## Yoma Daf 51b

###### Yoma 51b:1
[Yoma 51b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/51b:1)

וְתִיפּוֹק לִי דַּ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא — מִשֶּׁלּוֹ הוּא מֵבִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Returning to Rabbi Elazar’s question as to whether a High Priest can perform substitution for his bull, the Gemara seeks to prove that the other priests were not full partners in this offering but only gained atonement incidentally. **And let me derive** this *halakha* from the fact that **the Merciful One states:** “And Aaron shall sacrifice the bull of the sin-offering, **which is for himself”** (Leviticus 16:11), indicating that the High Priest **brings** the bull **from his own** property.


###### Yoma 51b:2
[Yoma 51b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/51b:2)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״ — מִשֶּׁלּוֹ הוּא מֵבִיא, וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר. יָכוֹל לֹא יָבִיא מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר — שֶׁאֵין הַצִּיבּוּר מִתְכַּפְּרִין בּוֹ, אֲבָל יָבִיא מִשֶּׁל אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים — שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים מִתְכַּפְּרִים בּוֹ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it was taught** in a *baraita*: **“Which is for himself”** means that **he brings** it **from his own** property **and not from** the property **of the community.** I **might** have thought that the High Priest may **not bring** this offering **from** the property **of the community** because **the community** as a whole **does not gain atonement through it, but** he may **bring** it **from** the property **of his fellow priests, as his fellow priests do gain atonement through it.** Therefore **the verse states: “Which is for himself,”** i.e., it must belong to him and no one else.


###### Yoma 51b:3
[Yoma 51b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/51b:3)

יָכוֹל לֹא יָבִיא, וְאִם הֵבִיא כָּשֵׁר — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר שׁוּב: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״ — שָׁנָה הַכָּתוּב עָלָיו לְעַכֵּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
I **might** have thought that the High Priest should **not bring** the bull from the property of the other priests ab initio, **but** if **he did bring** it from their property, the offering is **valid.** Therefore, **the verse** continues and **states again:** “And he shall slaughter the bull for the sin-offering, **which is for himself”** (Leviticus 16:11); **the text repeats this** phrase: “Which is for himself,” to emphasize that this requirement **is indispensable** and that if the High Priest brings a bull that belongs to someone else, the offering is invalid.


###### Yoma 51b:4
[Yoma 51b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/51b:4)

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים אִי לָאו דְּקָנוּ בְּגַוֵּיהּ הֵיכִי מְכַפַּר לְהוּ? אֶלָּא שָׁאנֵי בֵּי גַזָּא דְּאַהֲרֹן דְּאַפְקְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים. הָכָא [גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה] נָמֵי: שָׁאנֵי בֵּי גַזָּא דְּאַהֲרֹן דְּאַפְקְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **And according to your reasoning, if his fellow priests do not acquire** a share **in** the bull, **how does it atone for them?** Since they achieve atonement through the offering, they must own a share in it. **Rather,** you must say that **the property [*bei gazza*] of Aaron** the High Priest **is different** in **that the Merciful One rendered it ownerless with regard to his fellow priests.** Although the High Priest brings a bull from his own funds, it is as though he sanctifies it on behalf of all of the priests. But if so, **here too, with regard to substitution,** we could likewise say that **the property of Aaron is different** in **that the Merciful One rendered it ownerless with regard to his fellow priests.** Consequently, there is no proof from here that a High Priest can perform substitution for his bull.


###### Yoma 51b:5
[Yoma 51b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/51b:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּהֵיכָל עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְבֵין שְׁתֵּי הַפָּרוֹכֹת הַמַּבְדִּילוֹת בֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים, וּבֵינֵיהֶן אַמָּה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לֹא הָיְתָה שָׁם אֶלָּא פָּרוֹכֶת אַחַת בִּלְבַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִבְדִּילָה הַפָּרוֹכֶת לָכֶם בֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The High Priest **would** then **walk** west **through the Sanctuary until he reaches** the area **between the two curtains that separated the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies, and** the space **between them** was one **cubit. Rabbi Yosei says: There was only one curtain there, as it is stated: “And the curtain shall divide for you between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies”** (Exodus 26:33).


