara is ‫—המצוות על מעבירין אין‬not to pass over a
mitzvah. The explanation of Rashi is difficult, because the order of how to place the tefillin on the
body, with that of the arm before that of the head, is prescribed by the Torah directly, and it is not
based upon the principle of not passing over a mitzvah.

Therefore, Tosafos learns that this Gemara is dealing with how to place the tefillin boxes in their
bag for storage from day to day, in order to have access to the ‫ יד של‬before the ‫ ראש של‬ready for
the next day. Alternatively, the Gemara can be speaking about how to touch the tefillin as they are
being worn, where a person should touch the ‫יד של‬before the ‫ ראש של‬because that is the order in
which a person finds them.

Turei Even (Megillah 6b) asks that even according to Tosafos, we should not need a verse to teach
that the donning of the tefillin of the arm must come before that of the head. Here, too, we should
rely upon our rule which Toasfos himself recognizes as being applicable— ‫ המצוות על מעבירין אין‬,
and one’s arm is closer than one’s head. He answers that without a posuk, we would not use the
rule which disallows passing over mitzvos.

We might have said that being that the tefillah box of the head has much more kedushah, it should
be placed on the body first. As the Gemara teaches (Menachos 32b), it is prohibited to take the
parchment used for the tefillah box for the head and to transfer it to that of the arm, because we
cannot go down in kedushah. We would have possibly thought that the tefillah box for the head is
to be put on first. This is why we need a verse to verify that the tefillah box for the arm must be
put on first.

7
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20033.pdf

31
Tosafos (1) explains that when one has the opportunity to perform two mitzvos one should perform
the mitzvah which presents itself first but if one will perform only one mitzvah it does not have to
be performed at the first available opportunity.

For example, Mishnah Berurah (2) writes that if a person is ready to perform the mitzvah of tallis
and tefillin and it happens to be that the tefillin are closer, one is not permitted to reach over the
tefillin in order to be able to put on the tallis first. Even though under ideal conditions the tallis is
put on before tefillin, nonetheless, in this case the principle of ‫ על מעבירין אין המצוות‬applies and it is
prohibited to pass over the tefillin to reach the tallis. If, however, one is not planning to wear
tefillin now it is permitted to reach over the tefillin to get to the tallis.

Birkei Yosef (3) writes that if a person’s Shabbos tallis is on top of or in front of his weekday tallis
or vice versa, it is permitted to reach over one to get to the other if the further tallis is the one that
he wants. Magen Avrohom4 rules that if one is only watching a mitzvah being done the principle
of ‫המצוות על מעבירין אין‬does not apply, and one may interrupt watching one mitzvah to go and
watch a different mitzvah.

32
Our daf is concerned with the order of the service, which elements take precedence and why. The
Likutei Halachos, zt”l, explains the relevance of these details to our personal service of Hashem.
The service in the Beis HaMikdash alternated between “avodas p’nim” and “avodas chutz,” service
both within and outside the Sanctuary, which was the epicenter of spiritual life of the Jewish people

This fluctuation alludes to the phases of easier and more difficult times we all go through in our
spiritual growth. Sometimes we feel so close to attaining our goals, as if we are really in close
proximity to the holiest place, but soon we suffer reversals that make us feel as though we’ve been
pushed back, outside.

All of our great leaders went through this kind of progress punctuated by setbacks, each in his
unique way and on his particular level. Only those who had the endurance to carry on despite these
temporary reversals eventually grew to achieve their potential greatness.

Rav Shlomo Wolbe, zt”l, would often discuss the challenges of his eight years alone in Sweden.
“Even Rabbonim who were once chareidim gave dispensations for actions that entail a penalty of
kareis!” In later life, he would say that it was only the merit of his regular mussar study that kept
him committed to uncompromising Torah observance and that gave him the strength to encourage
others to do the same.

But by his own admission, that mussar seder in Sweden did not come easily. “After learning
diligently for a period of time, I felt like I was making no progress at all, and felt that I should just
give up.

