Yoma 51b (נא:) — the Talmud in English

Here the Gemara returns to Rabbi Elazar’s problem: according to the one who says that the bull of Yom Kippur is an individual offering, does it make temura or does it not make temura? The Gemara explained above that the basis of the uncertainty is whether the other priests attain atonement through it as fixed owners, or whether they attain atonement only incidentally.

It is written in the passage concerning the offerings after the death of Aaron’s sons: “With this shall Aaron enter the Sanctuary: with a bull, the son of cattle, as a sin-offering, and a ram as a burnt-offering, etc.” And it is written: “And Aaron shall bring the bull of the sin-offering which is his, and make atonement for himself and for his household, etc.” And it is written again: “And Aaron shall bring the bull of the sin-offering which is his, and make atonement for himself and for his household, and slaughter the bull of the sin-offering which is his.”

And we raise an objection:

And let him derive it from the fact that the Merciful One stated, “which is his”!

For we have learned that

he brings it from his own funds

of the High Priest,

he brings

the bull; and this phrase comes to exclude that it may not come even from the funds of his fellow priests—

as

it was taught:

It is written

“which is his”.

This teaches you:

He brings it from his own funds and not from communal funds. One might have thought that he may not bring it from communal funds

since

the community does not attain atonement through it, but he may bring it from the funds of his fellow priests, for his fellow priests do attain atonement through it—

The verse therefore states

a second time,

“which is his.”

One might have thought that he may not bring it

from communal funds or from the funds of his fellow priests,

but if he brought it, it is valid.

The verse therefore states again

a third time:

“which is his.” —

The verse repeated this phrase concerning it to make it indispensable [see note ].

.

And we reject this:

But according to your reasoning: His fellow priests—if not

for the fact that they acquired a share in it,

[if they did not have ownership in it],

how could it atone for them

even incidentally

[Bah]?!

Rather,

you are compelled to say:

The treasury of Aaron is different,

[Aaron’s domain],

for the Merciful One rendered it ownerless

[the Torah rendered ownerless] the bull that comes from his own funds

with regard to his fellow priests,

with regard to this atonement [Rashi].

Here

too, with regard to temura,

the treasury of Aaron is different, for the Merciful One rendered it ownerless with regard to his fellow priests,

and one may say that they attain atonement

through it

as fixed owners

[Bah].

Mishna:

A. In the Tabernacle, a curtain was spread from the southern wall to the northern wall, in order to separate between the Sanctuary on the east and the Holy of Holies on the west. They entered the Holy of Holies near the northern wall, where the curtain was open.

B. In the First Temple there was no curtain. Rather, a stone partition separated the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. It was thirty cubits high—extending up to the upper chamber above the place between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies—and its width was one cubit. It was called the “cubit of Traksin.”

C. The entrance to the Holy of Holies in the First Temple was in the middle of the “cubit of Traksin,” and a curtain was spread across the entrance merely for modesty, and not as a partition [according to Rashi, Menahot 98a, s.v. “with a curtain”].

D. That cubit was not included in the measurements stated in Scripture for the dimensions of the Sanctuary [forty cubits], nor in the dimensions of the Holy of Holies [twenty cubits]. This is the conclusion of the Gemara below, 52a; [Maimonides has another approach, about which later authorities were uncertain].

E. In the Second Temple, the height of that place up to the upper chamber above it was forty cubits [Tosafot Yom Tov; see note ]. Consequently, it was impossible to erect there a wall only one cubit wide. Nor was it possible to widen it and thereby reduce the space of the Sanctuary or of the Holy of Holies, for their dimensions had all been according to divine instruction, as it is written: “All this, in writing from the hand of the Lord, He made me understand,” [Tosafot Yeshanim; see note 100].

