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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 6, 2021 | 讻状讚 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 25

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan, Jessica Shklar, and Emily Michelson in memory of their mother Kadimah bat haRav Avraham Tzvi ben Tzion v’Chaya on her third yahrzeit. And by Robin Bodek Rosenbaum to mark the 11th yahrzeit of her father, Rav Reuven ben Tzvi Hersh, Reuben Bodek. A prince of a man who was loved by all who knew him. He is sorely missed.

Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet each bring proof for their opinion regarding what clothes did the kohanim wear while doing the lottery. From one of the sources brought, they derive that the lishkat hagazit, the Chamber of Hewn Stone was partially in the sanctified area (in the azara) and partly in the non-sanctified area with entrances from either side. The second lottery was for the slaughtering of the Tamid sacrifice, the sprinkling of the blood, the cleaning of the inner altar and the menorah, and the carrying of the parts of the animal to be placed on the altar. There were thirteen jobs in the lottery. Would they do 13 separate lotteries or did one person “win” the lottery and the next 12 people in line got the other jobs? The job of accepting the blood doesn’t appear in the list – was that job given to the slaughterer or to the one who sprinkled the blood? The gemara brings four different opinions regarding the order in which the parts were brought onto the altar. Why were the head and the right hind leg brought first and together according to all the opinions?

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讗讜转谉 砖讝讻讜 诇驻讬讬住 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 讘讗讜转谉 砖诇讗 讝讻讜 诇驻讬讬住

What, is this not talking about those priests who won the lottery, describing how their non-sacred garments were removed from them before they were dressed in the priestly garments? Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rav Sheshet said, rejecting that interpretation: No, it is possible to explain that all the priests at the lottery were wearing sacred garments and that, on the contrary, the mishna speaks about those priests who did not win the lottery. The text describes how the sacred garments they wore during the lottery were removed from them.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讗讜转谉 砖讝讻讜 诇驻讬讬住 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 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪谞讬讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讚讘专 拽讜讚诐 诇诪讻谞住讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诪讻谞住讬 讘讚 讬讛讬讜 注诇 讘砖专讜

The Gemara supports this latter interpretation: So too, it is reasonable to follow Rav Sheshet鈥檚 interpretation of the mishna. As, if it were to enter your mind to say that the mishna is dealing with those who won the lottery and describes how their non-sacred garments were removed and sacred garments put on, how would one understand the statement: They would leave only their trousers on them? One would have to explain that the priests subsequently donned the sacred clothes on top of the non-sacred trousers; then they would remove the non-sacred trousers and replace them with the sacred trousers. But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that nothing should precede the trousers when the priest dresses? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall have linen trousers upon his flesh鈥 (Leviticus 16:4)? However, according to the proposed interpretation of the mishna, the priests donned the other sacred garments and put on the trousers after them.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 注讚 砖注讜讚谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘讙讚讬 讞讜诇 诪诇讘讬砖讬谉 讗讜转谉 诪讻谞住讬 拽讚砖 讜讛讬讜 诪驻砖讬讟讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讙讚讬 讞讜诇 讜诇讗 讛讬讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讻谞住讬诐 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara asks: And how would the other one, Rav Na岣an, resolve this difficulty? He would respond that this is not difficult, as this is what the mishna is teaching: While the non-sacred garments are still on them they put the sacred trousers on them, and then they remove from them the non-sacred clothes, and they left them wearing only the sacred trousers. Therefore, it is possible to interpret the mishna either way.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 诇砖讻转 讛讙讝讬转 讻诪讬谉 讘住讬诇拽讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讬转讛 驻讬讬住 讘诪讝专讞讛 讜讝拽谉 讬讜砖讘 讘诪注专讘讛 讜讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪讜拽驻讬谉 讜注讜诪讚讬谉 讻诪讬谉 讘讻讜诇讬讗专 讜讛诪诪讜谞讛 讘讗 讜谞讜讟诇 诪爪谞驻转 诪专讗砖讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜讬讜讚注讬谉 砖诪诪谞讜 驻讬讬住 诪转讞讬诇 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讘讙讚讬 讞讜诇 诪爪谞驻转 讘讘讙讚讬 讞讜诇 诪讬 讗讬讻讗

Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say that the priests wore sacred garments when the lottery was held? As it was taught in a baraita: The Chamber of Hewn Stone was built in the style of a large basilica [basileki]; the lottery is held in the east of the chamber, and an Elder of the court sits in its west to provide instruction and adjudicate any doubtful cases. And the priests stand in a circle in the shape of a bracelet [bekholyar], and the appointed priest comes and removes the mitre from the head of one of them, and everyone thereby knew that the count began from him. And if it were to enter your mind to say that the priests wore non-sacred garments during the lottery, is there such a thing as a mitre among one鈥檚 non-sacred garments? This shows that the priests were wearing their sacred garments when the lottery took place.

讗讬谉 讻讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讛谉 砖注砖转讛 诇讜 讗诪讜 讻转讜谞转 注讜讘讚 讘讛 注讘讜讚转 讬讞讬讚

The Gemara rejects this reasoning: Yes, indeed, there is such a thing as a mitre that one wears as non-sacred apparel, as Rav Yehuda, and some say it was Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, taught: A priest whose mother made a tunic for him, to show her love for her son and her love for mitzvot, may perform an individual service with it on, but not communal services. Therefore, it is possible that the priests had non-sacred mitres in the style of the sacred mitres, just as they sometimes had non-sacred tunics.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇砖讻转 讛讙讝讬转 讞爪讬讛 讘拽讚砖 讜讞爪讬讛 讘讞讜诇 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖谞讬 驻转讞讬诐 讛讬讜 诇讛 讗讞讚 驻转讜讞 讘拽讚砖 讜讗讞讚 驻转讜讞 讘讞讜诇 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讜诇讛 讘拽讚砖 讝拽谉 讬讜砖讘 讘诪注专讘讛 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 讬砖讬讘讛 讘注讝专讛 讗诇讗 诇诪诇讻讬 讘讬转 讚讜讚 讘诇讘讚

