Yoma 25

מאי לאו באותן שזכו לפייס אמר רב הונא בר יהודה אמר רב ששת לא באותן שלא זכו לפייס

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.

הכי נמי מסתברא דאי סלקא דעתך באותן שזכו לפייס לא היו מניחין עליהן אלא מכנסים בלבד והתניא מניין שלא יהא דבר קודם למכנסים תלמוד לומר ומכנסי בד יהיו על בשרו

The Gemara supports this latter interpretation: So too, it is reasonable to follow Rav Sheshet’s 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’t it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that nothing should precede the trousers when the priest dresses? The verse states: “And he shall have linen trousers upon his flesh” (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.

ואידך הא לא קשיא הכי קתני עד שעודן עליהן בגדי חול מלבישין אותן מכנסי קדש והיו מפשיטין אותן בגדי חול ולא היו מניחין אלא מכנסים בלבד

The Gemara asks: And how would the other one, Rav Naḥman, 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.

אמר רב ששת מנא אמינא לה דתניא לשכת הגזית כמין בסילקי גדולה היתה פייס במזרחה וזקן יושב במערבה והכהנים מוקפין ועומדין כמין בכוליאר והממונה בא ונוטל מצנפת מראשו של אחד מהן ויודעין שממנו פייס מתחיל ואי סלקא דעתך בבגדי חול מצנפת בבגדי חול מי איכא

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’s non-sacred garments? This shows that the priests were wearing their sacred garments when the lottery took place.

אין כדתני רב יהודה ואיתימא רב שמואל בר יהודה כהן שעשתה לו אמו כתונת עובד בה עבודת יחיד

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.

אמר אביי שמע מינה לשכת הגזית חציה בקדש וחציה בחול ושמע מינה שני פתחים היו לה אחד פתוח בקדש ואחד פתוח בחול דאי סלקא דעתך כולה בקדש זקן יושב במערבה והאמר מר אין ישיבה בעזרה אלא למלכי בית דוד בלבד

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’t 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.

ואי סלקא דעתך כולה בחול פייס במזרחה והא בעינן בבית אלהים נהלך ברגש וליכא אלא שמע מינה חציה בקדש וחציה בחול

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’t we required to fulfill the verse: “In the House of God we walked with the throng” (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.

ואי סלקא דעתך פתח אחד יש לה ופתוח לקודש זקן יושב במערבה והתנן הלשכות הבנויות בחול ופתוחות לקדש תוכן קודש ואי סלקא דעתך פתוח לחול פייס במזרחה והתנן בנויות בקדש ופתוחות לחול תוכן חול אלא לאו שמע מינה שני פתחים היו לה אחד פתוח בקדש ואחד פתוח לחול

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’t 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’t 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’ location on sacred territory. Rather, isn’t 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?

מתני׳ הפייס השני מי שוחט מי זורק מי מדשן מזבח הפנימי ומי מדשן את המנורה ומי מעלה אברים לכבש

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.

הראש והרגל ושתי הידים העוקץ והרגל והחזה והגרה ושתי הדפנות והקרבים והסלת והחביתין והיין שלשה עשר כהנים זכו בו

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’s 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.

אמר בן עזאי לפני רבי עקיבא משום רבי יהושע דרך הלוכו היה קרב

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.

גמ׳ איבעיא להו כשהן מפייסין לעבודה אחת מפייסין או דילמא לכל עבודה ועבודה הן מפייסין תא שמע ארבע פייסות היו שם ואי סלקא דעתך לכל עבודה הן מפייסין טובא הוו אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק הכי קאמר ארבע פעמים נכנסין להפיס ולכל חדא וחדא היו בה טובא פייסות

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 Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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.

תא שמע רבי יהודה אומר לא היה פייס למחתה אלא כהן שזכה בקטרת אומר לזה שעמו זכה עמי במחתה

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.

שאני מחתה וקטרת דחדא עבודה היא

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.

איכא דאמרי דוקא מחתה וקטרת דחדא עבודה היא אבל שאר עבודות בעי פייס

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?

מחתה אצטריכא ליה סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ולא שכיחא ומעתרא נתקין לה פייס בפני עצמה קא משמע לן

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.

תא שמע דתני רבי חייא לא לכל עבודה ועבודה מפייסין אלא כהן שזכה בתמיד שנים עשר אחיו הכהנים נמשכין עמו שמע מינה

Come and hear a proof from what Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.

פייס השני וכו׳ איבעיא להו מי מקבל שוחט מקבל דאי אמרת זורק מקבל אגב חביבותיה לא מקבל ליה לכוליה דם

§ 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.

או דילמא זורק מקבל דאי אמרת שוחט מקבל זימנין דשחיט זר

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.

תא שמע בן קטין עשה שנים עשר דד לכיור כדי שיהיו שנים עשר אחיו הכהנים העסוקין בתמיד מקדשין ידיהן ורגליהן בבת אחת

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.

ואי סלקא דעתך שוחט מקבל תליסר הוי אלא לאו שמע מינה זורק מקבל שמע מינה

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’t 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.

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי אף אנן נמי תנינא שחט השוחט וקבל המקבל ובא לו לזרוק שמע מינה

Rav Aḥa, 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.

אמר בן עזאי לפני רבי עקיבא וכו׳ תנו רבנן כיצד דרך הלוכו הראש והרגל החזה והגרה ושתי ידים ושתי דפנות העוקץ והרגל רבי יוסי אומר דרך הפשטו היה קרב כיצד דרך הפשטו הראש והרגל העוקץ והרגל ושתי דפנות ושתי הידים החזה והגרה

§ The mishna states that ben Azzai said before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua that the sequence for carrying up the animal’s 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.

רבי עקיבא אומר דרך ניתוחו היה קרב כיצד דרך ניתוחו הראש והרגל ושתי ידים החזה והגרה ושתי דפנות והעוקץ והרגל רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר דרך עילויו היה קרב כיצד דרך עילויו הראש והרגל החזה והגרה ושתי הדפנות והעוקץ והרגל ושתי הידים

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.

והכתיב כל נתח טוב ירך וכתף ההיא בכחושה

The Gemara poses a question with regard to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s position: But isn’t it written: “Every good piece, the thigh and the shoulder” (Ezekiel 24:4), indicating that these are the best cuts of the animal? Why doesn’t Rabbi Yosei HaGelili say that these are offered first (Rabbeinu Ḥananel)? 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.

אמר רבא בין תנא דידן ובין רבי יוסי בתר עילויא דבשרא אזלינן מר אזיל בתר איברא דבישרא ומר אזיל בתר שמנא דבישרא

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.

מאי טעמא סלקא רגל בהדי רישא משום דרישא נפישי ביה עצמות קרבא רגל בהדיה

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.

דכולי עלמא מיהת ראש קרב ברישא מנא לן דתניא מניין לראש ופדר שקודמין לכל האברים תלמוד לומר את ראשו ואת פדרו וערך ואידך פדר אחרינא

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: “And 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” (Leviticus 1:12). The Gemara asks: And the other mention of fat before this, where the verse states: “The pieces, the head and the fat” (Leviticus 1:8),