Nor could they erect a wall one cubit wide up to the greatest possible height and place a curtain above it, because the Sages had received the tradition that it must be either entirely a curtain, as it was in the Tabernacle, or entirely a structure, as it was in the First Temple [Gemara, Bava Batra 3b]—

Therefore, they separated it with a curtain rather than with a stone structure, as had been done in the Tabernacle. According to the Sages in our Mishna, they made two curtains on the two sides of the area of the “cubit of Traksin,” with a cubit of empty space between them. [Some say that this means in addition to the thickness of the curtains; others say that the cubit includes their thickness—between them.] F. Even in the Second Temple, the dimensions of the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies did not include that cubit [and even Maimonides agrees that this was so in the Second Temple], as is explained in the Mishna of Middot cited by the Gemara, 52a; and the two curtains as well are called the “cubit of Traksin,” as explained in that Mishna.

After the priest had taken a handful of the incense in the Temple courtyard and taken the spoon and the coal-pan, as explained in the preceding Mishna—

He was

leaving the fourth row of paving stones in the courtyard, where the coal-pan was located, as explained in the previous chapter [Meiri], and entering;

and he would walk through the Sanctuary—

until he reached the area between the two curtains

[Melekhet Shlomo],

which separated

in the Second Temple —

between the Sanctuary

[the Sanctuary building]

and the Holy of Holies, and between them

there was a space

of one cubit

[He would enter through the southern opening of the outer curtain and walk between the curtains until the northern opening of the inner curtain, where he would enter the Holy of Holies—as explained in the following Mishna].

Rabbi Yosei says: There was not there

—in the Second Temple—

anything but one curtain, since it is stated

for it is

said

in the Tabernacle:

“And the curtain shall separate” —

one curtain and not two—

“for you between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.”

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: There was there only one curtain, as it is stated: “And the curtain shall separate for you between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies”:

And we raise an objection: But

Rabbi Yosei has argued well to the Sages,

to prove from the verse that only one curtain should be made; and this presents a difficulty to the Sages, who hold that there were two curtains?!

And the Sages could say to you: This applies

—that one curtain was sufficient—

in the Tabernacle,

since it was clear to them where the Sanctuary ended and the Holy of Holies began; and they placed the curtain at that location.

But in the

Second

Temple,

the

Second

[see note ]:

since there was not

—between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies—

a cubit of Traksin

[a wall one cubit wide in place of a curtain], since it was too high to support a wall that was only one cubit wide,

and in the First Temple

alone

there was

a structure one cubit wide—

Thus, in the Second Temple, compared with the First Temple, there was an empty space one cubit wide,

and the Sages were uncertain

at that time

regarding its sanctity,

of that empty space,

whether

its sanctity was

like the inside,

meaning like that of the Holy of Holies,

or like the outside

—like the sanctity of the Sanctuary. Since this was so, they did not know where to place the curtain, for they could not place it anywhere other than along the line separating the two sanctities, lest they treat the Sanctuary with the sanctity of the inside, or the Holy of Holies with the sanctity of the outside [Tosafot Yeshanim, Tosafot of Rabbi Asher, and Ritva].

And

therefore

they made two curtains,

one inside the other, with a cubit between them, in order to know and make known: Up to the first curtain, the sanctity of the Sanctuary is certain; from the second curtain onward, it is certainly the Holy of Holies. [See note .]

Rabbi Yosei’s view is that they were not uncertain about the sanctity of that place. They placed the curtain where the sanctity of the Sanctuary ended and the Holy of Holies began [Ritva, Tosafot Yeshanim, and Tosafot in one of their explanations ].

The Sages taught:

A. The Table stood in the north of the Sanctuary, to the right of the entrance, which was in the east. It was set two and a half cubits from the northern wall. The Menora stood in the south of the Sanctuary, set two and a half cubits from the southern wall. The golden altar stood centered, with its northern wall aligned with the line dividing the Sanctuary between north and south [Maharsha], and was set slightly toward the entrance of the Sanctuary in the east [the beraita above, 33b].

