Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 5, 2021 | 讻状讙 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island group in memory of Irwin Weber a鈥漢, Yitzchak Dov ben Avraham Alter and Rachel, beloved father of our member Debbie Weber Schreiber.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Yoma 24

Is the dispute between Reish and Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan regarding the removal of the ashes (whether it is considered an avoda, a ritual, or not) a dispute also between tannaim? Rav and Levi disagree about a non-kohen who removes the ashes – is he liable for death in the hands of God or not? How does each one derive their opinion from the verse? The gemara raises some questions about Levi and also about both. Then, braitot are brought to strengthen each position. Why do they four lotteries and not just one? Do the priests wear holy garments or regular clothes when doing the lottery? Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet disagree about this and each brings a psychological/behavioral explanation.

诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖讞拽讬诐

The phrase comes to include worn out garments, teaching that as long as they have not become tattered they may be used for Temple services.

讜讛谞讬讞诐 砖诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讟注讜谞讬谉 讙谞讬讝讛 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 专讗讜讬谉 讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛谞讬讞诐 砖诐 砖诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讞专

The Gemara continues with another baraita connected to this debate. With regard to the garments of the High Priest, the Torah states: 鈥淎nd Aaron shall go into the tent of meeting, and he shall take off the linen garments that he had put on when he went into the Sanctuary, and shall leave them there鈥 (Leviticus 16:23). This verse teaches that the linen garments worn by the High Priest during the Yom Kippur service require storing away, i.e., they may not be used again. Rabbi Dosa says: They do not have to be stored away, because although they may not be used again by the High Priest on a subsequent Yom Kippur, they are acceptable for use for a common priest. And what, then, is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd shall leave them there,鈥 which implies that they are not to be used again? It means that the High Priest himself may not use them on a subsequent Yom Kippur for service in the Holy of Holies; it does not mean that they may not be used at all.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara returns to the question of whether or not the removal of the ashes is considered a bona fide Temple service, requiring all four priestly garments, and whether or not this is the subject of debate between tanna鈥檌m. What, is it not with regard to this that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Dosa disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, who derives from the phrase 鈥渉e shall wear鈥 that all four garments are required, holds that the removal of the ashes is a bona fide service; and one Sage, Rabbi Dosa, who derives a different teaching from 鈥渉e shall wear,鈥 holds that it is not a bona fide service, and consequently only two of the four garments are required? Their dispute would therefore be identical to the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 爪专讬讻讗 拽专讗 诇专讘讜讬讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 拽专讗 诇专讘讜讬讬

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is possible to say that this is not the subject of debate between these two tanna鈥檌m. Rather, everyone agrees that the removal of ashes is a bona fide Temple service requiring all four garments, and here they disagree about a different point, which is this: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that a derivation from the verse is necessary to include the mitre and belt, which are not mentioned explicitly in the verse. And one Sage, Rabbi Dosa, holds that since the removal of the ash is a bona fide Temple service it is obvious that all four garments are required, so a derivation from a verse to include the other two garments is not necessary. Accordingly, both tanna鈥檌m are in agreement that the removal of ash is a bona fide service and requires all four priestly garments.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讘讻诪讛 诪转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诇讛 讗讜 诪转专讜诪转 诪讚讬谉 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讜讛专讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讜讛专讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘拽讜诪爪讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘拽讜诪爪讜

Rabbi Avin raised a dilemma: How much ash must be removed in order to fulfill the mitzva of removal of the ashes? Do we derive it from the teruma of the tithe, the portion that the Levite sets aside for the priest, in which case one hundredth of the total is separated, or do we derive it from the donations that were set aside from the spoils of the war with Midian, where one five-hundredth was taken from the spoils of war (see Numbers 31:28)? Come and hear a teaching with regard to this dilemma. As Rabbi 岣yya taught in a baraita that it is stated here: 鈥淎nd he shall take up the ashes鈥 (Leviticus 6:3), and it is said elsewhere, with regard to a meal-offering: 鈥淎nd he shall take up a handful of the choice flour of the meal-offering鈥 (Leviticus 6:8). Just as there, the amount he removes is a handful of flour, so too, here, he removes a handful of ash. The amount of ashes removed from the altar is therefore not a fixed percentage of the total ash.

讗诪专 专讘 讗专讘注 注讘讜讚讜转 讝专 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛谉 诪讬转讛 讝专讬拽讛 讜讛拽讟专讛 讜谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讜谞讬住讜讱 讛讬讬谉 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讗祝 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讜讻谉 转谞讬 诇讜讬 讘诪转谞讬转讬讛 讗祝 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉

Rav said: Although a non-priest may not perform any Temple service, there are only four Temple services for which a non-priest is liable to receive the punishment of death by God鈥檚 hand for doing so. They are: Sprinkling sacrificial blood on the altar, and burning incense or parts of sacrificial animals on the altar, and pouring out the water libation on the altar on the festival of Sukkot, and pouring out the wine libation on the altar. And Levi said: This is true also for the removal of the ashes. And similarly, Levi taught in his collection of baraitot: The removal of ashes is also included among those services for which a non-priest incurs the death penalty if he performs them.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转讛 讜讘谞讬讱 讗转讱 转砖诪专讜 讗转 讻讛讜谞转讻诐 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪讝讘讞 讜诇诪讘讬转 诇驻专讜讻转 讜注讘讚转诐 注讘讜讚转 诪转谞讛 讗转谉 讗转 讻讛讜谞转讻诐 讜讛讝专 讛拽专讘 讬讜诪转 注讘讜讚转 诪转谞讛 讜诇讗 注讘讜讚转 住讬诇讜拽 讜注讘讚转诐 注讘讜讚讛 转诪讛 讜诇讗 注讘讜讚讛 砖讬砖 讗讞专讬讛 注讘讜讚讛

