Yoma 51bיומא נ״א ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
51bנ״א ב

ותיפוק לי (ויקרא טז, יא) דאשר לו אמר רחמנא משלו הוא מביא

§ Returning to Rabbi Elazar’s question as to whether a High Priest can perform substitution for his bull, the Gemara seeks to prove that the other priests were not full partners in this offering but only gained atonement incidentally. And let me derive this halakha from the fact that the Merciful One states: “And Aaron shall sacrifice the bull of the sin-offering, which is for himself” (Leviticus 16:11), indicating that the High Priest brings the bull from his own property.

דתניא אשר לו משלו הוא מביא ולא משל ציבור יכול לא יביא משל ציבור שאין הציבור מתכפרין בו אבל יביא משל אחיו הכהנים שהרי אחיו הכהנים מתכפרים בו ת"ל אשר לו

As it was taught in a baraita: “Which is for himself” means that he brings it from his own property and not from the property of the community. I might have thought that the High Priest may not bring this offering from the property of the community because the community as a whole does not gain atonement through it, but he may bring it from the property of his fellow priests, as his fellow priests do gain atonement through it. Therefore the verse states: “Which is for himself,” i.e., it must belong to him and no one else.

יכול לא יביא ואם הביא כשר ת"ל שוב (ויקרא טז, ו) אשר לו שנה הכתוב עליו לעכב

I might have thought that the High Priest should not bring the bull from the property of the other priests ab initio, but if he did bring it from their property, the offering is valid. Therefore, the verse continues and states again: “And he shall slaughter the bull for the sin-offering, which is for himself” (Leviticus 16:11); the text repeats this phrase: “Which is for himself,” to emphasize that this requirement is indispensable and that if the High Priest brings a bull that belongs to someone else, the offering is invalid.

וליטעמיך אחיו הכהנים אי לאו דקנו בגויה היכי מכפר להו אלא שאני בי גזא דאהרן דאפקריה רחמנא גבי אחיו הכהנים הכא [גבי תמורה] נמי שאני בי גזא דאהרן דאפקריה רחמנא גבי אחיו הכהנים

The Gemara rejects this proof: And according to your reasoning, if his fellow priests do not acquire a share in the bull, how does it atone for them? Since they achieve atonement through the offering, they must own a share in it. Rather, you must say that the property [bei gazza] of Aaron the High Priest is different in that the Merciful One rendered it ownerless with regard to his fellow priests. Although the High Priest brings a bull from his own funds, it is as though he sanctifies it on behalf of all of the priests. But if so, here too, with regard to substitution, we could likewise say that the property of Aaron is different in that the Merciful One rendered it ownerless with regard to his fellow priests. Consequently, there is no proof from here that a High Priest can perform substitution for his bull.

מתני׳ היה מהלך בהיכל עד שמגיע לבין שתי הפרוכת המבדילות בין הקדש ובין קדש הקדשים וביניהן אמה ר' יוסי אומר לא היתה שם אלא פרוכת אחת בלבד שנאמר (שמות כו, לג) והבדילה הפרוכת לכם בין הקדש ובין קדש הקדשים

MISHNA: The High Priest would then walk west through the Sanctuary until he reaches the area between the two curtains that separated the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies, and the space between them was one cubit. Rabbi Yosei says: There was only one curtain there, as it is stated: “And the curtain shall divide for you between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies” (Exodus 26:33).

גמ׳ שפיר קאמר להו רבי יוסי לרבנן ורבנן אמרי לך הני מילי במשכן אבל במקדש שני כיון דלא הואי אמה טרקסין ובמקדש ראשון הוא דהואי ואיסתפקא להו לרבנן בקדושתיה אי כלפנים אי כלחוץ ועבוד שתי פרוכת

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Rabbi Yosei is saying well to the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yosei provides solid support for his opinion. And the Rabbis could say to you: This applies only in the Tabernacle, which had but one curtain. However, in the Second Temple, since there was no one-cubit partition [teraksin] separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary of the Temple, as it was only in the First Temple that there was a one-cubit partition, and the Rabbis were uncertain with regard to the sanctity of the space occupied by the one-cubit partition, whether it had the sanctity of the inside of the Holy of Holies, or the sanctity of the outside area of the Sanctuary, therefore the Sages of the time prepared two curtains to enclose this space of uncertain status.

תנו רבנן בין המזבח למנורה היה מהלך דברי ר"י ר"מ אומר בין שלחן למזבח ויש אומרים בין שלחן לכותל מאן יש אומרים אמר רב חסדא רבי יוסי היא דאמר פיתחא בצפון קאי

§ The Sages taught: When the High Priest walked to the Holy of Holies, he walked on the south side between the inner altar and the candelabrum. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says that he walked on the north side between the table and the altar. And some say he passed between the table and the wall. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is introduced by the title: Some say? Rav Ḥisda said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in our mishna, according to whom there is only one curtain and who said that the entrance was positioned in the north. According to all opinions, the entrance to the Holy of Holies was located in the north, and since Rabbi Yosei believed that there was just one curtain, the High Priest would walk in a straight line toward this entrance along the north side of the Sanctuary.

ורבי יהודה אמר לך פיתחא בדרום קאי ורבי מאיר כמאן סבירא ליה אי כרבי יהודה סבירא ליה ניעול כרבי יהודה אי כרבי יוסי סבירא ליה ניעול כר' יוסי

And Rabbi Yehuda maintains that there were two curtains, and therefore he could have said to you that although the entrance to the Holy of Holies was on the north side, because there were two curtains, one behind the other, the entrance was positioned in the south. The High Priest entered on the south side and walked between the curtains to the north of the inner curtain where he entered the Holy of Holies. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Meir, in accordance with whose opinion does he hold? If he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the place of the entrance, the High Priest should enter as explained by Rabbi Yehuda; conversely, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, he should enter as explained by Rabbi Yosei.

לעולם כרבי יוסי סבירא ליה ואמר לך שולחנות צפון ודרום מונחין ומפסקא ליה שלחן ולא מתעייל ליה

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and he could have said to you: The tables, the one holding the shewbread and other tables next to it, were arranged north to south, and the table blocked him on the north side, and therefore the High Priest could not enter in a direct line, as the space was too narrow.

ואיבעית אימא לעולם מזרח ומערב מונחין ומשום שכינה לאו אורח ארעא

And if you wish, say instead: Actually the tables were arranged east to west, and due to the honor of the Divine Presence, it was not proper conduct