Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 17, 2021 | 讜壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Josh Sussman in honor of both his wife, Romi鈥檚 50th birthday and son, Zeli. "He will, B鈥橢zrat HaShem, be making his first solo siyum on Masechet Yoma at his Bar Mitzvah in July".

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Yoma 36

This is the daf for Shavuot. For Sunday’s daf please click here.聽

What areas in the azara are considered 鈥渋n the North鈥 for the purposes of slaughtering kodshei kodashim? There are three different opinions, based on different ways of understanding the verse in Vayikra 1:11. The mishna states that the bull was slaughtered between the altar and the ulam. According to whose opinion is this? Does it only fit with one opinion or can it fit with two? What is the exact position of the bull (which way is his body, which way does he face) and why? How is smicha performed on other kodshei kodashim? For what sins does one confess on a burnt offering 鈥 there are two opinions. What is the root of their debate? What is the language of the confession of the Kohen Gadol on the bull offering and on the goat? There are two opinions. According to who do we hold? From where do we derive that the Kohen Gadol needs to confess his sins on the bull offering?

讙诪壮 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 爪驻讜谉

GEMARA: The mishna states that when the High Priest recites his confession, the bull stands between the Entrance Hall to the Sanctuary and the altar, and elsewhere (41b) it is stated that the bull is slaughtered at the place where the confession is recited. Apparently, the place where the confession is recited must be considered north. The Gemara clarifies: About whom did you learn that he said that the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar is considered north and is therefore a valid location for slaughtering offerings of the most sacred order, based on the verse written with regard to the burnt-offering: 鈥淥n the side of the altar northward鈥 (Leviticus 1:11)?

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 爪驻讜谉 诪拽讬专 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 爪驻讜谞讬 讜注讚 讻讜转诇 讛注讝专讛 讜讻谞讙讚 讻诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讻讜诇讜 爪驻讜谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜住讬祝 讗祝 讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 专讘讬 诪讜住讬祝 讗祝 诪拽讜诐 讚专讬住转 专讙诇讬 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讗祝 诪拽讜诐 讚专讬住转 专讙诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 诪谉 讛讞诇讬驻讜转 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖驻住讜诇

It is Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught in a baraita: What is the north? It is the area from the northern wall of the altar until the wall of the Temple courtyard. And opposite the entire altar is also considered north; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, adds even the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar to the area that is considered north. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi adds that even the areas to the north in the place where the priests walk, and even areas to the north in the place where the Israelites walk, are considered north in terms of the halakha of slaughtering offerings. However, everyone agrees that the area from the chamber of the knives and inward, which is an area off to the side, is unfit for slaughtering offerings of the most sacred order, as it is not visible from the altar.

诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讜专讘讬 讛砖转讗 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜住讬祝 讗讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 诪讜住讬祝

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara rejects this: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, now, does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi add only to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, but does not add to the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? After all, the area deemed north according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, is included in the area deemed north by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Therefore, the mishna could be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as well.

讗谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 谞讜拽诪讬讛 讘讻讜诇讛 注讝专讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讜谞讜拽诪讬讛 讘讬谉 诪讝讘讞 讜诇讻讜转诇

The Gemara reformulates its suggestion: This is what we are saying: If the mishna were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that the entire courtyard is considered north, let us stand the bull anywhere in the entire courtyard and not necessarily between the Entrance Hall and the altar. The Gemara rejects this: Rather, what do you suggest? The mishna is only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? According to his opinion one could suggest: And let us stand the bull between the altar and the wall, as everyone agrees that this area is considered north.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇专讘讬 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

Rather, what have you to say to explain why the bull is positioned specifically between the Entrance Hall and the altar? It is due to the weakness of the High Priest, so that he need not exert himself and walk long distances on Yom Kippur. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as well, it is due to the weakness of the High Priest that the bull is positioned specifically there, although it is permitted to position the bull anywhere in the courtyard.

