Yoma 36
גְּמָ׳ מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ צָפוֹן —
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: “On the side of the altar northward” (Leviticus 1:11)?
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ צָפוֹן — מִקִּיר שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ צְפוֹנִי וְעַד כּוֹתֶל הָעֲזָרָה, וּכְנֶגֶד כׇּל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כּוּלּוֹ צָפוֹן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹסִיף אַף בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ. רַבִּי מוֹסִיף אַף מְקוֹם דְּרִיסַת רַגְלֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים וְאַף מְקוֹם דְּרִיסַת רַגְלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֲבָל מִן הַחֲלִיפוֹת וְלִפְנִים הַכֹּל מוֹדִים שֶׁפָּסוּל.
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.
לֵימָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא וְלָא רַבִּי? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי, וְרַבִּי הַשְׁתָּא אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מוֹסִיף, אַדְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא מוֹסִיף?!
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.
אֲנַן הָכִי קָא אָמְרִינַן: אִי רַבִּי הִיא, נוֹקְמֵיהּ בְּכוּלַּהּ עֲזָרָה! אֶלָּא מַאי — רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא? וְנוֹקְמֵיהּ בֵּין מִזְבֵּחַ וְלַכּוֹתֶל!
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.
אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר — מִשּׁוּם חוּלְשָׁא דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, לְרַבִּי נָמֵי — מִשּׁוּם חוּלְשָׁא דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל.
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.
רֹאשׁוֹ לַדָּרוֹם וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב. הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? אָמַר רַב: בְּעוֹקֵם אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ. וְנוֹקְמֵיהּ לְהֶדְיָא. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַרְבִּיץ גְּלָלִים.
§ 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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד סוֹמֵךְ הַזֶּבַח? עוֹמֵד בַּצָּפוֹן וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב, וְהַסּוֹמֵךְ עוֹמֵד בַּמִּזְרָח וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב, וּמַנִּיחַ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו בֵּין שְׁתֵּי קְרָנוֹת שֶׁל זֶבַח, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא דָּבָר חוֹצֵץ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הַזֶּבַח, וּמִתְוַדֶּה. עַל חַטָּאת — עֲוֹן חַטָּאת, וְעַל אָשָׁם — עֲוֹן אָשָׁם, וְעַל עוֹלָה — עֲוֹן לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי.
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’a], as well as not separating poor man’s tithe. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין עוֹלָה בָּאָה אֶלָּא עַל עֲשֵׂה, וְעַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנִּיתַּק לַעֲשֵׂה.
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.
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה:
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Yirmeya said:
בְּלָאו דִּנְבֵילָה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי:
It is with regard to the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered animal carcass, and similar prohibitions, that they disagree. The Torah says: “You shall not eat any unslaughtered animal carcass; give it to the stranger in your community to eat” (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.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: לָאו מְעַלְּיָא הוּא. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי סָבַר: לָאו לָאו מְעַלְּיָא הוּא.
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: “Give it to the stranger in your community to eat,” 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.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָאו דִּנְבֵילָה — לָאו מְעַלְּיָא הָוֵי, וְהָכָא בְּ״תַעֲזוֹב״ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי,
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’a that they disagree. The verse states: “And 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 19:9–10). 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.
דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: ״תַּעֲזוֹב״ מֵעִיקָּרָא מַשְׁמַע, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי סָבַר: הַשְׁתָּא מַשְׁמַע.
Rabbi Akiva holds that the positive mitzva: You shall leave, indicates that one leaves gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a 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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד מִתְוַדֶּה? ״עָוִיתִי פָּשַׁעְתִּי וְחָטָאתִי״, וְכֵן בְּשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִתְוַדָּה עָלָיו אֶת כׇּל עֲוֹנוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת כׇּל פִּשְׁעֵיהֶם לְכׇל חַטֹּאתָם״, וְכֵן בְּמֹשֶׁה הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן וָפֶשַׁע וְחַטָּאָה״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עֲוֹנוֹת אֵלּוּ הַזְּדוֹנוֹת, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת הַנֶּפֶשׁ הָהִיא עֲוֹנָה בָּהּ״.
§ 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: “And he shall confess over it all of the children of Israel’s wrongdoings and all their rebellions and all their sins” (Leviticus 16:21). And likewise, when God revealed Himself to Moses it says: “Forgiving wrongdoing and rebellion and sin” (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: “That soul shall be cut off, it bears its guilt” (Numbers 15:31). This refers to sins committed intentionally.
