The third lottery was for burning the incense and only those who had not done this job in the past could come – why? The fourth was to bring the body parts of the animal from the ramp to the top of the altar. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov disagrees with this and thinks that whoever brings it to the ramp, then brings it to the altar. What is the basis for the controversy? Was there a separate lottery for the afternoon sacrifice or did the one who won the position in the morning do the same job in the afternoon? The mishna lists days (or times of the day) when there are more than nine people bringing things up to the altar. How many people are there in each case? How do we know that in the morning one kohanim arranges two logs and in the afternoon two kohen? How many people did it take to bring the parts of other animals (rams and bulls) to the altar?
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Yoma 26
לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְכִדְתַנְיָא: כֵּיצַד הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה? נוֹתֵן אֶת הַפֶּדֶר אַבֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה וּמַעֲלֵהוּ, וְזֶה הוּא דֶּרֶךְ כָּבוֹד שֶׁל מַעְלָה.
what does that come to teach us? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita: In what manner would the priest placing the pieces on the altar do so? He would place the fat right over the place of slaughter, that is, on the cut neck, and bring it up that way, and that is the most respectful way toward the Most High, that the bloody point of slaughter not be exposed.
מַתְנִי׳ הַפַּיִיס הַשְּׁלִישִׁי: חֲדָשִׁים לִקְטֹרֶת בֹּאוּ וְהָפִיסוּ. וְהָרְבִיעִי: חֲדָשִׁים עִם יְשָׁנִים — מִי מַעֲלֶה אֵבָרִים מִן הַכֶּבֶשׁ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
MISHNA: Before the third lottery, the appointee declared: Let only those priests who are new to offering the incense come and participate in the lottery for the incense. The fourth lottery was open to those new to the service along with those old hands who had already performed it, to determine who would take the limbs up from the ramp, where they had been placed earlier, to the altar.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: מֵעוֹלָם לֹא שָׁנָה אָדָם בָּהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׁרֶת.
GEMARA: A Sage taught in the Tosefta: No person ever performed the service of the incense twice, as a new priest was always found for this service. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they were insistent that no priest should be assigned this task more than once in his life? Rabbi Ḥanina said: It is because it brings wealth to the one who performs it. Since bringing the incense was a blessing for wealth, it was decided that as many different priests as possible should have an opportunity to do this service.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״יָשִׂימוּ קְטוֹרָה בְּאַפֶּךָ״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״בָּרֵךְ ה׳ חֵילוֹ״, אִי הָכִי עוֹלָה נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״וְכָלִיל עַל מִזְבְּחֶךָ״!
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: What is the reason for this assertion that the one who burns the incense becomes wealthy? If we say it is because it is written: “They shall put incense before You and whole burnt-offerings on Your altar” (Deuteronomy 33:10), and it is written immediately after that: “Bless, O Lord, his substance” (Deuteronomy 33:11), if so, we should also make the same assertion concerning those who perform the sacrifice of a burnt-offering, since it is written in that same verse: “And whole burnt-offerings on Your altar.”
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָא שְׁכִיחָא וְהָא לָא שְׁכִיחָא.
Abaye said to him: There is a difference between the two: This, the sacrifice of a burnt-offering, is frequent, and that, the burning of incense, is infrequent. There were many burnt-offerings, both obligatory and voluntary, brought during the course of a day, whereas the incense was burned only twice a day. It is logical to assume that the blessing of riches was not extended to the many priests who participated in the burnt-offerings, but to the few priests who performed the burning of the incense.
אָמַר רָבָא: לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן דְּמוֹרֵי אֶלָּא דְּאָתֵי מִשֵּׁבֶט לֵוִי אוֹ מִשֵּׁבֶט יִשָּׂשכָר. לֵוִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״יוֹרוּ מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ לְיַעֲקֹב״. יִשָּׂשכָר, דִּכְתִיב: ״(וּבְנֵי) יִשָּׂשכָר יוֹדְעֵי בִינָה לַעִתִּים לָדַעַת מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה יִשְׂרָאֵל״. וְאֵימָא יְהוּדָה נָמֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״יְהוּדָה מְחוֹקְקִי״! אַסּוֹקֵי שְׁמַעְתָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְהִילְכְתָא קָאָמֵינָא.
Apropos this passage in Deuteronomy, Rava said: You do not find a young Torah scholar who gives halakhic instruction unless he comes from the tribe of Levi or from the tribe of Issachar. The assertion with regard to the tribe of Levi is as it is written: “They shall teach Jacob Your ordinances and Israel Your law” (Deuteronomy 33:10). And the assertion with regard to the tribe of Issachar is as it is written: “And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel should do” (I Chronicles 12:33). The Gemara asks: And say that scholars come from the tribe of Judah also, as it is written: “Judah is my lawgiver” (Psalms 60:9). Rava answers: While it is true that the tribe of Judah also taught Torah, in my statement I was speaking only of those who can draw conclusions according to the halakha. Although Judah produces great scholars, men capable of translating abstract analysis of the Torah into legal principles come from the two tribes mentioned.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין מְפַיְּיסִין עַל תָּמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, אֶלָּא כֹּהֵן שֶׁזָּכָה בּוֹ בְּשַׁחֲרִית זוֹכֶה בּוֹ עַרְבִית, מֵיתִיבִי: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּפַיְּיסִין שַׁחֲרִית כָּךְ מְפַיְּיסִין בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם! כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא — בִּקְטוֹרֶת.
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They did not hold a separate lottery for the slaughtering and sacrifice of the daily afternoon offering. Rather, the same priest who won a particular privilege for the morning offering wins the privilege for the corresponding task in the evening, i.e., for the afternoon service. In this way, the morning lottery covered both services. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Just as they hold a lottery in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery in the afternoon. This shows that there was a separate lottery for the daily afternoon offering. The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught, it referred only to the incense, which, as stated above, was given to a different priest each time it was offered.