Apropos the baraita that was just cited, Abaye said: Conclude from this baraita that the Chamber of Hewn Stone was built half in the sacred area, within the consecrated Temple grounds, and half in the non-sacred part of the Temple grounds. And conclude from it as well that the chamber had two doorways, one that opened to the sacred area of the Temple and one that opened to the non-sacred area. Abaye explains these inferences: As, were it to enter your mind that the Chamber of Hewn Stone stood entirely in the sacred area, how could one say that an Elder sat in its west? Didn鈥檛 the Master say: There is no sitting allowed in the Temple courtyard except for kings of the house of David alone? The Elder must therefore have been sitting in an area external to the Temple courtyard area.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讜诇讛 讘讞讜诇 驻讬讬住 讘诪讝专讞讛 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讘讘讬转 讗诇讛讬诐 谞讛诇讱 讘专讙砖 讜诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞爪讬讛 讘拽讚砖 讜讞爪讬讛 讘讞讜诇

And if it were to enter your mind to say the opposite, that the chamber stood entirely in the non-sacred area, how could the lottery be held in the east? Aren鈥檛 we required to fulfill the verse: 鈥淚n the House of God we walked with the throng鈥 (Psalms 55:15), from where it was derived earlier that it is desirable that the lotteries cause a commotion in the House of God, i.e., in the sacred area of the Temple? If the lottery were held in a non-sacred area, there would not be a fulfillment of this verse. Rather, one must conclude from this baraita that the chamber was situated half in the sacred area of the Temple and half in the non-sacred area.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 驻转讞 讗讞讚 讬砖 诇讛 讜驻转讜讞 诇拽讜讚砖 讝拽谉 讬讜砖讘 讘诪注专讘讛 讜讛转谞谉 讛诇砖讻讜转 讛讘谞讜讬讜转 讘讞讜诇 讜驻转讜讞讜转 诇拽讚砖 转讜讻谉 拽讜讚砖 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 驻转讜讞 诇讞讜诇 驻讬讬住 讘诪讝专讞讛 讜讛转谞谉 讘谞讜讬讜转 讘拽讚砖 讜驻转讜讞讜转 诇讞讜诇 转讜讻谉 讞讜诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖谞讬 驻转讞讬诐 讛讬讜 诇讛 讗讞讚 驻转讜讞 讘拽讚砖 讜讗讞讚 驻转讜讞 诇讞讜诇

Abaye continues: And were it to enter your mind that the chamber had just one doorway, which opened to the sacred area, how could the Elder sit in its west? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: Chambers that are built in the non-sacred area of the Temple Mount, but that open up into the sacred area, their interior is considered entirely sacred, despite the fact that they also occupy land outside the sacred area? And if, on the other hand, it were to enter your mind that the chamber had just one doorway, which opened to the non-sacred area, how could the lottery be held in its east? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: With regard to chambers that are built in the sacred area but which open up into the non-sacred area, the space within them is considered entirely non-sacred, despite the chambers鈥 location on sacred territory. Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from this that the Chamber of Hewn Stone had two doorways, one that opened up into the sacred area and one that opened into the non-sacred area?

诪转谞讬壮 讛驻讬讬住 讛砖谞讬 诪讬 砖讜讞讟 诪讬 讝讜专拽 诪讬 诪讚砖谉 诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讜诪讬 诪讚砖谉 讗转 讛诪谞讜专讛 讜诪讬 诪注诇讛 讗讘专讬诐 诇讻讘砖

MISHNA: The second lottery conducted daily among the priests determines the following: Who slaughters the daily morning offering, who sprinkles its blood, who removes the ashes from the inner altar, and who removes the ashes and burnt wicks from the candelabrum, and who takes the limbs of the daily offering up to the ramp to be burned later.

讛专讗砖 讜讛专讙诇 讜砖转讬 讛讬讚讬诐 讛注讜拽抓 讜讛专讙诇 讜讛讞讝讛 讜讛讙专讛 讜砖转讬 讛讚驻谞讜转 讜讛拽专讘讬诐 讜讛住诇转 讜讛讞讘讬转讬谉 讜讛讬讬谉 砖诇砖讛 注砖专 讻讛谞讬诐 讝讻讜 讘讜

This is how the limbs were divided before taking them up to the altar: The head and the right leg were carried by one priest, and the two forelegs were carried by a second priest. The tail, including the lower vertebrae of the spinal column and the fat tail, and the left leg were carried by a third priest. And the breast and the throat and some of the inner organs attached to it were carried by a fourth priest. And the two flanks were taken by a fifth priest, and the intestines by a sixth priest. And the fine flour of the meal-offering accompanying the daily offering was carried by a seventh priest. And the High Priest鈥檚 daily griddle-cake offering was carried by an eighth priest, and the wine for libation was carried by a ninth priest. Altogether thirteen priests prevailed in this lottery: Nine priests who carried the daily offering and its accompanying elements, and four who performed the slaughter, sprinkling, and removal of ashes from the inner altar and the candelabrum.

