Yoma 36a (לו.) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in tractate Zevaḥim [47a]: “The most sacred offerings—their slaughtering is in the north. The bull and goat of Yom Kippur—their slaughtering is in the north,” as it is stated [Leviticus 1:11] concerning the slaughtering of an olah offering: “And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar, northward.”

And there, the Gemara derived that the other most sacred offerings, including the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, have the same status as an olah with regard to this matter.

The Mishna below [41b, 43b] indicates that the confession was made at the place of slaughtering. It must therefore be said that the confession mentioned in our Mishna was made “on the side of the altar, northward.”

And we learned in the Mishna: “He came to his bull, and his bull was standing between the Entrance Hall and the altar ... and he confessed.” In light of what was stated, it must be said that his bull was standing between the Entrance Hall and the altar in the northern half of the Temple courtyard. Although it was not actually located north of the altar [but rather between the Entrance Hall and the altar], nevertheless this too is included in “the side of the altar, northward,” since it was adjacent to the altar.

And we raised an objection:

Who—

who is the tanna who

have you heard—

have you heard of him

who says, “Between the Entrance Hall and the altar”—

is called

“north”

with regard to the slaughtering of the most sacred offerings [“the side of the altar, northward”]?

And we answer:

It is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

As it was taught: What is “north”

in which the most sacred offerings are slaughtered?

First opinion:

From the northern wall

of

the altar

[from the northern wall of the external altar]

to the northern wall of the courtyard

.

And opposite the entire altar.

That is, the area north of the altar alone—

all of it

is called

“north.”

For this is the meaning of the verse: “And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar, northward.” “The side of the altar” means only the side of the altar. These are

the words of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

Second opinion:

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, adds: Also between the Entrance Hall and the altar.

That is, the area from the altar westward toward the Entrance Hall: its northern half is still considered within “the side of the altar, northward” [and the most sacred offerings may be slaughtered there], since this area possesses a greater degree of sanctity, as it is near the entire Sanctuary. But the area east of the altar, toward the outside, is not within “the side of the altar.” Third opinion:

Rabbi adds: Also

the area east of the altar, eleven cubits, which is

the place where the Priests’ feet tread

[the Priests’ Courtyard].

And also

another eleven cubits, which is

the place where the Israelites’ feet tread

[the Israelites’ Courtyard], extending to the eastern wall of the courtyard. In all this area, its northern half is still considered “the side of the altar, northward,” and the most sacred offerings may be slaughtered there.

But

the area alongside the Entrance Hall,

from the

chambers called

“the House of the Knives”

[which were alongside the Entrance Hall across its entire width] and beyond—

everyone agrees,

even Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon who said that west of the altar is still called “the side of the altar”—he too agrees

that it is invalid.

Since the altar cannot be seen there [because of the large area located there], it is not called “the side of the altar.”

We have learned from the words of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, that the northern half of the courtyard between the Entrance Hall and the altar is called “the side of the altar, northward.” The most sacred offerings are slaughtered there, and even the confession over the High Priest’s bull was made there, as explained in our Mishna.

And we raised an objection:

Shall we say

that our Mishna is specifically according to

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

and

not

according to

Rabbi?

This question is based on the Gemara’s present assumption:

We learned in the beraita that Rabbi adds the Priests’ Courtyard and the Israelites’ Courtyard, which are east of the altar, to the area called “north.” But Rabbi did not mention that the area west of the altar [between the Entrance Hall and the altar] is also called “north.”

If so, there is room for uncertainty as to Rabbi’s opinion in this matter, and it is possible that Rabbi holds that the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar is not within “the side of the altar, northward,” contrary to our Mishna.

And we challenge the question:

Even if you say

that it is according to

Rabbi,

it is obvious that Rabbi agrees that the most sacred offerings are slaughtered between the Entrance Hall and the altar.

For

now,

having learned from the words of

Rabbi

that

he adds to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda

[for Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, offerings may be slaughtered only immediately north of the altar, whereas Rabbi adds that they may be slaughtered even east of the altar, which is farther from the Sanctuary and its sanctity],

is it possible

that, in relation to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon

[who holds that offerings may be slaughtered west of the altar], he

does not add

but instead reduces?!

It is impossible to say that an area farther from the Sanctuary is valid, whereas an area closer to the Sanctuary is invalid!

And we explain the question differently:

We

[that is, we]

are saying this,

this is what we intended to ask:

If

our Mishna

is according to Rabbi,

who permits the slaughtering of the most sacred offerings east of the altar as well, the following difficulty arises:

Let us place it

—let us place the bull—

throughout the courtyard,

both in the east and in the west [of its northern half]. Why, then, does the Mishna state that his bull was standing specifically between the Entrance Hall and the altar?