וְהָתַנְיָא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּפַיְּיסִין לוֹ שַׁחֲרִית כָּךְ מְפַיְּיסִין לוֹ עַרְבִית! אֵימָא ״לָהּ״.
The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Just as they hold a lottery for it [lo] in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [lo] in the afternoon. The masculine pronoun lo indicates that it is not referring to the incense, which is a feminine noun in Hebrew, but to the daily afternoon offering, which is described by a masculine noun. The Gemara answers: Change the wording of the baraita and say: Lah, using the feminine pronoun instead of the masculine lo, so that it is indeed referring to the incense.
וְהָתַנְיָא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּפַיְּיסִין לוֹ שַׁחֲרִית כָּךְ מְפַיְּיסִין לוֹ עַרְבִית, וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁמְּפַיְּיסִין לָהּ שַׁחֲרִית כָּךְ מְפַיְּיסִין לָהּ עַרְבִית!
The Gemara asks further: But wasn’t it taught in another baraita: Just as they hold a lottery for it [lo] the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [lo] in the afternoon; and just as they hold a lottery for it [lah] in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [lah] in the afternoon. This baraita makes the statement twice, once using the masculine pronoun and once using the feminine pronoun, which shows that there was a separate lottery in the afternoon not only for the incense but also for the daily offering.
אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: הָכָא בְּשַׁבָּת עָסְקִינַן, הוֹאִיל וּמִשְׁמָרוֹת מִתְחַדְּשׁוֹת.
Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: There is no contradiction. Here, in this last baraita, we are dealing with Shabbat, when a second lottery in the afternoon was necessary, since the priestly rotations are renewed each Shabbat. On Shabbat the outgoing watch of priests performs the morning service, and the incoming watch performs the afternoon service. Therefore, the same priest could not perform the service of both the morning and afternoon offerings, necessitating a second lottery on that day to designate priests for the various afternoon tasks.
וּלְמַאי דִּסְלֵיק אַדַּעְתִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא, נְפִישִׁי לְהוּ פְּיָיסוֹת! מַיְיתֵי כּוּלְּהוּ מִצַּפְרָא אָתוּ, דְּזָכֵי בֵּיהּ שַׁחֲרִית — זָכֵי, דְּזָכֵי בְּעַרְבִית — זָכֵי.
The Gemara asks: And according to what we thought initially, that there was a separate lottery each day for the daily afternoon offering, there would be too many lotteries, as the mishna states that there were just four lotteries daily. How was it conceivable even to consider such a possibility? The Gemara answers: The thought was that all the priests would come and assemble just once, in the morning, for both lotteries, and the priest who would win the lottery for sacrificing the daily morning offering would win that privilege for the morning only, and the priest who would win the lottery for sacrificing the daily afternoon offering would win the privilege for the afternoon.
הָרְבִיעִי חֲדָשִׁים עִם יְשָׁנִים וְכוּ׳. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: הַמַּעֲלֶה אֵיבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ, הוּא מַעֲלֶה אוֹתָן לַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
§ The mishna states: The fourth lottery was open to those new to the service along with those old hands who had already performed it, to determine who would take the limbs up from the ramp to the altar. The Gemara states: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. As we learned in a mishna in tractate Tamid that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: The priest who takes the limbs up to the ramp is the one who takes them up from the ramp to the altar. In contrast, according to the mishna discussed here, it is implied that a different priest won the privilege for the latter service in the lottery.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: ״בְּרׇב עָם הַדְרַת מֶלֶךְ״, וּמָר סָבַר: מְקוֹם שְׁכִינָה לָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, the tanna of the mishna discussed here, holds that it is proper to follow the verse: “In the multitude of people is the king’s glory” (Proverbs 14:28). It is a glorification of God for many priests to participate in the service, so different priests were assigned the task of taking the limbs to the ramp, and others were tasked with carrying them up the ramp to the altar. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, holds that it is not proper conduct in the place of the Divine Presence to have two sets of priests for these tasks, as it gives the appearance that the first set does not want to be bothered to take the limbs up to the altar.
אָמַר רָבָא: לָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְלָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. דְּאִם כֵּן, בָּצְרוּ לְהוּ פְּיָיסוֹת.
Rava said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who holds that the same priest who brought the limbs to the ramp also brought them up to the altar, is not of the same opinion as Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is no separate lottery for the privilege of carrying the coal pan for the incense. And conversely, Rabbi Yehuda is not of the same opinion as Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. As, if it would be so that these two Sages agreed with each other, there would be too few lotteries; there would be only three lotteries rather than four. Rather, one must say that according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who maintains that there was no lottery held for taking the limbs up to the altar, there was a fourth lottery to determine who would carry the coal pan; and according to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that there was no lottery for carrying the coal pan, there must have been a lottery for carrying the limbs up to the ramp.
וְאִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ תַּנָּא דְּתָנֵי חָמֵשׁ —
And if you find a tanna in a baraita who teaches that there were five lotteries for the Temple service,
הָהוּא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
the opinion of that tanna would be in accordance with neither the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov nor the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as these five lotteries would include one for carrying the coal pan and another one for taking the limbs up to the altar.
מַתְנִי׳ תָּמִיד קָרֵב בְּתִשְׁעָה, בַּעֲשָׂרָה, בְּאַחַד עָשָׂר, בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר. לֹא פָּחוֹת וְלֹא יוֹתֵר. כֵּיצַד? עַצְמוֹ בְּתִשְׁעָה. בֶּחָג, בְּיַד אֶחָד צְלוֹחִית שֶׁל מַיִם — הֲרֵי כָּאן עֲשָׂרָה.