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for Rav鈥檚 opinion? As it is written: 鈥淎nd you and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood in everything pertaining to the altar and to that within the veil; and you shall serve; I give you the priesthood as a service of gift; and the common man that draws near shall be put to death鈥 (Numbers 18:7). Rav interprets this verse as follows: 鈥淎 service of gift鈥 indicates a service that involves giving, i.e., placing something on the altar, and not a service that involves removal from the altar, to the exclusion of removing the ashes. 鈥淎nd you shall serve [va鈥檃vadtem]鈥 is interpreted as referring to a service that is complete [avoda tamma] on its own, such as sprinkling the blood, and not a service that is not complete, i.e., a service that is only a preparatory step and has another service after it that completes its purpose, such as slaughtering the animal or collecting its blood, which are only preparatory steps leading up to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar.

讜诇讜讬 专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪讝讘讞 讜专讘 讛讛讜讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 砖讘注 讛讝讗讜转 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖讘诪爪讜专注

And what is the reason for the opinion of Levi? Why does he include the removal of ashes? According to him, the Merciful One includes this service by adding 鈥渋n everything pertaining to the altar,鈥 which teaches that all actions performed on the altar, including the removal of ashes, are significant and are prohibited to a non-priest on pain of death. The Gemara asks: And what does Rav learn from the phrase 鈥渋n everything pertaining to the altar鈥? The Gemara answers: According to him, the word 鈥渆verything鈥 in that phrase comes to include the seven sprinklings that are performed inside the Sanctuary, when the blood of certain offerings is sprinkled on the veil of the Holy of Holies, and the seven sprinklings of oil of the leper, which are also performed inside the Sanctuary. Rav learns from the word 鈥渆verything鈥 that if a non-priest were to perform any of these actions he would be liable to receive the death penalty, despite the fact that they are not performed on the altar.

讜诇讜讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚讘专 讜讻诇 讚讘专 讜专讘 讚讘专 讜讻诇 讚讘专 诇讗 讚专讬砖

The Gemara asks: And from where does Levi derive these cases? The Gemara answers: He derives them from the superfluous wording of the text. As the entire phrase 鈥減ertaining to the altar鈥 is superfluous, he derives from this the inclusion of the removal of the ashes. Additionally, the expression 鈥渆verything pertaining鈥 implies a further inclusion, from which he derives the internal sprinklings mentioned above. And what does Rav learn from this superfluous wording? Rav does not derive anything particular from the distinction between the expressions 鈥減ertaining to the altar鈥 and 鈥渆verything pertaining to the altar.鈥

讜讗讬诪讗 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪讝讘讞 讻诇诇 注讘讜讚转 诪转谞讛 驻专讟 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 注讘讜讚转 诪转谞讛 讗讬谉 注讘讜讚转 住讬诇讜拽 诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗

The Gemara asks about Levi鈥檚 position: But say that the verse should be interpreted as follows: 鈥淚n everything pertaining鈥 is a generalization, and 鈥渁 service of gift鈥 is a specification, indicating a case of a generalization followed by a specification. One of the principles of hermeneutics states that in such cases, the generalization includes only what is mentioned explicitly in the specification. Following that rule, one would conclude: A service of giving, i.e., placing on the altar, yes, this is included, but a service of removal is not included. This presents a difficulty for Levi. The Gemara responds that the verse states:

讜诇诪讘讬转 诇驻专讜讻转 讜注讘讚转诐 讗诇 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讜讻转 讛讜讗 讚注讘讜讚转 诪转谞讛 讜诇讗 注讘讜讚转 住讬诇讜拽 讛讗 讘讞讜抓 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讜讚转 住讬诇讜拽

鈥淭o that within the veil; and you shall serve; I give you the priesthood as a service of gift鈥 (Numbers 18:7), indicating that it is only with regard to services that are performed within the veil, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, that there is a distinction between services, and a non-priest who performs services of giving there, such as sprinkling the blood inside the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, is subject to the death penalty, but not one who performs services of removing there, such as the removal of the censer from the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. This leads to the conclusion that when it comes to services performed outside of the Holy of Holies, a non-priest would be liable if he performed any service, even a service of removal, such as the removal of ashes from the altar.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讜注讘讚转诐 谞诪讬 讗诇 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讜讻转 讛讜讗 讚注讘讜讚讛 转诪讛 讜诇讗 注讘讜讚讛 砖讬砖 讗讞专讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讛讗 讘讞讜抓 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讜讚讛 砖讬砖 讗讞专讬讛 注讘讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: If it is so that the limitations of the verse apply only to those services performed in the Holy of Holies, one should say that the phrase: 鈥And you shall serve [va鈥檃vadtem],鈥 from which it is derived that one is liable only for a service that is complete [avoda tamma] on its own and not incomplete, should also be similarly limited to services performed to what is within the veil. In that case, the liability of the non-priest, which is limited to cases where he performs a complete service and does not apply if he performs a service that is only preparatory and has another service after it that completes its purpose, should apply only to services performed in the Holy of Holies. But for services performed outside the Holy of Holies, a non-priest should be liable even if it is a service that is incomplete and has a service after it.

