Yoma 52a (נב.) — the Talmud in English

Rather, Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that

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 to say: It is not proper for the High Priest to walk through the Sanctuary along the entire route on its northern side, opposite the entrance to the Holy of Holies, with his eyes feasting on the House of the Holy of Holies through the entrance [Rashi]; this constitutes a casting off of the yoke of awe [Meiri].

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

And

we explain the position of

Rabbi Yosei

as being that he was not concerned about this, and held that he would walk between the wall and the Table, because

he could say to you: Israel are beloved, as Scripture did not require them to have an intermediary

, but each and every one prays for himself, as it is stated: “When each person knows the affliction of his heart and spreads his hands toward this House.” Therefore, his messenger is beloved, and he may enter publicly [Rashi]. We now challenge Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there were two curtains and that one had to enter from the south, and therefore he would enter between the Altar and the Menorah—

And

for

Rabbi Yehuda as well

the same question raised earlier against Rabbi Meir can be asked: Why would he enter from the south, between the Altar and the Menorah?

Let him enter

[enter]

between the Menorah and the wall

on the southern side?!

And we answer: Had he entered close to the wall, his garments would have been

blackened

, for his clothes would have become black from the smoke of the Menorah, which had blackened the wall. Therefore, he entered between the Altar and the Menorah.

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

Ravina understood Rabbi Natan to mean that the Sages had not decided whether it was included among the measurements of the Sanctuary, which was forty cubits, or among the measurements of the Holy of Holies, which was twenty cubits.

Therefore

Ravina challenged him: What is the reason?

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

If you say it is because it is written:

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

the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies together—

“was sixty cubits long, twenty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high”;

You can thus learn that the partition between them was included in the sixty cubits, since the entire House was only sixty cubits—

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

[the nun is vocalized with a kamatz; the meaning is: before the Debir—which is mentioned in the preceding verse—that is, before the cubit of the partition].

And it is written: “And before the Debir”

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

“was twenty cubits long, twenty cubits wide, and twenty cubits high”—

And

since the two measurements—that of the Sanctuary and that of the Holy of Holies—together total 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 measurement of the Sanctuary or in that of the Holy of Holies.

Either it was included in the twenty

cubits of the House of the Holy of Holies, so that before the Debir, on the side of the Holy of Holies, there were only nineteen cubits—

or it was included in the forty

cubits of the Sanctuary, so that before the Debir, on the side of the Sanctuary, there were only thirty-nine cubits.

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

perhaps

that is to say the cubit of the partition

was

not

included

neither in the twenty nor in the forty

, in accordance with the plain meaning of the verses, according to which the measurements of each were apart from the Debir—

And regarding what the verse says, “And the House that King Solomon built for the Lord” was “sixty cubits,” it is possible to say that

its interior space—

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

is being counted

by the verse as part of the sixty cubits,

but

the

walls

of the House [that is, the cubit of the partition]

are not being counted?!

Know

that the cubit of the partition is not included in the calculation of the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies,

for

indeed,

whenever the tanna counts

the measurements of the Mishna, he counts even the thickness of the

walls

, and the tanna counts

it itself

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

For

this is

how we learned in the Mishna: The Sanctuary

including the Entrance Hall, the Holy of Holies, and the surrounding chambers, was

one hundred

cubits long,

by one hundred

cubits wide [in its eastern section, opposite the Entrance Hall], and

one hundred

[in height]

cubits high, including the upper stories 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

Entrance Hall was five

cubits, and the open space of the

Entrance Hall was eleven

cubits, making sixteen cubits.

The

wall of the Sanctuary

[the Holy] was

six cubits, and the length of the open space of the Sanctuary was

forty cubits, making sixty-two cubits.

And the cubit of the partition, and twenty cubits

of open space in 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—was

six cubits thick, making eighty-nine cubits.

And the chamber

[the gallery] behind the House of the Holy of Holies had an open space

six

cubits long,

and the wall of the chamber was five

cubits, making a total of one hundred cubits.

Rather, because of this question, we explain Rabbi Natan’s statement as follows:

Its

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

whether it was considered inside or

outside, in the manner stated above, on 51b.

—the gallery behind the Holy of Holies—had an interior length of

six

cubits,

and the wall of the chamber was five

cubits, making one hundred cubits altogether.

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

the

sanctity

of that one cubit was the matter that the Sages did not determine

whether it was considered inside or

outside, in the manner stated above on page 51b.

And this is what Rabbi Yohanan said: Yosef, the man of Hutzal, raised the following question:

It is written: “And the Debir” [that is, the cubit of the partition] “within the House, inward” [the first mem is vocalized with a ḥirik, and the Gemara proceeds to interpret it] “he prepared to place” [in the sense of “to place”] “there the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord”— And he raised the following question [Ya’avetz and Rashash]:

How is the verse stated

that is, how is the verse to be punctuated?

—which is the one-cubit partition—

“within the House, inward”

—the first mem is vocalized with a ḥirik, and the Gemara proceeds to explain it—

“he prepared to place”

—a form meaning “to place”—

Is it:

“And the Debir”

was made

“within the House”—

and

“inward”

toward that Debir, he prepared a place “to place there” the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord? According to this interpretation—in which the word “inward” belongs to the end of the verse—it follows that the Debir itself did not possess the sanctity of the Holy of Holies; only the area inward from it did.

Or perhaps this is what the verse says

:

“And the Debir”

was made

“within the House, inward”

[inside]—

and he prepared the Debir itself to place the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord there, at that entrance. According to this interpretation, it follows that the Debir itself was considered part of the inner area.

Thus Yosef, the man of Hutzal, was uncertain whether the sanctity of that place was like that of the inner area or like that of the outer area, just as Rabbi Natan was uncertain.

to place there

the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord.”

According to this interpretation—in which the word “inward” belongs to the end of the verse—it follows that the inner chamber itself does not have the sanctity of the Holy of Holies; only the area inward from it does.

Or perhaps this is what the verse says

And we ask:

Was Yosef, the man of Hutzal, really uncertain

whether “inward” belongs to the beginning of the verse or to its end?!

But it was taught in a baraita: Isi ben Yehuda says: There are five

words in

verses of the Torah whose meaning has no decisive indication , as to where they should be assigned.

And we question this:

Was Yosef Ish Hutzal really uncertain

whether “inward” belongs to the beginning of the verse or to its end?!

But it was taught in a beraita: Isi ben Yehuda says: There are five

words in

verses

of

the Torah whose reference cannot be determined

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