讗诪专 讘谉 注讝讗讬 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚专讱 讛诇讜讻讜 讛讬讛 拽专讘

Ben Azzai said before Rabbi Akiva in the name of RabbiYehoshua: That was not the sequence of taking the limbs up to the ramp; rather, the order in which it was sacrificed was according to the way it walks when alive, as will be explained in the Gemara.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻砖讛谉 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讗讞转 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讻诇 注讘讜讚讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讛谉 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 转讗 砖诪注 讗专讘注 驻讬讬住讜转 讛讬讜 砖诐 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讻诇 注讘讜讚讛 讛谉 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 讟讜讘讗 讛讜讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗专讘注 驻注诪讬诐 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讛驻讬住 讜诇讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 讛讬讜 讘讛 讟讜讘讗 驻讬讬住讜转

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When the priests performed the lottery, did they perform a lottery for just one service, such as the slaughtering, and the other twelve tasks were divided among the priests adjacent to the chosen one; or perhaps they performed a separate lottery for each and every service of the thirteen acts listed? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a proof from that which was taught in the mishna: There were four lotteries there. And if it were to enter your mind that they performed a lottery for each and every service separately, there would be many more than four lotteries. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: That is not a conclusive proof, because one could argue that this is what the mishna issaying: The priests gathered four times for a lottery, but each gathering involved many lotteries for many individual services.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讛 驻讬讬住 诇诪讞转讛 讗诇讗 讻讛谉 砖讝讻讛 讘拽讟专转 讗讜诪专 诇讝讛 砖注诪讜 讝讻讛 注诪讬 讘诪讞转讛

Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: When the third lottery was held to determine who would perform the burning of the incense, there was no separate lottery held for carrying the coal pan, although a second priest was required to rake up coals from the outer altar, carry them in a coal pan, and put them on the inner altar, where the priest assigned the task of burning the incense would then place the incense onto the coals. Rather, the priest who won the privilege of the incense said to the one who was next to him: Be privileged along with me with the task of carrying the coal pan. This shows that each individual service did not have its own lottery; rather, the other priests adjacent to the winner of the lottery were automatically chosen for the ancillary tasks.

砖讗谞讬 诪讞转讛 讜拽讟专转 讚讞讚讗 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara rejects this proof: The tasks of carrying the coal pan and burning the incense are different, because together they are considered as a single service, so that a single lottery determined the participants for the two tasks.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚讜拽讗 诪讞转讛 讜拽讟专转 讚讞讚讗 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 砖讗专 注讘讜讚讜转 讘注讬 驻讬讬住

There are those who say that this baraita was brought to derive the opposite conclusion: It was specifically concerning the case of carrying the coal pan and burning the incense, which are considered as two parts of one and the same service, that Rabbi Yehuda said one lottery can be used to assign the two tasks. However, the implication is that other services, which are not interrelated in this manner, require a lottery for each and every separate task. If Rabbi Yehuda had meant this to be a general principle, why did he mention the specific example of the coal pan and the incense?

诪讞转讛 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讜诪注转专讗 谞转拽讬谉 诇讛 驻讬讬住 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

This argument is rejected: That is not a proof that other services require their own lotteries. The reason Rabbi Yehuda mentioned this specific example is that it was necessary for him to teach explicitly that the coal pan and the burning of the incense do not have separate lotteries but a single, combined lottery. It might have entered your mind to say that since the burning of incense is infrequent, being performed only twice a day, unlike other offerings, which may be donated by private individuals and brought many times a day, and also since it brings about wealth for whoever performs it, as the Gemara teaches later, we should institute a separate lottery for bringing in the coal pan itself, as many priests wished to perform this task. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda teaches us that despite this, the bringing in of the coal pan does not have its own lottery. Consequently, there is no proof either way from this baraita.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讗 诇讻诇 注讘讜讚讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 讗诇讗 讻讛谉 砖讝讻讛 讘转诪讬讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 谞诪砖讻讬谉 注诪讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Come and hear a proof from what Rabbi 岣yya taught explicitly in a baraita: A lottery is not held for each individual service; rather, beginning with the priest who won the lottery of the daily offering, twelve of his fellow priests, those standing next to him, are drawn in along with him to perform the other acts of the daily offering. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that it is so.

驻讬讬住 讛砖谞讬 讜讻讜壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 诪拽讘诇 砖讜讞讟 诪拽讘诇 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 讝讜专拽 诪拽讘诇 讗讙讘 讞讘讬讘讜转讬讛 诇讗 诪拽讘诇 诇讬讛 诇讻讜诇讬讛 讚诐

搂 It was taught in the mishna: The second lottery determines who slaughters, who sprinkles the blood, etc. The task of collecting the blood in a vessel, which is between slaughtering and sprinkling, is not mentioned. Therefore, it must be assumed that either the priest who slaughtered or the priest who sprinkled the blood was assigned this task as well. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Who collects the blood? Is it the one who slaughters the offering who also collects the blood? The reason to support this conclusion is that if you say that the one who sprinkles the blood is the one who collects it, a situation might arise in which, due to his enthusiasm and his love for the mitzva of sprinkling, a service that is considered more important than collecting because it directly involves the altar, the priest might not collect all the blood as the halakha requires but would hurry to go on and sprinkle it after he has collected only some of the blood.

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讝讜专拽 诪拽讘诇 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 砖讜讞讟 诪拽讘诇 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚砖讞讬讟 讝专

Or perhaps one should draw the opposite conclusion, that it is the one who sprinkles that collects the blood, as, if you say that the one who slaughters is the one who collects, this principle could not be universally applied, as sometimes a non-priest slaughters the offering. Slaughtering offerings is not a sacred service and may be performed by anyone, unlike the collection of the blood, which is performed by a priest. In those cases when a non-priest slaughtered the daily offering, he would not be able to collect the blood.

