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?
Yoma 51
Share this shiur:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Yoma 51
בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר, דְּחָלִין עַל בַּעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ, וְאֵין יוֹצְאִין לְחוּלִּין לִיגָּזֵז וְלֵיעָבֵד. אֶלָּא שֵׁם זֶבַח לָא קָתָנֵי.
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.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא? תְּמוּרָה — שֵׁם תְּמוּרָה אַחַת הִיא. זֶבַח — אִיכָּא בְּכוֹר וְאִיכָּא מַעֲשֵׂר.
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.
וּלְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, אַדְּמוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּאֵילוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, לוֹקְמַהּ בְּפֶסַח, דְּדוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְאֶת הַטּוּמְאָה וְעוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, דְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד הוּא? קָסָבַר: אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין הַפֶּסַח עַל הַיָּחִיד.
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.
וְנוֹקְמֵיהּ בְּפֶסַח שֵׁנִי! מִי דָּחֵי טוּמְאָה?
The Gemara asks: And let Rav Sheshet establish the baraita as referring to the second Pesaḥ, which is slaughtered by an individual. The Gemara answers: Does the second Pesaḥ override ritual impurity? Since this offering does not override ritual impurity, it cannot be the offering referred to in the baraita.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרָבָא: וְתַנָּא, מַאי שְׁנָא פֶּסַח דְּקָרֵי לֵיהּ קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, וּמַאי שְׁנָא חֲגִיגָה דְּקָרֵי לַהּ קׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר? אִי מִשּׁוּם דְּאָתֵי בְּכִנּוּפְיָא — פֶּסַח נָמֵי אָתֵי בְּכִנּוּפְיָא? אִיכָּא פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי דְּלָא אָתֵי בְּכִנּוּפְיָא.
§ 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 Ya’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 Pesaḥ, which is not brought by a multitude, and therefore the tanna does not call the Paschal offering a communal offering.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן יְהֵא דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְאֶת הַטּוּמְאָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר דָּחֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְאֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא — אָמַר לָךְ: מִפְּנֵי טוּמְאָה דְּחִיתוֹ וְיֵעָשֶׂה בְּטוּמְאָה?!
He said to him: If so, that the second Pesaḥ 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 Pesaḥ overrides ritual impurity. As it was taught in a baraita: The second Pesaḥ 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 Pesaḥ solely because ritual impurity overrode his obligation to sacrifice the first Pesaḥ, i.e., he did not sacrifice the first Pesaḥ because he was impure at that time. And should he now perform the second Pesaḥ in a state of ritual impurity?
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר לָךְ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״כְּכׇל חֻקַּת הַפֶּסַח יַעֲשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה. הַתּוֹרָה הֶחְזִירָה עָלָיו לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ בְּטׇהֳרָה, לֹא זָכָה — יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה.
And Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you that, with regard to the second Pesaḥ, the verse states: “According to all the statute of the Paschal offering they shall keep it” (Numbers 9:12), which indicates that it should even be brought in a state of ritual impurity, unlike the first Pesaḥ. As for the claim of the first tanna, that the whole reason for the second Pesaḥ 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 Pesaḥ 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.
וְתִיפּוֹק לִי דַּ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא — מִשֶּׁלּוֹ הוּא מֵבִיא.
§ 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.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״ — מִשֶּׁלּוֹ הוּא מֵבִיא, וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר. יָכוֹל לֹא יָבִיא מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר — שֶׁאֵין הַצִּיבּוּר מִתְכַּפְּרִין בּוֹ, אֲבָל יָבִיא מִשֶּׁל אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים — שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים מִתְכַּפְּרִים בּוֹ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״.
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.
יָכוֹל לֹא יָבִיא, וְאִם הֵבִיא כָּשֵׁר — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר שׁוּב: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״ — שָׁנָה הַכָּתוּב עָלָיו לְעַכֵּב.
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.