讜注讘讚转诐 讛讚专 注专讘讬讛 拽专讗

The Gemara answers: The phrase: 鈥And you shall serve [va鈥檃vadtem],鈥 which begins with the conjunction vav, meaning: And, indicates that the verse goes back and combines the service performed within the veil to services performed outside of it. This teaches that with regard to this halakha there is no difference between a service performed outside and a service performed inside.

讘注讬 专讘讗 注讘讜讚转 住讬诇讜拽 讘讛讬讻诇 诪讛讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讜 诇讞讜抓 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛

According to Levi, if a non-priest performs a service involving removal within the veil, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, he does not incur the death penalty, but if he performs a service involving removal outside, such as the removal of the ashes from the external altar, he is liable to the death penalty. Rava raised a dilemma relating to Levi鈥檚 approach: What would be the halakha with regard to a service of removal performed in the Sanctuary chamber that is before the Holy of Holies, such as removing the burnt incense from the inner altar, or removing burnt wicks and leftover oil from the candelabrum? Do we compare such an act to a service performed inside the Holy of Holies, so that he would be exempt from the death penalty, or do we compare it to the outer service?

讛讚专 驻砖讟讗 诪讘讬转 讜诇诪讘讬转

Rava himself went back and resolved the dilemma: Had the Torah said only: Within the veil, it would have been understood that it is referring only to actions performed in the Holy of Holies. But since the Torah says: And to what is within the veil, the added conjunction: And, teaches that it is referring to something else besides the Holy of Holies, i.e., the Sanctuary.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讝专 砖住讬讚专 讗转 讛砖诇讞谉 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬讻讗 住讬讚讜专 讘讝讬讻讬谉 住讬讚专 讘讝讬讻讬谉 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬讻讗 住讬诇讜拽 讜讛拽讟专讛

The Gemara asks: However, if it is so that a non-priest is liable for performing a service that is complete on its own that takes place in the Sanctuary, one should say that a non-priest who arranges the loaves on the shewbread table should be liable. The Gemara answers: After arranging the bread there is still the arranging of the vessels of frankincense on the table that remains to be done, so the arrangement of the bread is not a service that is complete on its own. The Gemara asks: If so, a non-priest who arranges the vessels of frankincense on the table should be liable. The Gemara rejects this: After arranging the vessels, there is still the removal of these vessels and the burning of their frankincense on the altar that remain to be done; therefore, arranging the vessels is not considered a service that is complete on its own.

讝专 砖住讬讚专 讗转 讛诪谞讜专讛 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬讻讗 谞转讬谞转 驻转讬诇讛 谞转谉 驻转讬诇讛 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬讻讗 谞转讬谞转 砖诪谉

The Gemara asks further with regard to the notion that a non-priest is liable for performing a service that is complete on its own that takes place in the Sanctuary: If so, a non-priest who arranges the lamps of the candelabrum should be liable. The Gemara rejects this: There is still the placing of the wicks in the lamps that remains to be done, so arranging the lamps is not considered a service that is complete on its own. The Gemara asks: If so, a non-priest who placed a wick in the candelabrum鈥檚 lamps should be liable. The Gemara answers: That too is not a service that is complete on its own, as there is still the necessity of placing the oil.

谞转谉 砖诪谉 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬讻讗 讛讚诇拽讛 讛讚诇讬拽 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讛讚诇拽讛 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: If so, a non-priest who placed the oil should be liable. The Gemara answers: That too is not a service that is complete on its own, as there is still the service of lighting that needs to be done. The Gemara asks: If so, if a non-priest who lit the lamps should be liable. The Gemara answers: Lighting the lamps is not considered a bona fide Temple service, since in doing so nothing is done to the candelabrum itself.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜谞转谞讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谉 讗砖 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讜注专讻讜 注爪讬诐 注诇 讛讗砖 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛爪转转 讗诇讬转讗 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讗诇讗 讘讻讛谉 讻砖专 讜讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讛爪转转 讗诇讬转讗 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讚诇拽讛 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: And is kindling a fire really not considered a Temple service? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that it is written: 鈥淎nd the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar and lay out wood in order upon the fire鈥 (Leviticus 1:7), which teaches that the kindling of chips [alita] added to keep the altar鈥檚 fire going must be performed only by a proper priest and that he must be wearing the priestly garments? This shows that kindling is considered a service. The Gemara answers: Kindling the chips is a bona fide service, but lighting the candelabrum is not a bona fide service.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讝专 砖住讬讚专 讗转 讛诪注专讻讛 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬讻讗 住讬讚讜专 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 住讬讚专 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬谉 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬讻讗 住讬讚讜专 讗讘专讬诐