转讗 砖诪注 讘谉 拽讟讬谉 注砖讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讚讚 诇讻讬讜专 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讬讜 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讛注住讜拽讬谉 讘转诪讬讚 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讬讚讬讛谉 讜专讙诇讬讛谉 讘讘转 讗讞转

The Gemara cites a source as evidence for one side of the argument: Come and hear from that which was taught in a mishna: Ben Katin made twelve spigots for the large laver to replace the original two spouts that were there, so that his twelve fellow priests who were engaged in the sacrifice of the daily offering could all sanctify their hands and feet at one time. Although there are thirteen participants listed in the mishna, the slaughterer of the offering was not required to sanctify his hands and feet because, as mentioned above, slaughtering is not a sacred service. Therefore, only twelve spigots were needed.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖讜讞讟 诪拽讘诇 转诇讬住专 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讝讜专拽 诪拽讘诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

And if it should enter your mind to say that the one who slaughters is the one who collects the blood, then there are sometimes thirteen participants, so thirteen spigots should be needed. On those occasions when a non-priest slaughtered the daily offering, an extra priest would be required to come and collect its blood. Since the collection of blood is a sacred service, it too requires sanctification of the hands and feet. Rather, since there were only twelve spigots, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from this that it is the one who sprinkles, and not the one who slaughters, who collects the blood? The Gemara concludes: Conclude from this that it is so.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 砖讞讟 讛砖讜讞讟 讜拽讘诇 讛诪拽讘诇 讜讘讗 诇讜 诇讝专讜拽 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: We too have learned a support for this conclusion in a mishna that gives the sequence of the services for the daily offering: The slaughterer of the offering slaughtered, the collector of its blood collected, and he then comes to sprinkle the blood. The wording indicates that the one who collects the blood is also the one who subsequently sprinkles it. The Gemara concludes: Conclude from this that it is so.

讗诪专 讘谉 注讝讗讬 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 讚专讱 讛诇讜讻讜 讛专讗砖 讜讛专讙诇 讛讞讝讛 讜讛讙专讛 讜砖转讬 讬讚讬诐 讜砖转讬 讚驻谞讜转 讛注讜拽抓 讜讛专讙诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讚专讱 讛驻砖讟讜 讛讬讛 拽专讘 讻讬爪讚 讚专讱 讛驻砖讟讜 讛专讗砖 讜讛专讙诇 讛注讜拽抓 讜讛专讙诇 讜砖转讬 讚驻谞讜转 讜砖转讬 讛讬讚讬诐 讛讞讝讛 讜讛讙专讛

搂 The mishna states that ben Azzai said before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua that the sequence for carrying up the animal鈥檚 limbs was based on the way it walks when alive, meaning that its front parts are taken up first. The Sages taught in the Tosefta: In what manner is the animal brought up according to the way it walks? It is in this manner: The head and the right hind leg are brought up first. The other parts follow this sequence: The breast and the neck, and then the two forelegs, and then the two flanks, then the tail and the left hind leg. Rabbi Yosei says: It was sacrificed according to the way it was skinned. In what manner is the animal brought up according to the way it was skinned? It is in this manner: The head and the right leg are brought first, then the tail and the left leg together, then the two flanks, and then the two forelegs, then the breast and the neck.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讚专讱 谞讬转讜讞讜 讛讬讛 拽专讘 讻讬爪讚 讚专讱 谞讬转讜讞讜 讛专讗砖 讜讛专讙诇 讜砖转讬 讬讚讬诐 讛讞讝讛 讜讛讙专讛 讜砖转讬 讚驻谞讜转 讜讛注讜拽抓 讜讛专讙诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 讚专讱 注讬诇讜讬讜 讛讬讛 拽专讘 讻讬爪讚 讚专讱 注讬诇讜讬讜 讛专讗砖 讜讛专讙诇 讛讞讝讛 讜讛讙专讛 讜砖转讬 讛讚驻谞讜转 讜讛注讜拽抓 讜讛专讙诇 讜砖转讬 讛讬讚讬诐

Rabbi Akiva says: It was sacrificed according to the way it was cut up into limbs after the skinning. In what manner is the animal brought up according to the way it was cut up? It is in this manner: The head and the right leg first, and then the two forelegs, then the breast and the neck, and then the two flanks, and then the tail and the left leg. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It was sacrificed according to the quality of its various sections, so that the best pieces were taken up first. In what manner is the animal brought up according to the quality of the pieces? It is in this manner: The head and the right leg, then the breast and the neck, and then the two flanks, then the tail and the left leg, and then the two forelegs.

讜讛讻转讬讘 讻诇 谞转讞 讟讜讘 讬专讱 讜讻转祝 讛讛讬讗 讘讻讞讜砖讛

The Gemara poses a question with regard to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 position: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淓very good piece, the thigh and the shoulder鈥 (Ezekiel 24:4), indicating that these are the best cuts of the animal? Why doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei HaGelili say that these are offered first (Rabbeinu 岣nanel)? The Gemara answers: That verse is speaking of a lean sheep, whose thigh and shoulder are indeed the best pieces. However, in the sheep brought for the daily offering, which were of the finest quality, there were other parts that were of higher quality.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讬谉 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讜讘讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘转专 注讬诇讜讬讗 讚讘砖专讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 诪专 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 讗讬讘专讗 讚讘讬砖专讗 讜诪专 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 砖诪谞讗 讚讘讬砖专讗

The Gemara explains the reason behind the order of the pieces in the mishna. Rava said: Both the tanna of our mishna and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili agree that we follow the relative quality of the meat in the various pieces. The difference in opinion between them is that one Sage, the tanna of this mishna, follows the limb, i.e., the amount, of the meat; the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei, follows the fattiness of the meat.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 住诇拽讗 专讙诇 讘讛讚讬 专讬砖讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讬砖讗 谞驻讬砖讬 讘讬讛 注爪诪讜转 拽专讘讗 专讙诇 讘讛讚讬讛

The Gemara asks: According to all opinions, what is the reason that the right leg goes up to the altar together with the head? What is the connection between these two pieces? The Gemara explains: Because the head has much bone in it, the leg is offered with it.