MISHNA: The daily offering is sacrificed and its limbs are carried by nine priests, as mentioned in a previous mishna. These nine carry the limbs and the accompanying libations and meal-offerings. Occasionally, the service is performed by ten priests, occasionally by eleven, and sometimes by twelve priests; no fewer than nine and no more than twelve. How so? The daily offering itself is sacrificed by nine priests, as explained earlier. On the festival of Sukkot a priest in whose hand is a jug of water for the water libation is added, and there are ten priests. On Sukkot, a water libation is poured on the altar in addition to the standard wine libation.
בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם בְּאַחַד עָשָׂר: הוּא עַצְמוֹ בְּתִשְׁעָה, וּשְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים. בַּשַּׁבָּת בְּאַחַד עָשָׂר: הוּא עַצְמוֹ בְּתִשְׁעָה, וּשְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי בְּזִיכֵי לְבוֹנָה שֶׁל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. וּבְשַׁבָּת שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַחַג בְּיַד אֶחָד צְלוֹחִית שֶׁל מַיִם.
In the daily afternoon offering, eleven priests participate in the service. How so? The daily offering itself is sacrificed by nine, and there are an additional two priests in whose hands are two logs that are placed on the altar. The mitzva of placing the two logs in the morning was assigned in the first lottery, as the Gemara explained earlier. On Shabbat, eleven priests participate. How so? The daily morning offering itself is performed by nine, and there are an additional two priests in whose hands are two vessels of frankincense that accompany the shewbread. This frankincense is burned on Shabbat. And on Shabbat that occurs within the festival of Sukkot there is an additional priest in whose hand is a jug of water for the water libation, for a total of twelve priests.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא וְאִיתֵּימָא רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין מְנַסְּכִין מַיִם בֶּחָג אֶלָּא בְּתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר. מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי: וּבְשַׁבָּת שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הֶחָג בְּיַד אֶחָד צְלוֹחִית שֶׁל מַיִם. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ בְּתָמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם מְנַסְּכִין, בַּחוֹל נָמֵי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ.
GEMARA: Rabbi Abba, and some say it was Rami bar Ḥama, and some say it was Rabbi Yoḥanan, said: On the festival of Sukkot they pour the water libation only during the sacrifice of the daily morning offering and not in the afternoon. From where is this derived? It is derived from the fact that it is taught in the mishna: And on Shabbat that occurs within the festival of Sukkot there is a priest in whose hand is a jug of water, bringing the number of participating priests to twelve. And if it should enter your mind to say that they pour water during the daily afternoon offering also, if so, you find that there were twelve priests on a weekday as well, that is, during the intermediate days of the Festival: Nine priests for the daily offering, two to carry the logs, and one to pour the water.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: וְלַמְנַסֵּךְ אוֹמֵר לוֹ ״הַגְבַּהּ יָדֶיךָ״, שֶׁפַּעַם אַחַת נִסֵּךְ עַל גַּבֵּי רַגְלָיו, וּרְגָמוּהוּ כׇּל הָעָם בְּאֶתְרוֹגֵיהֶן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rav Ashi said: We too have learned this in a different mishna, that the water libation was offered only in the morning, as it was taught: And they would say to the pourer: Raise your hand so everyone will see as you pour the water into the aperture on the altar, in accordance with the proper procedure. This was done because one time a Sadducee priest, who did not accept that there is a mitzva of water libation, poured the water onto his feet, whereupon all the people pelted him with their etrogim in anger. Since the episode involved etrogim, it is apparent that it took place in the morning, when people have their etrogim with them. Since the mishna mentions the fact that it was etrogim that were used to pelt the priest, it is apparently coming to teach that the water libation takes place only in the morning. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִין לְתָמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם שֶׁטָּעוּן שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים בִּשְׁנֵי כֹהֲנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעָרְכוּ עֵצִים״, אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבִעֵר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן עֵצִים בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר וְעָרַךְ עָלֶיהָ״, תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָן לְתָמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם.
It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: From where is it derived that the daily afternoon offering requires that two logs be brought along with it, and that they must be brought by two priests? As it is stated with regard to the burnt-offering: “The sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and lay out wood [etzim] in order upon the fire” (Leviticus 1:7). The word etzim is plural, which teaches that two logs are called for. If this is not applicable to the daily morning offering, as it is already written about the morning offering explicitly: “And the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and arrange the burnt-offering on it” (Leviticus 6:5), apply it to the daily afternoon offering. The verse therefore teaches us that two logs should be added before that offering.
וְאֵימָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר, וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: עֲבֵיד וַהֲדַר עֲבֵיד! אִם כֵּן, נֵימָא קְרָא ״וּבִעֵר״ ״וּבִעֵר״.
But say that this and this, i.e., both verses cited above, are dealing with the daily morning offering, and that the Merciful One states in the Torah: Perform the arrangement of wood and then return and perform it again. In other words, perhaps the Torah’s intention is that two logs be arranged on the altar twice in the morning, and that accounts for the two verses. The Gemara rejects this possibility: If it were so, the text should use the same expression both times and say: “And he shall burn wood on it,” and again: “And he shall burn wood on it.” Since the text does not do so, but instead employs two different verbs, saying: “They shall lay out wood” once and: “He shall burn wood” the second time, this indicates that the Torah is describing two different times.
אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וּבִעֵר״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא חַד — אִין, תְּרֵי — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּנַעְבֵּיד חַד וְנַעְבֵּיד תְּרֵי!
The Gemara rejects this inference: If the Merciful One had written in the Torah: “And he shall burn wood on it” twice, I would have said it means that one priest should arrange the wood, not two. The change of terminology to a plural verb is therefore necessary because it teaches us that one priest should perform it the first time and two priests should perform it the second time, but they are both performed in the morning.
