Yoma 51

בכור ומעשר דחלין על בעל מום קבוע ואין יוצאין לחולין ליגזז וליעבד אלא שם זבח לא קתני

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.

ומאי שנא תמורה שם תמורה אחת היא זבח איכא בכור ואיכא מעשר

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.

ולרב ששת אדמוקים לה באילו של אהרן לוקמה בפסח דדוחה את השבת ואת הטומאה ועושה תמורה דקרבן יחיד הוא קסבר אין שוחטין הפסח על היחיד

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.

ונוקמיה בפסח שני מי דחי טומאה

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.

אמר ליה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרבא ותנא מאי שנא פסח דקרי ליה קרבן יחיד ומאי שנא חגיגה דקרי לה קרבן ציבור אי משום דאתי בכנופיא פסח נמי אתי בכנופיא איכא פסח שני דלא אתי בכנופיא

§ 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.

אמר ליה אם כן יהא דוחה את השבת ואת הטומאה אמר ליה אין כמאן דאמר דחי דתניא פסח שני דוחה את השבת ואינו דוחה את הטומאה רבי יהודה אומר אף דוחה את הטומאה מאי טעמא דתנא קמא אמר לך מפני טומאה דחיתו ויעשה בטומאה

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?

ורבי יהודה אמר לך אמר קרא ככל חקת הפסח יעשו אותו ואפילו בטומאה התורה החזירה עליו לעשותו בטהרה לא זכה יעשנו בטומאה

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.

ותיפוק לי דאשר לו אמר רחמנא משלו הוא מביא

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

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

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

יכול לא יביא ואם הביא כשר תלמוד לומר שוב אשר לו שנה הכתוב עליו לעכב

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

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

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

מתני׳ היה מהלך בהיכל עד שמגיע לבין שתי הפרוכת המבדילות בין הקדש ובין קדש הקדשים וביניהן אמה רבי יוסי אומר לא היתה שם אלא פרוכת אחת בלבד שנאמר והבדילה הפרוכת לכם בין הקדש ובין קדש הקדשים

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ואיבעית אימא לעולם מזרח ומערב מונחין ומשום שכינה לאו אורח ארעא

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