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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 1, 2021 | ื›ืดื ื‘ืกื™ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืคืดื

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, Romiโ€™s 50th birthday and son, Zeli. "He will, Bโ€™Ezrat 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 learningย is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory ofย her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Batย Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Yoma 51

The gemara had brought a braita that compared sacrifices to temura, substitution. What was the case of sacrifices that were mentioned? Was it specifically the bull of Yom Kippur, in which case we can learn from this source the answer to Rabbi Elazar’s question about whether or not laws of substitution apply to that sacrifice? Or was it referring to the ram of Yom Kippur? The gemara raises some questions against Rav Sheshet’s reading that it was referring to the ram of Yom Kippur – why couldn’t it be referring to the Pesach or Pesach Sheni sacrifice? In referring back to a mishna and braita in which Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yaakov’s arguments against the Tana Kama were brought and in which they listed a few communal and individual offerings, the gemara questions why if Chagiga is communal, shouldn’t Pesach be, as well. The gemara answers that it is referring to Pesach Sheni which is clearly individual. But if so, does it really override impurities? A debate regarding this issue is explained. A question is raised against Rabbi Elazar’s question regarding whether substitution is effective for the bull offering on Yom Kippur – from drashot in the verses, it seems to be clear that it is considered an individual offering! The gemara resolves the difficulty. The mishna brings two opinions regarding the separation between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies – in the Second Temple was it made of two parochets or one? What is the basis for each opinion? Three approaches are brought regarding the path the Kohen Gadol takes through the sanctuary to get to the Holy of Holies. What is the reason behind each approach?

ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื•ืžืขืฉืจ ื“ื—ืœื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ืงื‘ื•ืข ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื™ื’ื–ื– ื•ืœื™ืขื‘ื“ ืืœื ืฉื ื–ื‘ื— ืœื ืงืชื ื™


e.g., a firstborn or an animal tithe, the sanctity of which takes effect even on a permanently blemished animal, and this offering cannot vacate its sanctified status and assume non-sacred status for its wool to be sheared and to be worked. Rather, you must say that the baraita is not teaching a general category of sacrifices, but when it states: Offering, it is referring to a particular one.


ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืชืžื•ืจื” ืฉื ืชืžื•ืจื” ืื—ืช ื”ื™ื ื–ื‘ื— ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื•ืื™ื›ื ืžืขืฉืจ


The Gemara asks: And what is different about the two statements, i.e., why does the tanna deal with a specific case in one area, but a general category in the other? The Gemara explains: Substitution is one category, as there is no difference between one case of substitution and another. By contrast, with regard to sacrifices, there is a firstborn and there is the animal tithe, whose halakhot differ from other offerings, and therefore one cannot establish a single general principle. Consequently, the tanna certainly is referring to a specific offering.


ื•ืœืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืื“ืžื•ืงื™ื ืœื” ื‘ืื™ืœื• ืฉืœ ืื”ืจืŸ ืœื•ืงืžื” ื‘ืคืกื— ื“ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ื”ืคืกื— ืขืœ ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“


The Gemara continues the previous discussion: And according to the opinion of Rav Sheshet, who explains that the offering in question is not the bull of the High Priest but his ram, rather than establishing and interpreting this baraita as referring to the ram of Aaron, let him establish that it deals with the Paschal offering, which overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity and one can perform substitution for it, as according to all opinions, it is the offering of an individual. The Gemara answers: Rav Sheshet maintains that one may not slaughter the Paschal lamb on behalf of an individual, but only for a group. This means that it is not an offering of an individual but, at the very least, that of partners. For this reason, one cannot perform substitution for a Paschal lamb.