I wrote a letter to Rav Yechezkel Levenstein, zt”l, in Shanghai, and he answered me as follows:
“First of all, you must accept that you are not an authority on the matter of your own spiritual
growth—no one is! There is no doubt that the mussar is having a profound effect below the
surface. If you will only hold strong and continue, you will eventually see yourself
transformed!”
Taking off the Tefillin

Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon writes:8

"Said Rabba bar R. Huna, 'One must touch his tefillin at all times, and even more so
look at them. Regarding the tzitz (the kohen gadol's forehead-plate) which has in it only
one name of God, the Torah says, "It must be on his forehead at all times," (Shemot
28:38) - i.e., that he not take his mind off it, how much more so tefillin in which the
names of God appears many times!'"

8
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/simanim-28-31-taking-tefillin

33
THE TIME OF TOUCHING:

The Beit Yosef in siman 25, citing the Ran, states that in Talmudic times it was known when the
tefillin must be touched, but nowadays we do not know. The Bach says that one should simply
touch them each time he remembers, since it is impractical to have one's hand upon them the whole
time that they are worn. See M.B. 28:1 for his ruling; but see also 28:2 and 44:3 for the times
when one need not touch them (and cf. the Machatzit Ha-shekel and the Levushei Serad in siman
44).

[There are some who have the custom of touching their tefillin at certain points in the
tefilla. See the Shulchan Arukh here; M.B. 61:39; M.B. 25:13; Ta'amei Ha-minhagim pp. 548-
549. And there are those who have the custom to kiss them while touching them - see the Kitzur
Shulchan Arukh 10:17.]

TOUCHING THE SHEL YAD FIRST:

"Said Rava, 'We can learn this from that which Resh Lakish [who says that one must
not pass up a mitzva] said: One should not pass over his tefillin shel yad. What must he
do? Go from the tefillin shel yad to the tefillin shel rosh.'"

Our Daf

The Rishonim debate the meaning of this gemara. Two of these interpretations were
accepted as halakha - one in se'if 1 and one in se'if 2. The first interpretation is that of the Rosh
(15) and the Mordekhai (12, citing Tosafot): One must not pass over the touching of the shel yad
in order to first touch the shel rosh; rather, he should touch the shel yad first.

The second interpretation will be discussed below under the heading "Arranging the tefillin
in their bag."

TAKING OFF THE TEFILLIN (SE'IF 2):

"When one takes [them] off, he takes off the shel rosh and then the shel yad... From where
do we know this? Said Rabba, 'R. Huna explained it to me: The verse says,"And they will
be totafot between your eyes" - all the while they are between your eyes they will be two"
["they" implies two].'"
Menachot 36b:

The procedure is as follows:

Before taking off the shel rosh, one should remove the three loops from his finger (M.B.
28:5). There is a Kabbalistic reason behind this (but see Shulchan Arukh Ha-rav 28:6 where a
different minhag is mentioned; and Peri Megadim, Eshel Avraham. And if he needs to pass gas

34
he should take off the shel rosh before taking the loops off his finger (because the prohibition
of passing gas, according to some Rishonim, relates only to the shel rosh).

The Shulchan Arukh states, "One should take off his tefillin shel rosh while
standing." Ashkenazim take off their shel yad while standing as well (M.B. 28:6).

Regarding taking tefillin off during kaddish, see M.B. 25:56 and M.B. 56:1.

ARRANGING THE TEFILLIN IN THEIR BAG (SE'IF 2):

This is the second interpretation of the gemara mentioned above.

Rabbeinu Tam (cited in the Rosh and the Mordekhai) maintains that one may not put his
tefillin shel yad in his bag underneath the shel rosh, since when he puts them on again, he will
come across the shel rosh first. He must, therefore, place his shel yad over his shel rosh.

According to the Mishna Berura 28:7, the accepted minhag is to place them side by side -
the shel rosh on the left and the shel yad on the right. However, the Ot Chayim (28:3) reverses
this order - putting the shel rosh on the right and the shel yad on the left - since a right-handed
person will naturally stretch his hand out toward the left, and thus he will reach the shel yad
first. (The Kaf Ha-chayim 28:14 says that the most important thing in this matter is to be
consistent.)

One should be careful not to take off his shel yad until he replaces his shel rosh in the bag,
in order to make sure that each will occupy its proper place (M.B. 28:8).9

Mitzvah Shopping

Raphael Grunfeld writes:10

He must be a very important person to get such an important mitzvah, I heard them say, as Mr.
Loewenstein, the local assemblyman, stepped up to recite the Torah blessing before the reading of
the Ten Commandments. And Mr. Kleppish was too embarrassed to tell his wife that he only got

9
this shiur was translated by Pnina Baumgarten.
10
https://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/halacha-hashkafa/mitzvah-shopping-yoma-33a-and-57a/2014/01/02/

35
third galilah on Shabbat Rosh Chodesh Chanukah. Meanwhile, in the neighborhood
shtiebel, Maftir was sold for $500 and petichah for $20.