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 专讗砖 拽专讘 讘专讬砖讗 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讗砖 讜驻讚专 砖拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讻诇 讛讗讘专讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转 专讗砖讜 讜讗转 驻讚专讜 讜注专讱 讜讗讬讚讱 驻讚专 讗讞专讬谞讗

The Gemara asks further: Although the Sages disagree as to the order of bringing up the various pieces, at any rate everyone agrees that the head is sacrificed first. From where do we derive this? As it was taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that when sacrificing an animal the head and the fat precede all the other limbs? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall cut it up into its pieces and its head and its fat, and the priest shall arrange them on the wood that is on the fire upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:12). The Gemara asks: And the other mention of fat before this, where the verse states: 鈥淭he pieces, the head and the fat鈥 (Leviticus 1:8),

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 25: Breaking Down the Morning to Its Many Parts

The second lottery... A whole slew of tasks, and a question whether there's a new lottery for each task. Also,...

Yoma 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 25

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讗讜转谉 砖讝讻讜 诇驻讬讬住 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 讘讗讜转谉 砖诇讗 讝讻讜 诇驻讬讬住

What, is this not talking about those priests who won the lottery, describing how their non-sacred garments were removed from them before they were dressed in the priestly garments? Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rav Sheshet said, rejecting that interpretation: No, it is possible to explain that all the priests at the lottery were wearing sacred garments and that, on the contrary, the mishna speaks about those priests who did not win the lottery. The text describes how the sacred garments they wore during the lottery were removed from them.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讗讜转谉 砖讝讻讜 诇驻讬讬住 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 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪谞讬讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讚讘专 拽讜讚诐 诇诪讻谞住讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诪讻谞住讬 讘讚 讬讛讬讜 注诇 讘砖专讜

The Gemara supports this latter interpretation: So too, it is reasonable to follow Rav Sheshet鈥檚 interpretation of the mishna. As, if it were to enter your mind to say that the mishna is dealing with those who won the lottery and describes how their non-sacred garments were removed and sacred garments put on, how would one understand the statement: They would leave only their trousers on them? One would have to explain that the priests subsequently donned the sacred clothes on top of the non-sacred trousers; then they would remove the non-sacred trousers and replace them with the sacred trousers. But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that nothing should precede the trousers when the priest dresses? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall have linen trousers upon his flesh鈥 (Leviticus 16:4)? However, according to the proposed interpretation of the mishna, the priests donned the other sacred garments and put on the trousers after them.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 注讚 砖注讜讚谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘讙讚讬 讞讜诇 诪诇讘讬砖讬谉 讗讜转谉 诪讻谞住讬 拽讚砖 讜讛讬讜 诪驻砖讬讟讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讙讚讬 讞讜诇 讜诇讗 讛讬讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讻谞住讬诐 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara asks: And how would the other one, Rav Na岣an, resolve this difficulty? He would respond that this is not difficult, as this is what the mishna is teaching: While the non-sacred garments are still on them they put the sacred trousers on them, and then they remove from them the non-sacred clothes, and they left them wearing only the sacred trousers. Therefore, it is possible to interpret the mishna either way.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 诇砖讻转 讛讙讝讬转 讻诪讬谉 讘住讬诇拽讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讬转讛 驻讬讬住 讘诪讝专讞讛 讜讝拽谉 讬讜砖讘 讘诪注专讘讛 讜讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪讜拽驻讬谉 讜注讜诪讚讬谉 讻诪讬谉 讘讻讜诇讬讗专 讜讛诪诪讜谞讛 讘讗 讜谞讜讟诇 诪爪谞驻转 诪专讗砖讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜讬讜讚注讬谉 砖诪诪谞讜 驻讬讬住 诪转讞讬诇 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讘讙讚讬 讞讜诇 诪爪谞驻转 讘讘讙讚讬 讞讜诇 诪讬 讗讬讻讗

Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say that the priests wore sacred garments when the lottery was held? As it was taught in a baraita: The Chamber of Hewn Stone was built in the style of a large basilica [basileki]; the lottery is held in the east of the chamber, and an Elder of the court sits in its west to provide instruction and adjudicate any doubtful cases. And the priests stand in a circle in the shape of a bracelet [bekholyar], and the appointed priest comes and removes the mitre from the head of one of them, and everyone thereby knew that the count began from him. And if it were to enter your mind to say that the priests wore non-sacred garments during the lottery, is there such a thing as a mitre among one鈥檚 non-sacred garments? This shows that the priests were wearing their sacred garments when the lottery took place.

讗讬谉 讻讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讛谉 砖注砖转讛 诇讜 讗诪讜 讻转讜谞转 注讜讘讚 讘讛 注讘讜讚转 讬讞讬讚

The Gemara rejects this reasoning: Yes, indeed, there is such a thing as a mitre that one wears as non-sacred apparel, as Rav Yehuda, and some say it was Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, taught: A priest whose mother made a tunic for him, to show her love for her son and her love for mitzvot, may perform an individual service with it on, but not communal services. Therefore, it is possible that the priests had non-sacred mitres in the style of the sacred mitres, just as they sometimes had non-sacred tunics.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇砖讻转 讛讙讝讬转 讞爪讬讛 讘拽讚砖 讜讞爪讬讛 讘讞讜诇 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖谞讬 驻转讞讬诐 讛讬讜 诇讛 讗讞讚 驻转讜讞 讘拽讚砖 讜讗讞讚 驻转讜讞 讘讞讜诇 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讜诇讛 讘拽讚砖 讝拽谉 讬讜砖讘 讘诪注专讘讛 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 讬砖讬讘讛 讘注讝专讛 讗诇讗 诇诪诇讻讬 讘讬转 讚讜讚 讘诇讘讚

