## Yoma Daf 36b

###### Yoma 36b:1
[Yoma 36b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/36b:1)

בְּלָאו דִּנְבֵילָה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is **with regard to** the **prohibition** against eating **an unslaughtered animal carcass,** and similar prohibitions, that **they disagree.** The Torah says: “You shall not eat any unslaughtered animal carcass; give it to the stranger in your community to eat” (Deuteronomy 14:21). The dispute is whether this is a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva or whether it is a standard prohibition punishable by lashes.


###### Yoma 36b:2
[Yoma 36b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/36b:2)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: לָאו מְעַלְּיָא הוּא. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי סָבַר: לָאו לָאו מְעַלְּיָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva holds: It is a full-fledged prohibition,** violators of which are flogged, as is the case with regard to violators of standard Torah prohibitions. In his opinion, this is not a case of a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva, as the positive mitzva: “Give it to the stranger in your community to eat,” in no way rectifies the prohibition that was violated. If the carcass was eaten, obviously it cannot then be given to the stranger. Apparently, the verse means that due to the prohibition against eating it, one should give it to the stranger. **And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds: It is not a full-fledged prohibition;** rather, it is a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva. Because the positive command appears after the prohibition, it is tantamount to a prohibition that can be rectified.


###### Yoma 36b:3
[Yoma 36b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/36b:3)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָאו דִּנְבֵילָה — לָאו מְעַלְּיָא הָוֵי, וְהָכָא בְּ״תַעֲזוֹב״ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said that everyone agrees that the prohibition of** eating an unslaughtered **animal carcass is a full-fledged prohibition,** and it is not a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva, **and here,** it is **with regard to** the positive mitzva written after the prohibitions with regard to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and *pe’a* that **they disagree.** The verse states: “And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corner of your field, neither shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest. And you shall not glean your vineyard, neither shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; **you shall leave** them for the poor and for the stranger, I am the Lord your God (Leviticus 19:9–10). After listing the prohibitions: You shall not wholly reap, you shall not glean, and you shall not gather, the Torah commands: You shall leave them.


###### Yoma 36b:4
[Yoma 36b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/36b:4)

דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: ״תַּעֲזוֹב״ מֵעִיקָּרָא מַשְׁמַע, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי סָבַר: הַשְׁתָּא מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva holds** that the positive mitzva: **You shall leave, indicates** that one leaves gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and *pe’a* in the field **from the outset,** and is not in effect after he violates the prohibition of: You shall not wholly reap. If one fails to fulfill that mitzva, he violates full-fledged prohibitions punishable by lashes. However, **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds** that the positive mitzva: **You shall leave, indicates now,** after one violated the prohibition. Even if the individual violated the prohibitions and harvested those crops, there is an obligation to rectify his actions by leaving the produce he harvested for the poor. This is not a full-fledged prohibition; rather, it is a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva that rectifies the transgression.


###### Yoma 36b:5
[Yoma 36b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/36b:5)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד מִתְוַדֶּה? ״עָוִיתִי פָּשַׁעְתִּי וְחָטָאתִי״, וְכֵן בְּשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִתְוַדָּה עָלָיו אֶת כׇּל עֲוֹנוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת כׇּל פִּשְׁעֵיהֶם לְכׇל חַטֹּאתָם״, וְכֵן בְּמֹשֶׁה הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן וָפֶשַׁע וְחַטָּאָה״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עֲוֹנוֹת אֵלּוּ הַזְּדוֹנוֹת, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת הַנֶּפֶשׁ הָהִיא עֲוֹנָה בָּהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in the *Tosefta*: **How does he confess?** What is the formula of the confession? It is: **I have done wrong, I have rebelled, and I have sinned. And likewise, with regard to the scapegoat, it says** that the confession is in that order: **“And he shall confess over it all of the children of Israel’s wrongdoings and all their rebellions and all their sins”** (Leviticus 16:21). **And likewise,** when God revealed Himself to **Moses it says: “Forgiving wrongdoing and rebellion and sin”** (Exodus 34:7). This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say** that the meaning of these terms is: **Wrongdoings are intentional** transgressions, **and likewise it says: “That soul shall be cut off, it bears its guilt”** (Numbers 15:31). This refers to sins committed intentionally.


