Yoma 52a — the Talmud in English

Rather, he holds that Rabbi Meir says:

because of the Divine Presence, it is not proper conduct

[this is not proper conduct in the presence of the Divine Presence]

to enter directly

[to enter directly].

That is: it is not proper that the High Priest should walk through the Sanctuary along the entire length of the way on its northern side, opposite the entrance to the Holy of Holies, with his eyes receiving sustenance from the House of the Holy of Holies through the entrance [Rashi], for this is casting off the yoke of awe [Meiri].

And therefore he would walk between the Tables and the Altar.

And

we explain the view of

Rabbi Yosei

that he is not concerned about this, and holds that he would walk between the wall and the Table, for

he can say to you: Israel are beloved, for Scripture did not require them to have an agent

but each and every one prays for himself, as it is stated: “who knows every man the plague of his own heart, and spreads forth his hands toward this House.” Therefore his agent is beloved, to enter publicly [Rashi]. And now we ask against Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there were two curtains, and that he had to enter from the south, and therefore he would enter between the Altar and the Menorah—

And

for

Rabbi Yehuda as well

a question can be raised, similar to what we raised above against Rabbi Meir: Why would he enter from the south, between the Altar and the Menorah?

Let him enter

[enter]

between the Menorah and the southern wall

?!

And we answer: If he had entered close to the wall,

his garments would have been blackened

—his garments would have been blackened by the smoke of the Menorah, which blackened the wall. Therefore he entered between the Altar and the Menorah.

Rabbi Natan said: Concerning the cubit of the partition, the Sages did not decide whether it was like inside or like outside.

Ravina thought that Rabbi Natan meant that the Sages did not decide whether it was included among the dimensions of the Sanctuary, which was forty cubits, or among the dimensions of the Holy of Holies, which was twenty cubits.

And therefore

Ravina challenged him: What is the reason?

Why is it obvious to you that it was included among the dimensions of one of them?!

If you say it is because it is written:

“And the House which King Solomon built for the Lord”—

the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies together—

“sixty cubits was its length, and twenty its breadth, and thirty cubits its height;”

You learn from this that the partition between them was included within the sixty cubits, for the entire House was only sixty cubits—

And it is written: “And forty cubits was the House, that is, the Sanctuary, before”

[the nun has a kamatz; the meaning is: before the Inner Chamber—the one mentioned in the preceding verse—which is the cubit of the partition].

And it is written: “And before the Inner Chamber”

[meaning: on the other side of the cubit of the partition, in the House of the Holy of Holies]

“twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and twenty cubits in height”—

And

since the two measurements—the Sanctuary’s and the Holy of Holies’—together are sixty cubits, which is the measurement of the entire House—

therefore

we do not know

whether

the cubit of the partition

was included in the calculation of the dimensions of the Sanctuary or of the Holy of Holies.

If it is from these twenty

of the House of the Holy of Holies, then before the Inner Chamber, on the side of the Holy of Holies, there were only nineteen cubits—

and if it is from these forty

of the Sanctuary, then before the Inner Chamber, on the side of the Sanctuary, there were only thirty-nine cubits.

If you say that this is the reason Rabbi Natan was uncertain, then there is no room for uncertainty at all—

for

perhaps that cubit of the partition

was

not

included

in those twenty and not in those forty, and as the verses plainly indicate, the dimensions of each were exclusive of the Inner Chamber—

And as for what Scripture says: “And the House which King Solomon built for the Lord, sixty cubits,” it is possible to say that

the

interior space

—of the entire House, the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies—

it counts

[Scripture counts] within the sixty cubits,

but

those

walls

of the House [that cubit of the partition]

it does not count?!

Know

that the cubit of the partition is not counted within the calculation of the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies,

for

after all,

wherever it counts

the tanna of the Mishna also counts the measurement of the thickness of the

walls, he counts it

the tanna also

for itself

[for the cubit of the partition] as a separate measurement, outside the count of the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.

For

thus

we learned: “The Sanctuary”

including the Hall, the Holy of Holies, and the chambers surrounding it:

one hundred

cubits in length

by one hundred

cubits in breadth [in its eastern portion, opposite the Hall],

in height

[in elevation]

one hundred

cubits, including the upper rooms above it.

And the Mishna explains: “From east to west, one hundred cubits” [the wording of the Mishna in Middot]: the thickness of the

wall of the

Hall

five

cubits,

and the

space of the

Hall eleven

cubits; that is sixteen cubits.

The wall of the Sanctuary

[the holy section]

six

cubits,

and its length

of the space of the Sanctuary

forty cubits,

making sixty-two cubits.

And the cubit of the partition, and twenty cubits

of the space of the

House of the Holy of Holies,

and the

wall of the Sanctuary—that is, the wall behind the House of the Holy of Holies—

its thickness was

six

cubits, making eighty-nine cubits.

And the chamber

[gallery] behind the House of the Holy of Holies, the length of its space was

six

cubits,

and the wall of the chamber five

cubits; thus everything together was one hundred cubits.

Rather, on the basis of this question, we explain Rabbi Natan’s statement:

its

sanctity

—of that cubit—is what the Sages did not decide:

whether like inside or

like outside, in the manner of what they said above, 51b.

And this is what Rabbi Yohanan said: Yosef איש Hutzal asked:

It is written:

“And the Inner Chamber”

[this is the cubit of the partition]

“within the House, inward”

[the first mem has a hiriq, and the Gemara proceeds to explain it]

“he prepared to place there”

[like “to place”]

“the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord”—

And

it was asked of him

[Yaavetz and Rashash]—of Yosef איש Hutzal:

How does the verse read

—how is the verse to be punctuated:

Whether:

“And the Inner Chamber”

he made

“within the House”—and

“inward”

to that Inner Chamber—

he prepared

a place

“to place there”

the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord.

According to this explanation—that the word “inward” belongs to the end of the verse—it follows that the Inner Chamber itself does not possess the sanctity of the Holy of Holies, but only the space inward from it.

Or perhaps this is what the verse says

“And the Inner Chamber” he made

“within the House, inward”

[inside]—

And he prepared the Inner Chamber itself to place there, at that entrance, the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord. According to this explanation, it follows that the Inner Chamber itself was part of the inside.

Thus Yosef איש Hutzal was uncertain whether the sanctity of that place was like that of the inside or like that of the outside, like Rabbi Natan’s uncertainty.

And we ask: Could he really be uncertain —Yosef איש Hutzal—whether “inward” belongs to the beginning of the verse or to its end?! But it was taught: Issi ben Yehuda says: Five

—inside—

and he prepared the inner chamber itself to place the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord there, at that entrance. According to this interpretation, it follows that the inner chamber itself was part of the inside. Thus, Yosef Ish Hutzal was uncertain whether the sanctity of that place was like that of the inside or like that of the outside, just as Rabbi Natan was uncertain.

words in

Scriptural verses

in the Torah have no determinate meaning,

where they are to be assigned.

words in

verses

of

the Torah whose reference cannot be determined

—it is unclear to which part of the verse they belong.