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 week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
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.
Jerusalem, Israel
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
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
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
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
Phoenix, AZ, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Minnesota, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, 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
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
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