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים אִי לָאו דְּקָנוּ בְּגַוֵּיהּ הֵיכִי מְכַפַּר לְהוּ? אֶלָּא שָׁאנֵי בֵּי גַזָּא דְּאַהֲרֹן דְּאַפְקְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים. הָכָא [גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה] נָמֵי: שָׁאנֵי בֵּי גַזָּא דְּאַהֲרֹן דְּאַפְקְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּהֵיכָל עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְבֵין שְׁתֵּי הַפָּרוֹכֹת הַמַּבְדִּילוֹת בֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים, וּבֵינֵיהֶן אַמָּה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לֹא הָיְתָה שָׁם אֶלָּא פָּרוֹכֶת אַחַת בִּלְבַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִבְדִּילָה הַפָּרוֹכֶת לָכֶם בֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים״.
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).
גְּמָ׳ שַׁפִּיר קָאָמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרַבָּנַן! וְרַבָּנַן אָמְרִי לְךָ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּמִשְׁכָּן, אֲבָל בְּמִקְדָּשׁ שֵׁנִי כֵּיוָן דְּלָא הֲוַאי אַמָּה טְרַקְסִין, וּבְמִקְדָּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן הוּא דַּהֲוַאי, וְאִיסְתַּפַּקָא לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן בִּקְדוּשְּׁתֵיהּ, אִי כְּלִפְנִים אִי כְּלַחוּץ, וַעֲבוּד שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹכֹת.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בֵּין הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לַמְּנוֹרָה הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: בֵּין שֻׁלְחָן לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין שֻׁלְחָן לַכּוֹתֶל. מַאן יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: פִּיתְחָא בְּצָפוֹן קָאֵי.
§ 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.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר לָךְ: פִּיתְחָא בְּדָרוֹם קָאֵי. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר כְּמַאן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? אִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ — נֵיעוּל כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אִי כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ — נֵיעוּל כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי!
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.
לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וַאֲמַר לְךָ: שׁוּלְחָנוֹת צָפוֹן וְדָרוֹם מוּנָּחִין, וּמַפְסְקָא לֵיהּ שֻׁלְחָן וְלָא מִתְעַיֵּיל לֵיהּ.
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.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם מִזְרָח וּמַעֲרָב מוּנָּחִין, וּמִשּׁוּם שְׁכִינָה לָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא
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
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
Raanana, Israel
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
Los Angeles, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
Yoma 51
בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר, דְּחָלִין עַל בַּעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ, וְאֵין יוֹצְאִין לְחוּלִּין לִיגָּזֵז וְלֵיעָבֵד. אֶלָּא שֵׁם זֶבַח לָא קָתָנֵי.
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.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא? תְּמוּרָה — שֵׁם תְּמוּרָה אַחַת הִיא. זֶבַח — אִיכָּא בְּכוֹר וְאִיכָּא מַעֲשֵׂר.
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.
וּלְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, אַדְּמוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּאֵילוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, לוֹקְמַהּ בְּפֶסַח, דְּדוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְאֶת הַטּוּמְאָה וְעוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, דְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד הוּא? קָסָבַר: אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין הַפֶּסַח עַל הַיָּחִיד.
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.
וְנוֹקְמֵיהּ בְּפֶסַח שֵׁנִי! מִי דָּחֵי טוּמְאָה?
The Gemara asks: And let Rav Sheshet establish the baraita as referring to the second Pesaḥ, which is slaughtered by an individual. The Gemara answers: Does the second Pesaḥ override ritual impurity? Since this offering does not override ritual impurity, it cannot be the offering referred to in the baraita.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרָבָא: וְתַנָּא, מַאי שְׁנָא פֶּסַח דְּקָרֵי לֵיהּ קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, וּמַאי שְׁנָא חֲגִיגָה דְּקָרֵי לַהּ קׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר? אִי מִשּׁוּם דְּאָתֵי בְּכִנּוּפְיָא — פֶּסַח נָמֵי אָתֵי בְּכִנּוּפְיָא? אִיכָּא פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי דְּלָא אָתֵי בְּכִנּוּפְיָא.
§ 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 Ya’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 Pesaḥ, which is not brought by a multitude, and therefore the tanna does not call the Paschal offering a communal offering.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן יְהֵא דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְאֶת הַטּוּמְאָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר דָּחֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְאֵינוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא — אָמַר לָךְ: מִפְּנֵי טוּמְאָה דְּחִיתוֹ וְיֵעָשֶׂה בְּטוּמְאָה?!
