Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses that certain sacrifices, including the chattas, requires that it be slaughtered in the North side of the Temple courtyard (Tzafon).

A number of sacrifices must be slaughtered on the north side, with some having it stated explicitly in the relevant verses in the Torah, and other others being derived from derashos. The Bas Ayin (Vayikra 17) raises an interesting question: The verses for the chattas of the King and the chattas of the individual state “you shall slaughter on the North side”, while the verses by the chattas of the Congregation and the Chattas of the Cohen Godol only state, “You shall slaughter in before Hashem.” Even though all of these sacrifices are required to be slaughtered on the north side, why do two of them state it so explicitly, and the other two rely on inferences?

The answer to this lies in the hidden symbolic meaning of the requirement to slaughter on the north side. Bas Ayin says that the word “North”, in Hebrew Tzafon is etymologically connected to the word Tzafun, which means hidden. (The Sun is usually not seen on the north of the sky, therefore hidden.) The purpose of the chattas is to cover and hide the accusations of the heavenly prosecutors resulting from the sin. 

The process of obtaining atonement to hide the sin has a paradoxical element of focusing on the sin and even confessing it. The Gemara Yoma (86b) reports a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda Ben Bava and Rabbi Akiva regarding whether one should specify his sins when confessing or not:

Furthermore, during confession, one must detail the sin he committed and not suffice with a general admission of sin…this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava. Rabbi Akiva says that the verse states: “Fortunate is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is hidden” (Psalms 32:1), which teaches that one need not detail his sins. 

Bas Ayin asserts that there isn’t really a dispute but rather different circumstances that call for being more explicit or less so when confessing. On the one hand, there is a need for dignity and sometimes the recognition of the sin induces enough regret and shame that there is no need to harp on it in detail. On the other hand, pride might feed denial, which is broken by facing the facts and confessing in detail. Bas Ayin makes an ironic assertion that the common person need not specify his sins because he does not hold himself to be special and has need to humble himself excessively. He has sinned, he knows it, and that is sufficient. However, a great person, such as a Tzaddik, because of his great stature, must humble himself by specifying his sins in detail.

The slaughtering of the chattas on the north, on the hidden side, represents the the hiding and covering of sin via the general confession. This is why the verses that describe the common man’s chattas state the north side specifically, because the formula is to be followed exactly with hiding the sin. However, the Cohen Godol, who represents the highest spiritual state, when he sins is like the Tzaddik, he must specify his sins in detail in his confession in order to humble himself. This is why the requirement of the northside is not stated explicitly and only through a derivation. It hints at the notion that, though it is going to be on the north side, there is a hidden requirement, but not utterly hidden because first there’s going to be a full confession. The other two, the congregation and the king, get divided up interestingly as well by the Bas Ayin. The congregation must be humble by specifying their sin in the same manner as the Tzaddik, because as a collective they could fall into arrogance also, believing as a whole, they are “too great to fail”. On the other hand, the king is viewed as a commoner, which is interesting. Even though materially, he is at the pinnacle within the ranks of society, spiritually he is more of an ordinary person. That is a fascinating idea. Bas Ayin considers the king to be of no special spiritual standing relative to the common folk, unlike the cohen Godol who is supposed to manifest a spiritual greatness. In any case, this is why the king also, like the common person, does not have to state his sin explicitly, and therefore the verse indicates the requirement of slaughtering on the north side in a straightforward manner.

The Bas Ayin employs a unique form of derash which you do not usually see in rabbinic literature. It is a kind of rhetorical analysis where we are not just drawing inference from the words, but drawing inference from the manner in which the the derash manifested. Therefore, the sacrifices that state the north side requirement explicitly are also showing a stronger form of that requirement i.e. requiring a stronger form of hiding the sin, by not stating the sin explicitly in the confession. The sacrifices that have the requirement of the northside, but are derived through inference, imply a quieter, softer form of the hidden nature, which is confessing the sins in detail first in order to ultimately Hide from the prosecuting forces.

Another interesting point that emerges from the Bas Ayin is how he sees the rank of king versus the rank of high priest. They both are recorded honor and respect by society and given great privilege yet are fundamentally different. Though the King is the most important person in society, and the final authority, his spiritual rank is assumed to be no different than that of the common man. On the other hand, the Cohen Godol is expected to fulfill the role of spiritual greatness and assumed to be of a higher caliber in his spiritual qualities. Judaism’s aspect of society and law does not fit into neat boxes of democracy or monarchy, but conceptually many of its ideas became a springboard for democratic ideals. For example, while there isn’t a strict separation of church and state we see a balance of powers. The king is a political leader, but the Cohen Godol is a spiritual leader. And it does not end there, because the king can be held in check directly by the prophet who answers to no one but God himself, and the office of the priesthood answers to the rabbinical board of the Sanhedrin who set and define the laws. So this is not a classic separation of church and state, nor is it classically a democracy nor a monarchy, but what it does show is a healthy tension and balance of powers where no one individual holds all the authority.