אִם כֵּן, נֵימָא קְרָא: ״וּבִעֵר״ ״וּבִעֲרוּ״, אִי נָמֵי: ״וְעָרַךְ״ ״וְעָרְכוּ״, מַאי ״וּבִעֵר״ ״וְעָרְכוּ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כִּדְקָא אָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara rejects this: If so, if this were what the Torah wished to indicate, the verse should say: “And he shall burn wood” in the singular, and then, in the second verse, say: And they shall burn wood, in the plural, using the same verb both times, changing only the number of the verb. Or, alternatively, the verse should say: And he shall lay out wood, in the singular, and then, in the second verse, say: “And they shall lay out wood,” in the plural. What is the reason the Torah uses two different verbs in the two verses, stating: “And he shall burn wood” and then: “And they shall lay out wood”? Learn from this as we have said, that the Torah in these two verses is referring to two separate times of day, and the verse: “They shall lay out wood [etzim]” is referring to the daily afternoon offering, mandating that at that time “they,” i.e., two priests, shall lay out etzim, the plural term for wood, referring to two logs.
תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: פַּיִיס פְּעָמִים שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר, פְּעָמִים אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, פְּעָמִים חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, פְּעָמִים שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר.
Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Sometimes thirteen priests were involved in sacrificing the daily offering, all these tasks being assigned in the second lottery, as the mishna taught earlier. But sometimes fourteen priests are chosen in this manner to participate, since on Sukkot an additional priest is chosen to pour the water libation. And sometimes fifteen priests are chosen, on Shabbat, when two priests are tasked with burning the frankincense in the vessels. And sometimes sixteen priests are chosen, on Shabbat that occurs during Sukkot, when three extra priests are added: One to pour the water and two to burn the frankincense.
וְהָתַנְיָא שִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר!
The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that sometimes there are seventeen priests involved in the daily offering?
הָהִיא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, אֶלָּא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The Gemara responds: That baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov but is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The seventeenth task of the daily morning offering referred to in the baraita is taking up the pieces of the offering from the ramp to the altar. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this task was not assigned to a new priest but was performed by the same priests who had brought the pieces to the ramp. The baraita, which does assign this task to a seventeenth priest, is therefore not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. As the Gemara explained earlier, the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov are mutually exclusive; consequently, since the baraita contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, it must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Ḥiyya, however, adopted the view of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, and for this reason he taught that the maximum number of tasks assigned through the second lottery is only sixteen.
מַתְנִי׳ אַיִל קָרֵב בְּאַחַד עָשָׂר: הַבָּשָׂר בַּחֲמִשָּׁה, הַקְּרָבַיִים וְהַסּוֹלֶת וְהַיַּיִן בִּשְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם. פַּר קָרֵב בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה: הָרֹאשׁ וְהָרֶגֶל, הָרֹאשׁ בְּאֶחָד וְהָרֶגֶל בִּשְׁנַיִם. הָעוֹקֶץ וְהָרֶגֶל, הָעוֹקֶץ בִּשְׁנַיִם וְהָרֶגֶל בִּשְׁנַיִם. הֶחָזֶה וְהַגֵּרָה, הֶחָזֶה בְּאֶחָד וְהַגֵּרָה בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. שְׁתֵּי יָדַיִם בִּשְׁנַיִם, וּשְׁתֵּי דְפָנוֹת בִּשְׁנַיִם, הַקְּרָבַיִים וְהַסּוֹלֶת וְהַיַּיִן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה.
MISHNA: A ram that is brought for a communal burnt-offering is sacrificed by eleven priests. The flesh on the various limbs is taken by five priests, as in the case of the sheep of the daily offering. The intestines, and the fine flour of the meal-offering, and the wine of the libation are carried by two priests each, because the meal-offering and wine libation that accompany a ram are larger than those that accompany a sheep. A bull is sacrificed by twenty-four priests. How so? The head and the right leg are sacrificed first, but due to its size the head is carried by one priest and the leg by two. The tail and the left leg are carried as follows: The tail is sacrificed by two and the leg by two. The breast and the neck are carried as follows: The breast is offered by one and the neck by three priests. The two forelegs are carried by two priests, and the two flanks are carried by two. The intestines and the fine flour and the wine are carried by three each, because the meal-offering and wine libation that accompany a bull are larger than those that accompany a ram.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹת צִיבּוּר. אֲבָל בְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, אִם רָצָה לְהַקְרִיב — מַקְרִיב. הֶפְשֵׁיטָן וְנִיתּוּחָן שֶׁל אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ שָׁוִין.
In what case is this statement said, that this is the sequence followed? It is in the case of communal offerings. However, in the case of an individual offering brought to fulfill a vow or an obligation, if a single priest wishes to sacrifice it alone he may sacrifice it alone, or if he chooses he may include other priests in the service. With regard to the flaying and the cutting of both these, individual offerings, and those, communal offerings, they are equal, as will be explained in the Gemara.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: הֶפְשֵׁיטָן וְנִיתּוּחָן שָׁוִין בְּזָר.
GEMARA: A Sage taught in the Tosefta: The individual offerings and communal offerings are equal with regard to their flaying and cutting, in that these may be performed by a non-priest. They are not considered services that require priests.
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: מִנַּיִין לְהֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ שֶׁשָּׁוֶה בְּזָר? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָתְנוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֵשׁ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, נְתִינַת אֵשׁ בָּעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה, הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ לָא בָּעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה.
