Yoma — Daf 51b

ותיפוק לי (ויקרא טז, יא) דאשר לו אמר רחמנא משלו הוא מביא

דתניא אשר לו משלו הוא מביא ולא משל ציבור יכול לא יביא משל ציבור שאין הציבור מתכפרין בו אבל יביא משל אחיו הכהנים שהרי אחיו הכהנים מתכפרים בו ת"ל אשר לו

יכול לא יביא ואם הביא כשר ת"ל שוב (ויקרא טז, ו) אשר לו שנה הכתוב עליו לעכב

וליטעמיך אחיו הכהנים אי לאו דקנו בגויה היכי מכפר להו אלא שאני בי גזא דאהרן דאפקריה רחמנא גבי אחיו הכהנים הכא [גבי תמורה] נמי שאני בי גזא דאהרן דאפקריה רחמנא גבי אחיו הכהנים

מתני׳ היה מהלך בהיכל עד שמגיע לבין שתי הפרוכת המבדילות בין הקדש ובין קדש הקדשים וביניהן אמה ר' יוסי אומר לא היתה שם אלא פרוכת אחת בלבד שנאמר (שמות כו, לג) והבדילה הפרוכת לכם בין הקדש ובין קדש הקדשים

גמ׳ שפיר קאמר להו רבי יוסי לרבנן ורבנן אמרי לך הני מילי במשכן אבל במקדש שני כיון דלא הואי אמה טרקסין ובמקדש ראשון הוא דהואי ואיסתפקא להו לרבנן בקדושתיה אי כלפנים אי כלחוץ ועבוד שתי פרוכת

תנו רבנן בין המזבח למנורה היה מהלך דברי ר"י ר"מ אומר בין שלחן למזבח ויש אומרים בין שלחן לכותל מאן יש אומרים אמר רב חסדא רבי יוסי היא דאמר פיתחא בצפון קאי

ורבי יהודה אמר לך פיתחא בדרום קאי ורבי מאיר כמאן סבירא ליה אי כרבי יהודה סבירא ליה ניעול כרבי יהודה אי כרבי יוסי סבירא ליה ניעול כר' יוסי

לעולם כרבי יוסי סבירא ליה ואמר לך שולחנות צפון ודרום מונחין ומפסקא ליה שלחן ולא מתעייל ליה

ואיבעית אימא לעולם מזרח ומערב מונחין ומשום שכינה לאו אורח ארעא

But let him infer it1 from the words of the Divine Law: ‘which is of himself’,2 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.3 — But according to your own view: If his fellow-priests have no part in it, how can they obtain atonement, [even by implication]?4 Rather must you say it is different with regard to the private treasury of Aaron5 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 HEKAL6 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.7 GEMARA. R. Jose gave a proper rejoinder to the Rabbis. What about the Rabbis? — They will tell you: Those things8 applied at the Mishkan,9 but in the Second Temple, because there was lacking the partition wall10 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.11 Our Rabbis taught: He was walking between altar and candlestick.12 This is the view of R. Judah. R. Meir says: Between the table13 and the altar. Some there are who say: Between the table and the wall.14 Who are the ‘some’? — R. Hisda said: It is R. Jose. who said: The entrance was to the north.15 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,16 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 tables17 were placed between north and south, hence they would interrupt his walk, preventing him from getting himself in.18 Or, if you like you might say: In truth, the tables were placed from east to west, but it does not seen proper of Atonement bullock. through the high priest's atonement, although the bullock is his own private property. Holy Place from the Holy of Holies, occupying the space of one cubit, but the text: And he built twenty cubits on the hinder part of the house with boards of cedar from the floor unto the joists, leaves it undecided from which of the two holy areas the space of one cubit was to be deducted. the curtain. them. According to R. Judah the high priest walked toward the Holy of Holies between altar and candlestick, that is on the southern side. According to R. Meir between table and altar, i.e., on the northern side. the high priest of necessity was walking along the northern wall. that there were two curtains, with the outer one clasped to the southern side, through which he first entered, hence the high priest was walking along the southern wall till he reached the outer entrance, then walking along between the two curtains towards the north till he reached the second entrance leading immediately into the Holy of Holies. Sages discuss if these tables were placed lengthwise from south to north or from east to west. R. Meir held the former view, so that all the tables were placed in the northern half of the Sanctuary (Ex. XXVI, 35): And thou shalt put the table on the north side. Now the breadth of the Sanctuary was twenty cubits, its northern half ten cubits; the length of a table two cubits, so that each row of five tables filled the northern half of the Temple hall, without any free space between tables and wall.If any space were left free, then the row of the tables would to that extent encroach upon the southern half. Thus the tables would block the high priest on his walk between the table and the wall.