Yoma 24

לרבות את השחקים

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.

והניחם שם מלמד שטעונין גניזה רבי דוסא אומר ראוין הן לכהן הדיוט ומה תלמוד לומר והניחם שם שלא ישתמש בהן יום הכפורים אחר

The Gemara continues with another baraita connected to this debate. With regard to the garments of the High Priest, the Torah states: “And 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” (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: “And shall leave them there,” 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.

מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי דמר סבר עבודה היא ומר סבר לאו עבודה היא

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’im. What, is it not with regard to this that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Dosa disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, who derives from the phrase “he shall wear” 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 “he shall wear,” 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 Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish.

לא דכולי עלמא עבודה היא והכא בהא קא מיפלגי מר סבר צריכא קרא לרבויי ומר סבר לא צריכא קרא לרבויי

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is possible to say that this is not the subject of debate between these two tanna’im. 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’im are in agreement that the removal of ash is a bona fide service and requires all four priestly garments.

בעי רבי אבין תרומת הדשן בכמה מתרומת מעשר ילפינן לה או מתרומת מדין ילפינן לה תא שמע דתני רבי חייא נאמר כאן והרים ונאמר להלן והרים מה להלן בקומצו אף כאן בקומצו

§ 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 Ḥiyya taught in a baraita that it is stated here: “And he shall take up the ashes” (Leviticus 6:3), and it is said elsewhere, with regard to a meal-offering: “And he shall take up a handful of the choice flour of the meal-offering” (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.

אמר רב ארבע עבודות זר חייב עליהן מיתה זריקה והקטרה וניסוך המים וניסוך היין ולוי אמר אף תרומת הדשן וכן תני לוי במתניתיה אף תרומת הדשן

§ 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’s 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.

מאי טעמא דרב דכתיב ואתה ובניך אתך תשמרו את כהונתכם לכל דבר המזבח ולמבית לפרוכת ועבדתם עבודת מתנה אתן את כהונתכם והזר הקרב יומת עבודת מתנה ולא עבודת סילוק ועבדתם עבודה תמה ולא עבודה שיש אחריה עבודה

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for Rav’s opinion? As it is written: “And 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” (Numbers 18:7). Rav interprets this verse as follows: “A service of gift” 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. “And you shall serve [va’avadtem]” 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.

ולוי רבי רחמנא לכל דבר המזבח ורב ההוא לאתויי שבע הזאות שבפנים ושבמצורע

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 “in everything pertaining to the altar,” 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 “in everything pertaining to the altar”? The Gemara answers: According to him, the word “everything” 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 “everything” 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.

ולוי נפקא ליה מדבר וכל דבר ורב דבר וכל דבר לא דריש

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 “pertaining to the altar” is superfluous, he derives from this the inclusion of the removal of the ashes. Additionally, the expression “everything pertaining” 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 “pertaining to the altar” and “everything pertaining to the altar.”

ואימא לכל דבר המזבח כלל עבודת מתנה פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט עבודת מתנה אין עבודת סילוק לא אמר קרא

The Gemara asks about Levi’s position: But say that the verse should be interpreted as follows: “In everything pertaining” is a generalization, and “a service of gift” 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:

ולמבית לפרוכת ועבדתם אל מבית לפרוכת הוא דעבודת מתנה ולא עבודת סילוק הא בחוץ אפילו עבודת סילוק

“To that within the veil; and you shall serve; I give you the priesthood as a service of gift” (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.

אי הכי ועבדתם נמי אל מבית לפרוכת הוא דעבודה תמה ולא עבודה שיש אחריה עבודה הא בחוץ אפילו עבודה שיש אחריה עבודה

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: “And you shall serve [va’avadtem],” 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.

ועבדתם הדר ערביה קרא

The Gemara answers: The phrase: “And you shall serve [va’avadtem],” 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.

בעי רבא עבודת סילוק בהיכל מהו לפנים מדמינן ליה או לחוץ מדמינן ליה

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’s 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?

הדר פשטא מבית ולמבית

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.

אלא מעתה זר שסידר את השלחן ליחייב איכא סידור בזיכין סידר בזיכין ליחייב איכא סילוק והקטרה

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.

זר שסידר את המנורה ליחייב איכא נתינת פתילה נתן פתילה ליחייב איכא נתינת שמן

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’s 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.

נתן שמן ליחייב איכא הדלקה הדליק ליחייב הדלקה לאו עבודה היא

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.

ולא והתניא ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן אש על המזבח וערכו עצים על האש לימד על הצתת אליתא שלא תהא אלא בכהן כשר ובכלי שרת הצתת אליתא עבודה היא הדלקה לאו עבודה היא

The Gemara asks: And is kindling a fire really not considered a Temple service? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that it is written: “And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar and lay out wood in order upon the fire” (Leviticus 1:7), which teaches that the kindling of chips [alita] added to keep the altar’s 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.

אלא מעתה זר שסידר את המערכה ליחייב איכא סידור שני גזירי עצים סידר שני גזירין ליחייב איכא סידור אברים

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.

והא אמר רב אסי אמר רבי יוחנן זר שסידר שני גזירי עצים חייב בהא פליגי מר סבר עבודה תמה היא ומר סבר לאו עבודה תמה היא

The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav Asi say that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’s 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 Yoḥanan disagree on this point. One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, 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.

תניא כוותיה דרב תניא כוותיה דלוי תניא כוותיה דרב עבודות שזר חייב עליהם מיתה זריקת דם בין לפנים בין לפני ולפנים והמזה בחטאת העוף והממצה והמקטיר בעולת העוף והמנסך שלשה לוגין מים ושלשה לוגין יין

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’s 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.

תניא כוותיה דלוי עבודות שזר חייב עליהן מיתה המרים את הדשן ושבע הזאות שבפנים ושבמצורע והמעלה על גבי המזבח בין דבר כשר בין דבר פסול

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’s 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.

למה מפיסין למה מפיסין כדאמרן אלא למה מפיסין וחוזרין ומפיסין

§ 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?

אמר רבי יוחנן כדי להרגיש כל העזרה שנאמר אשר יחדיו נמתיק סוד בבית אלהים נהלך ברגש

Rabbi Yoḥanan 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: “We took sweet counsel together, in the House of God we walked with the throng” (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.

במה מפיסין רב נחמן אמר בבגדי חול ורב ששת אמר בבגדי קדש

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

רב נחמן אמר בבגדי חול דאי אמרת בבגדי קדש איכא בעלי זרועות דחמסי ועבדי רב ששת אמר בבגדי קדש דאי אמרת בבגדי חול אגב חביבותיה מיקרו ועבדי

The Gemara explains the two approaches. Rav Naḥman 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.

אמר רב נחמן מנא אמינא לה דתנן מסרון לחזנין והיו מפשיטין אותן את בגדיהן ולא היו מניחין עליהן אלא מכנסים בלבד

Rav Naḥman 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.