Ḥizkiya said: From where is it derived that they are equal with regard to their flaying and cutting? From where is it derived that flaying and cutting of offerings, whether individual or communal, may be performed by a non-priest? At first it is stated with regard to the burnt-offering: “And he shall flay the burnt-offering and cut it into its pieces” (Leviticus 1:6), and following that it is stated: “The sons of Aaron the priest shall place fire on the altar” (Leviticus 1:7). The fact that the sons of Aaron are mentioned in the verse about putting fire on the altar but not in the verse about flaying and cutting teaches that placing fire on the altar requires priesthood, i.e., it must be performed by priests, but flaying and cutting do not require priesthood.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Minneapolis, MN, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
Yoma 26
לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְכִדְתַנְיָא: כֵּיצַד הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה? נוֹתֵן אֶת הַפֶּדֶר אַבֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה וּמַעֲלֵהוּ, וְזֶה הוּא דֶּרֶךְ כָּבוֹד שֶׁל מַעְלָה.
what does that come to teach us? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita: In what manner would the priest placing the pieces on the altar do so? He would place the fat right over the place of slaughter, that is, on the cut neck, and bring it up that way, and that is the most respectful way toward the Most High, that the bloody point of slaughter not be exposed.
מַתְנִי׳ הַפַּיִיס הַשְּׁלִישִׁי: חֲדָשִׁים לִקְטֹרֶת בֹּאוּ וְהָפִיסוּ. וְהָרְבִיעִי: חֲדָשִׁים עִם יְשָׁנִים — מִי מַעֲלֶה אֵבָרִים מִן הַכֶּבֶשׁ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
MISHNA: Before the third lottery, the appointee declared: Let only those priests who are new to offering the incense come and participate in the lottery for the incense. The fourth lottery was open to those new to the service along with those old hands who had already performed it, to determine who would take the limbs up from the ramp, where they had been placed earlier, to the altar.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: מֵעוֹלָם לֹא שָׁנָה אָדָם בָּהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׁרֶת.
GEMARA: A Sage taught in the Tosefta: No person ever performed the service of the incense twice, as a new priest was always found for this service. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they were insistent that no priest should be assigned this task more than once in his life? Rabbi Ḥanina said: It is because it brings wealth to the one who performs it. Since bringing the incense was a blessing for wealth, it was decided that as many different priests as possible should have an opportunity to do this service.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״יָשִׂימוּ קְטוֹרָה בְּאַפֶּךָ״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״בָּרֵךְ ה׳ חֵילוֹ״, אִי הָכִי עוֹלָה נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״וְכָלִיל עַל מִזְבְּחֶךָ״!
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: What is the reason for this assertion that the one who burns the incense becomes wealthy? If we say it is because it is written: “They shall put incense before You and whole burnt-offerings on Your altar” (Deuteronomy 33:10), and it is written immediately after that: “Bless, O Lord, his substance” (Deuteronomy 33:11), if so, we should also make the same assertion concerning those who perform the sacrifice of a burnt-offering, since it is written in that same verse: “And whole burnt-offerings on Your altar.”
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָא שְׁכִיחָא וְהָא לָא שְׁכִיחָא.
Abaye said to him: There is a difference between the two: This, the sacrifice of a burnt-offering, is frequent, and that, the burning of incense, is infrequent. There were many burnt-offerings, both obligatory and voluntary, brought during the course of a day, whereas the incense was burned only twice a day. It is logical to assume that the blessing of riches was not extended to the many priests who participated in the burnt-offerings, but to the few priests who performed the burning of the incense.
אָמַר רָבָא: לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן דְּמוֹרֵי אֶלָּא דְּאָתֵי מִשֵּׁבֶט לֵוִי אוֹ מִשֵּׁבֶט יִשָּׂשכָר. לֵוִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״יוֹרוּ מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ לְיַעֲקֹב״. יִשָּׂשכָר, דִּכְתִיב: ״(וּבְנֵי) יִשָּׂשכָר יוֹדְעֵי בִינָה לַעִתִּים לָדַעַת מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה יִשְׂרָאֵל״. וְאֵימָא יְהוּדָה נָמֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״יְהוּדָה מְחוֹקְקִי״! אַסּוֹקֵי שְׁמַעְתָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְהִילְכְתָא קָאָמֵינָא.
Apropos this passage in Deuteronomy, Rava said: You do not find a young Torah scholar who gives halakhic instruction unless he comes from the tribe of Levi or from the tribe of Issachar. The assertion with regard to the tribe of Levi is as it is written: “They shall teach Jacob Your ordinances and Israel Your law” (Deuteronomy 33:10). And the assertion with regard to the tribe of Issachar is as it is written: “And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel should do” (I Chronicles 12:33). The Gemara asks: And say that scholars come from the tribe of Judah also, as it is written: “Judah is my lawgiver” (Psalms 60:9). Rava answers: While it is true that the tribe of Judah also taught Torah, in my statement I was speaking only of those who can draw conclusions according to the halakha. Although Judah produces great scholars, men capable of translating abstract analysis of the Torah into legal principles come from the two tribes mentioned.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין מְפַיְּיסִין עַל תָּמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם, אֶלָּא כֹּהֵן שֶׁזָּכָה בּוֹ בְּשַׁחֲרִית זוֹכֶה בּוֹ עַרְבִית, מֵיתִיבִי: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּפַיְּיסִין שַׁחֲרִית כָּךְ מְפַיְּיסִין בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם! כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא — בִּקְטוֹרֶת.
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They did not hold a separate lottery for the slaughtering and sacrifice of the daily afternoon offering. Rather, the same priest who won a particular privilege for the morning offering wins the privilege for the corresponding task in the evening, i.e., for the afternoon service. In this way, the morning lottery covered both services. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Just as they hold a lottery in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery in the afternoon. This shows that there was a separate lottery for the daily afternoon offering. The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught, it referred only to the incense, which, as stated above, was given to a different priest each time it was offered.
וְהָתַנְיָא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּפַיְּיסִין לוֹ שַׁחֲרִית כָּךְ מְפַיְּיסִין לוֹ עַרְבִית! אֵימָא ״לָהּ״.