The Gemara further asks: However, if it is so that a non-priest is liable for performing any service involving placing, as established above, a non-priest who set up the arrangement of wood on the altar should be liable, since that is a service involving placing. The Gemara answers: There is still the mitzva of the arrangement of two logs on the altar that remains to be done, so that setting up the arrangement of wood is not a service that is complete on its own. The Gemara asks: If so, a non-priest who arranged the two logs should be liable. The Gemara answers: There is still the arrangement of limbs of offerings on the fire that remains to be done, so placing the two logs is also not considered a service that is complete on its own.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝专 砖住讬讚专 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 住讘专 注讘讜讚讛 转诪讛 讛讬讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 转诪讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav Asi say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A non-priest who arranged the two pieces of wood is liable? This shows that placing the two logs is a complete service and contradicts Rav鈥檚 statement that a non-priest is liable only if he performs the four services that he mentioned above. The Gemara answers: Indeed, Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree on this point. One Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that the placement of the two logs is a service that is complete on its own, as the arrangement of limbs that follows is not considered a continuation of the setting up of the wood; and one Sage, Rav, holds that the placement of the two logs is not considered a service that is complete on its own, since it is followed by the arrangement of the limbs on the wood.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚诇讜讬 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 注讘讜讚讜转 砖讝专 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛诐 诪讬转讛 讝专讬拽转 讚诐 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讜讛诪讝讛 讘讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜讛诪诪爪讛 讜讛诪拽讟讬专 讘注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讜讛诪谞住讱 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 讬讬谉

The Gemara returns to the disagreement between Rav and Levi and notes: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it was taught in a second baraita in accordance with the opinion of Levi. It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: These are the services for which a non-priest who performs them is liable to receive the penalty of death by God鈥檚 hand: One who performs the sprinkling of blood, whether inside the Sanctuary; on the golden altar or at the veil; or inside the innermost chamber, the Holy of Holies, on Yom Kippur; or outside on the main altar; and one who sprinkles blood in the case of a bird sin-offering; and one who squeezes the blood of a bird burnt-offering on the wall of the altar or burns the bird on the altar; and one who pours out three log of water on the altar for the Sukkot water libation or three log of wine on the altar for an ordinary libation. The removal of ashes from the altar is not listed here.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚诇讜讬 注讘讜讚讜转 砖讝专 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛谉 诪讬转讛 讛诪专讬诐 讗转 讛讚砖谉 讜砖讘注 讛讝讗讜转 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖讘诪爪讜专注 讜讛诪注诇讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讘讬谉 讚讘专 讻砖专 讘讬谉 讚讘专 驻住讜诇

It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Levi: These are the services for which a non-priest who performs them is liable to receive the penalty of death by God鈥檚 hand: One who removes the ashes from the altar; one who performs the seven sprinklings that are performed inside the Sanctuary or the sprinklings of the leper; and one who raises up an offering onto the altar, whether it is a proper offering or a disqualified one. In this baraita, the removal of ashes is listed.

诇诪讛 诪驻讬住讬谉 诇诪讛 诪驻讬住讬谉 讻讚讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讛 诪驻讬住讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪驻讬住讬谉

搂 The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the mishna. The mishna states that there were four lotteries held in the Temple every day. One of the Sages asked: Why did the Temple authorities hold lotteries? Before answering the question, the Gemara expresses astonishment at the question itself: Why did they hold lotteries? The reason is as we said clearly in the mishna: To prevent quarrels among the priests. The Gemara explains: Rather, this is the meaning of the question: Why did they assemble all the priests together and hold a lottery, and once again gather them together to hold another lottery, four times, when the priests could be gathered one time and all the necessary lotteries held at that time?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讚讬 诇讛专讙讬砖 讻诇 讛注讝专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖专 讬讞讚讬讜 谞诪转讬拽 住讜讚 讘讘讬转 讗诇讛讬诐 谞讛诇讱 讘专讙砖

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It was done this way in order to create a commotion throughout the Temple courtyard, as the priests would converge from all over to assemble there, as it is stated: 鈥淲e took sweet counsel together, in the House of God we walked with the throng鈥 (Psalms 55:15). This verse teaches that it is proper to stir up a commotion and to cause public excitement in the course of the Temple services and the preliminary steps leading up to them, such as the assignment of tasks to the priests.

讘诪讛 诪驻讬住讬谉 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘讘讙讚讬 讞讜诇 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讘讘讙讚讬 拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: With what garments were the priests clothed when they held the lottery? Rav Na岣an said: The priests were clothed in their own non-sacred garments. And Rav Sheshet said: The priests were dressed in the priestly sacred garments.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘讘讙讚讬 讞讜诇 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讘讙讚讬 拽讚砖 讗讬讻讗 讘注诇讬 讝专讜注讜转 讚讞诪住讬 讜注讘讚讬 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讘讘讙讚讬 拽讚砖 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讘讙讚讬 讞讜诇 讗讙讘 讞讘讬讘讜转讬讛 诪讬拽专讜 讜注讘讚讬

The Gemara explains the two approaches. Rav Na岣an said: The priests were dressed in non-sacred garments, because if you say the lottery was to be held when they were dressed in their sacred garments, there are strong-armed men who might act with force and perform the service even if they did not win the lottery. Since they were already wearing the sacred garments, they would simply force their way into performing the service. Rav Sheshet said: They were wearing the sacred garments, as, if you say they wore their non-sacred garments, due to the fact that the service was so beloved to them, in their excitement over having been granted the privilege to perform the service, it may happen that they would perform the service immediately, forgetting to don their sacred garments, thereby disqualifying the service.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 诪住专讜谉 诇讞讝谞讬谉 讜讛讬讜 诪驻砖讬讟讬谉 讗讜转谉 讗转 讘讙讚讬讛谉 讜诇讗 讛讬讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗诇讗 诪讻谞住讬诐 讘诇讘讚

Rav Na岣an said: From where do I state my opinion? As we learned in a mishna: After the lottery they gave the priests over to the attendants, and they would take their clothes off them and they would leave only their trousers on them.