פְּשָׁעִים אֵלּוּ הַמְּרָדִים, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב פָּשַׁע בִּי״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״אָז תִּפְשַׁע לִבְנָה בָּעֵת הַהִיא״. ״לְכׇל חַטֹּאתָם״ אֵלּוּ הַשְּׁגָגוֹת, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא בִשְׁגָגָה״. וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁהִתְוַדָּה עַל הַזְּדוֹנוֹת וְעַל הַמְּרָדִים חוֹזֵר וּמִתְוַדֶּה עַל הַשְּׁגָגוֹת?!
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: “The king of Moab rebelled [pasha] against me” (II Kings 3:7). And it is said: “Then Livna rebelled at that time” (II Kings 8:22). With regard to the phrase: All of their sins, these are unwitting sins. And it says: “If a soul should sin unwittingly” (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?
אֶלָּא כָּךְ הָיָה מִתְוַדֶּה: חָטָאתִי וְעָוִיתִי וּפָשַׁעְתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי וְכוּ׳. וְכֵן בְּדָוִד הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״חָטָאנוּ עִם אֲבוֹתֵינוּ הֶעֱוִינוּ הִרְשָׁעְנוּ״, וְכֵן בִּשְׁלֹמֹה הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״חָטָאנוּ (וְהִרְשַׁעְנוּ וּמָרָדְנוּ)״, וְכֵן בְּדָנִיֵּאל הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״חָטָאנוּ (וְהֶעֱוִינוּ) וְהִרְשַׁעְנוּ וּמָרָדְנוּ״. אֶלָּא מַהוּ שֶׁאָמַר מֹשֶׁה ״נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן וָפֶשַׁע וְחַטָּאָה״? אָמַר מֹשֶׁה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל חוֹטְאִין לְפָנֶיךָ וְעוֹשִׂין תְּשׁוּבָה עֲשֵׂה לָהֶם זְדוֹנוֹת כִּשְׁגָגוֹת.
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: “We have sinned along with our forefathers, we have done wrong, we have performed evil” (Psalms 106:6). And likewise, with regard to Solomon it says: “We have sinned, and we have done wrong, we have done evil” (I Kings 8:47). And likewise, with regard to Daniel it says: “We have sinned, and we have done wrong, and we have done evil, and we have rebelled” (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.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. פְּשִׁיטָא: יָחִיד וְרַבִּים הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּים! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, מִסְתַּבֵּר טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּקָמְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ קְרָא דְּמֹשֶׁה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
הַהוּא דִּנְחֵית קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה וַעֲבַד כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁבְקַתְּ רַבָּנַן וְעָבְדַתְּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סְבִירָא לִי, כְּדִכְתִיב בְּסֵפֶר אוֹרָיְיתָא דְּמֹשֶׁה.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְכִפֶּר״, בְּכַפָּרַת דְּבָרִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּכַפָּרַת דְּבָרִים, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כַּפָּרַת דָּמִים.
§ The Sages taught in a halakhic midrash that it is written: “And Aaron is to offer his own bull as a sin-offering and atone for himself and for his household” (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?
הֲרֵי אֲנִי דָּן: נֶאֶמְרָה כָּאן ״כַּפָּרָה״, וְנֶאֶמְרָה לְהַלָּן ״כַּפָּרָה״. מָה ״כַּפָּרָה״ הָאֲמוּרָה בַּשָּׂעִיר — דְּבָרִים, אַף ״כַּפָּרָה״ הָאֲמוּרָה בַּפָּר — דְּבָרִים.
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: “And the goat designated by the lottery for Azazel shall be left standing alive before God, to atone with it” (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.
וְאִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהִקְרִיב אַהֲרֹן אֶת פַּר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ וְכִפֶּר בַּעֲדוֹ וּבְעַד בֵּיתוֹ״, וַעֲדַיִין לֹא נִשְׁחַט הַפָּר.
And if it is your wish to state a claim rejecting that proof, there is a different proof. It says: “And 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” (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.
מַאי ״וְאִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא נֵילַף מִשָּׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים, שֶׁכַּפָּרָתוֹ בְּדָמִים, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְכִפֶּר״, וַעֲדַיִין לֹא נִשְׁחַט הַפָּר.
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.