Apropos the baraita that was just cited, Abaye said: Conclude from this baraita that the Chamber of Hewn Stone was built half in the sacred area, within the consecrated Temple grounds, and half in the non-sacred part of the Temple grounds. And conclude from it as well that the chamber had two doorways, one that opened to the sacred area of the Temple and one that opened to the non-sacred area. Abaye explains these inferences: As, were it to enter your mind that the Chamber of Hewn Stone stood entirely in the sacred area, how could one say that an Elder sat in its west? Didn鈥檛 the Master say: There is no sitting allowed in the Temple courtyard except for kings of the house of David alone? The Elder must therefore have been sitting in an area external to the Temple courtyard area.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讜诇讛 讘讞讜诇 驻讬讬住 讘诪讝专讞讛 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讘讘讬转 讗诇讛讬诐 谞讛诇讱 讘专讙砖 讜诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞爪讬讛 讘拽讚砖 讜讞爪讬讛 讘讞讜诇

And if it were to enter your mind to say the opposite, that the chamber stood entirely in the non-sacred area, how could the lottery be held in the east? Aren鈥檛 we required to fulfill the verse: 鈥淚n the House of God we walked with the throng鈥 (Psalms 55:15), from where it was derived earlier that it is desirable that the lotteries cause a commotion in the House of God, i.e., in the sacred area of the Temple? If the lottery were held in a non-sacred area, there would not be a fulfillment of this verse. Rather, one must conclude from this baraita that the chamber was situated half in the sacred area of the Temple and half in the non-sacred area.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 驻转讞 讗讞讚 讬砖 诇讛 讜驻转讜讞 诇拽讜讚砖 讝拽谉 讬讜砖讘 讘诪注专讘讛 讜讛转谞谉 讛诇砖讻讜转 讛讘谞讜讬讜转 讘讞讜诇 讜驻转讜讞讜转 诇拽讚砖 转讜讻谉 拽讜讚砖 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 驻转讜讞 诇讞讜诇 驻讬讬住 讘诪讝专讞讛 讜讛转谞谉 讘谞讜讬讜转 讘拽讚砖 讜驻转讜讞讜转 诇讞讜诇 转讜讻谉 讞讜诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖谞讬 驻转讞讬诐 讛讬讜 诇讛 讗讞讚 驻转讜讞 讘拽讚砖 讜讗讞讚 驻转讜讞 诇讞讜诇

Abaye continues: And were it to enter your mind that the chamber had just one doorway, which opened to the sacred area, how could the Elder sit in its west? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: Chambers that are built in the non-sacred area of the Temple Mount, but that open up into the sacred area, their interior is considered entirely sacred, despite the fact that they also occupy land outside the sacred area? And if, on the other hand, it were to enter your mind that the chamber had just one doorway, which opened to the non-sacred area, how could the lottery be held in its east? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: With regard to chambers that are built in the sacred area but which open up into the non-sacred area, the space within them is considered entirely non-sacred, despite the chambers鈥 location on sacred territory. Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from this that the Chamber of Hewn Stone had two doorways, one that opened up into the sacred area and one that opened into the non-sacred area?

诪转谞讬壮 讛驻讬讬住 讛砖谞讬 诪讬 砖讜讞讟 诪讬 讝讜专拽 诪讬 诪讚砖谉 诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讜诪讬 诪讚砖谉 讗转 讛诪谞讜专讛 讜诪讬 诪注诇讛 讗讘专讬诐 诇讻讘砖

MISHNA: The second lottery conducted daily among the priests determines the following: Who slaughters the daily morning offering, who sprinkles its blood, who removes the ashes from the inner altar, and who removes the ashes and burnt wicks from the candelabrum, and who takes the limbs of the daily offering up to the ramp to be burned later.

讛专讗砖 讜讛专讙诇 讜砖转讬 讛讬讚讬诐 讛注讜拽抓 讜讛专讙诇 讜讛讞讝讛 讜讛讙专讛 讜砖转讬 讛讚驻谞讜转 讜讛拽专讘讬诐 讜讛住诇转 讜讛讞讘讬转讬谉 讜讛讬讬谉 砖诇砖讛 注砖专 讻讛谞讬诐 讝讻讜 讘讜

This is how the limbs were divided before taking them up to the altar: The head and the right leg were carried by one priest, and the two forelegs were carried by a second priest. The tail, including the lower vertebrae of the spinal column and the fat tail, and the left leg were carried by a third priest. And the breast and the throat and some of the inner organs attached to it were carried by a fourth priest. And the two flanks were taken by a fifth priest, and the intestines by a sixth priest. And the fine flour of the meal-offering accompanying the daily offering was carried by a seventh priest. And the High Priest鈥檚 daily griddle-cake offering was carried by an eighth priest, and the wine for libation was carried by a ninth priest. Altogether thirteen priests prevailed in this lottery: Nine priests who carried the daily offering and its accompanying elements, and four who performed the slaughter, sprinkling, and removal of ashes from the inner altar and the candelabrum.

讗诪专 讘谉 注讝讗讬 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚专讱 讛诇讜讻讜 讛讬讛 拽专讘

Ben Azzai said before Rabbi Akiva in the name of RabbiYehoshua: That was not the sequence of taking the limbs up to the ramp; rather, the order in which it was sacrificed was according to the way it walks when alive, as will be explained in the Gemara.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻砖讛谉 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讗讞转 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讻诇 注讘讜讚讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讛谉 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 转讗 砖诪注 讗专讘注 驻讬讬住讜转 讛讬讜 砖诐 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讻诇 注讘讜讚讛 讛谉 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 讟讜讘讗 讛讜讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗专讘注 驻注诪讬诐 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讛驻讬住 讜诇讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 讛讬讜 讘讛 讟讜讘讗 驻讬讬住讜转