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island group in memory of Irwin Weber a鈥漢, Yitzchak Dov ben Avraham Alter and Rachel, beloved father of our member Debbie Weber Schreiber.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yoma 24 – 30 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

The Gemara this week is going to define what is considered a service in the Temple and therefore can only...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 24: Courtyard Commotion

On the 4 services that if a non-kohen did them, he'd be deserving of a death sentence. Is terumat ha-deshen...

Yoma 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 24

诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖讞拽讬诐

The phrase comes to include worn out garments, teaching that as long as they have not become tattered they may be used for Temple services.

讜讛谞讬讞诐 砖诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讟注讜谞讬谉 讙谞讬讝讛 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 专讗讜讬谉 讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛谞讬讞诐 砖诐 砖诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讞专

The Gemara continues with another baraita connected to this debate. With regard to the garments of the High Priest, the Torah states: 鈥淎nd Aaron shall go into the tent of meeting, and he shall take off the linen garments that he had put on when he went into the Sanctuary, and shall leave them there鈥 (Leviticus 16:23). This verse teaches that the linen garments worn by the High Priest during the Yom Kippur service require storing away, i.e., they may not be used again. Rabbi Dosa says: They do not have to be stored away, because although they may not be used again by the High Priest on a subsequent Yom Kippur, they are acceptable for use for a common priest. And what, then, is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd shall leave them there,鈥 which implies that they are not to be used again? It means that the High Priest himself may not use them on a subsequent Yom Kippur for service in the Holy of Holies; it does not mean that they may not be used at all.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara returns to the question of whether or not the removal of the ashes is considered a bona fide Temple service, requiring all four priestly garments, and whether or not this is the subject of debate between tanna鈥檌m. What, is it not with regard to this that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Dosa disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, who derives from the phrase 鈥渉e shall wear鈥 that all four garments are required, holds that the removal of the ashes is a bona fide service; and one Sage, Rabbi Dosa, who derives a different teaching from 鈥渉e shall wear,鈥 holds that it is not a bona fide service, and consequently only two of the four garments are required? Their dispute would therefore be identical to the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 爪专讬讻讗 拽专讗 诇专讘讜讬讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 拽专讗 诇专讘讜讬讬

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is possible to say that this is not the subject of debate between these two tanna鈥檌m. Rather, everyone agrees that the removal of ashes is a bona fide Temple service requiring all four garments, and here they disagree about a different point, which is this: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that a derivation from the verse is necessary to include the mitre and belt, which are not mentioned explicitly in the verse. And one Sage, Rabbi Dosa, holds that since the removal of the ash is a bona fide Temple service it is obvious that all four garments are required, so a derivation from a verse to include the other two garments is not necessary. Accordingly, both tanna鈥檌m are in agreement that the removal of ash is a bona fide service and requires all four priestly garments.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讘讻诪讛 诪转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诇讛 讗讜 诪转专讜诪转 诪讚讬谉 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讜讛专讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讜讛专讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘拽讜诪爪讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘拽讜诪爪讜

Rabbi Avin raised a dilemma: How much ash must be removed in order to fulfill the mitzva of removal of the ashes? Do we derive it from the teruma of the tithe, the portion that the Levite sets aside for the priest, in which case one hundredth of the total is separated, or do we derive it from the donations that were set aside from the spoils of the war with Midian, where one five-hundredth was taken from the spoils of war (see Numbers 31:28)? Come and hear a teaching with regard to this dilemma. As Rabbi 岣yya taught in a baraita that it is stated here: 鈥淎nd he shall take up the ashes鈥 (Leviticus 6:3), and it is said elsewhere, with regard to a meal-offering: 鈥淎nd he shall take up a handful of the choice flour of the meal-offering鈥 (Leviticus 6:8). Just as there, the amount he removes is a handful of flour, so too, here, he removes a handful of ash. The amount of ashes removed from the altar is therefore not a fixed percentage of the total ash.

讗诪专 专讘 讗专讘注 注讘讜讚讜转 讝专 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛谉 诪讬转讛 讝专讬拽讛 讜讛拽讟专讛 讜谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讜谞讬住讜讱 讛讬讬谉 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讗祝 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讜讻谉 转谞讬 诇讜讬 讘诪转谞讬转讬讛 讗祝 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉

Rav said: Although a non-priest may not perform any Temple service, there are only four Temple services for which a non-priest is liable to receive the punishment of death by God鈥檚 hand for doing so. They are: Sprinkling sacrificial blood on the altar, and burning incense or parts of sacrificial animals on the altar, and pouring out the water libation on the altar on the festival of Sukkot, and pouring out the wine libation on the altar. And Levi said: This is true also for the removal of the ashes. And similarly, Levi taught in his collection of baraitot: The removal of ashes is also included among those services for which a non-priest incurs the death penalty if he performs them.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转讛 讜讘谞讬讱 讗转讱 转砖诪专讜 讗转 讻讛讜谞转讻诐 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪讝讘讞 讜诇诪讘讬转 诇驻专讜讻转 讜注讘讚转诐 注讘讜讚转 诪转谞讛 讗转谉 讗转 讻讛讜谞转讻诐 讜讛讝专 讛拽专讘 讬讜诪转 注讘讜讚转 诪转谞讛 讜诇讗 注讘讜讚转 住讬诇讜拽 讜注讘讚转诐 注讘讜讚讛 转诪讛 讜诇讗 注讘讜讚讛 砖讬砖 讗讞专讬讛 注讘讜讚讛