The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Just as they hold a lottery for it [lo] in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [lo] in the afternoon. The masculine pronoun lo indicates that it is not referring to the incense, which is a feminine noun in Hebrew, but to the daily afternoon offering, which is described by a masculine noun. The Gemara answers: Change the wording of the baraita and say: Lah, using the feminine pronoun instead of the masculine lo, so that it is indeed referring to the incense.
וְהָתַנְיָא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּפַיְּיסִין לוֹ שַׁחֲרִית כָּךְ מְפַיְּיסִין לוֹ עַרְבִית, וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁמְּפַיְּיסִין לָהּ שַׁחֲרִית כָּךְ מְפַיְּיסִין לָהּ עַרְבִית!
The Gemara asks further: But wasn’t it taught in another baraita: Just as they hold a lottery for it [lo] the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [lo] in the afternoon; and just as they hold a lottery for it [lah] in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [lah] in the afternoon. This baraita makes the statement twice, once using the masculine pronoun and once using the feminine pronoun, which shows that there was a separate lottery in the afternoon not only for the incense but also for the daily offering.
אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: הָכָא בְּשַׁבָּת עָסְקִינַן, הוֹאִיל וּמִשְׁמָרוֹת מִתְחַדְּשׁוֹת.
Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: There is no contradiction. Here, in this last baraita, we are dealing with Shabbat, when a second lottery in the afternoon was necessary, since the priestly rotations are renewed each Shabbat. On Shabbat the outgoing watch of priests performs the morning service, and the incoming watch performs the afternoon service. Therefore, the same priest could not perform the service of both the morning and afternoon offerings, necessitating a second lottery on that day to designate priests for the various afternoon tasks.
וּלְמַאי דִּסְלֵיק אַדַּעְתִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא, נְפִישִׁי לְהוּ פְּיָיסוֹת! מַיְיתֵי כּוּלְּהוּ מִצַּפְרָא אָתוּ, דְּזָכֵי בֵּיהּ שַׁחֲרִית — זָכֵי, דְּזָכֵי בְּעַרְבִית — זָכֵי.
The Gemara asks: And according to what we thought initially, that there was a separate lottery each day for the daily afternoon offering, there would be too many lotteries, as the mishna states that there were just four lotteries daily. How was it conceivable even to consider such a possibility? The Gemara answers: The thought was that all the priests would come and assemble just once, in the morning, for both lotteries, and the priest who would win the lottery for sacrificing the daily morning offering would win that privilege for the morning only, and the priest who would win the lottery for sacrificing the daily afternoon offering would win the privilege for the afternoon.
הָרְבִיעִי חֲדָשִׁים עִם יְשָׁנִים וְכוּ׳. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: הַמַּעֲלֶה אֵיבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ, הוּא מַעֲלֶה אוֹתָן לַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
§ The mishna states: The fourth lottery was open to those new to the service along with those old hands who had already performed it, to determine who would take the limbs up from the ramp to the altar. The Gemara states: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. As we learned in a mishna in tractate Tamid that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: The priest who takes the limbs up to the ramp is the one who takes them up from the ramp to the altar. In contrast, according to the mishna discussed here, it is implied that a different priest won the privilege for the latter service in the lottery.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: ״בְּרׇב עָם הַדְרַת מֶלֶךְ״, וּמָר סָבַר: מְקוֹם שְׁכִינָה לָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, the tanna of the mishna discussed here, holds that it is proper to follow the verse: “In the multitude of people is the king’s glory” (Proverbs 14:28). It is a glorification of God for many priests to participate in the service, so different priests were assigned the task of taking the limbs to the ramp, and others were tasked with carrying them up the ramp to the altar. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, holds that it is not proper conduct in the place of the Divine Presence to have two sets of priests for these tasks, as it gives the appearance that the first set does not want to be bothered to take the limbs up to the altar.
אָמַר רָבָא: לָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְלָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. דְּאִם כֵּן, בָּצְרוּ לְהוּ פְּיָיסוֹת.
Rava said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who holds that the same priest who brought the limbs to the ramp also brought them up to the altar, is not of the same opinion as Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is no separate lottery for the privilege of carrying the coal pan for the incense. And conversely, Rabbi Yehuda is not of the same opinion as Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. As, if it would be so that these two Sages agreed with each other, there would be too few lotteries; there would be only three lotteries rather than four. Rather, one must say that according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who maintains that there was no lottery held for taking the limbs up to the altar, there was a fourth lottery to determine who would carry the coal pan; and according to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that there was no lottery for carrying the coal pan, there must have been a lottery for carrying the limbs up to the ramp.
וְאִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ תַּנָּא דְּתָנֵי חָמֵשׁ —
And if you find a tanna in a baraita who teaches that there were five lotteries for the Temple service,
הָהוּא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
the opinion of that tanna would be in accordance with neither the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov nor the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as these five lotteries would include one for carrying the coal pan and another one for taking the limbs up to the altar.
מַתְנִי׳ תָּמִיד קָרֵב בְּתִשְׁעָה, בַּעֲשָׂרָה, בְּאַחַד עָשָׂר, בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר. לֹא פָּחוֹת וְלֹא יוֹתֵר. כֵּיצַד? עַצְמוֹ בְּתִשְׁעָה. בֶּחָג, בְּיַד אֶחָד צְלוֹחִית שֶׁל מַיִם — הֲרֵי כָּאן עֲשָׂרָה.
MISHNA: The daily offering is sacrificed and its limbs are carried by nine priests, as mentioned in a previous mishna. These nine carry the limbs and the accompanying libations and meal-offerings. Occasionally, the service is performed by ten priests, occasionally by eleven, and sometimes by twelve priests; no fewer than nine and no more than twelve. How so? The daily offering itself is sacrificed by nine priests, as explained earlier. On the festival of Sukkot a priest in whose hand is a jug of water for the water libation is added, and there are ten priests. On Sukkot, a water libation is poured on the altar in addition to the standard wine libation.
בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם בְּאַחַד עָשָׂר: הוּא עַצְמוֹ בְּתִשְׁעָה, וּשְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים. בַּשַּׁבָּת בְּאַחַד עָשָׂר: הוּא עַצְמוֹ בְּתִשְׁעָה, וּשְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי בְּזִיכֵי לְבוֹנָה שֶׁל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. וּבְשַׁבָּת שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַחַג בְּיַד אֶחָד צְלוֹחִית שֶׁל מַיִם.
In the daily afternoon offering, eleven priests participate in the service. How so? The daily offering itself is sacrificed by nine, and there are an additional two priests in whose hands are two logs that are placed on the altar. The mitzva of placing the two logs in the morning was assigned in the first lottery, as the Gemara explained earlier. On Shabbat, eleven priests participate. How so? The daily morning offering itself is performed by nine, and there are an additional two priests in whose hands are two vessels of frankincense that accompany the shewbread. This frankincense is burned on Shabbat. And on Shabbat that occurs within the festival of Sukkot there is an additional priest in whose hand is a jug of water for the water libation, for a total of twelve priests.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא וְאִיתֵּימָא רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין מְנַסְּכִין מַיִם בֶּחָג אֶלָּא בְּתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר. מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי: וּבְשַׁבָּת שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הֶחָג בְּיַד אֶחָד צְלוֹחִית שֶׁל מַיִם. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ בְּתָמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם מְנַסְּכִין, בַּחוֹל נָמֵי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ.
GEMARA: Rabbi Abba, and some say it was Rami bar Ḥama, and some say it was Rabbi Yoḥanan, said: On the festival of Sukkot they pour the water libation only during the sacrifice of the daily morning offering and not in the afternoon. From where is this derived? It is derived from the fact that it is taught in the mishna: And on Shabbat that occurs within the festival of Sukkot there is a priest in whose hand is a jug of water, bringing the number of participating priests to twelve. And if it should enter your mind to say that they pour water during the daily afternoon offering also, if so, you find that there were twelve priests on a weekday as well, that is, during the intermediate days of the Festival: Nine priests for the daily offering, two to carry the logs, and one to pour the water.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: וְלַמְנַסֵּךְ אוֹמֵר לוֹ ״הַגְבַּהּ יָדֶיךָ״, שֶׁפַּעַם אַחַת נִסֵּךְ עַל גַּבֵּי רַגְלָיו, וּרְגָמוּהוּ כׇּל הָעָם בְּאֶתְרוֹגֵיהֶן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rav Ashi said: We too have learned this in a different mishna, that the water libation was offered only in the morning, as it was taught: And they would say to the pourer: Raise your hand so everyone will see as you pour the water into the aperture on the altar, in accordance with the proper procedure. This was done because one time a Sadducee priest, who did not accept that there is a mitzva of water libation, poured the water onto his feet, whereupon all the people pelted him with their etrogim in anger. Since the episode involved etrogim, it is apparent that it took place in the morning, when people have their etrogim with them. Since the mishna mentions the fact that it was etrogim that were used to pelt the priest, it is apparently coming to teach that the water libation takes place only in the morning. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִין לְתָמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם שֶׁטָּעוּן שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים בִּשְׁנֵי כֹהֲנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעָרְכוּ עֵצִים״, אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבִעֵר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן עֵצִים בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר וְעָרַךְ עָלֶיהָ״, תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָן לְתָמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם.
It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: From where is it derived that the daily afternoon offering requires that two logs be brought along with it, and that they must be brought by two priests? As it is stated with regard to the burnt-offering: “The sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and lay out wood [etzim] in order upon the fire” (Leviticus 1:7). The word etzim is plural, which teaches that two logs are called for. If this is not applicable to the daily morning offering, as it is already written about the morning offering explicitly: “And the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and arrange the burnt-offering on it” (Leviticus 6:5), apply it to the daily afternoon offering. The verse therefore teaches us that two logs should be added before that offering.
וְאֵימָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר, וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: עֲבֵיד וַהֲדַר עֲבֵיד! אִם כֵּן, נֵימָא קְרָא ״וּבִעֵר״ ״וּבִעֵר״.
But say that this and this, i.e., both verses cited above, are dealing with the daily morning offering, and that the Merciful One states in the Torah: Perform the arrangement of wood and then return and perform it again. In other words, perhaps the Torah’s intention is that two logs be arranged on the altar twice in the morning, and that accounts for the two verses. The Gemara rejects this possibility: If it were so, the text should use the same expression both times and say: “And he shall burn wood on it,” and again: “And he shall burn wood on it.” Since the text does not do so, but instead employs two different verbs, saying: “They shall lay out wood” once and: “He shall burn wood” the second time, this indicates that the Torah is describing two different times.
אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וּבִעֵר״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא חַד — אִין, תְּרֵי — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּנַעְבֵּיד חַד וְנַעְבֵּיד תְּרֵי!
The Gemara rejects this inference: If the Merciful One had written in the Torah: “And he shall burn wood on it” twice, I would have said it means that one priest should arrange the wood, not two. The change of terminology to a plural verb is therefore necessary because it teaches us that one priest should perform it the first time and two priests should perform it the second time, but they are both performed in the morning.
