Yoma 56 a, b

The rabbis discuss tithing.  Rabbi Meir uses the example of 100 log of wine.  He explains the first tithe, the second tithe, when the second tithe is redeemed in Jerusalem and when the wine is consumed.  He suggests that only after Shabbat are these portions removed as terumot and tithes.  This is known as breira, retroactive clarification, which is explained succinctly in a note on Yoma 55.  

Today's daf includes a note that helps to explain Rabbi Meir's words.  From 100 pears, two pears - one 50th - are removed as terumah gedola.  Then 10% of the 98 remaining fruit are taken as first tithe and given to a Levite.  Next, 10% of the remaining approximately 88.2 fruits is taken as second tithe.  In Jerusalem, the second tithe is consumed or redeemed and then consumed.  On the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle, the second tithe is given to the poor. 

Rabbis Yehuda, Yossi and Shimon disagree with Rabbi Meir's validation of breira.  That we could be allowed to designate something in one category or another after the fact leaves too much room for error or self-serving decisions.  For example, it is unjust to determine the eiruv only when we reach the mid point between two rabbis travelling toward us for Shabbat from two different directions.  Certainly we would choose to place the eiruv in the direction of our preferred rabbi.

All of this is pertinent to our discussion of the order of the Yom Kippur service.  How can we assist the High Priest avoid errors?  To avoid an error of placement, should we write on the stools which one should hold which bowl of blood (the goat and the bull)?  Would that be helpful to the High Priest who would be weak on Yom Kippur, or would he become confused by such notes?  Or can we retroactively clarify the naming of stools so that there were in fact no errors made by the High Priest?

At the end of today's daf, we are reminded that the Divine Presence is said to be with the Jewish people even when they are ritually impure as a community (Leviticus 16:16).  This notion will be discussed further tomorrow.

Clearly there is recognition of the physical and psychological state of the High Priest over the course of Yom Kippur.  Frailty is mentioned a number of times with regard to the High Priest's carrying (coals) and placing, sprinkling (bowls of blood).  Where is that compassion when it comes to other members of the community?  Do the rabbis take seriously the High Priest's capacities only because an error on Yom Kippur could have been thought to harm the entire community?  Or was there room for compassion in other circumstances but the rabbis somehow 'understood' the feelings of the High Priest more than those of others?