If so, it would seemingly be proven that our Mishna cannot accord with Rabbi [but only with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon].

And we reject the question:

Rather,

according to your approach, questioner,

what

do you hold? That our Mishna is according to

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon

[who said that the most sacred offerings may not be slaughtered east of the altar], and therefore it was impossible to place the bull east of the altar.

But according to your approach, although it is impossible to place the bull east of the altar, there is still a difficulty:

Let us place it

—let us place the bull—

between the altar and the wall

of the northern courtyard, directly opposite the altar, which is the primary place for slaughtering the most sacred offerings [as this is truly the side of the altar; Meiri]. Everyone agrees that the most sacred offerings are slaughtered there. Why, then, was it placed specifically between the Entrance Hall and the altar?

Rather, what can you say

—what must you answer and say? That they brought the bull near the Sanctuary

because

they were concerned about

the weakness of the High Priest,

since all the Yom Kippur service was imposed upon him while he was fasting, and he had to carry a heavy bowl filled with blood [in which he received the bull’s blood immediately after the slaughtering] and bring it into the Sanctuary in order to sprinkle from it inside. In order to shorten his route, they brought the bull close to the Sanctuary.

If so,

according to Rabbi as well,

even according to Rabbi’s view that the most sacred offerings are slaughtered in the area east of the altar [in its northern portion], it can be said that nevertheless they did not place the High Priest’s bull there

because of the weakness of the High Priest,

so that he would not have to carry the heavy bowl a long distance.

We learned in the Mishna: “And his bull was standing between the Entrance Hall and the altar,”

with its head to the south and its face to the west,

opposite the Sanctuary.

And we explain:

How can this be?

How is it possible for its head to be to the south while its face is to the west?

Rav said: By turning its head.

And we challenge: We learned from the Mishna that the bull’s face must be directed toward the Sanctuary. If so, why was it necessary to turn its head?

Let us place it there directly!

Let us position it facing straight ahead, with its face to the west and its rear to the east!

Abaye said

in answer:

It is a decree

due to concern

lest it deposit excrement,

and its hindquarters would appear opposite the altar. Therefore, they did not place the entire bull between the Entrance Hall and the altar. Rather, the rear portion of its body was north of the altar, while its head was actually between the Entrance Hall and the altar. This is possible only if the bull stands from north to south. [

But if they were to position the bull from east to west, if we placed the bull’s head between the Entrance Hall and the altar, facing the Sanctuary, then its body would necessarily also be there, opposite the altar.]

The Sages taught:

How does one perform semikha

on a most sacred offering?

The sacrificial animal stands in the north

of the courtyard, as explained above, that the slaughtering and semikha of the most sacred offerings are performed in the north.

And its face

is directed

westward,

with its rear to the east.

And the one performing semikha

[the owner, who is obligated to perform semikha]

stands

behind the sacrificial animal

in the east.

With his back to the east

and his face to the west.

And he places his hands between the two

the

horns

the horns

of

the sacrificial animal.

And this semikha is valid

only

provided

that

nothing separates between him and the sacrificial animal, and he confesses.

And what did he confess over?

For a sin offering,

if the offering was a sin offering, he confessed over it the

iniquity

for which he brought

this sin offering

.

And for a guilt offering,

if the offering was a guilt offering, he confessed over it the

iniquity

for which he brought

this guilt offering

.

And for an olah,

he confessed over it

the iniquity

of neglecting the mitzvot of

gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field [

if he sinned in these matters], since the Torah does not mention confession elsewhere for these sins. And the olah comes to atone for them—

the words of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

Rabbi Akiva says: The olah does not

the

come

to atone for sins for which a punishment is prescribed, since the punishment itself atones for them.

Therefore, it necessarily follows that the olah does not come to atone for sins for which one is liable to karet or to judicial execution. Nor does it come to atone for a negative commandment [such as gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field, as will be explained below], since one who violates a negative commandment is punished with lashes.

Rather,

what does the olah come to atone for?

For

one who neglects a

positive commandment, and for

one who violates a

negative commandment whose remedy is a positive commandment

[that is, the verse detached the prohibition from the punishment of lashes and established its rectification through fulfillment of a positive commandment, so one is not flogged for violating it. Based on Rashi, Makkot 15a, s.v. hahu lenatukei], since no punishment is stated in the Torah for these commandments.

And we inquire concerning it:

In what do they differ

in what did Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva disagree? .