专讗砖讜 诇讚专讜诐 讜驻谞讬讜 诇诪注专讘 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘注讜拽诐 讗转 专讗砖讜 讜谞讜拽诪讬讛 诇讛讚讬讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬专讘讬抓 讙诇诇讬诐

搂 The mishna continues: The head of the bull was facing to the south and its face was facing to the west. The Gemara asks: Under what circumstances can a case be found where its head is toward one direction and its face is toward another? Rav said: It is a case where the animal is standing north-south and it turns its head and faces west. The Gemara asks: And let us stand it straight east-west with its back to the altar and its head facing the Sanctuary. Abaye said: It is prohibited due to a decree lest the bull defecate opposite the altar, which is a display of contempt for the altar.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 住讜诪讱 讛讝讘讞 注讜诪讚 讘爪驻讜谉 讜驻谞讬讜 诇诪注专讘 讜讛住讜诪讱 注讜诪讚 讘诪讝专讞 讜驻谞讬讜 诇诪注专讘 讜诪谞讬讞 砖转讬 讬讚讬讜 讘讬谉 砖转讬 拽专谞讜转 砖诇 讝讘讞 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讚讘专 讞讜爪抓 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讛讝讘讞 讜诪转讜讚讛 注诇 讞讟讗转 注讜谉 讞讟讗转 讜注诇 讗砖诐 注讜谉 讗砖诐 讜注诇 注讜诇讛 注讜谉 诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜驻讗讛 讜诪注砖专 注谞讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬

The Sages taught: How does the priest place his hands on the offering? In the offerings of the most sacred order, the animal stands in the north of the courtyard and its face is to the west, and the one who is placing his hands stands to the east of the offering and his face is to the west, and he places his two hands between the two horns of the offering, provided that nothing interposes between his hands and the offering. And he confesses his sins. If the confession is over a sin-offering, he confesses the transgression for which he is bringing the sin-offering, i.e., unwitting violation of a prohibition punishable by karet. And over a guilt-offering he confesses the transgression for which he is bringing the guilt-offering, e.g., theft or misuse of consecrated property. And over a burnt-offering, with regard to which the Torah does not specify for which transgressions it is brought, he confesses the sin of not leaving gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce of the corners [pe鈥檃], as well as not separating poor man鈥檚 tithe. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 注讜诇讛 讘讗讛 讗诇讗 注诇 注砖讛 讜注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖谞讬转拽 诇注砖讛

Rabbi Akiva says: A burnt-offering is brought only over the failure to fulfill a positive mitzva and over violation of a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva. This refers to all prohibitions followed by positive mitzvot intended to rectify them; e.g., the prohibition against robbery is followed in the Torah by a positive mitzva for the robber to return the object that he stole. These transgressions are not punishable by lashes nor does a human court administer any other form of penalty. However, a burnt-offering is required in order to gain divine atonement for the sinner.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Yirmeya said:

讘诇讗讜 讚谞讘讬诇讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

It is with regard to the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered animal carcass, and similar prohibitions, that they disagree. The Torah says: 鈥淵ou shall not eat any unslaughtered animal carcass; give it to the stranger in your community to eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21). The dispute is whether this is a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva or whether it is a standard prohibition punishable by lashes.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇讗讜 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 住讘专 诇讗讜 诇讗讜 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗

Rabbi Akiva holds: It is a full-fledged prohibition, violators of which are flogged, as is the case with regard to violators of standard Torah prohibitions. In his opinion, this is not a case of a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva, as the positive mitzva: 鈥淕ive it to the stranger in your community to eat,鈥 in no way rectifies the prohibition that was violated. If the carcass was eaten, obviously it cannot then be given to the stranger. Apparently, the verse means that due to the prohibition against eating it, one should give it to the stranger. And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds: It is not a full-fledged prohibition; rather, it is a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva. Because the positive command appears after the prohibition, it is tantamount to a prohibition that can be rectified.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗讜 讚谞讘讬诇讛 诇讗讜 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讬 讜讛讻讗 讘转注讝讜讘 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

Abaye said that everyone agrees that the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered animal carcass is a full-fledged prohibition, and it is not a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva, and here, it is with regard to the positive mitzva written after the prohibitions with regard to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃 that they disagree. The verse states: 鈥淎nd when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corner of your field, neither shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest. And you shall not glean your vineyard, neither shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger, I am the Lord your God (Leviticus 19:9鈥10). After listing the prohibitions: You shall not wholly reap, you shall not glean, and you shall not gather, the Torah commands: You shall leave them.

讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 转注讝讜讘 诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诪注 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 住讘专 讛砖转讗 诪砖诪注

Rabbi Akiva holds that the positive mitzva: You shall leave, indicates that one leaves gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃 in the field from the outset, and is not in effect after he violates the prohibition of: You shall not wholly reap. If one fails to fulfill that mitzva, he violates full-fledged prohibitions punishable by lashes. However, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the positive mitzva: You shall leave, indicates now, after one violated the prohibition. Even if the individual violated the prohibitions and harvested those crops, there is an obligation to rectify his actions by leaving the produce he harvested for the poor. This is not a full-fledged prohibition; rather, it is a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva that rectifies the transgression.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 诪转讜讚讛 注讜讬转讬 驻砖注转讬 讜讞讟讗转讬 讜讻谉 讘砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛转讜讚讛 注诇讬讜 讗转 讻诇 注讜谞讜转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗转 讻诇 驻砖注讬讛诐 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讜讻谉 讘诪砖讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 谞讜砖讗 注讜谉 讜驻砖注 讜讞讟讗讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讜谞讜转 讗诇讜 讛讝讚讜谞讜转 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛讻专转 转讻专转 讛谞驻砖 讛讛讬讗 注讜谞讛 讘讛

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: How does he confess? What is the formula of the confession? It is: I have done wrong, I have rebelled, and I have sinned. And likewise, with regard to the scapegoat, it says that the confession is in that order: 鈥淎nd he shall confess over it all of the children of Israel鈥檚 wrongdoings and all their rebellions and all their sins鈥 (Leviticus 16:21). And likewise, when God revealed Himself to Moses it says: 鈥淔orgiving wrongdoing and rebellion and sin鈥 (Exodus 34:7). This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say that the meaning of these terms is: Wrongdoings are intentional transgressions, and likewise it says: 鈥淭hat soul shall be cut off, it bears its guilt鈥 (Numbers 15:31). This refers to sins committed intentionally.

驻砖注讬诐 讗诇讜 讛诪专讚讬诐 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪诇讱 诪讜讗讘 驻砖注 讘讬 讜讗讜诪专 讗讝 转驻砖注 诇讘谞讛 讘注转 讛讛讬讗 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讗诇讜 讛砖讙讙讜转 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 谞驻砖 讻讬 转讞讟讗 讘砖讙讙讛 讜诪讗讞专 砖讛转讜讚讛 注诇 讛讝讚讜谞讜转 讜注诇 讛诪专讚讬诐 讞讜讝专 讜诪转讜讚讛 注诇 讛砖讙讙讜转

Rebellions are rebellious transgressions, when one not only intends to violate a prohibition but does so as an act of defiance against God. And likewise, it says: 鈥淭he king of Moab rebelled [pasha] against me鈥 (II Kings 3:7). And it is said: 鈥淭hen Livna rebelled at that time鈥 (II Kings 8:22). With regard to the phrase: All of their sins, these are unwitting sins. And it says: 鈥淚f a soul should sin unwittingly鈥 (Leviticus 4:2). In light of these definitions the sequence suggested by Rabbi Meir is unlikely, as once he confessed the wrongdoings and rebellions, does he then confess the unwitting sins?

讗诇讗 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪转讜讚讛 讞讟讗转讬 讜注讜讬转讬 讜驻砖注转讬 诇驻谞讬讱 讗谞讬 讜讘讬转讬 讜讻讜壮 讜讻谉 讘讚讜讚 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讞讟讗谞讜 注诐 讗讘讜转讬谞讜 讛注讜讬谞讜 讛专砖注谞讜 讜讻谉 讘砖诇诪讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讞讟讗谞讜 (讜讛专砖注谞讜 讜诪专讚谞讜) 讜讻谉 讘讚谞讬讗诇 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讞讟讗谞讜 (讜讛注讜讬谞讜) 讜讛专砖注谞讜 讜诪专讚谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讛讜 砖讗诪专 诪砖讛 谞讜砖讗 注讜谉 讜驻砖注 讜讞讟讗讛 讗诪专 诪砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讘砖注讛 砖讬砖专讗诇 讞讜讟讗讬谉 诇驻谞讬讱 讜注讜砖讬谉 转砖讜讘讛 注砖讛 诇讛诐 讝讚讜谞讜转 讻砖讙讙讜转