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for Rav鈥檚 opinion? As it is written: 鈥淎nd you and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood in everything pertaining to the altar and to that within the veil; and you shall serve; I give you the priesthood as a service of gift; and the common man that draws near shall be put to death鈥 (Numbers 18:7). Rav interprets this verse as follows: 鈥淎 service of gift鈥 indicates a service that involves giving, i.e., placing something on the altar, and not a service that involves removal from the altar, to the exclusion of removing the ashes. 鈥淎nd you shall serve [va鈥檃vadtem]鈥 is interpreted as referring to a service that is complete [avoda tamma] on its own, such as sprinkling the blood, and not a service that is not complete, i.e., a service that is only a preparatory step and has another service after it that completes its purpose, such as slaughtering the animal or collecting its blood, which are only preparatory steps leading up to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar.

讜诇讜讬 专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪讝讘讞 讜专讘 讛讛讜讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 砖讘注 讛讝讗讜转 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖讘诪爪讜专注

And what is the reason for the opinion of Levi? Why does he include the removal of ashes? According to him, the Merciful One includes this service by adding 鈥渋n everything pertaining to the altar,鈥 which teaches that all actions performed on the altar, including the removal of ashes, are significant and are prohibited to a non-priest on pain of death. The Gemara asks: And what does Rav learn from the phrase 鈥渋n everything pertaining to the altar鈥? The Gemara answers: According to him, the word 鈥渆verything鈥 in that phrase comes to include the seven sprinklings that are performed inside the Sanctuary, when the blood of certain offerings is sprinkled on the veil of the Holy of Holies, and the seven sprinklings of oil of the leper, which are also performed inside the Sanctuary. Rav learns from the word 鈥渆verything鈥 that if a non-priest were to perform any of these actions he would be liable to receive the death penalty, despite the fact that they are not performed on the altar.

讜诇讜讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚讘专 讜讻诇 讚讘专 讜专讘 讚讘专 讜讻诇 讚讘专 诇讗 讚专讬砖

The Gemara asks: And from where does Levi derive these cases? The Gemara answers: He derives them from the superfluous wording of the text. As the entire phrase 鈥減ertaining to the altar鈥 is superfluous, he derives from this the inclusion of the removal of the ashes. Additionally, the expression 鈥渆verything pertaining鈥 implies a further inclusion, from which he derives the internal sprinklings mentioned above. And what does Rav learn from this superfluous wording? Rav does not derive anything particular from the distinction between the expressions 鈥減ertaining to the altar鈥 and 鈥渆verything pertaining to the altar.鈥

讜讗讬诪讗 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪讝讘讞 讻诇诇 注讘讜讚转 诪转谞讛 驻专讟 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 注讘讜讚转 诪转谞讛 讗讬谉 注讘讜讚转 住讬诇讜拽 诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗

The Gemara asks about Levi鈥檚 position: But say that the verse should be interpreted as follows: 鈥淚n everything pertaining鈥 is a generalization, and 鈥渁 service of gift鈥 is a specification, indicating a case of a generalization followed by a specification. One of the principles of hermeneutics states that in such cases, the generalization includes only what is mentioned explicitly in the specification. Following that rule, one would conclude: A service of giving, i.e., placing on the altar, yes, this is included, but a service of removal is not included. This presents a difficulty for Levi. The Gemara responds that the verse states:

讜诇诪讘讬转 诇驻专讜讻转 讜注讘讚转诐 讗诇 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讜讻转 讛讜讗 讚注讘讜讚转 诪转谞讛 讜诇讗 注讘讜讚转 住讬诇讜拽 讛讗 讘讞讜抓 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讜讚转 住讬诇讜拽

鈥淭o that within the veil; and you shall serve; I give you the priesthood as a service of gift鈥 (Numbers 18:7), indicating that it is only with regard to services that are performed within the veil, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, that there is a distinction between services, and a non-priest who performs services of giving there, such as sprinkling the blood inside the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, is subject to the death penalty, but not one who performs services of removing there, such as the removal of the censer from the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. This leads to the conclusion that when it comes to services performed outside of the Holy of Holies, a non-priest would be liable if he performed any service, even a service of removal, such as the removal of ashes from the altar.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讜注讘讚转诐 谞诪讬 讗诇 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讜讻转 讛讜讗 讚注讘讜讚讛 转诪讛 讜诇讗 注讘讜讚讛 砖讬砖 讗讞专讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讛讗 讘讞讜抓 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讜讚讛 砖讬砖 讗讞专讬讛 注讘讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: If it is so that the limitations of the verse apply only to those services performed in the Holy of Holies, one should say that the phrase: 鈥And you shall serve [va鈥檃vadtem],鈥 from which it is derived that one is liable only for a service that is complete [avoda tamma] on its own and not incomplete, should also be similarly limited to services performed to what is within the veil. In that case, the liability of the non-priest, which is limited to cases where he performs a complete service and does not apply if he performs a service that is only preparatory and has another service after it that completes its purpose, should apply only to services performed in the Holy of Holies. But for services performed outside the Holy of Holies, a non-priest should be liable even if it is a service that is incomplete and has a service after it.