ื•ื ื•ืงืžื™ื” ื‘ืคืกื— ืฉื ื™ ืžื™ ื“ื—ื™ ื˜ื•ืžืื”


The Gemara asks: And let Rav Sheshet establish the baraita as referring to the second Pesaแธฅ, which is slaughtered by an individual. The Gemara answers: Does the second Pesaแธฅ override ritual impurity? Since this offering does not override ritual impurity, it cannot be the offering referred to in the baraita.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืœืจื‘ื ื•ืชื ื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืคืกื— ื“ืงืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื—ื’ื™ื’ื” ื“ืงืจื™ ืœื” ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืชื™ ื‘ื›ื ื•ืคื™ื ืคืกื— ื ืžื™ ืืชื™ ื‘ื›ื ื•ืคื™ื ืื™ื›ื ืคืกื— ืฉื ื™ ื“ืœื ืืชื™ ื‘ื›ื ื•ืคื™ื


ยง Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: And according to the tanna of the aforementioned baraita, concerning the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yaโ€™akov, what is different with regard to the Paschal offering, that he calls it the offering of an individual? And what is different with regard to the Festival peace-offering, which is eaten with the Paschal offering, that he calls it a communal offering? If this distinction is because the Festival peace-offering is brought by a multitude, i.e., the entire nation brings it, the Paschal offering is also brought by a multitude, not as an individual offering. Rava replied: There is the second Pesaแธฅ, which is not brought by a multitude, and therefore the tanna does not call the Paschal offering a communal offering.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื›ืŸ ื™ื”ื ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื—ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืคืกื— ืฉื ื™ ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืื™ื ื• ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืชื ื ืงืžื ืืžืจ ืœืš ืžืคื ื™ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื“ื—ื™ืชื• ื•ื™ืขืฉื” ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื”


He said to him: If so, that the second Pesaแธฅ is a communal offering, it should override Shabbat and ritual impurity. He said to him: Yes, as the opinion of this tanna is in accordance with the one who said that the second Pesaแธฅ overrides ritual impurity. As it was taught in a baraita: The second Pesaแธฅ overrides Shabbat, but it does not override ritual impurity. Rabbi Yehuda says: It even overrides ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of the first tanna? The first tanna could have said to you that one brings a second Pesaแธฅ solely because ritual impurity overrode his obligation to sacrifice the first Pesaแธฅ, i.e., he did not sacrifice the first Pesaแธฅ because he was impure at that time. And should he now perform the second Pesaแธฅ in a state of ritual impurity?


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืœืš ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื›ื›ืœ ื—ืงืช ื”ืคืกื— ื™ืขืฉื• ืื•ืชื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื” ืขืœื™ื• ืœืขืฉื•ืชื• ื‘ื˜ื”ืจื” ืœื ื–ื›ื” ื™ืขืฉื ื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื”


And Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you that, with regard to the second Pesaแธฅ, the verse states: โ€œAccording to all the statute of the Paschal offering they shall keep itโ€ (Numbers 9:12), which indicates that it should even be brought in a state of ritual impurity, unlike the first Pesaแธฅ. As for the claim of the first tanna, that the whole reason for the second Pesaแธฅ is due to ritual impurity, Rabbi Yehuda could respond: The Torah sought an opportunity for one who was impure at the time of the first Pesaแธฅ to perform it in a state of ritual purity; if he did not merit to perform it in purity, he should nevertheless perform it even in a state of ritual impurity.


ื•ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ ื“ืืฉืจ ืœื• ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืžืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ืžื‘ื™ื


ยง Returning to Rabbi Elazarโ€™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: โ€œAnd Aaron shall sacrifice the bull of the sin-offering, which is for himselfโ€ (Leviticus 16:11), indicating that the High Priest brings the bull from his own property.


ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืฉืจ ืœื• ืžืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืœื ืžืฉืœ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ื‘ื™ื ืžืฉืœ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžืชื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืื‘ืœ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืžืฉืœ ืื—ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืฉื”ืจื™ ืื—ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžืชื›ืคืจื™ื ื‘ื• ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืฉืจ ืœื•


As it was taught in a baraita: โ€œWhich is for himselfโ€ 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: โ€œWhich is for himself,โ€ i.e., it must belong to him and no one else.


ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ื‘ื™ื ื•ืื ื”ื‘ื™ื ื›ืฉืจ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ื‘ ืืฉืจ ืœื• ืฉื ื” ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ืœืขื›ื‘


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: โ€œAnd he shall slaughter the bull for the sin-offering, which is for himselfโ€ (Leviticus 16:11); the text repeats this phrase: โ€œWhich is for himself,โ€ 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.