Rather, this is the manner in which he confesses: I have sinned, I have done wrong, and I have rebelled before You, I and my household. And likewise, with regard to David it says in this sequence: 鈥淲e have sinned along with our forefathers, we have done wrong, we have performed evil鈥 (Psalms 106:6). And likewise, with regard to Solomon it says: 鈥淲e have sinned, and we have done wrong, we have done evil鈥 (I Kings 8:47). And likewise, with regard to Daniel it says: 鈥淲e have sinned, and we have done wrong, and we have done evil, and we have rebelled鈥 (Daniel 9:5). However, according to this interpretation, what is the rationale for the sequence of that which Moses said: Forgiving wrongdoing and rebellion and sin, where sin appears last? Moses said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, when the Jewish people sin before you and repent, render their intentional sins like unwitting ones, forgive wrongdoing and rebellion as if they were sin.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪住转讘专 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚拽诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 拽专讗 讚诪砖讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rabba bar Shmuel said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. The confession begins with the unwitting sins and concludes with the severe rebellions. The Gemara expresses surprise concerning the need for this ruling: It is obvious that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, based on the principle: In a dispute between an individual and the many, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many. The Gemara answers: Lest you say in this case that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Meir is reasonable, as the verse with regard to Moses is written in the order stated by Rabbi Meir and supports his opinion, therefore Rabba bar Shmuel teaches us that the halakha is nevertheless in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讛讛讜讗 讚谞讞讬转 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讜注讘讚 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘拽转 专讘谞谉 讜注讘讚转 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讻讚讻转讬讘 讘住驻专 讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚诪砖讛

The Gemara relates that there was a certain person who descended to lead the prayers before Rabba, and he performed the confession sequence in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rabba said to him: Have you forsaken the opinion of the Rabbis, who are the many, and performed the confession sequence in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? That person said to Rabba: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is written explicitly in the Torah of Moses.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻驻专 讘讻驻专转 讚讘专讬诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讻驻专转 讚讘专讬诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讻驻专转 讚诪讬诐

The Sages taught in a halakhic midrash that it is written: 鈥淎nd Aaron is to offer his own bull as a sin-offering and atone for himself and for his household鈥 (Leviticus 16:6). Apparently, the verse is speaking of atonement achieved through words of confession. Do you say it is atonement achieved through words, or perhaps it is only atonement achieved through sprinkling blood, as each mention of atonement associated with an offering involves the sprinkling of blood on the altar?

讛专讬 讗谞讬 讚谉 谞讗诪专讛 讻讗谉 讻驻专讛 讜谞讗诪专讛 诇讛诇谉 讻驻专讛 诪讛 讻驻专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖注讬专 讚讘专讬诐 讗祝 讻驻专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘驻专 讚讘专讬诐

I will infer via a verbal analogy: Atonement is stated here, with regard to the bull of the sin-offering, and atonement is stated there, with regard to the scapegoat: 鈥淎nd the goat designated by the lottery for Azazel shall be left standing alive before God, to atone with it鈥 (Leviticus 16:10). Just as the atonement that is stated with regard to the goat is atonement achieved through words, as neither is the goat slaughtered nor is its blood sprinkled on the altar, so too, the atonement stated with regard to the bull refers to atonement achieved through words.

讜讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛拽专讬讘 讗讛专谉 讗转 驻专 讛讞讟讗转 讗砖专 诇讜 讜讻驻专 讘注讚讜 讜讘注讚 讘讬转讜 讜注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 谞砖讞讟 讛驻专

And if it is your wish to state a claim rejecting that proof, there is a different proof. It says: 鈥淎nd Aaron shall then offer his bull of sin-offering and atone for himself and his household. And he shall slaughter his bull of sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:11). Here, the term atonement is used despite the fact that the bull has not yet been slaughtered. Apparently, the atonement of the bull is achieved through confession and not through sprinkling the blood.

