יומא 36 — Soncino English Talmud

¹GEMARA. Whom did you hear saying that the place between Hall and altar was [considered] north? R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, for it was taught: What is [considered] north? From the northern wall of the altar up to the [northern] wall of the Temple court and opposite the whole altar on the north, this is the opinion of R. Jose son of R. Judah. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon adds also the space between the Hall and the altar. Rabbi adds also the space for the treading of the priests and the place for the treading of the Israelites within, and all agree that from the inside of the knives’ cell it was illegitimate. Shall we [then] say that the Mishnah is in accord with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, but not with Rabbi? — You can even say that it is in accord with Rabbi, for if he adds even to what R. Jose son of R. Judah says, will he not add to [the space defined by] R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon! This is what we mean: If it were in accord with Rabbi, it could be placed anywhere in the whole Temple court! What, then [would you maintain] that [the Mishnah] is in accord with R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon! But then it ought to be placed anywhere between altar and wall? You must consequently say that the reason is to avoid the high priest getting tired; thus also, on the view of Rabbi, the reason is to avoid the high priest getting tired. ITS HEAD TO THE SOUTH, AND ITS FACE TO THE WEST. How is that possible?- Rab answered: The priest turns its head — But let him place it straight? — Abaye said: We are afraid it might drop excrements. Our Rabbis taught: How does one press [the hands on the head of the sacrifice]? The sacrifice stands to the north, with its face to the west, and he who presses [the hands] stands to the east, with his face to the west, and lays his two hands between the two horns of the sacrifice, that nothing may intervene between him and the sacrifice — and he makes confession. With a sin-offering [he makes confession] of the sin [committed]; with a guilt-offering, of the guilt incurred; with a burnt-offering, of the transgressions in connection with gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, the corner of the field, and the poor tithe — these are the words of R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba said: A burnt-offering is offered up exclusively for transgression of a positive command or of a prohibition transformed into a command. In what do they differ? R. Jeremiah said:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ᵃnote:[For the purposes of slaughtering the sacrifice of the high priest, which, as belonging to the highest grade of sanctity had to be slaughtered on the north side. Such must be the view of the Mishnah which states that the bullock was placed between the Hall and the altar for confession as well as for slaughtering purposes, v. infra 41b: ‘At the place where the confession was made there it was slaughtered’.]
^ᵇnote:Only the thirty-two cubits to the north and facing the altar are considered part of the north, where the slaughtering of sacrifices of the highest grade of sanctity is legitimate, but not the space east and west of the altar, although lying to the north of the Temple court, for the biblical command states: And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord. (Lev. I, 11), for though these parts are to the north of the Temple court, they are not to the north of the altar.
^ᶜnote:[He includes the spice on the north side of the Temple court extending westwards, although not exactly facing the northern wall of the altar.]
^ᵈnote:Eleven cubits each. He includes the whole north of the Temple court, even to the eastern wall.
^ᵉnote:V. Mid. IV, 7, to the north and south of the Temple court. This cell, fifteen cubits to the north, fifteen to the south, ten from east to west, had twenty-four apertures where the twenty-four divisions of priests kept their knives.
^ᶠnote:From the knives’ cell within it was impossible to see the wall altar, hence it was forbidden to slaughter it there, Zeb. 20a.
^ᵍnote:Surely when he declares that space which, is further away is legitimate he will not declare forbidden that which is nearer!
^ʰnote:[The text is difficult. MS. M. omits ‘You can even say it is in accord with Rabbi’.]
^ⁱnote:The high priest's bullock.
^ʲnote:On the north of the Temple court.
^ᵏnote:For placing it between the Hall and the altar.
^ˡnote:To prevent his becoming over-tired by carrying the bowl with the blood a long distance.
^ᵐnote:With its back to the altar and its face to the Hekal.
^ⁿnote:Tosef. Men. X, 12.
^ᵒnote:Of the highest grade of sanctity.
^ᵖnote:The side on which it is to be slain.
^ᵠnote:The owner of the sacrifice.
^ʳnote:Men. 93b, the text in the Tosef. differs somewhat.
^ˢnote:Lev. XIX, 9: Neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest.
^ᵗnote:Deut. XXIV, 19.
^ᵘnote:Ibid. XXVI, 12.
^ᵛnote:I.e.,a prohibition the transgression of which must be repaired by a succeeding act, as e.g., Ex. XII, 10: You shall let nothing of it remain until the morning (prohibition); But that which remaineth... you shall burn in fire (remedial action).