אִם כֵּן, נֵימָא קְרָא: ״וּבִעֵר״ ״וּבִעֲרוּ״, אִי נָמֵי: ״וְעָרַךְ״ ״וְעָרְכוּ״, מַאי ״וּבִעֵר״ ״וְעָרְכוּ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כִּדְקָא אָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara rejects this: If so, if this were what the Torah wished to indicate, the verse should say: “And he shall burn wood” in the singular, and then, in the second verse, say: And they shall burn wood, in the plural, using the same verb both times, changing only the number of the verb. Or, alternatively, the verse should say: And he shall lay out wood, in the singular, and then, in the second verse, say: “And they shall lay out wood,” in the plural. What is the reason the Torah uses two different verbs in the two verses, stating: “And he shall burn wood” and then: “And they shall lay out wood”? Learn from this as we have said, that the Torah in these two verses is referring to two separate times of day, and the verse: “They shall lay out wood [etzim]” is referring to the daily afternoon offering, mandating that at that time “they,” i.e., two priests, shall lay out etzim, the plural term for wood, referring to two logs.
תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: פַּיִיס פְּעָמִים שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר, פְּעָמִים אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, פְּעָמִים חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, פְּעָמִים שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר.
Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Sometimes thirteen priests were involved in sacrificing the daily offering, all these tasks being assigned in the second lottery, as the mishna taught earlier. But sometimes fourteen priests are chosen in this manner to participate, since on Sukkot an additional priest is chosen to pour the water libation. And sometimes fifteen priests are chosen, on Shabbat, when two priests are tasked with burning the frankincense in the vessels. And sometimes sixteen priests are chosen, on Shabbat that occurs during Sukkot, when three extra priests are added: One to pour the water and two to burn the frankincense.
וְהָתַנְיָא שִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר!
The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that sometimes there are seventeen priests involved in the daily offering?
הָהִיא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, אֶלָּא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The Gemara responds: That baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov but is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The seventeenth task of the daily morning offering referred to in the baraita is taking up the pieces of the offering from the ramp to the altar. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this task was not assigned to a new priest but was performed by the same priests who had brought the pieces to the ramp. The baraita, which does assign this task to a seventeenth priest, is therefore not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. As the Gemara explained earlier, the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov are mutually exclusive; consequently, since the baraita contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, it must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Ḥiyya, however, adopted the view of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, and for this reason he taught that the maximum number of tasks assigned through the second lottery is only sixteen.
מַתְנִי׳ אַיִל קָרֵב בְּאַחַד עָשָׂר: הַבָּשָׂר בַּחֲמִשָּׁה, הַקְּרָבַיִים וְהַסּוֹלֶת וְהַיַּיִן בִּשְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם. פַּר קָרֵב בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה: הָרֹאשׁ וְהָרֶגֶל, הָרֹאשׁ בְּאֶחָד וְהָרֶגֶל בִּשְׁנַיִם. הָעוֹקֶץ וְהָרֶגֶל, הָעוֹקֶץ בִּשְׁנַיִם וְהָרֶגֶל בִּשְׁנַיִם. הֶחָזֶה וְהַגֵּרָה, הֶחָזֶה בְּאֶחָד וְהַגֵּרָה בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. שְׁתֵּי יָדַיִם בִּשְׁנַיִם, וּשְׁתֵּי דְפָנוֹת בִּשְׁנַיִם, הַקְּרָבַיִים וְהַסּוֹלֶת וְהַיַּיִן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה.
MISHNA: A ram that is brought for a communal burnt-offering is sacrificed by eleven priests. The flesh on the various limbs is taken by five priests, as in the case of the sheep of the daily offering. The intestines, and the fine flour of the meal-offering, and the wine of the libation are carried by two priests each, because the meal-offering and wine libation that accompany a ram are larger than those that accompany a sheep. A bull is sacrificed by twenty-four priests. How so? The head and the right leg are sacrificed first, but due to its size the head is carried by one priest and the leg by two. The tail and the left leg are carried as follows: The tail is sacrificed by two and the leg by two. The breast and the neck are carried as follows: The breast is offered by one and the neck by three priests. The two forelegs are carried by two priests, and the two flanks are carried by two. The intestines and the fine flour and the wine are carried by three each, because the meal-offering and wine libation that accompany a bull are larger than those that accompany a ram.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹת צִיבּוּר. אֲבָל בְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, אִם רָצָה לְהַקְרִיב — מַקְרִיב. הֶפְשֵׁיטָן וְנִיתּוּחָן שֶׁל אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ שָׁוִין.
In what case is this statement said, that this is the sequence followed? It is in the case of communal offerings. However, in the case of an individual offering brought to fulfill a vow or an obligation, if a single priest wishes to sacrifice it alone he may sacrifice it alone, or if he chooses he may include other priests in the service. With regard to the flaying and the cutting of both these, individual offerings, and those, communal offerings, they are equal, as will be explained in the Gemara.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: הֶפְשֵׁיטָן וְנִיתּוּחָן שָׁוִין בְּזָר.
GEMARA: A Sage taught in the Tosefta: The individual offerings and communal offerings are equal with regard to their flaying and cutting, in that these may be performed by a non-priest. They are not considered services that require priests.
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: מִנַּיִין לְהֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ שֶׁשָּׁוֶה בְּזָר? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָתְנוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֵשׁ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, נְתִינַת אֵשׁ בָּעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה, הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ לָא בָּעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה.
Ḥizkiya said: From where is it derived that they are equal with regard to their flaying and cutting? From where is it derived that flaying and cutting of offerings, whether individual or communal, may be performed by a non-priest? At first it is stated with regard to the burnt-offering: “And he shall flay the burnt-offering and cut it into its pieces” (Leviticus 1:6), and following that it is stated: “The sons of Aaron the priest shall place fire on the altar” (Leviticus 1:7). The fact that the sons of Aaron are mentioned in the verse about putting fire on the altar but not in the verse about flaying and cutting teaches that placing fire on the altar requires priesthood, i.e., it must be performed by priests, but flaying and cutting do not require priesthood.