诪讗讬 讜讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞讬诇祝 诪砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 砖讻驻专转讜 讘讚诪讬诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻驻专 讜注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 谞砖讞讟 讛驻专

The Gemara seeks to clarify the midrash: What is the meaning of: And if it is your wish to say, which indicates that there is room to undermine the first source? Why is a second source required? The Gemara answers: And if you say that instead of deriving the atonement of the bull from the atonement of the scapegoat, let us derive it from the goat that is offered within, whose atonement is achieved through sprinkling its blood in the innermost sanctum; therefore, it was taught in the baraita that it says: And atone, and the bull has not yet been slaughtered.

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Josh Sussman in honor of both his wife, Romi鈥檚 50th birthday and son, Zeli. "He will, B鈥橢zrat HaShem, be making his first solo siyum on Masechet Yoma at his Bar Mitzvah in July".

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Yoma 36: Atonement

Where and how the kohen sets up the animal for the korban of Yom Kippur, including semichat yadaim and the...

Yoma 36

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 36

讙诪壮 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 爪驻讜谉

GEMARA: The mishna states that when the High Priest recites his confession, the bull stands between the Entrance Hall to the Sanctuary and the altar, and elsewhere (41b) it is stated that the bull is slaughtered at the place where the confession is recited. Apparently, the place where the confession is recited must be considered north. The Gemara clarifies: About whom did you learn that he said that the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar is considered north and is therefore a valid location for slaughtering offerings of the most sacred order, based on the verse written with regard to the burnt-offering: 鈥淥n the side of the altar northward鈥 (Leviticus 1:11)?

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 爪驻讜谉 诪拽讬专 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 爪驻讜谞讬 讜注讚 讻讜转诇 讛注讝专讛 讜讻谞讙讚 讻诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讻讜诇讜 爪驻讜谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜住讬祝 讗祝 讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 专讘讬 诪讜住讬祝 讗祝 诪拽讜诐 讚专讬住转 专讙诇讬 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讗祝 诪拽讜诐 讚专讬住转 专讙诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 诪谉 讛讞诇讬驻讜转 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖驻住讜诇

It is Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught in a baraita: What is the north? It is the area from the northern wall of the altar until the wall of the Temple courtyard. And opposite the entire altar is also considered north; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, adds even the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar to the area that is considered north. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi adds that even the areas to the north in the place where the priests walk, and even areas to the north in the place where the Israelites walk, are considered north in terms of the halakha of slaughtering offerings. However, everyone agrees that the area from the chamber of the knives and inward, which is an area off to the side, is unfit for slaughtering offerings of the most sacred order, as it is not visible from the altar.

诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讜专讘讬 讛砖转讗 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜住讬祝 讗讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 诪讜住讬祝

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara rejects this: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, now, does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi add only to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, but does not add to the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? After all, the area deemed north according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, is included in the area deemed north by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Therefore, the mishna could be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as well.

讗谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 谞讜拽诪讬讛 讘讻讜诇讛 注讝专讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讜谞讜拽诪讬讛 讘讬谉 诪讝讘讞 讜诇讻讜转诇

The Gemara reformulates its suggestion: This is what we are saying: If the mishna were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that the entire courtyard is considered north, let us stand the bull anywhere in the entire courtyard and not necessarily between the Entrance Hall and the altar. The Gemara rejects this: Rather, what do you suggest? The mishna is only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? According to his opinion one could suggest: And let us stand the bull between the altar and the wall, as everyone agrees that this area is considered north.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇专讘讬 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

Rather, what have you to say to explain why the bull is positioned specifically between the Entrance Hall and the altar? It is due to the weakness of the High Priest, so that he need not exert himself and walk long distances on Yom Kippur. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as well, it is due to the weakness of the High Priest that the bull is positioned specifically there, although it is permitted to position the bull anywhere in the courtyard.

专讗砖讜 诇讚专讜诐 讜驻谞讬讜 诇诪注专讘 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘注讜拽诐 讗转 专讗砖讜 讜谞讜拽诪讬讛 诇讛讚讬讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬专讘讬抓 讙诇诇讬诐