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When the priests performed the lottery, did they perform a lottery for just one service, such as the slaughtering, and the other twelve tasks were divided among the priests adjacent to the chosen one; or perhaps they performed a separate lottery for each and every service of the thirteen acts listed? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a proof from that which was taught in the mishna: There were four lotteries there. And if it were to enter your mind that they performed a lottery for each and every service separately, there would be many more than four lotteries. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: That is not a conclusive proof, because one could argue that this is what the mishna issaying: The priests gathered four times for a lottery, but each gathering involved many lotteries for many individual services.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讛 驻讬讬住 诇诪讞转讛 讗诇讗 讻讛谉 砖讝讻讛 讘拽讟专转 讗讜诪专 诇讝讛 砖注诪讜 讝讻讛 注诪讬 讘诪讞转讛

Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: When the third lottery was held to determine who would perform the burning of the incense, there was no separate lottery held for carrying the coal pan, although a second priest was required to rake up coals from the outer altar, carry them in a coal pan, and put them on the inner altar, where the priest assigned the task of burning the incense would then place the incense onto the coals. Rather, the priest who won the privilege of the incense said to the one who was next to him: Be privileged along with me with the task of carrying the coal pan. This shows that each individual service did not have its own lottery; rather, the other priests adjacent to the winner of the lottery were automatically chosen for the ancillary tasks.

砖讗谞讬 诪讞转讛 讜拽讟专转 讚讞讚讗 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara rejects this proof: The tasks of carrying the coal pan and burning the incense are different, because together they are considered as a single service, so that a single lottery determined the participants for the two tasks.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚讜拽讗 诪讞转讛 讜拽讟专转 讚讞讚讗 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 砖讗专 注讘讜讚讜转 讘注讬 驻讬讬住

There are those who say that this baraita was brought to derive the opposite conclusion: It was specifically concerning the case of carrying the coal pan and burning the incense, which are considered as two parts of one and the same service, that Rabbi Yehuda said one lottery can be used to assign the two tasks. However, the implication is that other services, which are not interrelated in this manner, require a lottery for each and every separate task. If Rabbi Yehuda had meant this to be a general principle, why did he mention the specific example of the coal pan and the incense?

诪讞转讛 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讜诪注转专讗 谞转拽讬谉 诇讛 驻讬讬住 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

This argument is rejected: That is not a proof that other services require their own lotteries. The reason Rabbi Yehuda mentioned this specific example is that it was necessary for him to teach explicitly that the coal pan and the burning of the incense do not have separate lotteries but a single, combined lottery. It might have entered your mind to say that since the burning of incense is infrequent, being performed only twice a day, unlike other offerings, which may be donated by private individuals and brought many times a day, and also since it brings about wealth for whoever performs it, as the Gemara teaches later, we should institute a separate lottery for bringing in the coal pan itself, as many priests wished to perform this task. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda teaches us that despite this, the bringing in of the coal pan does not have its own lottery. Consequently, there is no proof either way from this baraita.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讗 诇讻诇 注讘讜讚讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 讗诇讗 讻讛谉 砖讝讻讛 讘转诪讬讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 谞诪砖讻讬谉 注诪讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Come and hear a proof from what Rabbi 岣yya taught explicitly in a baraita: A lottery is not held for each individual service; rather, beginning with the priest who won the lottery of the daily offering, twelve of his fellow priests, those standing next to him, are drawn in along with him to perform the other acts of the daily offering. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that it is so.

驻讬讬住 讛砖谞讬 讜讻讜壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 诪拽讘诇 砖讜讞讟 诪拽讘诇 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 讝讜专拽 诪拽讘诇 讗讙讘 讞讘讬讘讜转讬讛 诇讗 诪拽讘诇 诇讬讛 诇讻讜诇讬讛 讚诐

搂 It was taught in the mishna: The second lottery determines who slaughters, who sprinkles the blood, etc. The task of collecting the blood in a vessel, which is between slaughtering and sprinkling, is not mentioned. Therefore, it must be assumed that either the priest who slaughtered or the priest who sprinkled the blood was assigned this task as well. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Who collects the blood? Is it the one who slaughters the offering who also collects the blood? The reason to support this conclusion is that if you say that the one who sprinkles the blood is the one who collects it, a situation might arise in which, due to his enthusiasm and his love for the mitzva of sprinkling, a service that is considered more important than collecting because it directly involves the altar, the priest might not collect all the blood as the halakha requires but would hurry to go on and sprinkle it after he has collected only some of the blood.

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讝讜专拽 诪拽讘诇 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 砖讜讞讟 诪拽讘诇 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚砖讞讬讟 讝专

Or perhaps one should draw the opposite conclusion, that it is the one who sprinkles that collects the blood, as, if you say that the one who slaughters is the one who collects, this principle could not be universally applied, as sometimes a non-priest slaughters the offering. Slaughtering offerings is not a sacred service and may be performed by anyone, unlike the collection of the blood, which is performed by a priest. In those cases when a non-priest slaughtered the daily offering, he would not be able to collect the blood.

转讗 砖诪注 讘谉 拽讟讬谉 注砖讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讚讚 诇讻讬讜专 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讬讜 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讛注住讜拽讬谉 讘转诪讬讚 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讬讚讬讛谉 讜专讙诇讬讛谉 讘讘转 讗讞转

The Gemara cites a source as evidence for one side of the argument: Come and hear from that which was taught in a mishna: Ben Katin made twelve spigots for the large laver to replace the original two spouts that were there, so that his twelve fellow priests who were engaged in the sacrifice of the daily offering could all sanctify their hands and feet at one time. Although there are thirteen participants listed in the mishna, the slaughterer of the offering was not required to sanctify his hands and feet because, as mentioned above, slaughtering is not a sacred service. Therefore, only twelve spigots were needed.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖讜讞讟 诪拽讘诇 转诇讬住专 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讝讜专拽 诪拽讘诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

And if it should enter your mind to say that the one who slaughters is the one who collects the blood, then there are sometimes thirteen participants, so thirteen spigots should be needed. On those occasions when a non-priest slaughtered the daily offering, an extra priest would be required to come and collect its blood. Since the collection of blood is a sacred service, it too requires sanctification of the hands and feet. Rather, since there were only twelve spigots, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from this that it is the one who sprinkles, and not the one who slaughters, who collects the blood? The Gemara concludes: Conclude from this that it is so.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 砖讞讟 讛砖讜讞讟 讜拽讘诇 讛诪拽讘诇 讜讘讗 诇讜 诇讝专讜拽 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: We too have learned a support for this conclusion in a mishna that gives the sequence of the services for the daily offering: The slaughterer of the offering slaughtered, the collector of its blood collected, and he then comes to sprinkle the blood. The wording indicates that the one who collects the blood is also the one who subsequently sprinkles it. The Gemara concludes: Conclude from this that it is so.

