Yoma 51b — 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? And the Gemara explained above that the basis of the uncertainty is whether the other priests attain atonement through it as established participants, or attain atonement through it incidentally.

It is written in the passage of After: “With this Aaron shall enter the Sanctuary, with a bull of the herd as a sin-offering and a ram as a burnt-offering, etc.” And: “Aaron shall bring the bull of the sin-offering ‘which is his,’ and he shall effect atonement for himself and for his household, etc.” And: “Aaron shall bring the bull of the sin-offering ‘which is his,’ and he shall effect atonement for himself and for his household, and he shall 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 said, “which is his”,

for we have learned that

from his own

—of the High Priest—

he brings it,

and this comes to exclude that it may also come from the property of his fellow priests—

as

it was taught:

It is written,

“which is his”

to teach you:

from his own he brings it and not from the communal property; one might have thought that he may not bring it from the communal property

since

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

the verse says

a second time,

“which is his”—

one might have thought that he may not bring it

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

but if he brought it, it is valid.

The verse says again

a third time:

“which is his” —

the verse repeated it concerning disqualification [see note ].

.

And we reject this:

And according to your reasoning: his fellow priests, if not

because they acquired a share in it [if they had no ownership in it],

how does it effect atonement for them

even incidentally [Bach]?!

even indirectly [the wording of the Bach]?!

[the Bach].

Rather,

by force of necessity,

the property 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 property

with regard to his fellow priests,

with regard to this atonement [Rashi].

Here

with regard to temura,

also, the property 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 established participants,

Bach].

Mishna:

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

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

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

D. The place of that cubit was not included in the measurements stated in the Writings for the measurements of the Sanctuary [forty cubits], nor in the measurements of the Holy of Holies [twenty cubits]. This is the conclusion of the Gemara below, 52a; [and Maimonides has another method, about which the 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, and see note ], and therefore it was not possible to erect there a wall whose width was only one cubit; while it was impossible to widen it and thereby reduce the space of the Sanctuary or of the Holy of Holies, for the measurements of these were all according to divine instruction, as it is written: “All this, in writing from the hand of the Lord, He gave me to understand,” [Tosafot Yeshanim, and see note 100].

And they could not even erect a wall one cubit wide up to the possible height, and above it place a curtain, for this is what the Sages received: either all of it with a curtain, as it was in the Tabernacle, or all of it constructed, as it was in the First Temple [Gemara, Bava Batra 3b]—

and therefore they separated it with a curtain and not with a stone construction, as was done in the Tabernacle; and according to the Sages in our Mishna, they made, on the two sides of the place of the “cubit of Tarksin,” two curtains, with a cubit of empty space between them. [Some say: apart from the thickness of the curtains; and some say: including their thickness—between them]. F. Even in the Second Temple, the measurements of the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies did not include that cubit [and even Maimonides agrees, for such was the case in the Second Temple], as is explained in the Mishna in Middot that the Gemara cited, 52a; and the two curtains too are called “the cubit of Tarksin,” as is explained in that Mishna.

After the priest had scooped up the incense in the courtyard and taken the spoon and the coal-pan, as explained in the preceding Mishna—

he was

leaving the fourth row in the courtyard, where the coal-pan was, as explained in the preceding chapter [Meiri], and he entered and

walked in the Sanctuary

until he reached between the two curtains [Melekhet Shlomo]

[Melekhet Shlomo]

that separated—

in the Second Temple—

between the Sanctuary

[the Sanctuary]

and between the Holy of Holies, and between them

there was a width of

one cubit

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

Rabbi Yose says: There was not there—

in the Second Temple—

but only one curtain, for

behold, it is

stated

in the Tabernacle:

“And the curtain shall separate” —

one and not two—

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

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yose says: There was not there but only one curtain, as it is stated: “And the curtain shall separate for you between the Sanctuary and between the Holy of Holies”:

