Yoma 54a — the Talmud in English

For it is written in the Scroll of Lamentations:

in the Scroll of Lamentations:

And it went out from the Daughter of Zion ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

“All her splendor”—what is “all her splendor”?

Her chamber [because he and het alternate, Maharsha], that is: from Jerusalem there went out the thing concealed in the innermost chambers.

because the letters heh and het alternate, Maharsha], meaning: something hidden in the innermost chambers went out from Jerusalem.

But as for

you—

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai—

what do you say?

He said to him

Rabbi Shimon to Rabbi Mattia:

I say: The Ark was hidden in its place, as it is stated: “And the staves were extended, and the ends of the staves were seen”

from the Holy Place toward the face of the partition, but they were not seen outside, and they remained there until this day.

We have thus learned that, according to Ulla, Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai holds that the Ark was hidden in its place and did not go into Babylonia, and so too as we learned in a beraita in the name of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabba said to Ulla: What indicates this

—how is it indicated from this verse that the Ark was hidden in its place?

Perhaps you will say: Since

for it is written

at the end of the verse

“and they remained there until this day”,

and it implies that it actually exists until this very day—

and

for does it follow that

everywhere that “until this day” is written, it means forever?!

But is it not written: “And the Jebusite who dwelt in Jerusalem, the children of Benjamin did not dispossess; and the Jebusite dwelt with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem until this day”—

And would you say here as well: Since it says “until this day,”

so too, they were never exiled

the Jebusites from Jerusalem;

but it was taught

in a beraita that they were exiled—

For it was taught:

Rabbi Judah says: Fifty-two years

from “the desolation of Jerusalem” and the exile of Zedekiah to Babylonia, until the appointment by Cyrus, king of Babylonia, when they went up to build the Temple [Rashi; and see the note ]—

No man passed through Judah, as it is stated

in Jeremiah:

“Upon the mountains I shall raise weeping and lamentation, and upon the pastures of the wilderness a dirge, for they have been scorched, ‘with no man passing through’,”

“and they did not hear the sound of cattle; from the bird of the heavens to the beast, they wandered, they went away”—

And behold, the word “beast” is superfluous, for it was already stated: “and they did not hear the sound of cattle,” which includes the beast; rather, it means up to the numerical value of “beast,” for

“beast” by gematria is: fifty-two

Raal. We have thus learned: There was a period during which no man, including the Jebusite, passed through Judah for fifty-two years, and he did not dwell there forever.

And it was taught

further that there was a period during which there was no man in the Land of Israel:

Rabbi Yosei says:

It is written in the section of Nitzavim: “And the latter generation, your children who will rise after you, and the foreigner who will come from a distant land, will see the plagues of that land and its illnesses with which the Lord afflicted it. Sulfur and salt, the burning of all its land; it shall not be sown, it shall not sprout, and no grass shall rise upon it, like the overturning of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the Lord overturned in His anger and in His wrath. And all the nations will say: Why did the Lord do this to this land? What is this great burning anger? And they will say: Because they abandoned the covenant of the Lord, God of their fathers, which He made with them when He brought them out from the land of Egypt.”

Seven years the sulfur and salt remained in the Land of Israel.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: What is Rabbi Yosei’s reason?

And he explains it:

It comes

by gzera shava

“covenant, covenant.”

It is written here

in Daniel:

“And he will strengthen the ‘covenant’ for the many for one week”—

and it is written there

in the section of Nitzavim:

“And they will say: Because they abandoned the ‘covenant’ of the

God of their fathers”—

And Rabbi Yosei explains it: That covenant mentioned in connection with sulfur and salt, the enemy strengthened against Israel [who are called “many,” as it is written, “great among the peoples,” Raal ]

for one week [seven years].

We have thus learned that there was a period during which there was no man in the Land of Israel; nevertheless, it is written concerning the Jebusite: “And the Jebusite dwelt, etc., ‘until this day’”—so it is not necessarily forever. And how shall we learn from “and the staves were extended, etc., and they remained there until this day” that the Ark did not go into exile from that place?!

Ulla said to him

to Rabba, who had raised this difficulty:

Here,

concerning the Tablets,

it is written:

and they remained

“there”

until this day;

there,

concerning the Jebusite,

“there” is not written.