搂 The mishna continues: The head of the bull was facing to the south and its face was facing to the west. The Gemara asks: Under what circumstances can a case be found where its head is toward one direction and its face is toward another? Rav said: It is a case where the animal is standing north-south and it turns its head and faces west. The Gemara asks: And let us stand it straight east-west with its back to the altar and its head facing the Sanctuary. Abaye said: It is prohibited due to a decree lest the bull defecate opposite the altar, which is a display of contempt for the altar.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 住讜诪讱 讛讝讘讞 注讜诪讚 讘爪驻讜谉 讜驻谞讬讜 诇诪注专讘 讜讛住讜诪讱 注讜诪讚 讘诪讝专讞 讜驻谞讬讜 诇诪注专讘 讜诪谞讬讞 砖转讬 讬讚讬讜 讘讬谉 砖转讬 拽专谞讜转 砖诇 讝讘讞 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讚讘专 讞讜爪抓 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讛讝讘讞 讜诪转讜讚讛 注诇 讞讟讗转 注讜谉 讞讟讗转 讜注诇 讗砖诐 注讜谉 讗砖诐 讜注诇 注讜诇讛 注讜谉 诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜驻讗讛 讜诪注砖专 注谞讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬

The Sages taught: How does the priest place his hands on the offering? In the offerings of the most sacred order, the animal stands in the north of the courtyard and its face is to the west, and the one who is placing his hands stands to the east of the offering and his face is to the west, and he places his two hands between the two horns of the offering, provided that nothing interposes between his hands and the offering. And he confesses his sins. If the confession is over a sin-offering, he confesses the transgression for which he is bringing the sin-offering, i.e., unwitting violation of a prohibition punishable by karet. And over a guilt-offering he confesses the transgression for which he is bringing the guilt-offering, e.g., theft or misuse of consecrated property. And over a burnt-offering, with regard to which the Torah does not specify for which transgressions it is brought, he confesses the sin of not leaving gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce of the corners [pe鈥檃], as well as not separating poor man鈥檚 tithe. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 注讜诇讛 讘讗讛 讗诇讗 注诇 注砖讛 讜注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖谞讬转拽 诇注砖讛

Rabbi Akiva says: A burnt-offering is brought only over the failure to fulfill a positive mitzva and over violation of a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva. This refers to all prohibitions followed by positive mitzvot intended to rectify them; e.g., the prohibition against robbery is followed in the Torah by a positive mitzva for the robber to return the object that he stole. These transgressions are not punishable by lashes nor does a human court administer any other form of penalty. However, a burnt-offering is required in order to gain divine atonement for the sinner.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Yirmeya said:

讘诇讗讜 讚谞讘讬诇讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

It is with regard to the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered animal carcass, and similar prohibitions, that they disagree. The Torah says: 鈥淵ou shall not eat any unslaughtered animal carcass; give it to the stranger in your community to eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21). The dispute is whether this is a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva or whether it is a standard prohibition punishable by lashes.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇讗讜 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 住讘专 诇讗讜 诇讗讜 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗

Rabbi Akiva holds: It is a full-fledged prohibition, violators of which are flogged, as is the case with regard to violators of standard Torah prohibitions. In his opinion, this is not a case of a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva, as the positive mitzva: 鈥淕ive it to the stranger in your community to eat,鈥 in no way rectifies the prohibition that was violated. If the carcass was eaten, obviously it cannot then be given to the stranger. Apparently, the verse means that due to the prohibition against eating it, one should give it to the stranger. And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds: It is not a full-fledged prohibition; rather, it is a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva. Because the positive command appears after the prohibition, it is tantamount to a prohibition that can be rectified.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗讜 讚谞讘讬诇讛 诇讗讜 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讬 讜讛讻讗 讘转注讝讜讘 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

Abaye said that everyone agrees that the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered animal carcass is a full-fledged prohibition, and it is not a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva, and here, it is with regard to the positive mitzva written after the prohibitions with regard to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃 that they disagree. The verse states: 鈥淎nd when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corner of your field, neither shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest. And you shall not glean your vineyard, neither shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger, I am the Lord your God (Leviticus 19:9鈥10). After listing the prohibitions: You shall not wholly reap, you shall not glean, and you shall not gather, the Torah commands: You shall leave them.

讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 转注讝讜讘 诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诪注 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 住讘专 讛砖转讗 诪砖诪注

Rabbi Akiva holds that the positive mitzva: You shall leave, indicates that one leaves gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃 in the field from the outset, and is not in effect after he violates the prohibition of: You shall not wholly reap. If one fails to fulfill that mitzva, he violates full-fledged prohibitions punishable by lashes. However, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the positive mitzva: You shall leave, indicates now, after one violated the prohibition. Even if the individual violated the prohibitions and harvested those crops, there is an obligation to rectify his actions by leaving the produce he harvested for the poor. This is not a full-fledged prohibition; rather, it is a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva that rectifies the transgression.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 诪转讜讚讛 注讜讬转讬 驻砖注转讬 讜讞讟讗转讬 讜讻谉 讘砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛转讜讚讛 注诇讬讜 讗转 讻诇 注讜谞讜转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗转 讻诇 驻砖注讬讛诐 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讜讻谉 讘诪砖讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 谞讜砖讗 注讜谉 讜驻砖注 讜讞讟讗讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讜谞讜转 讗诇讜 讛讝讚讜谞讜转 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛讻专转 转讻专转 讛谞驻砖 讛讛讬讗 注讜谞讛 讘讛

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: How does he confess? What is the formula of the confession? It is: I have done wrong, I have rebelled, and I have sinned. And likewise, with regard to the scapegoat, it says that the confession is in that order: 鈥淎nd he shall confess over it all of the children of Israel鈥檚 wrongdoings and all their rebellions and all their sins鈥 (Leviticus 16:21). And likewise, when God revealed Himself to Moses it says: 鈥淔orgiving wrongdoing and rebellion and sin鈥 (Exodus 34:7). This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say that the meaning of these terms is: Wrongdoings are intentional transgressions, and likewise it says: 鈥淭hat soul shall be cut off, it bears its guilt鈥 (Numbers 15:31). This refers to sins committed intentionally.

驻砖注讬诐 讗诇讜 讛诪专讚讬诐 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪诇讱 诪讜讗讘 驻砖注 讘讬 讜讗讜诪专 讗讝 转驻砖注 诇讘谞讛 讘注转 讛讛讬讗 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讗诇讜 讛砖讙讙讜转 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 谞驻砖 讻讬 转讞讟讗 讘砖讙讙讛 讜诪讗讞专 砖讛转讜讚讛 注诇 讛讝讚讜谞讜转 讜注诇 讛诪专讚讬诐 讞讜讝专 讜诪转讜讚讛 注诇 讛砖讙讙讜转

Rebellions are rebellious transgressions, when one not only intends to violate a prohibition but does so as an act of defiance against God. And likewise, it says: 鈥淭he king of Moab rebelled [pasha] against me鈥 (II Kings 3:7). And it is said: 鈥淭hen Livna rebelled at that time鈥 (II Kings 8:22). With regard to the phrase: All of their sins, these are unwitting sins. And it says: 鈥淚f a soul should sin unwittingly鈥 (Leviticus 4:2). In light of these definitions the sequence suggested by Rabbi Meir is unlikely, as once he confessed the wrongdoings and rebellions, does he then confess the unwitting sins?

讗诇讗 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪转讜讚讛 讞讟讗转讬 讜注讜讬转讬 讜驻砖注转讬 诇驻谞讬讱 讗谞讬 讜讘讬转讬 讜讻讜壮 讜讻谉 讘讚讜讚 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讞讟讗谞讜 注诐 讗讘讜转讬谞讜 讛注讜讬谞讜 讛专砖注谞讜 讜讻谉 讘砖诇诪讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讞讟讗谞讜 (讜讛专砖注谞讜 讜诪专讚谞讜) 讜讻谉 讘讚谞讬讗诇 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讞讟讗谞讜 (讜讛注讜讬谞讜) 讜讛专砖注谞讜 讜诪专讚谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讛讜 砖讗诪专 诪砖讛 谞讜砖讗 注讜谉 讜驻砖注 讜讞讟讗讛 讗诪专 诪砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讘砖注讛 砖讬砖专讗诇 讞讜讟讗讬谉 诇驻谞讬讱 讜注讜砖讬谉 转砖讜讘讛 注砖讛 诇讛诐 讝讚讜谞讜转 讻砖讙讙讜转