Do we know which mitzvah is more important than another? Should we give priority to an
“important” mitzvah over an “unimportant” mitzvah? Thinking about the kohen performing the
rituals of the daily morning sacrifice provides us with an illustrative answer.

Which mitzvah was he to perform first? The distinguished task of preparing the menorah for the
evening kindling, or the menial task of sweeping the altar from yesterday’s ashes? First he swept
off the ashes and then he prepared the menorah. Because, explains Resh Lakish, the altar was
closer to the door through which the kohen entered the sanctuary than the menorah, so that the
kohen reached the altar first.

“Ein maavirin al hamitzvot” – do not offend a mitzvah by postponing it, says Resh Lakish. First
do the mitzvah that first comes your way. Even if the mitzvah that first comes your way is
considered by halacha to be less holy than the second, most agree that the less holy mitzvah should
be performed first. The tefillin shel rosh is holier than the tefillin shel yad because it has more
letters of God’s name than the teffilin shel yad. Yet the tefillin shel yad is put on first. This, explains
Rashi, is because the arm is closer to the hand than to the head.

For the same reason, explain the Tosafists, when replacing the tefillin back in their bag, the tefillin
shel rosh should not be placed on top of the tefillin shel yad, for by doing so one would violate the
rule of ein maavirim al hamitzvot. This is because the tefillin shel rosh would have to be put aside
the next morning while the tefillin shel yad was being donned first, in order to comply with the
sequence in which the Torah introduces them, “Bind these words as a sign on your hand and let
them be an emblem in the center of your head.”

36
Similarly, when reciting the verse “You open Your hand and satisfy the need of every human
being,” the tefillin shel yad should be touched first.

The correct order for donning tallit and tefillin is tallit first and then tefillin. This order respects
the rule of maalim bekodesh, ascend in the order of holiness. The rule of maalim bekodesh gives
way, however, to the rule of ein maavirim al hamitzvot in the following situation: If one pulls
the tefillin out of the bag before the tallit, then according to the Shulchan Aruch, tefillin should be
donned first in order not to violate the rule of ein maavirim al hamitzvot. In order to avoid this
conflict, the tallit should be put back in the bag on top of the tefillin.

The correct order for reading the Torah on Chanukah Rosh Chodesh Tevet is first the portion
of Rosh Chodesh and then the portion of Chanukah. This order respects the rule of tadir kodem –
perform first the mitzvah that occurs with higher frequency. The rule of tadir kodem gives way,
however, to the rule of ein maavirim al hamitzvot in the following situation: If, according to the
Taz, one mistakenly began reading the Chanukah portion first, he should, in order not to violate
the rule of ein maavirim al hamitzvot, not interrupt this reading with the Rosh Chodesh reading.

Tefillin: The Relationship between the Shel Yad and the Shel Rosh
Rabbi Josh Flug writes:11
The Torah records the mitzvah of tefillin (phylacteries) four times. In all four sections, the Torah
enumerates two components to the mitzvah. First, one must tie it on one's arm. [The Torah only

11
https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/736427/rabbi-josh-flug/tefillin-the-relationship-between-the-shel-yad-and-the-
shel-rosh/

37
uses the verb "to tie" in two of the sections.] This refers to the tefillah shel yad. [Tefillah is the
singular of tefillin.] Second, one must place it on one's head. This refers to the tefillah shel
rosh. In this issue, we will discuss the relationship between the shel yad and the shel rosh.

Tefillin: One Mitzvah or Two Mitzvot?

The Mishna, Menachot 38a, states that lacking the tefillah shel yad does not invalidate the
fulfillment of the tefillah shel rosh and lacking the tefillah shel rosh does not invalidate the
fulfillment of the tefillah shel yad. This implies that the two components are mutually
independent. For this reason, Rambam (1135-1204), Sefer HaMitzvot, Aseh no. 13, writes
that tefillah shel yad and tefillah shel rosh should be counted as two
separate mitzvot. Nevertheless, R. Yehudai Gaon (8th century), Halachot Gedolot, Mitzvot
Aseh no. 2, records tefillin as one mitzvah, implying that the tefillah shel yad and the tefillah shel
rosh are two components of the same mitzvah.