ื•ืœื™ื˜ืขืžื™ืš ืื—ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืงื ื• ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžื›ืคืจ ืœื”ื• ืืœื ืฉืื ื™ ื‘ื™ ื’ื–ื ื“ืื”ืจืŸ ื“ืืคืงืจื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ื’ื‘ื™ ืื—ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื”ื›ื [ื’ื‘ื™ ืชืžื•ืจื”] ื ืžื™ ืฉืื ื™ ื‘ื™ ื’ื–ื ื“ืื”ืจืŸ ื“ืืคืงืจื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ื’ื‘ื™ ืื—ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื


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.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื™ื” ืžื”ืœืš ื‘ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืขื“ ืฉืžื’ื™ืข ืœื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ื”ืคืจื•ื›ืช ื”ืžื‘ื“ื™ืœื•ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ืืžื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื”ื™ืชื” ืฉื ืืœื ืคืจื•ื›ืช ืื—ืช ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ื‘ื“ื™ืœื” ื”ืคืจื•ื›ืช ืœื›ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื


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: โ€œAnd the curtain shall divide for you between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holiesโ€ (Exodus 26:33).


ื’ืžืณ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืงืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ืœืš ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ื”ื•ืื™ ืืžื” ื˜ืจืงืกื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ื”ื•ืื™ ื•ืื™ืกืชืคืงื ืœื”ื• ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืงื“ื•ืฉืชื™ื” ืื™ ื›ืœืคื ื™ื ืื™ ื›ืœื—ื•ืฅ ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ ืฉืชื™ ืคืจื•ื›ืช


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.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ืœืžื ื•ืจื” ื”ื™ื” ืžื”ืœืš ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื—ืŸ ืœืžื–ื‘ื— ื•ื™ืฉ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื—ืŸ ืœื›ื•ืชืœ ืžืืŸ ื™ืฉ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืคื™ืชื—ื ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ืงืื™


ยง 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 แธคisda 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.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืœืš ืคื™ืชื—ื ื‘ื“ืจื•ื ืงืื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื›ืžืืŸ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื ื™ืขื•ืœ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื ื™ืขื•ืœ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™


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.


ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืœืš ืฉื•ืœื—ื ื•ืช ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ื“ืจื•ื ืžื•ื ื—ื™ืŸ ื•ืžืคืกืงื ืœื™ื” ืฉืœื—ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžืชืขื™ื™ืœ ืœื™ื”


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.


ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืœืขื•ืœื ืžื–ืจื— ื•ืžืขืจื‘ ืžื•ื ื—ื™ืŸ ื•ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื›ื™ื ื” ืœืื• ืื•ืจื— ืืจืขื


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

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, Romiโ€™s 50th birthday and son, Zeli. "He will, Bโ€™Ezrat 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 learningย is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory ofย her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Batย Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yoma 45 – 51 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will complete the 4th chapter in Masechet Yoma and begin the 5th. We will continue learning the...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 51: Inside/Outside

On the kohen gadol's sin-offering - to what extent us it a communal offering and to what extent is it...

Yoma 51

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 51

ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื•ืžืขืฉืจ ื“ื—ืœื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ืงื‘ื•ืข ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื™ื’ื–ื– ื•ืœื™ืขื‘ื“ ืืœื ืฉื ื–ื‘ื— ืœื ืงืชื ื™


e.g., a firstborn or an animal tithe, the sanctity of which takes effect even on a permanently blemished animal, and this offering cannot vacate its sanctified status and assume non-sacred status for its wool to be sheared and to be worked. Rather, you must say that the baraita is not teaching a general category of sacrifices, but when it states: Offering, it is referring to a particular one.


ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืชืžื•ืจื” ืฉื ืชืžื•ืจื” ืื—ืช ื”ื™ื ื–ื‘ื— ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื•ืื™ื›ื ืžืขืฉืจ


The Gemara asks: And what is different about the two statements, i.e., why does the tanna deal with a specific case in one area, but a general category in the other? The Gemara explains: Substitution is one category, as there is no difference between one case of substitution and another. By contrast, with regard to sacrifices, there is a firstborn and there is the animal tithe, whose halakhot differ from other offerings, and therefore one cannot establish a single general principle. Consequently, the tanna certainly is referring to a specific offering.