###### Yoma 36b:6
[Yoma 36b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/36b:6)

פְּשָׁעִים אֵלּוּ הַמְּרָדִים, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב פָּשַׁע בִּי״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״אָז תִּפְשַׁע לִבְנָה בָּעֵת הַהִיא״. ״לְכׇל חַטֹּאתָם״ אֵלּוּ הַשְּׁגָגוֹת, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא בִשְׁגָגָה״. וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁהִתְוַדָּה עַל הַזְּדוֹנוֹת וְעַל הַמְּרָדִים חוֹזֵר וּמִתְוַדֶּה עַל הַשְּׁגָגוֹת?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rebellions are rebellious** transgressions, when one not only intends to violate a prohibition but does so as an act of defiance against God. **And likewise, it says: “The king of Moab rebelled [*pasha*] against me”** (II Kings 3:7). **And it is said: “Then Livna rebelled at that time”** (II Kings 8:22). With regard to the phrase: **All of their sins, these are unwitting sins. And it says: “If a soul should sin unwittingly”** (Leviticus 4:2). In light of these definitions the sequence suggested by Rabbi Meir is unlikely, as **once he confessed the wrongdoings and rebellions,** does **he then confess the unwitting** sins?


###### Yoma 36b:7
[Yoma 36b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/36b:7)

אֶלָּא כָּךְ הָיָה מִתְוַדֶּה: חָטָאתִי וְעָוִיתִי וּפָשַׁעְתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי וְכוּ׳. וְכֵן בְּדָוִד הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״חָטָאנוּ עִם אֲבוֹתֵינוּ הֶעֱוִינוּ הִרְשָׁעְנוּ״, וְכֵן בִּשְׁלֹמֹה הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״חָטָאנוּ (וְהִרְשַׁעְנוּ וּמָרָדְנוּ)״, וְכֵן בְּדָנִיֵּאל הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״חָטָאנוּ (וְהֶעֱוִינוּ) וְהִרְשַׁעְנוּ וּמָרָדְנוּ״. אֶלָּא מַהוּ שֶׁאָמַר מֹשֶׁה ״נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן וָפֶשַׁע וְחַטָּאָה״? אָמַר מֹשֶׁה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל חוֹטְאִין לְפָנֶיךָ וְעוֹשִׂין תְּשׁוּבָה עֲשֵׂה לָהֶם זְדוֹנוֹת כִּשְׁגָגוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, this is** the manner in which **he confesses: I have sinned, I have done wrong, and I have rebelled before You, I and my household. And likewise, with regard to David it says** in this sequence: **“We have sinned along with our forefathers, we have done wrong, we have performed evil”** (Psalms 106:6). **And likewise, with regard to Solomon it says: “We have sinned, and we have done wrong, we have done evil”** (I Kings 8:47). **And likewise, with regard to Daniel it says: “We have sinned, and we have done wrong, and we have done evil, and we have rebelled”** (Daniel 9:5). **However,** according to this interpretation, **what is** the rationale for the sequence of that **which Moses said: Forgiving wrongdoing and rebellion and sin,** where sin appears last? **Moses said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, when the Jewish people sin before you and repent, render their intentional sins like unwitting ones,** forgive wrongdoing and rebellion as if they were sin.


###### Yoma 36b:8
[Yoma 36b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/36b:8)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. פְּשִׁיטָא: יָחִיד וְרַבִּים הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּים! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, מִסְתַּבֵּר טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּקָמְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ קְרָא דְּמֹשֶׁה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar Shmuel said** that **Rav said:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis.** The confession begins with the unwitting sins and concludes with the severe rebellions. The Gemara expresses surprise concerning the need for this ruling: It is **obvious** that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, based on the principle: In a dispute between **an individual and the many,** the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **the many.** The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** in this case that **the rationale** for the opinion **of Rabbi Meir is reasonable, as the verse** with regard to **Moses** is written in the order stated by Rabbi Meir and **supports his** opinion, therefore Rabba bar Shmuel **teaches us** that the *halakha* is nevertheless in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.