讜注讘讚转诐 讛讚专 注专讘讬讛 拽专讗

The Gemara answers: The phrase: 鈥And you shall serve [va鈥檃vadtem],鈥 which begins with the conjunction vav, meaning: And, indicates that the verse goes back and combines the service performed within the veil to services performed outside of it. This teaches that with regard to this halakha there is no difference between a service performed outside and a service performed inside.

讘注讬 专讘讗 注讘讜讚转 住讬诇讜拽 讘讛讬讻诇 诪讛讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讜 诇讞讜抓 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛

According to Levi, if a non-priest performs a service involving removal within the veil, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, he does not incur the death penalty, but if he performs a service involving removal outside, such as the removal of the ashes from the external altar, he is liable to the death penalty. Rava raised a dilemma relating to Levi鈥檚 approach: What would be the halakha with regard to a service of removal performed in the Sanctuary chamber that is before the Holy of Holies, such as removing the burnt incense from the inner altar, or removing burnt wicks and leftover oil from the candelabrum? Do we compare such an act to a service performed inside the Holy of Holies, so that he would be exempt from the death penalty, or do we compare it to the outer service?

讛讚专 驻砖讟讗 诪讘讬转 讜诇诪讘讬转

Rava himself went back and resolved the dilemma: Had the Torah said only: Within the veil, it would have been understood that it is referring only to actions performed in the Holy of Holies. But since the Torah says: And to what is within the veil, the added conjunction: And, teaches that it is referring to something else besides the Holy of Holies, i.e., the Sanctuary.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讝专 砖住讬讚专 讗转 讛砖诇讞谉 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬讻讗 住讬讚讜专 讘讝讬讻讬谉 住讬讚专 讘讝讬讻讬谉 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬讻讗 住讬诇讜拽 讜讛拽讟专讛

The Gemara asks: However, if it is so that a non-priest is liable for performing a service that is complete on its own that takes place in the Sanctuary, one should say that a non-priest who arranges the loaves on the shewbread table should be liable. The Gemara answers: After arranging the bread there is still the arranging of the vessels of frankincense on the table that remains to be done, so the arrangement of the bread is not a service that is complete on its own. The Gemara asks: If so, a non-priest who arranges the vessels of frankincense on the table should be liable. The Gemara rejects this: After arranging the vessels, there is still the removal of these vessels and the burning of their frankincense on the altar that remain to be done; therefore, arranging the vessels is not considered a service that is complete on its own.

讝专 砖住讬讚专 讗转 讛诪谞讜专讛 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬讻讗 谞转讬谞转 驻转讬诇讛 谞转谉 驻转讬诇讛 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬讻讗 谞转讬谞转 砖诪谉

The Gemara asks further with regard to the notion that a non-priest is liable for performing a service that is complete on its own that takes place in the Sanctuary: If so, a non-priest who arranges the lamps of the candelabrum should be liable. The Gemara rejects this: There is still the placing of the wicks in the lamps that remains to be done, so arranging the lamps is not considered a service that is complete on its own. The Gemara asks: If so, a non-priest who placed a wick in the candelabrum鈥檚 lamps should be liable. The Gemara answers: That too is not a service that is complete on its own, as there is still the necessity of placing the oil.

谞转谉 砖诪谉 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬讻讗 讛讚诇拽讛 讛讚诇讬拽 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讛讚诇拽讛 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: If so, a non-priest who placed the oil should be liable. The Gemara answers: That too is not a service that is complete on its own, as there is still the service of lighting that needs to be done. The Gemara asks: If so, if a non-priest who lit the lamps should be liable. The Gemara answers: Lighting the lamps is not considered a bona fide Temple service, since in doing so nothing is done to the candelabrum itself.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜谞转谞讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谉 讗砖 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讜注专讻讜 注爪讬诐 注诇 讛讗砖 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛爪转转 讗诇讬转讗 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讗诇讗 讘讻讛谉 讻砖专 讜讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讛爪转转 讗诇讬转讗 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讚诇拽讛 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: And is kindling a fire really not considered a Temple service? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that it is written: 鈥淎nd the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar and lay out wood in order upon the fire鈥 (Leviticus 1:7), which teaches that the kindling of chips [alita] added to keep the altar鈥檚 fire going must be performed only by a proper priest and that he must be wearing the priestly garments? This shows that kindling is considered a service. The Gemara answers: Kindling the chips is a bona fide service, but lighting the candelabrum is not a bona fide service.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讝专 砖住讬讚专 讗转 讛诪注专讻讛 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬讻讗 住讬讚讜专 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 住讬讚专 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬谉 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬讻讗 住讬讚讜专 讗讘专讬诐