ื•ืœืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืื“ืžื•ืงื™ื ืœื” ื‘ืื™ืœื• ืฉืœ ืื”ืจืŸ ืœื•ืงืžื” ื‘ืคืกื— ื“ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ื”ืคืกื— ืขืœ ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“


The Gemara continues the previous discussion: And according to the opinion of Rav Sheshet, who explains that the offering in question is not the bull of the High Priest but his ram, rather than establishing and interpreting this baraita as referring to the ram of Aaron, let him establish that it deals with the Paschal offering, which overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity and one can perform substitution for it, as according to all opinions, it is the offering of an individual. The Gemara answers: Rav Sheshet maintains that one may not slaughter the Paschal lamb on behalf of an individual, but only for a group. This means that it is not an offering of an individual but, at the very least, that of partners. For this reason, one cannot perform substitution for a Paschal lamb.


ื•ื ื•ืงืžื™ื” ื‘ืคืกื— ืฉื ื™ ืžื™ ื“ื—ื™ ื˜ื•ืžืื”


The Gemara asks: And let Rav Sheshet establish the baraita as referring to the second Pesaแธฅ, which is slaughtered by an individual. The Gemara answers: Does the second Pesaแธฅ override ritual impurity? Since this offering does not override ritual impurity, it cannot be the offering referred to in the baraita.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืœืจื‘ื ื•ืชื ื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืคืกื— ื“ืงืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื—ื’ื™ื’ื” ื“ืงืจื™ ืœื” ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืชื™ ื‘ื›ื ื•ืคื™ื ืคืกื— ื ืžื™ ืืชื™ ื‘ื›ื ื•ืคื™ื ืื™ื›ื ืคืกื— ืฉื ื™ ื“ืœื ืืชื™ ื‘ื›ื ื•ืคื™ื


ยง Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: And according to the tanna of the aforementioned baraita, concerning the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yaโ€™akov, what is different with regard to the Paschal offering, that he calls it the offering of an individual? And what is different with regard to the Festival peace-offering, which is eaten with the Paschal offering, that he calls it a communal offering? If this distinction is because the Festival peace-offering is brought by a multitude, i.e., the entire nation brings it, the Paschal offering is also brought by a multitude, not as an individual offering. Rava replied: There is the second Pesaแธฅ, which is not brought by a multitude, and therefore the tanna does not call the Paschal offering a communal offering.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื›ืŸ ื™ื”ื ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื—ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืคืกื— ืฉื ื™ ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืื™ื ื• ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืชื ื ืงืžื ืืžืจ ืœืš ืžืคื ื™ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื“ื—ื™ืชื• ื•ื™ืขืฉื” ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื”


He said to him: If so, that the second Pesaแธฅ is a communal offering, it should override Shabbat and ritual impurity. He said to him: Yes, as the opinion of this tanna is in accordance with the one who said that the second Pesaแธฅ overrides ritual impurity. As it was taught in a baraita: The second Pesaแธฅ overrides Shabbat, but it does not override ritual impurity. Rabbi Yehuda says: It even overrides ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of the first tanna? The first tanna could have said to you that one brings a second Pesaแธฅ solely because ritual impurity overrode his obligation to sacrifice the first Pesaแธฅ, i.e., he did not sacrifice the first Pesaแธฅ because he was impure at that time. And should he now perform the second Pesaแธฅ in a state of ritual impurity?


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืœืš ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื›ื›ืœ ื—ืงืช ื”ืคืกื— ื™ืขืฉื• ืื•ืชื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื” ืขืœื™ื• ืœืขืฉื•ืชื• ื‘ื˜ื”ืจื” ืœื ื–ื›ื” ื™ืขืฉื ื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื”


And Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you that, with regard to the second Pesaแธฅ, the verse states: โ€œAccording to all the statute of the Paschal offering they shall keep itโ€ (Numbers 9:12), which indicates that it should even be brought in a state of ritual impurity, unlike the first Pesaแธฅ. As for the claim of the first tanna, that the whole reason for the second Pesaแธฅ is due to ritual impurity, Rabbi Yehuda could respond: The Torah sought an opportunity for one who was impure at the time of the first Pesaแธฅ to perform it in a state of ritual purity; if he did not merit to perform it in purity, he should nevertheless perform it even in a state of ritual impurity.