And we still ask:

and

for does it follow that

everywhere that “there” is written, it means forever?!

He raised an objection

from that which is written:

“And some of the children of Simeon went to Mount Seir, five hundred men, with Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah, and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi, at their head; and they struck the remnant of the refugees of Amalek, and they dwelt ‘there until this day’”—

and

behold, it necessarily does not mean forever, for

Sennacherib, king of Assyria, had already come and confused

and exiled from place to place

all the nations [

Ein Yaakov and Dikdukei Soferim]—

as it is stated:

“And it shall come to pass, when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, I shall punish the fruit of the greatness of the heart of the king of Assyria and the glory of the haughtiness of his eyes. For he said [the king of Assyria]: By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, for I am discerning,”

“and I remove the boundaries of peoples” [and I exile the peoples from province to province, translation],

and I remove the boundaries of peoples, translation,

“and their treasures”

[their position, Raal]

I have plundered.

And we conclude:

Tiyuvta!

Rav Nahman said: A tanna

in a beraita:

And the Sages say: The Ark was hidden in the Chamber of the Wood Hall

[one of the four chambers in the Women’s Courtyard, where the priests examined the wood for worms]

was hidden

Dikdukei Soferim.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: We too have learned

in the Mishna in Shekalim—in accordance with the Sages, that the Ark did not go into exile but was hidden, though not in the Holy of Holies:

An incident occurred involving one priest who was occupied

in strolling and joking [Rashi],

and he saw a floor

one of the marble slabs that were in the Chamber of the Wood Hall, which was

different

[higher]

from its companions,

and he understood that they had removed it from the place where it had been arranged there and then put it back, and therefore it was higher—

And he came and informed his fellow

about it,

but he did not manage to finish the matter

to show him that place

before his soul departed, and they knew specifically

[clearly]

that the Ark was hidden there.

We see that the Ark did not go into exile, but was hidden somewhere in the Temple and not in the Holy of Holies, for no person entered there [Maharsha].

And we explain:

What was he doing

—that is, what was that priest occupied with?

Rabbi Helbo said: He was occupied

in chopping [the Aramaic translation],

he was with his axe.

Since the Gemara brought the above-mentioned incident, it likewise brought that which was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael [Raal; and see ShiTZ]:

It was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael: Two blemished priests

and unfit for the service

were examining the wood for worms

[in a hole seen in the wood, they split the wood and removed the worms in it, for any wood containing a worm is unfit for the altar, Raal] in the Chamber of the Wood Hall—

and the axe of one of them slipped and fell there

in the place where the Ark was hidden,

and a fire came out and consumed it

the priest [see Yafeh Einayim].

Rav Judah raised a contradiction: It is written: “And the ends of the staves were seen”

from the Holy Place toward the face of the partition, so the staves were visible—

and it is written

in that same verse:

“but they were not seen outside”?!

How is this so? They were visible and yet not visible,

as explained in the beraita that the Gemara brings.

It was taught likewise:

Maharsha’s version is [and see Ein Yaakov]:

“And the staves were extended.”

One might have thought that they would not move from their place

from the place where the Ark stood in the middle of the Holy of Holies, ten cubits from it to the entrance; and if so, the staves would not be visible from outside, for they were not ten cubits long—

The verse therefore says: “And the ends of the staves were seen”,

for they lengthened miraculously until they reached more than ten cubits, so that they were visible outside the entrance [see there and ShiTZ].

One might have thought that they would tear through the curtain and emerge,

The verse therefore says: “But they were not seen outside”—

How is this so? They pressed and protruded and emerged within the curtain, and were visible

from outside

like the two breasts of a woman

that protrude beneath her garment;

as it is stated: “A bundle of myrrh is my beloved to me, between my breasts he shall lie.”

Rav Katina said: When Israel would go up for the pilgrimage, they would roll up the curtain for them

[the version of Raal and ShiTZ:

the curtains],

and show them the cherubs that were joined

in the sense of attachment, connected

to one another

[that is, this one to that female, for they were in the form of male and female], holding and embracing one another as a male embraces a female [Rashi]—

and the ones who rolled it

would say

to them

to Israel:

See your affection before the Omnipresent, like the affection of a male and female,

that is, for they were joined to one another only when Israel performed the will of the Omnipresent [Ritba on page 55b; and in the Aramaic translation it does not appear so].