B. In the Temple there were ten additional tables besides Moses’ Table. Each table was two cubits long and one cubit wide, like Moses’ Table.

And this is how they were arranged [according to one tanna in Menahot 98, and according to the initial understanding of the Gemara]:

Moses’ Table stood at the head, toward the west, and two rows of tables—placed lengthwise—stood before it: five tables stood lengthwise through the Sanctuary from west to east, to the right of Moses’ Table, and five tables to its left [They stood lower than it, because the floor of the Sanctuary was sloped, like students sitting before their teacher, 99a].

And they all stood in the northern half of the Sanctuary, for this is what the Torah said: “And you shall place the table on the northern side.”

How so? The northern row—which was ten cubits long and one cubit wide—was set two and a half cubits away from the wall, and between it and the southern row there were an additional two and a half cubits. Thus, all the tables were in the northern half, which was ten cubits wide.

When the High Priest came from the courtyard through the Sanctuary in order to enter the Holy of Holies—

in the southern part of the Sanctuary,

between the altar and the menorah

that was south of it—

he would walk; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Meir says:

He would walk in the northern part of the Sanctuary

between

the

table

in the north

and the altar

that was south of it.

And some say:

He would walk at the northernmost end of the Sanctuary—

between

the

table

in the north of the Sanctuary

and the wall

on the north.

And we explain:

Who is the author of the statement “some say”,

who maintain that he would walk on the northern side?

Rav Ḥisda said: It is Rabbi Yosei, who said

in our Mishna that there was only one curtain there, and the

entrance

of the curtain, through which one entered the Holy of Holies,

was situated in the north,

for they entered the Holy of Holies from the north. Therefore, he would walk on the northern side in order to enter the Holy of Holies through the entrance.

And Rabbi Yehuda—

who maintains that he would walk in the southern part of the Sanctuary—

would say to you:

There were two curtains, and the

entrance—

through which he had to enter, that of the outer curtain—

was situated in the south. Therefore, he would walk on the southern side toward the entrance of the outer curtain, and he would walk between the two curtains until the northern entrance of the inner curtain; from there he entered the Holy of Holies.

And we raise a difficulty:

What is Rabbi Meir’s position

regarding the number of curtains that there were?

If he holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

and there were two curtains, then

let him enter [that is, let him walk through the Sanctuary in order to enter through the entrance of the outer curtain]

like Rabbi Yehuda,

that is, on the southern side?!

And

if he holds in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

and there was only one curtain,

let him enter like Rabbi Yosei,

at the northernmost end of the Sanctuary, between the wall and the table; and why would he walk on the southern side of the table?! And we answer:

Actually,

Rabbi Meir

holds in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

and there was one curtain, whose entrance was in the north. Indeed, he should walk along the northern side of the Sanctuary as much as possible—

But

Rabbi Meir would say to you:

Those two rows of five

tables

that were in the Temple—each row was ten cubits long—

were laid from north to south,

that is, the length of the table and the length of the row were positioned across the width of the Sanctuary, from north to south.

And since the Torah said, “And you shall place the table on the northern side,” it was impossible to set the tables any distance at all from the northern wall, for the length of each row was ten cubits, equal to the width of the northern half of the Sanctuary, which was also ten cubits. Therefore, they placed them flush against the northern wall, and they placed Moses’ table between the rows [Menahot 99a].

And

since they were flush against the wall,

the table would block the High Priest

if he were to walk at the northernmost end of the Sanctuary,

and he could not enter [that is, he could not enter]. He was therefore compelled to walk alongside the northern side of the altar, which bordered the midpoint of the length of the Sanctuary. After he passed the altar—which extended from the tables toward the entrance to the Sanctuary—and reached the tables, he turned slightly to the left, toward the south, and walked at the beginning of the southern half of the Sanctuary.

And if you wish, say instead: The tables were always laid from east to west,

and

positioned

so that the northern row was two and a half cubits from the wall, and he could walk between it and the wall—