ื•ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ ื“ืืฉืจ ืœื• ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืžืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ืžื‘ื™ื


ยง Returning to Rabbi Elazarโ€™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: โ€œAnd Aaron shall sacrifice the bull of the sin-offering, which is for himselfโ€ (Leviticus 16:11), indicating that the High Priest brings the bull from his own property.


ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืฉืจ ืœื• ืžืฉืœื• ื”ื•ื ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืœื ืžืฉืœ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ื‘ื™ื ืžืฉืœ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžืชื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืื‘ืœ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืžืฉืœ ืื—ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืฉื”ืจื™ ืื—ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžืชื›ืคืจื™ื ื‘ื• ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืฉืจ ืœื•


As it was taught in a baraita: โ€œWhich is for himselfโ€ 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: โ€œWhich is for himself,โ€ i.e., it must belong to him and no one else.


ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ื‘ื™ื ื•ืื ื”ื‘ื™ื ื›ืฉืจ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ื‘ ืืฉืจ ืœื• ืฉื ื” ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ืœืขื›ื‘


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: โ€œAnd he shall slaughter the bull for the sin-offering, which is for himselfโ€ (Leviticus 16:11); the text repeats this phrase: โ€œWhich is for himself,โ€ 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.


ื•ืœื™ื˜ืขืžื™ืš ืื—ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืงื ื• ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžื›ืคืจ ืœื”ื• ืืœื ืฉืื ื™ ื‘ื™ ื’ื–ื ื“ืื”ืจืŸ ื“ืืคืงืจื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ื’ื‘ื™ ืื—ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื”ื›ื [ื’ื‘ื™ ืชืžื•ืจื”] ื ืžื™ ืฉืื ื™ ื‘ื™ ื’ื–ื ื“ืื”ืจืŸ ื“ืืคืงืจื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ื’ื‘ื™ ืื—ื™ื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื


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.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื™ื” ืžื”ืœืš ื‘ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืขื“ ืฉืžื’ื™ืข ืœื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ื”ืคืจื•ื›ืช ื”ืžื‘ื“ื™ืœื•ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ื‘ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ืืžื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื”ื™ืชื” ืฉื ืืœื ืคืจื•ื›ืช ืื—ืช ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ื‘ื“ื™ืœื” ื”ืคืจื•ื›ืช ืœื›ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื


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: โ€œAnd the curtain shall divide for you between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holiesโ€ (Exodus 26:33).


ื’ืžืณ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืงืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ืœืš ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ื”ื•ืื™ ืืžื” ื˜ืจืงืกื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ื”ื•ืื™ ื•ืื™ืกืชืคืงื ืœื”ื• ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืงื“ื•ืฉืชื™ื” ืื™ ื›ืœืคื ื™ื ืื™ ื›ืœื—ื•ืฅ ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ ืฉืชื™ ืคืจื•ื›ืช


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.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ืœืžื ื•ืจื” ื”ื™ื” ืžื”ืœืš ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื—ืŸ ืœืžื–ื‘ื— ื•ื™ืฉ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื—ืŸ ืœื›ื•ืชืœ ืžืืŸ ื™ืฉ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืคื™ืชื—ื ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ืงืื™


ยง 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 แธคisda 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.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืœืš ืคื™ืชื—ื ื‘ื“ืจื•ื ืงืื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื›ืžืืŸ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื ื™ืขื•ืœ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื ื™ืขื•ืœ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™


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.


ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืœืš ืฉื•ืœื—ื ื•ืช ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ื“ืจื•ื ืžื•ื ื—ื™ืŸ ื•ืžืคืกืงื ืœื™ื” ืฉืœื—ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžืชืขื™ื™ืœ ืœื™ื”


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.


ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืœืขื•ืœื ืžื–ืจื— ื•ืžืขืจื‘ ืžื•ื ื—ื™ืŸ ื•ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื›ื™ื ื” ืœืื• ืื•ืจื— ืืจืขื


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

Scroll To Top