Rav Hisda raised an objection

from the verse:

“And they shall not come to see when the holy object is swallowed up

[an expression of covering]

the holy object

and die,”

and

behold,

Rabbi Judah said in the name of Rav

to explain: The Levites who carried the Ark and the altar in the Tabernacle were not to come to see

when the insertion

of the

vessels into their coverings

by the priests, at the time of dismantling the camps [when they traveled from place to place]—

And if so, how do you say that they showed them the cherubs?

Rav Nahman said: It is like a bride, as long as she is

in her father’s house,

betrothed but not yet married, she is

modest before her husband,

for she is ashamed before him;

once she has come to her father-in-law’s house,

having married, she is no longer

modest before her husband—

Thus Israel were like a bride in her father's house in the wilderness, who were not yet familiar with the Divine Presence; and therefore they were not permitted to see the Ark. But in the Temple, they were like a bride who had already been married.

Rav Hana bar Rav Katina raised an objection

to Rav Nahman:

“An incident involving one priest

in the Second Temple

who was occupied

and saw a section of flooring different from its fellows—for there the Ark had been hidden—and he came and informed his fellow, but he did not manage to finish the matter before his soul departed,” so it follows that they were not permitted to see the Ark even in the Temple?!

Rav Nahman said to him: Every bride who

was

divorced

and returned—like Israel, who were divorced through the destruction of the First Temple and returned with the building of the Second Temple [Rashi]—

is that what you are saying?!

Once she was

divorced,

even though she returned,

the husband and his wife returned

to one another

to their original affection,

to the beginning of their affection, when they were not familiar with one another.

And now we question what Rav Katina said: When Israel would go up on pilgrimage, they would roll up the curtain for them and show them the cherubs, and so forth:

What are we dealing with? If you say it was in the First Temple,

would

there have been a “curtain”

such that you say: “They would roll up the curtain for them” [the version of Raal and Shits:

“Were there curtains”

that is, two curtains]?!

Rather,

say that

the matter was in the Second Temple,

but behold:

were there cherubs

in the Second Temple, and how did they show them to them?!

And we answer:

In truth, it was in the First Temple; and what is “curtain”? The curtain of the entrances,

which was opposite the entrances—the entrance of the vestibule, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies [Rashi’s wording; see the note ].

For Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav: There were thirteen curtains in the

Second

Temple

:

Seven

curtains

corresponding to seven

of the

gates

of the courtyard.

Two

additional ones:

one at the entrance of the Sanctuary, and one at the entrance of the vestibule.

Two in the innermost chamber,

in place of the amah טרקסין, which had been in the First Temple, as above, 51b,

and two corresponding to them—

of these two curtains—were

in the upper chamber,

making thirteen curtains.

And just as there were curtains opposite the entrances in the Second Temple, so too there were curtains in the First Temple.

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said

a different answer:

In truth, it was in the Second Temple,

and as for your difficulty—yet there were no cherubs in the Second Temple?! Nevertheless,

cherubs of depiction

[cherubs that had been drawn], which had been in the First Temple,

were standing

[were present] also in the Second Temple—

For it is written

in Kings, concerning the Holy of Holies that Solomon made:

“And all the walls of the House round about he carved

[I surrounded it with drawings; I surrounded it with drawings]

with carved figures of cherubs

[and he carved figures of cherubs, and figures of cherubs were engraved in it]

and palm trees and open flowers”

[and figures of palm trees and blossoming lilies], and see the note.

And it is written

there in another verse, concerning the making of the doors, and from it one may prove that those cherubs which were in the Holy of Holies were very conspicuous [Shits]:

And he carved on the doors of the Sanctuary [Shits] cherubs, palm trees, and open flowers,

“and he overlaid with gold over the engraved work”

[the gold was aligned with the engraving of the forms, recessed where it was recessed and projecting where it projected, so that the forms would be recognizable in it, Rashi there], and so too it was in the Holy of Holies.

And it is written

in the making of the stands [which were the bases of the laver]: “And he opened,” and so forth,

“like the appearance of a man and palm trees”

around it; it follows that he made the cherubs in this manner, and so too he made them in the Holy of Holies [Shits].

What is “like the appearance of a man and palm trees”?