Rather, this is the manner in which he confesses: I have sinned, I have done wrong, and I have rebelled before You, I and my household. And likewise, with regard to David it says in this sequence: 鈥淲e have sinned along with our forefathers, we have done wrong, we have performed evil鈥 (Psalms 106:6). And likewise, with regard to Solomon it says: 鈥淲e have sinned, and we have done wrong, we have done evil鈥 (I Kings 8:47). And likewise, with regard to Daniel it says: 鈥淲e have sinned, and we have done wrong, and we have done evil, and we have rebelled鈥 (Daniel 9:5). However, according to this interpretation, what is the rationale for the sequence of that which Moses said: Forgiving wrongdoing and rebellion and sin, where sin appears last? Moses said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, when the Jewish people sin before you and repent, render their intentional sins like unwitting ones, forgive wrongdoing and rebellion as if they were sin.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪住转讘专 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚拽诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 拽专讗 讚诪砖讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rabba bar Shmuel said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. The confession begins with the unwitting sins and concludes with the severe rebellions. The Gemara expresses surprise concerning the need for this ruling: It is obvious that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, based on the principle: In a dispute between an individual and the many, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many. The Gemara answers: Lest you say in this case that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Meir is reasonable, as the verse with regard to Moses is written in the order stated by Rabbi Meir and supports his opinion, therefore Rabba bar Shmuel teaches us that the halakha is nevertheless in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讛讛讜讗 讚谞讞讬转 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讜注讘讚 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘拽转 专讘谞谉 讜注讘讚转 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讻讚讻转讬讘 讘住驻专 讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚诪砖讛

The Gemara relates that there was a certain person who descended to lead the prayers before Rabba, and he performed the confession sequence in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rabba said to him: Have you forsaken the opinion of the Rabbis, who are the many, and performed the confession sequence in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? That person said to Rabba: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is written explicitly in the Torah of Moses.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻驻专 讘讻驻专转 讚讘专讬诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讻驻专转 讚讘专讬诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讻驻专转 讚诪讬诐

The Sages taught in a halakhic midrash that it is written: 鈥淎nd Aaron is to offer his own bull as a sin-offering and atone for himself and for his household鈥 (Leviticus 16:6). Apparently, the verse is speaking of atonement achieved through words of confession. Do you say it is atonement achieved through words, or perhaps it is only atonement achieved through sprinkling blood, as each mention of atonement associated with an offering involves the sprinkling of blood on the altar?

讛专讬 讗谞讬 讚谉 谞讗诪专讛 讻讗谉 讻驻专讛 讜谞讗诪专讛 诇讛诇谉 讻驻专讛 诪讛 讻驻专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖注讬专 讚讘专讬诐 讗祝 讻驻专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘驻专 讚讘专讬诐

I will infer via a verbal analogy: Atonement is stated here, with regard to the bull of the sin-offering, and atonement is stated there, with regard to the scapegoat: 鈥淎nd the goat designated by the lottery for Azazel shall be left standing alive before God, to atone with it鈥 (Leviticus 16:10). Just as the atonement that is stated with regard to the goat is atonement achieved through words, as neither is the goat slaughtered nor is its blood sprinkled on the altar, so too, the atonement stated with regard to the bull refers to atonement achieved through words.

讜讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛拽专讬讘 讗讛专谉 讗转 驻专 讛讞讟讗转 讗砖专 诇讜 讜讻驻专 讘注讚讜 讜讘注讚 讘讬转讜 讜注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 谞砖讞讟 讛驻专

And if it is your wish to state a claim rejecting that proof, there is a different proof. It says: 鈥淎nd Aaron shall then offer his bull of sin-offering and atone for himself and his household. And he shall slaughter his bull of sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:11). Here, the term atonement is used despite the fact that the bull has not yet been slaughtered. Apparently, the atonement of the bull is achieved through confession and not through sprinkling the blood.

诪讗讬 讜讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞讬诇祝 诪砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 砖讻驻专转讜 讘讚诪讬诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻驻专 讜注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 谞砖讞讟 讛驻专

The Gemara seeks to clarify the midrash: What is the meaning of: And if it is your wish to say, which indicates that there is room to undermine the first source? Why is a second source required? The Gemara answers: And if you say that instead of deriving the atonement of the bull from the atonement of the scapegoat, let us derive it from the goat that is offered within, whose atonement is achieved through sprinkling its blood in the innermost sanctum; therefore, it was taught in the baraita that it says: And atone, and the bull has not yet been slaughtered.

Scroll To Top