He said to him: If so, that the second Pesaḥ 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 Pesaḥ overrides ritual impurity. As it was taught in a baraita: The second Pesaḥ 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 Pesaḥ solely because ritual impurity overrode his obligation to sacrifice the first Pesaḥ, i.e., he did not sacrifice the first Pesaḥ because he was impure at that time. And should he now perform the second Pesaḥ in a state of ritual impurity?
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר לָךְ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״כְּכׇל חֻקַּת הַפֶּסַח יַעֲשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה. הַתּוֹרָה הֶחְזִירָה עָלָיו לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ בְּטׇהֳרָה, לֹא זָכָה — יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה.
And Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you that, with regard to the second Pesaḥ, the verse states: “According to all the statute of the Paschal offering they shall keep it” (Numbers 9:12), which indicates that it should even be brought in a state of ritual impurity, unlike the first Pesaḥ. As for the claim of the first tanna, that the whole reason for the second Pesaḥ 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 Pesaḥ 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.
וְתִיפּוֹק לִי דַּ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא — מִשֶּׁלּוֹ הוּא מֵבִיא.
§ 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.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״ — מִשֶּׁלּוֹ הוּא מֵבִיא, וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר. יָכוֹל לֹא יָבִיא מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר — שֶׁאֵין הַצִּיבּוּר מִתְכַּפְּרִין בּוֹ, אֲבָל יָבִיא מִשֶּׁל אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים — שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים מִתְכַּפְּרִים בּוֹ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״.
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.
יָכוֹל לֹא יָבִיא, וְאִם הֵבִיא כָּשֵׁר — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר שׁוּב: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״ — שָׁנָה הַכָּתוּב עָלָיו לְעַכֵּב.
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.
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים אִי לָאו דְּקָנוּ בְּגַוֵּיהּ הֵיכִי מְכַפַּר לְהוּ? אֶלָּא שָׁאנֵי בֵּי גַזָּא דְּאַהֲרֹן דְּאַפְקְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים. הָכָא [גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה] נָמֵי: שָׁאנֵי בֵּי גַזָּא דְּאַהֲרֹן דְּאַפְקְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּהֵיכָל עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְבֵין שְׁתֵּי הַפָּרוֹכֹת הַמַּבְדִּילוֹת בֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים, וּבֵינֵיהֶן אַמָּה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לֹא הָיְתָה שָׁם אֶלָּא פָּרוֹכֶת אַחַת בִּלְבַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִבְדִּילָה הַפָּרוֹכֶת לָכֶם בֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים״.
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).
גְּמָ׳ שַׁפִּיר קָאָמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרַבָּנַן! וְרַבָּנַן אָמְרִי לְךָ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּמִשְׁכָּן, אֲבָל בְּמִקְדָּשׁ שֵׁנִי כֵּיוָן דְּלָא הֲוַאי אַמָּה טְרַקְסִין, וּבְמִקְדָּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן הוּא דַּהֲוַאי, וְאִיסְתַּפַּקָא לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן בִּקְדוּשְּׁתֵיהּ, אִי כְּלִפְנִים אִי כְּלַחוּץ, וַעֲבוּד שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹכֹת.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בֵּין הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לַמְּנוֹרָה הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: בֵּין שֻׁלְחָן לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין שֻׁלְחָן לַכּוֹתֶל. מַאן יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: פִּיתְחָא בְּצָפוֹן קָאֵי.
§ 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.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר לָךְ: פִּיתְחָא בְּדָרוֹם קָאֵי. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר כְּמַאן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? אִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ — נֵיעוּל כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אִי כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ — נֵיעוּל כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי!
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.
לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וַאֲמַר לְךָ: שׁוּלְחָנוֹת צָפוֹן וְדָרוֹם מוּנָּחִין, וּמַפְסְקָא לֵיהּ שֻׁלְחָן וְלָא מִתְעַיֵּיל לֵיהּ.
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.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם מִזְרָח וּמַעֲרָב מוּנָּחִין, וּמִשּׁוּם שְׁכִינָה לָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא
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