###### Yoma 51b:6
[Yoma 51b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/51b:6)

**גְּמָ׳** שַׁפִּיר קָאָמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרַבָּנַן! וְרַבָּנַן אָמְרִי לְךָ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּמִשְׁכָּן, אֲבָל בְּמִקְדָּשׁ שֵׁנִי כֵּיוָן דְּלָא הֲוַאי אַמָּה טְרַקְסִין, וּבְמִקְדָּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן הוּא דַּהֲוַאי, וְאִיסְתַּפַּקָא לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן בִּקְדוּשְּׁתֵיהּ, אִי כְּלִפְנִים אִי כְּלַחוּץ, וַעֲבוּד שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹכֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Rabbi Yosei is saying well to the Rabbis,** i.e., Rabbi Yosei provides solid support for his opinion. **And the Rabbis** could **say to you: This applies** only **in the Tabernacle,** which had but one curtain. **However, in the Second Temple, since there was no one-cubit partition** [***teraksin*]** separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary of the Temple, **as it** was only **in the First Temple that there was** a one-cubit partition, **and the Rabbis were uncertain with regard to the sanctity** of the space occupied by the one-cubit partition, **whether** it had the sanctity **of the inside** of the Holy of Holies, **or** the sanctity **of the outside** area of the Sanctuary, therefore the Sages of the time **prepared two curtains** to enclose this space of uncertain status.


###### Yoma 51b:7
[Yoma 51b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/51b:7)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בֵּין הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לַמְּנוֹרָה הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: בֵּין שֻׁלְחָן לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין שֻׁלְחָן לַכּוֹתֶל. מַאן יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: פִּיתְחָא בְּצָפוֹן קָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** When the High Priest walked to the Holy of Holies, **he walked** on the south side **between the** inner **altar and the candelabrum.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says** that he walked on the north side **between the table and the altar. And some say** he passed **between the table and the wall.** The Gemara asks: **Whose** opinion is introduced by the title: **Some say? Rav Ḥisda said: It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei** in our mishna, according to whom there is only one curtain and **who said** that the **entrance was positioned in the north.** According to all opinions, the entrance to the Holy of Holies was located in the north, and since Rabbi Yosei believed that there was just one curtain, the High Priest would walk in a straight line toward this entrance along the north side of the Sanctuary.


###### Yoma 51b:8
[Yoma 51b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/51b:8)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר לָךְ: פִּיתְחָא בְּדָרוֹם קָאֵי. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר כְּמַאן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? אִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ — נֵיעוּל כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אִי כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ — נֵיעוּל כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yehuda** maintains that there were two curtains, and therefore **he** could have **said to you** that although the entrance to the Holy of Holies was on the north side, because there were two curtains, one behind the other, the **entrance was positioned in the south.** The High Priest entered on the south side and walked between the curtains to the north of the inner curtain where he entered the Holy of Holies. The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Meir, in accordance with whose** opinion **does he hold? If he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda** with regard to the place of the entrance, the High Priest should **enter as** explained by **Rabbi Yehuda;** conversely, **if he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, he** should **enter as** explained by **Rabbi Yosei.**


###### Yoma 51b:9
[Yoma 51b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/51b:9)

לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וַאֲמַר לְךָ: שׁוּלְחָנוֹת צָפוֹן וְדָרוֹם מוּנָּחִין, וּמַפְסְקָא לֵיהּ שֻׁלְחָן וְלָא מִתְעַיֵּיל לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** Rabbi Meir **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, and he** could have **said to you: The tables,** the one holding the shewbread and other tables next to it, **were arranged north to south, and the table blocked him** on the north side, **and** therefore the High Priest **could not enter** in a direct line, as the space was too narrow.


###### Yoma 51b:10
[Yoma 51b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/51b:10)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם מִזְרָח וּמַעֲרָב מוּנָּחִין, וּמִשּׁוּם שְׁכִינָה לָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead: **Actually the** tables **were arranged east to west, and due to** the honor of **the Divine Presence, it was not proper conduct**