###### Yoma 36b:9
[Yoma 36b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/36b:9)

הַהוּא דִּנְחֵית קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה וַעֲבַד כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁבְקַתְּ רַבָּנַן וְעָבְדַתְּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סְבִירָא לִי, כְּדִכְתִיב בְּסֵפֶר אוֹרָיְיתָא דְּמֹשֶׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that there was **a certain** person **who descended** to lead the prayers **before Rabba, and he performed** the confession sequence in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir.** Rabba **said to him: Have you forsaken** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who are the many, **and performed** the confession sequence in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir?** That person **said to Rabba: I hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, as it is written** explicitly **in the Torah of Moses.**


###### Yoma 36b:10
[Yoma 36b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/36b:10)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְכִפֶּר״, בְּכַפָּרַת דְּבָרִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּכַפָּרַת דְּבָרִים, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כַּפָּרַת דָּמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a halakhic midrash that it is written: “And Aaron is to offer his own bull as a sin-offering **and atone** for himself and for his household” (Leviticus 16:6). Apparently, **the verse is speaking of atonement** achieved through **words** of confession. Do **you say** it is **atonement** achieved through **words, or perhaps it is only atonement** achieved through sprinkling **blood,** as each mention of atonement associated with an offering involves the sprinkling of blood on the altar?


###### Yoma 36b:11
[Yoma 36b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/36b:11)

הֲרֵי אֲנִי דָּן: נֶאֶמְרָה כָּאן ״כַּפָּרָה״, וְנֶאֶמְרָה לְהַלָּן ״כַּפָּרָה״. מָה ״כַּפָּרָה״ הָאֲמוּרָה בַּשָּׂעִיר — דְּבָרִים, אַף ״כַּפָּרָה״ הָאֲמוּרָה בַּפָּר — דְּבָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I will infer** via a verbal analogy: **Atonement is stated here,** with regard to the bull of the sin-offering, **and atonement is stated there,** with regard to the scapegoat: “And the goat designated by the lottery for Azazel shall be left standing alive before God, to atone with it” (Leviticus 16:10). **Just as** the **atonement that is stated with regard to the goat** is atonement achieved through **words,** as neither is the goat slaughtered nor is its blood sprinkled on the altar, **so too,** the **atonement stated with regard to the bull** refers to atonement achieved through **words.**


###### Yoma 36b:12
[Yoma 36b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/36b:12)

וְאִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהִקְרִיב אַהֲרֹן אֶת פַּר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ וְכִפֶּר בַּעֲדוֹ וּבְעַד בֵּיתוֹ״, וַעֲדַיִין לֹא נִשְׁחַט הַפָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it is your wish to state** a claim rejecting that proof, there is a different proof. **It says: “And Aaron shall then offer his bull of sin-offering and atone for himself and his household.** And he shall slaughter his bull of sin-offering” (Leviticus 16:11). Here, the term atonement is used despite the fact that **the bull has not yet been slaughtered.** Apparently, the atonement of the bull is achieved through confession and not through sprinkling the blood.


###### Yoma 36b:13
[Yoma 36b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/36b:13)

מַאי ״וְאִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא נֵילַף מִשָּׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים, שֶׁכַּפָּרָתוֹ בְּדָמִים, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְכִפֶּר״, וַעֲדַיִין לֹא נִשְׁחַט הַפָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara seeks to clarify the midrash: **What** is the meaning of: **And if it is your wish to say,** which indicates that there is room to undermine the first source? Why is a second source required? The Gemara answers: **And if you say** that instead of deriving the atonement of the bull from the atonement of the scapegoat, **let us derive** it **from the goat that is offered within, whose atonement is** achieved **through** sprinkling its **blood** in the innermost sanctum; therefore, it was taught in the *baraita* that **it says: And atone, and the bull has not yet been slaughtered.**