And we raise an objection: But

Rabbi Yose has properly said to the Rabbis,

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

And the Rabbis can say to you: This applies

—that one curtain was sufficient for them—

in the Tabernacle,

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

But in the

Second

Temple,

the

Second

[see note ]:

since there was not—

between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies—

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

[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, in relation to the First Temple, there was an empty space of one cubit added,

and the Rabbis were uncertain

at that time

concerning its sanctity

of that empty space,

whether

its sanctity was

like the inside,

that is, like the Holy of Holies,

or like the outside

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

And

therefore

they made two curtains,

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

And Rabbi Yose’s view is that they were not uncertain concerning the sanctity of that place, and 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 answers ].

The Sages taught:

A. The Table stood in the north of the Sanctuary, to the right of the entrance, which was in the east, set two and a half cubits away from the northern wall; and the Menorah stood in the south of the Sanctuary, set two and a half cubits away from the southern wall; and the golden altar was centered and stood in the middle [its northern wall bordering the line that divided the Sanctuary between north and south, Maharsha], and was set slightly from between them 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; the length of each Table was two cubits and its width one cubit, like Moses’ Table.

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

Moses’ Table was at the head, toward the west, and two rows of Tables—placed lengthwise—were before it; five Tables stood along the length of the Sanctuary from west to east, to the right of Moses’ Table, and five Tables to his left [and they stood lower than it, because the floor of the Sanctuary was sloped, like students sitting before their teacher, there, 99a].

And all of them were standing in the northern half of the Sanctuary; for thus the Torah said: “And the table you shall place on the northern side.”

How so? The northern row—its length was ten cubits and its width one cubit—was set back from the wall two and a half cubits, and between it and the southern row there were an additional two and a half cubits. Thus all the tables were found 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 south of the Sanctuary,

between the Altar and the Menorah

which was south of it—

he would walk; these are the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Meir says:

he would walk in the north of the Sanctuary

between

the

table

that was in the north

and the Altar

which was south of it.

And some say:

He would walk at the northern end of the Sanctuary—

between

the

table

that was in the north of the Sanctuary

and the wall

the northern one.

And we explain it:

Who are the “some say”

who hold that he would walk on the northern side?

Rav Hisda 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 enters the House of the Holy of Holies,

stands in the north;

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

And Rabbi Judah

who holds that he would walk in the south of the Sanctuary—

would say to you:

There were two curtains, and the

entrance

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

stands in the south. Therefore, he would walk in the south 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 would enter the Holy of Holies.

[unclear: source segment order places this sentence after the preceding sentence; translated there]

And we raise an objection concerning it:

And according to whom does Rabbi Meir hold

regarding the number of curtains that there were?

If he holds like Rabbi Judah

and there were two curtains, then

let him enter

[he should enter]—that is, he should walk through the Sanctuary in order to enter through the entrance of the outer curtain—

like Rabbi Judah,

that is, on the southern side?!

And

if he holds like Rabbi Yosei

and there was only one curtain,

let him enter like Rabbi Yosei

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

Actually,

Rabbi Meir

holds like Rabbi Yosei

and there was one curtain, open from the north. Indeed, he should walk on the northern side of the Sanctuary as much as he could—

Rather,

Rabbi Meir would say to you:

Those two rows of five each

tables

that were in the Temple—the length of each row was ten cubits—

were placed north and south,

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

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

And

since they were attached to the wall,

the table would interrupt him

the High Priest, if he were to walk at the northern end of the Sanctuary,

and he could not enter through it

[he could not enter]; and against his will he would walk alongside the northern side of the Altar, which bordered the line of the midpoint of the length of the Sanctuary. After he passed the Altar—which was set back from the tables toward the entrance of the Sanctuary—and reached the tables, he would turn slightly to the left, toward the south, and walk at the beginning of the southern half of the Sanctuary.

And if you wish, say:

Actually, east and west

were placed

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