יומא נא

יומא נא

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