讗诪专 讘谉 注讝讗讬 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 讚专讱 讛诇讜讻讜 讛专讗砖 讜讛专讙诇 讛讞讝讛 讜讛讙专讛 讜砖转讬 讬讚讬诐 讜砖转讬 讚驻谞讜转 讛注讜拽抓 讜讛专讙诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讚专讱 讛驻砖讟讜 讛讬讛 拽专讘 讻讬爪讚 讚专讱 讛驻砖讟讜 讛专讗砖 讜讛专讙诇 讛注讜拽抓 讜讛专讙诇 讜砖转讬 讚驻谞讜转 讜砖转讬 讛讬讚讬诐 讛讞讝讛 讜讛讙专讛

搂 The mishna states that ben Azzai said before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua that the sequence for carrying up the animal鈥檚 limbs was based on the way it walks when alive, meaning that its front parts are taken up first. The Sages taught in the Tosefta: In what manner is the animal brought up according to the way it walks? It is in this manner: The head and the right hind leg are brought up first. The other parts follow this sequence: The breast and the neck, and then the two forelegs, and then the two flanks, then the tail and the left hind leg. Rabbi Yosei says: It was sacrificed according to the way it was skinned. In what manner is the animal brought up according to the way it was skinned? It is in this manner: The head and the right leg are brought first, then the tail and the left leg together, then the two flanks, and then the two forelegs, then the breast and the neck.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讚专讱 谞讬转讜讞讜 讛讬讛 拽专讘 讻讬爪讚 讚专讱 谞讬转讜讞讜 讛专讗砖 讜讛专讙诇 讜砖转讬 讬讚讬诐 讛讞讝讛 讜讛讙专讛 讜砖转讬 讚驻谞讜转 讜讛注讜拽抓 讜讛专讙诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 讚专讱 注讬诇讜讬讜 讛讬讛 拽专讘 讻讬爪讚 讚专讱 注讬诇讜讬讜 讛专讗砖 讜讛专讙诇 讛讞讝讛 讜讛讙专讛 讜砖转讬 讛讚驻谞讜转 讜讛注讜拽抓 讜讛专讙诇 讜砖转讬 讛讬讚讬诐

Rabbi Akiva says: It was sacrificed according to the way it was cut up into limbs after the skinning. In what manner is the animal brought up according to the way it was cut up? It is in this manner: The head and the right leg first, and then the two forelegs, then the breast and the neck, and then the two flanks, and then the tail and the left leg. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It was sacrificed according to the quality of its various sections, so that the best pieces were taken up first. In what manner is the animal brought up according to the quality of the pieces? It is in this manner: The head and the right leg, then the breast and the neck, and then the two flanks, then the tail and the left leg, and then the two forelegs.

讜讛讻转讬讘 讻诇 谞转讞 讟讜讘 讬专讱 讜讻转祝 讛讛讬讗 讘讻讞讜砖讛

The Gemara poses a question with regard to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 position: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淓very good piece, the thigh and the shoulder鈥 (Ezekiel 24:4), indicating that these are the best cuts of the animal? Why doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei HaGelili say that these are offered first (Rabbeinu 岣nanel)? The Gemara answers: That verse is speaking of a lean sheep, whose thigh and shoulder are indeed the best pieces. However, in the sheep brought for the daily offering, which were of the finest quality, there were other parts that were of higher quality.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讬谉 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讜讘讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘转专 注讬诇讜讬讗 讚讘砖专讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 诪专 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 讗讬讘专讗 讚讘讬砖专讗 讜诪专 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 砖诪谞讗 讚讘讬砖专讗

The Gemara explains the reason behind the order of the pieces in the mishna. Rava said: Both the tanna of our mishna and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili agree that we follow the relative quality of the meat in the various pieces. The difference in opinion between them is that one Sage, the tanna of this mishna, follows the limb, i.e., the amount, of the meat; the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei, follows the fattiness of the meat.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 住诇拽讗 专讙诇 讘讛讚讬 专讬砖讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讬砖讗 谞驻讬砖讬 讘讬讛 注爪诪讜转 拽专讘讗 专讙诇 讘讛讚讬讛

The Gemara asks: According to all opinions, what is the reason that the right leg goes up to the altar together with the head? What is the connection between these two pieces? The Gemara explains: Because the head has much bone in it, the leg is offered with it.

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 专讗砖 拽专讘 讘专讬砖讗 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讗砖 讜驻讚专 砖拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讻诇 讛讗讘专讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转 专讗砖讜 讜讗转 驻讚专讜 讜注专讱 讜讗讬讚讱 驻讚专 讗讞专讬谞讗

The Gemara asks further: Although the Sages disagree as to the order of bringing up the various pieces, at any rate everyone agrees that the head is sacrificed first. From where do we derive this? As it was taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that when sacrificing an animal the head and the fat precede all the other limbs? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall cut it up into its pieces and its head and its fat, and the priest shall arrange them on the wood that is on the fire upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:12). The Gemara asks: And the other mention of fat before this, where the verse states: 鈥淭he pieces, the head and the fat鈥 (Leviticus 1:8),

Scroll To Top