There are two basic approaches to understand the dispute between Rambam and R. Yehudai
Gaon. One can explain that the dispute is contingent on the principles of counting mitzvot. The
Gemara, Makkot 23b, states that there are 613 mitzvot, but does not list which mitzvot to include
on the list. All of the commentators who list the 613 mitzvot have a set of rules regarding
which mitzvot are independent mitzvot and which mitzvot are subcategories of
other mitzvot. Rambam is of the opinion that whenever there are two components of a mitzvah
and one can fulfill each component of the mitzvah without the other, they are counted as two
separate mitzvot. R. Yehudai Gaon is of the opinion that the ability to fulfill one component
without the other does not necessarily provide each component with independent status for the
purpose of counting the mitzvot.

Alternatively, one can understand that the dispute between Rambam and R. Yehudai Gaon is
contingent on how one understands the relationship between the tefillah shel yad and the tefillah
shel rosh. Rashba (1235-1310), Menachot 36a, s.v. Sach, suggests that the question of whether
there is one mitzvah of tefillin or two separate mitzvot is a matter of dispute between Rashi (1040-
1105) and Rabbeinu Tam (c.1100-1171) that has halachic ramifications beyond how to count
the mitzvot.

The Dispute between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam

The Gemara, Menachot 36a, states that if one speaks between the placing of the tefillah shel
yad and the tefillah shel rosh, he recites two berachot on the tefillah shel rosh. Rashi, ad loc.,
s.v. Lo Sach, writes that ordinarily, one recites one beracha (l'hani'ach tefillin) that covers both
the shel yad and the shel rosh. However, if one speaks between placing the shel yad and the shel
rosh, one must repeat the beracha of l'hani'ach tefillin and recite an additional beracha of al

38
mitzvat tefillin. Tosafot, ad loc., s.v. Lo Sach, quote Rabbeinu Tam who disagrees and maintains
that even in an ordinary situation, one recites the beracha of al mitzvat tefillin upon placing
the shel rosh. If one speaks between the shel yad and the shel rosh, one must repeat
the beracha of l'hani'ach tefillin and then recite the beracha of al mitzvat tefillin.

Rashba, op. cit., explains that the dispute between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam is contingent on
whether there is one mitzvah of tefillin or two separate mitzvot. If one assumes that there is one
mitzvah of tefillin, it is logical to recite only one beracha that covers both the shel yad and the shel
rosh. If one assumes that there is one mitzvah of tefillah shel yad and one mitzvah of tefillah shel
rosh, it is logical that each one warrants its own separate beracha.

Rabbeinu Tam's opinion requires further clarification. If the proper beracha for the shel rosh is al
mitzvat tefillin, why does one recite two berachot if one speaks between the shel yad and the shel
rosh? Shouldn't it be sufficient to recite the beracha of al mitzvat tefillin?

The Rishonim offer two different explanations to Rabbeinu Tam's opinion. Rashba explains that
when one speaks between the shel yad and the shel rosh, the beracha of l'hani'ach is recited
because the shel yad requires a repetition of beracha. The repeated beracha does not relate to
the shel rosh. However, Tosafot, Berachot 60b, s.v. Asher, contend that according to Rabbeinu
Tam, when one repeats the beracha of l'hani'ach, it is because the shel rosh normally requires
both berachot. If one spoke between the shel yad and the shel rosh, the
initial beracha of l'hani'ach can no longer cover the shel rosh and it must be repeated. Therefore,
Tosafot contend that if one does not have a shel yad and only places a shel rosh, both berachot are
recited. Rashba would ostensibly disagree and only require the beracha of al mitzvat tefillin when
only placing a shel rosh. R. Yosef Ibn Chabib (14th to 15th century), Nimmukei Yosef, Hilchot
Tefillin 8a, s.v. Lo Sach, rules explicitly that if one only places the shel rosh, he only recites
the beracha of al mitzvat tefillin.