The Gemara further asks: However, if it is so that a non-priest is liable for performing any service involving placing, as established above, a non-priest who set up the arrangement of wood on the altar should be liable, since that is a service involving placing. The Gemara answers: There is still the mitzva of the arrangement of two logs on the altar that remains to be done, so that setting up the arrangement of wood is not a service that is complete on its own. The Gemara asks: If so, a non-priest who arranged the two logs should be liable. The Gemara answers: There is still the arrangement of limbs of offerings on the fire that remains to be done, so placing the two logs is also not considered a service that is complete on its own.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝专 砖住讬讚专 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 住讘专 注讘讜讚讛 转诪讛 讛讬讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 转诪讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav Asi say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A non-priest who arranged the two pieces of wood is liable? This shows that placing the two logs is a complete service and contradicts Rav鈥檚 statement that a non-priest is liable only if he performs the four services that he mentioned above. The Gemara answers: Indeed, Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree on this point. One Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that the placement of the two logs is a service that is complete on its own, as the arrangement of limbs that follows is not considered a continuation of the setting up of the wood; and one Sage, Rav, holds that the placement of the two logs is not considered a service that is complete on its own, since it is followed by the arrangement of the limbs on the wood.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚诇讜讬 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 注讘讜讚讜转 砖讝专 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛诐 诪讬转讛 讝专讬拽转 讚诐 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讜讛诪讝讛 讘讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜讛诪诪爪讛 讜讛诪拽讟讬专 讘注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讜讛诪谞住讱 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 讬讬谉

The Gemara returns to the disagreement between Rav and Levi and notes: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it was taught in a second baraita in accordance with the opinion of Levi. It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: These are the services for which a non-priest who performs them is liable to receive the penalty of death by God鈥檚 hand: One who performs the sprinkling of blood, whether inside the Sanctuary; on the golden altar or at the veil; or inside the innermost chamber, the Holy of Holies, on Yom Kippur; or outside on the main altar; and one who sprinkles blood in the case of a bird sin-offering; and one who squeezes the blood of a bird burnt-offering on the wall of the altar or burns the bird on the altar; and one who pours out three log of water on the altar for the Sukkot water libation or three log of wine on the altar for an ordinary libation. The removal of ashes from the altar is not listed here.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚诇讜讬 注讘讜讚讜转 砖讝专 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛谉 诪讬转讛 讛诪专讬诐 讗转 讛讚砖谉 讜砖讘注 讛讝讗讜转 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖讘诪爪讜专注 讜讛诪注诇讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讘讬谉 讚讘专 讻砖专 讘讬谉 讚讘专 驻住讜诇

It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Levi: These are the services for which a non-priest who performs them is liable to receive the penalty of death by God鈥檚 hand: One who removes the ashes from the altar; one who performs the seven sprinklings that are performed inside the Sanctuary or the sprinklings of the leper; and one who raises up an offering onto the altar, whether it is a proper offering or a disqualified one. In this baraita, the removal of ashes is listed.

诇诪讛 诪驻讬住讬谉 诇诪讛 诪驻讬住讬谉 讻讚讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讛 诪驻讬住讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪驻讬住讬谉

搂 The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the mishna. The mishna states that there were four lotteries held in the Temple every day. One of the Sages asked: Why did the Temple authorities hold lotteries? Before answering the question, the Gemara expresses astonishment at the question itself: Why did they hold lotteries? The reason is as we said clearly in the mishna: To prevent quarrels among the priests. The Gemara explains: Rather, this is the meaning of the question: Why did they assemble all the priests together and hold a lottery, and once again gather them together to hold another lottery, four times, when the priests could be gathered one time and all the necessary lotteries held at that time?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讚讬 诇讛专讙讬砖 讻诇 讛注讝专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖专 讬讞讚讬讜 谞诪转讬拽 住讜讚 讘讘讬转 讗诇讛讬诐 谞讛诇讱 讘专讙砖

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It was done this way in order to create a commotion throughout the Temple courtyard, as the priests would converge from all over to assemble there, as it is stated: 鈥淲e took sweet counsel together, in the House of God we walked with the throng鈥 (Psalms 55:15). This verse teaches that it is proper to stir up a commotion and to cause public excitement in the course of the Temple services and the preliminary steps leading up to them, such as the assignment of tasks to the priests.

讘诪讛 诪驻讬住讬谉 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘讘讙讚讬 讞讜诇 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讘讘讙讚讬 拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: With what garments were the priests clothed when they held the lottery? Rav Na岣an said: The priests were clothed in their own non-sacred garments. And Rav Sheshet said: The priests were dressed in the priestly sacred garments.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘讘讙讚讬 讞讜诇 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讘讙讚讬 拽讚砖 讗讬讻讗 讘注诇讬 讝专讜注讜转 讚讞诪住讬 讜注讘讚讬 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讘讘讙讚讬 拽讚砖 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讘讙讚讬 讞讜诇 讗讙讘 讞讘讬讘讜转讬讛 诪讬拽专讜 讜注讘讚讬

The Gemara explains the two approaches. Rav Na岣an said: The priests were dressed in non-sacred garments, because if you say the lottery was to be held when they were dressed in their sacred garments, there are strong-armed men who might act with force and perform the service even if they did not win the lottery. Since they were already wearing the sacred garments, they would simply force their way into performing the service. Rav Sheshet said: They were wearing the sacred garments, as, if you say they wore their non-sacred garments, due to the fact that the service was so beloved to them, in their excitement over having been granted the privilege to perform the service, it may happen that they would perform the service immediately, forgetting to don their sacred garments, thereby disqualifying the service.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 诪住专讜谉 诇讞讝谞讬谉 讜讛讬讜 诪驻砖讬讟讬谉 讗讜转谉 讗转 讘讙讚讬讛谉 讜诇讗 讛讬讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗诇讗 诪讻谞住讬诐 讘诇讘讚

Rav Na岣an said: From where do I state my opinion? As we learned in a mishna: After the lottery they gave the priests over to the attendants, and they would take their clothes off them and they would leave only their trousers on them.

Scroll To Top