Yoma 36a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in tractate Zevachim (47a): “The slaughtering of most sacred offerings is performed in the north. The slaughtering of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur is performed in the north,” as it is stated concerning the slaughtering of a burnt-offering (Leviticus 1:11): “And he shall slaughter it on the north side of the altar.”

And there, the Gemara learned that the other most sacred offerings, including the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, have the same status as a burnt-offering in this regard.

The Mishna below (41b, 43b) indicates that the confession was made at the place of slaughtering. Therefore, the confession mentioned in our Mishna was made “on the north side of the altar.”

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, one must say that his bull was standing between the Entrance Hall and the altar in the northern half of the courtyard. Although it was not actually located north of the altar, but rather between the Entrance Hall and the altar, nevertheless this area too is included in “the north side of the altar,” since it is near the altar.

We raised this question:

Who

is the tannaitic authority about whom

you have heard

that he

said, “Between the Entrance Hall and the altar

is called

‘the north’

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

And we answer:

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

As it is taught in a beraita: What is “the north”

in which most sacred offerings are slaughtered?

The first opinion:

From the wall of the altar

that is

northern

[from the northern wall of the external altar]

to the northern wall of the courtyard.

And it is

opposite the entire altar.

That is, the area north of the altar alone is

entirely

called

“the north.”

This is the meaning of the verse, “And he shall slaughter it on the north side of the altar”: “the side of the altar” means the side adjacent to the altar alone. These are

the words of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

The second opinion:

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, adds: Also the area 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 “the north side of the altar” [and most sacred offerings may be slaughtered there], since this area has a greater degree of sanctity, as it is close to the entire [sanctuary]. But the area east of the altar, toward the outside, is not considered “the side of the altar.” The third opinion:

Rabbi adds: Also

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

the place where the priests walk

[the Courtyard of the Priests].

And also

another eleven cubits, which is

the place where Israelites walk

[the Courtyard of Israel], extending to the eastern wall of the courtyard. Throughout this entire area, its northern half is still considered “the north side of the altar,” and most sacred offerings are slaughtered there.

But

the area alongside the Entrance Hall,

from the

chambers called

“the Chamber of Knives”

[which were located alongside the Entrance Hall along its entire width] and farther on—

everyone agrees,

even Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who said that the area 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 [because of the large area located] there, it is not called “the side of the altar.”

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

We raised this question:

Could it be said

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 a beraita that Rabbi adds that the Courtyard of the Priests and the Courtyard of Israel, which are east of the altar, are called “the north.” But Rabbi did not mention that the area west of the altar [between the Entrance Hall and the altar] is called “the north.”

If so, there is room for uncertainty about Rabbi’s opinion here. Perhaps Rabbi holds that the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar is not included in “the north side of the altar,” contrary to our Mishna.

And we challenge this question:

Even if you say

that it is according to

Rabbi,

it is obvious that Rabbi agrees that 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

[according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, offerings may be slaughtered only directly 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],

if so, is it possible

that, by comparison with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon

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

does not add

but instead takes away?!

It is impossible to say that the area farther from the Sanctuary is valid, while the 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:

this is what we intended to ask:

If

our Mishna is

according to Rabbi,

who permits the slaughtering of most sacred offerings even east of the altar, then this is difficult:

Let us place it

—the bull—

throughout the courtyard,

both in the east and in the west [of the northern half], so why did we learn that his bull stood specifically between the Entrance Hall and the altar?

If so, it would apparently be proven that our Mishna cannot be according to Rabbi [but only according to 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 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

—the bull—

between the altar and the wall,

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

Rather, what do you have to say—what must you explain?—that they brought the bull close to the Sanctuary

because

of

concern for

the weakness of the High Priest,

who had all the Yom Kippur services imposed upon him while fasting, and had to carry a heavy basin 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. To shorten his path, they brought the bull close to the Sanctuary.

If so,

according to Rabbi as well,

even according to Rabbi’s view that most sacred offerings may be slaughtered in the area east of the altar [in its northern part], one can say 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 basin over a long distance.

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

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

opposite the Sanctuary.

And we explain:

How can this be understood?

How could its head be toward the south while its face was toward the west?

Rav said: By bending its head.

And we challenge this: We learn from the Mishna that the bull’s face had to be directed toward the Sanctuary. If so, why did they need to bend its head?

Let us place it there directly!

Let us position it straight, with its face toward the west and its back toward the east!

Abaye said

in answer:

It is a decree

out of concern

lest it defecate,

so that its hindquarters would be visible opposite the altar. Therefore, they did not place the entire bull between the Entrance Hall and the altar. Rather, the rear part 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 place his hands

on a most sacred offering?

The sacrificial animal stands in the north

of the courtyard, as explained above: the slaughtering of most sacred offerings and the placing of hands upon them are performed in the north.

And its face

is directed

west,

with its back toward the east.

And the one who places his hands

[the owner, upon whom the obligation to place his hands rests]

stands

behind the sacrificial animal

in the east.

His back is toward the east

and his face toward the west.

And he places his hands between the two

рогами

horns

the horns

of

the sacrificial animal.

And this placing of hands is valid

only

only

on the condition

that nothing comes between him and the sacrificial animal, and he confesses.

And what did he confess?

For a sin-offering,

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

sin

for which he brought

this sin-offering

.

And for a guilt-offering,

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

sin

for which he brought

this guilt-offering

.

And for a burnt-offering,

he confessed over it

the sin

of neglecting the commandments concerning

gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field

[if he had sinned concerning them], since no confession for these sins is stated elsewhere in the Torah. And the burnt-offering comes to atone for them—

the words of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

Rabbi Akiva says: The burnt-offering does not

жертвоприношение

come

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

Therefore, the burnt-offering cannot come to atone for sins punishable by excision or by a court-imposed death penalty. Nor does it come to atone for a prohibition [such as those concerning gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field, as explained below], since one who violates a prohibition is punished by lashes.

Rather,

what does the burnt-offering come to atone for?

For

one who neglects a positive commandment,

and for

one who violates a

prohibition that is rectified through a positive commandment

[meaning that the verse removed 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. “that one”], 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? .