R. Baruch D. Povarski, Bad Kodesh Vol. IV, no. 66, explains the opinion of Nimmukei Yosef (and
Rashba) based on Rambam's formulation of the two mitzvot of tefillin. Rambam, in
introducing Hilchot Tefillin writes that there are two mitzvot: One mitzvah of tefillin being on
one's head and one mitzvah of tying the tefillin on one's arm. As such, the two mitzvot are two
distinct mitzvot with two distinct actions and therefore require two distinct berachot.

R. Yosef D. Soloveitchik (1903-1993, cited in Eretz HaTzvi 3:16) explains the opinion of Tosafot
that Rabbeinu Tam requires two berachot even when one only places the shel rosh. R.
Soloveitchik contends that both mitzvot require the beracha of l'hani'ach for the actual
performance of the mitzvah. Yet, there is an additional beracha that one recites upon placing
the shel rosh. The beracha of al mitzvat tefillin is not a beracha on the performance of the
mitzvah, but rather on the added sanctity that is imbued in a person when he places the shel rosh on
his head. This is similar to the beracha of l'hachniso b'vrito recited at a circumcision. When the

39
child undergoes a circumcision, he is imbued with added sanctity and therefore, an
additional beracha is recited.

Rambam's Opinion

Rambam, Hilchot Tefillin 4:4-6, rules that when one only places the shel yad, he recites
the beracha of l'hani'ach. If one only places the shel rosh, he recites the beracha of al mitzvah
tefillin. If one places both the shel yad and shel rosh, he recites one beracha: l'hani'ach tefillin. If
one is placing both the shel yad and shel rosh and speaks between the shel yad and shel rosh, he
recites the beracha of al mitzvat when placing the shel rosh.

Rambam's ruling requires further explanation. Rambam lists tefillah shel yad and tefillah shel
rosh as two separate mitzvot. Yet, Rambam rules that in an ordinary situation, one recites
the beracha of l'hani'ach to cover the shel yad and the shel rosh.

R. Soloveitchik, Shiurei HaGrid, B'Inyanei Tefillin (page 62), explains Rambam's opinion that
ideally, one should recite l'hani'ach on the shel yad and al mitzvat tefillin on the shel
rosh. However, in order to minimize the number of berachot recited, the rabbis of the Talmud
instituted that l'hani'ach is sufficient to cover both the shel yad and the shel rosh. In a situation
when one recites a beracha on the shel rosh alone, either because he does not have a shel yad or
because he spoke between the shel yad and the shel rosh, the proper beracha of al mitzvat
tefillin is recited.

The Codification of This Discussion

R. Yosef Karo (1488-1575), Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 25:5 and 25:9, codifies the opinion of
Rambam. Rama (1520-1572) ad loc., rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam that
in an ordinary situation, one recites l'hani'ach for the shel yad and al mitzvat tefillin for the shel
rosh. He adds that one should show slight deference to the opinions that one should only
recite l'hani'ach by reciting the phrase "Baruch Shem K'vod etc.," immediately after placing
the shel rosh. This phrase is the phrase one recites after accidentally reciting a beracha in vain.

40
If we look at the two verses discussing Tefillin, they say; -
'‫ כי ביד חזקה הוציאך ה‬,‫ למען תהיה תורת ה' בפיך‬,‫ ולזכרון בין עיניך‬,‫והיה לך לאות על ידך‬ •
.(‫ ט‬.‫ )שמות יג‬.‫ממצרים‬
.(‫ טז‬.‫ )שמות יג‬.‫ כי בחוזק יד הוציאנו ה' ממצרים‬,‫והיה לאות על ידכה ולטוטפות בין עיניך‬ •

These verses mean that; -

1. It shall be a sign on your arm, and a reminder between your eyes, so that the Lord’s
Torah will be in your mouth, for the Lord has taken you out of Egypt with a mighty
hand.
2. And it shall be a sign on your arm and an ornament between your eyes, for the Lord
took us out of Egypt with a mighty hand.
The Torah has mentioned a Sign, which refers to Tefillin Shel Yad, before it mentions
a reminder or an ornament, which both refer to Tefillin Shel Rosh. Tefillin Shel Yad have been
given precedence over Tefillin Shel Rosh in both cases. Therefore, we lay our Tefillin Shel Yad
first, before our Tefillin Shel Rosh.12
If we look at Tefillin Shel Yad, the Talmud asks which hand we should lay our Tefillin Shel Yad
on. Rav Ashi deduces from the second verse, ‫והיה לאות על ידכה‬, i.e. “And it shall be a sign on your
arm”, where a letter ‫ה‬has been added to the word ‫ידכה‬, that this implies weakness, and Rashi
explains that this implies femininity, as a woman is not as strong as a man. So we lay Tefillin on
our weaker arm, the left arm if we are right-handed, and the right arm if we are left-handed.
The Kli Yakar gives additional reasons for laying Tefillin on our weaker arm. Everybody knows
that intelligence and physical wellbeing are like having two or more wives. When one becomes
dominant, the other gets a lower stature, and the reverse is also true. Youth has strength but doesn’t
12
https://www.shalomhouse.com/blog/tefillin-a-basic-tenet-of-judaism.htm

