יומא 51 — parallel

51:1

the first-born and the tithe of cattle, the laws of which affect even a permanently blemished animal, and which are not available [on redemption] for profane use to be subjected to shearing or work. Hence [you must say] he does not deal with [whatever goes by] the name of an original sacrifice. Why is it different with substitute animals? — The substitutes all have uniform rules, whereas the original sacrificial animal includes first-born and tithe for cattle. Now, as to R. Shesheth, why does he refer the teaching to the ram of Aaron, let him rather refer to the paschal lamb, which suspends the laws of the Sabbath and of levitical uncleanness and can have a substitute because it is an individual's sacrifice?-He holds that a paschal lamb is never offered for one individual. Then let him put the case as dealing with the second paschal lamb? — Is that able to suspend the laws of levitical impurity? Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua to Raba: Why does the Tanna designate the paschal lamb an individual's sacrifice and the festal offering a community sacrifice? Would you say because the latter is offered up by large crowds? So is the paschal lamb offered up by large crowds. — There is the second paschal lamb, which is not offered up by large crowds. Said he to him: If so,it ought to suspend the laws of Sabbath and those of levitical impurity. — He answered: Yes, he holds in accord with him who says that it suspends [them]. For it was taught: The second paschal lamb suspends the Sabbath, but not the laws of levitical impurity. R. Judah says: It suspends also the laws of levitical impurity. What is the reason for the view of the first Tanna? He will tell you: ‘You have postponed it only because of levitical impurity, how then shall it suspend the laws of levitical impurity!’ And R. Judah?-He will tell you: Scripture says: According to all the statute of the passover shall they keep it, i.e., even in levitical impurity. The Torah gave him an opportunity to do it in levitical purity, but if he was not privileged to do so, let him do it even in impurity. [

—

51:2

But let him infer it from the words of the Divine Law: ‘which is of himself’, i.e., he shall bring it from what belongs to him, for it was taught ‘which is of himself’, that means he must bring it of his own possession, not from community funds. One might have assumed he must not bring it from community funds, because the congregation obtains no atonement therefrom, but he may bring it from the funds of his fellow-priests, because they do obtain atonement therefrom, therefore Scripture says: ‘which is of himself’. One might have assumed he must [de jure] not bring it from funds beside his own, but that if he [de facto] had done so,it would be valid, therefore Scripture says again: ‘which is of himself’, repeating the condition in order to render conformity with it indispensable. — But according to your own view: If his fellow-priests have no part in it, how can they obtain atonement, [even by implication]? Rather must you say it is different with regard to the private treasury of Aaron for the Divine Law has declared it free to his fellow-priests, thus also with regard to the [question of a] substitute sacrifice [we say] the private treasury of Aaron is different since the Divine Law has made it free for his fellow-priests. MISHNAH. HE WENT THROUGH THE HEKAL UNTIL HE CAME TO THE PLACE BETWEEN THE TWO CURTAINS WHICH SEPARATED THE HOLY FROM THE HOLY OF HOLIES AND BETWEEN WHICH THERE WAS [A SPACE OF] ONE CUBIT. R. JOSE SAID: THERE WAS BUT ONE CURTAIN, AS IT IS SAID: AND THE VEIL SHALL DIVIDE UNTO YOU BETWEEN THE HOLY PLACE AND THE MOST HOLY. GEMARA. R. Jose gave a proper rejoinder to the Rabbis. What about the Rabbis? — They will tell you: Those things applied at the Mishkan, but in the Second Temple, because there was lacking the partition wall which had been in the first Temple — and the Sages were doubtful as to whether its sacredness partook of the character of the Holy or the Holy of Holies, they made two curtains. Our Rabbis taught: He was walking between altar and candlestick. This is the view of R. Judah. R. Meir says: Between the table and the altar. Some there are who say: Between the table and the wall. Who are the ‘some’? — R. Hisda said: It is R. Jose. who said: The entrance was to the north. And R. Judah? — He will tell you that the entrance was to the south. According to whose view was that of R. Meir? If it agreed with R. Judah's, let him enter as R. Judah states, if it agreed with R. Jose, let him enter as R. Jose states! In truth he agrees with R. Jose, but he will tell you the tables were placed between north and south, hence they would interrupt his walk, preventing him from getting himself in. Or, if you like you might say: In truth, the tables were placed from east to west, but it does not seen proper

—