²They differ concerning the prohibition of carrion, R. Akiba holding it to be a proper prohibition, whilst R. Jose the Galilean does not consider it a proper prohibition. Abaye said: Everybody agrees that the prohibition of carrion is a proper prohibition, what they differ in is the laws touching ‘Thou shalt leave’, R. Akiba holding ‘Thou shalt leave’ means from the very beginning, whilst R. Jose the Galilean holds it means ‘now’. Our Rabbis taught: How does he make confession: I have done wrong, I have transgressed I have sinned — Similarly, in connection with the he-goat to be sent away Scripture says: And he shall confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions even in their sins. Similarly, with Moses, it says: Forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin — these are the words of R. Meir. The Sages, however, say: ‘Wrongs’ are deliberate misdeeds, thus also does Scripture say: That soul shall be utterly cut off, his wrong shall be upon him, ‘transgressions’ are rebellious deeds, as it is said: The King of Moab hath transgressed against me; furthermore: Then did Libnah transgress at the same time; ‘sins’ are inadvertent omissions, as it is said: If any one shall sin through error. — Should he then, after having confessed the deliberate misdeeds and the rebellious deeds, turn back and confess inadvertent omissions? Rather, thus did he make confession: I have sinned, I have done wrong, I have transgressed before Thee, I and my house etc. Thus also does Scripture say in connection with David: We have sinned with our fathers, we have done wrong, we have dealt wickedly. Thus also with Solomon: We have sinned, and have done wrong, we have dealt wickedly. Thus also with Daniel: We have sinned, and have dealt wrong, and have done wickedly. — What is the meaning, then, of Moses’ saying: ‘Forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin’? Moses said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Lord of the Universe, when Israel sin before Thee and then do penance, account their premeditated sins as errors! Rabbah b. Samuel said in the name of Rab: The halachah is in accord with the Sages. But [that is] self-evident, for ‘Where the opinion of one individual is opposed to the opinion of a majority, the law follows the majority’? — You might have said: The reason of R. Meir appears more logical because the scriptural verse of Moses supports it, therefore we are taught [as above]. Once a man went down before Rabbah and arranged his prayer in accord with R. Meir's view. He said to him: Do you forsake the Sages and act like R. Meir? — He answered: I hold as R. Meir, for thus it is written in the Torah of Moses. Our Rabbis taught: And shall make atonement — Scripture speaks of atonement through words. You say it refers to atonement through words. But perhaps it refers to atonement [obtained] through [sacrificial] blood? I infer it thus: Here ‘atonement is mentioned and there ‘atonement’ is mentioned — Just as the atonement mentioned in connection with the he-goat is one through words, so the atonement mentioned with the bullock is one obtained through words. And if you wish to argue against it, then [learn from]: And Aaron shall present the bullock for the sin-offering, which is for himself and shall make atonement for himself and for his house, yet the bullock has not been slaughtered! What does ‘And if you wish to argue against it’ imply? — This: And if you would say: Let us infer from the he-goat prepared within the Temple, the atonement of which is obtained through blood, behold [against that argument] Scripture says: ‘And he shall make atonement’, and the bullock has not been slaughtered yet!^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ

^ʷnote:Carrion-an animal that has died a natural death; also whatever has become unfit through faulty slaughtering.
^ˣnote:[For which lashes are inflicted, and for which a burnt-offering does not atone.]
^ʸnote:Because once one has eaten the carrion, it is no more possible to sell it to the stranger or give it to the sojourner as prescribed in Deut. XIV, 21, R. Akiba holding it a proper prohibition, for the transgression of which one would be punished with the prescribed thirty-nine lashes, the fact that one cannot repair the transgression notwithstanding. According to R. Jose no such punishment would here be inflicted, hence it is not a proper prohibition.
^ᶻnote:Thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard. Thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger. (Lev. XIX, 9.)
^ᵃᵃnote:V. next note.
^ᵃᵇnote:Here is another instance of a prohibition transformed into a command: Thou shalt not glean . . . thou shalt leave them. R. Akiba holds the positive commandment is enjoined from the very first, that is, thus: do not glean but leave; hence it is not a prohibition transformed into a command, but a command from the beginning; whilst R. Jose assumes that it is a de facto command: Don't glean, but having gleaned, undo your transgression by leaving it etc.
^ᵃᶜnote:Tosef. Yoma, II, 1.
^ᵃᵈnote:Lev. XVI, 21.
^ᵃᵉnote:Ex. XXXIV, 7.
^ᵃᶠnote:Num. XV, 31.
^ᵃᵍnote:II Kings III, 7.
^ᵃʰnote:Ibid. VIII, 22.
^ᵃⁱnote:Lev. IV, 2.
^ᵃʲnote:It is illogical to ask forgiveness for the gravest offences first and then for the lighter ones.
^ᵃᵏnote:Ps. CVI, 6.
^ᵃˡnote:I Kings VIII, 47.
^ᵃᵐnote:Dan. IX, 5. In all these cases the logical order is maintained, forgiveness being asked, first, for the sins due to inadvertence, then for those deliberate misdeeds, at last for rebellious acts.
^ᵃⁿnote:Where the order appears reversed.
^ᵃᵒnote:Ber. 9".
^ᵃᵖnote:Which agrees, as to the order, with R. Meir.
^ᵃᵠnote:To the prayer desk.
^ᵃʳnote:Meg. 20b.
^ᵃˢnote:Lev. XVI, 11.
^ᵃᵗnote:I.e., confession.
^ᵃᵘnote:In connection with the he-goat that is sent away. Lev. XVI, 10.
^ᵃᵛnote:How then is atonement possible? It can be obtained through confession.