41
necessarily have common sense. An older man has common sense but isn’t very strong. When
somebody suffers physically, he becomes more intelligent. In fact, that is why the Jews had to
suffer in Egypt, so that they would become more intelligent as a result of their suffering.
The same reasoning applies with our hands. Our left hand is weaker and not dominant, but is next
to our hearts, (one of) the base(s) of our intelligence. Not only that, but the intelligence in our
hearts weakens the left hand near it, as a hand deals with material matters, as opposed to the heart
next to it. The two oppose each other. The right hand is not affected in this way, as it is next to
the liver, the source of our appetite. The liver does not oppose the right hand next to it. When the
Torah tells us, that it should be a sign on your arm, it is virtually telling us that we should have a
sign over our hearts. The whole reason that we wear Tefillin is to make our intelligence aware, to
be a reminder. We do this where our intelligence resides, in our hearts and head.
Not only that, but our eyes and heart tempt us to sin. Therefore, we need to be reminded in these
two places that G-d exists, and what He can do. That can help prevent us from going astray.
So we can see what the order with Tefillin should be.

What happens above and to us when we wear Tefillin?

The Besamim Rosh discusses the effect of our wearing Tefillin, both on us, and on the worlds
around and above us. We should also discuss what happens when we pray without Tefillin.
What happens when we pray without Tefillin
The Talmud tells us that whoever reads Kriat Shema without Tefillin is considered as having
testified falsely (about himself). Since he is reading the verse, “Bind them as a Sign on your arm
and they will be Ornaments between your eyes” and is not doing these things when he has to, then
he is effectively testifying falsely. He is not fulfilling what he himself is saying. Even though he
is doing a Mitzvah by reading Kriat Shema and praying, he is still testifying
falsely. The Levush points out that some people understand that he is actually testifying falsely
against G-d rather than himself. This is because he is reading that “It will be that if you will
hearken” and also that “I will give dew in your Land”, which infers that if we don’t do what G-d
tells us, then we won’t get dew, etcetera. Somebody reading Kriat Shema without Tefillin, though,
is not doing what G-d tells us, and still expects dew to fall, etcetera. He still expects a nice
living. He is implying that we don’t need to listen to what G-d tells us, and that we will still get
our reward.
What happens when we pray with Tefillin?
The Rosh and Tur quote Ravah as saying that whoever lays Tefillin, wraps himself in Tzitzit, reads
Kriat Shema and prays, is promised the World to Come. Abaye adds that he guarantees that Hell
will not affect him, whereas Rav Papah guarantees that all this person’s sins will be
forgiven. The Zohar writes that when we go out of our house with Tzitzit and Tefillin, then four
angels join and come out with us. They come to the synagogue with us, and cry out, “Let’s us call
the King’s image.” We look like our King when we have our Talit and Tefillin on.
The Shulchan Oruch tells us that when we lay Tefillin, we should have in mind that G-d has
commanded us to lay these four Torah quotations in the Tefillin on ourselves, and that
these Torah quotations sanctify His unique Name, and also discuss our coming out of Egypt. We

42
wear one Tefillin on our arm and another on our head, so that we will remember the wonderful
miracles that He has wrought for us, and that they teach us how unique He is. We also have to
keep in mind that He has the power and authority, both in the worlds above and in the worlds
below, to do as He wishes.
We must also subjugate our soul, which resides both in our heart and mind, to G-d. We must
realize at the same time, though, that these two places, our hearts and minds, are also the main
sources leading us to sin. Now we have the chance to think about G-d in those parts of our body,
and realize which is more important, i.e. G-d and his Mitzvot.

43