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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 7, 2021 | 讻状讛 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Yoma 26

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?

诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛驻讚专 讗讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 讜诪注诇讛讜 讜讝讛 讛讜讗 讚专讱 讻讘讜讚 砖诇 诪注诇讛

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛驻讬讬住 讛砖诇讬砖讬 讞讚砖讬诐 诇拽讟专转 讘讗讜 讜讛驻讬住讜 讜讛专讘讬注讬 讞讚砖讬诐 注诐 讬砖谞讬诐 诪讬 诪注诇讛 讗讘专讬诐 诪谉 讛讻讘砖 诇诪讝讘讞

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 砖谞讛 讗讚诐 讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注砖专转

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 岣nina 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讬砖讬诪讜 拽讟讜专讛 讘讗驻讱 讜讻转讬讘 讘转专讬讛 讘专讱 讛壮 讞讬诇讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 注讜诇讛 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讜讻诇讬诇 注诇 诪讝讘讞讱

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: 鈥淭hey shall put incense before You and whole burnt-offerings on Your altar鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:10), and it is written immediately after that: 鈥淏less, O Lord, his substance鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd whole burnt-offerings on Your altar.鈥

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚诪讜专讬 讗诇讗 讚讗转讬 诪砖讘讟 诇讜讬 讗讜 诪砖讘讟 讬砖砖讻专 诇讜讬 讚讻转讬讘 讬讜专讜 诪砖驻讟讬讱 诇讬注拽讘 讬砖砖讻专 讚讻转讘 (讜讘谞讬) 讬砖砖讻专 讬讜讚注讬 讘讬谞讛 诇注转讬诐 诇讚注转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讬诪讗 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讜拽拽讬 讗住讜拽讬 砖诪注转讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讛讬诇讻转讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗

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: 鈥淭hey shall teach Jacob Your ordinances and Israel Your law鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:10). And the assertion with regard to the tribe of Issachar is as it is written: 鈥淎nd of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel should do鈥 (I Chronicles 12:33). The Gemara asks: And say that scholars come from the tribe of Judah also, as it is written: 鈥淛udah is my lawgiver鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 注诇 转诪讬讚 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讗诇讗 讻讛谉 砖讝讻讛 讘讜 讘砖讞专讬转 讝讜讻讛 讘讜 注专讘讬转 诪讬转讬讘讬 讻砖诐 砖诪驻讬讬住讬谉 砖讞专讬转 讻讱 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘拽讟讜专转

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讻砖诐 砖诪驻讬讬住讬谉 诇讜 砖讞专讬转 讻讱 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 诇讜 注专讘讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讛

The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讻砖诐 砖诪驻讬讬住讬谉 诇讜 砖讞专讬转 讻讱 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 诇讜 注专讘讬转 讜讻砖诐 砖诪驻讬讬住讬谉 诇讛 砖讞专讬转 讻讱 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 诇讛 注专讘讬转

The Gemara asks further: But wasn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘砖讘转 注住拽讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪砖诪专讜转 诪转讞讚砖讜转

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k 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.

讜诇诪讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 讗讚注转讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 谞驻讬砖讬 诇讛讜 驻讬讬住讜转 诪讬讬转讬 讻讜诇讛讜 诪爪驻专讗 讗转讜 讚讝讻讬 讘讬讛 砖讞专讬转 讝讻讬 讚讝讻讬 讘注专讘讬转 讝讻讬

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.

讛专讘讬注讬 讞讚砖讬诐 注诐 讬砖谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讛诪注诇讛 讗讬讘专讬诐 诇讻讘砖 讛讜讗 诪注诇讛 讗讜转谉 诇诪讝讘讞

搂 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鈥檃kov. As we learned in a mishna in tractate Tamid that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讘专讘 注诐 讛讚专转 诪诇讱 讜诪专 住讘专 诪拽讜诐 砖讻讬谞讛 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞 讗专注讗

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: 鈥淚n the multitude of people is the king鈥檚 glory鈥 (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鈥檃kov, 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讚讗诐 讻谉 讘爪专讜 诇讛讜 驻讬讬住讜转

Rava said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, 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鈥檃kov. 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鈥檃kov, 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.

讜讗讬 诪砖讻讞转 转谞讗 讚转谞讬 讞诪砖

And if you find a tanna in a baraita who teaches that there were five lotteries for the Temple service,

讛讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

the opinion of that tanna would be in accordance with neither the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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.

诪转谞讬壮 转诪讬讚 拽专讘 讘转砖注讛 讘注砖专讛 讘讗讞讚 注砖专 讘砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诇讗 驻讞讜转 讜诇讗 讬讜转专 讻讬爪讚 注爪诪讜 讘转砖注讛 讘讞讙 讘讬讚 讗讞讚 爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 诪讬诐 讛专讬 讻讗谉 注砖专讛

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.

讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讘讗讞讚 注砖专 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讘转砖注讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讘讬讚诐 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 讘砖讘转 讘讗讞讚 注砖专 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讘转砖注讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讘讬讚诐 砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬 诇讘讜谞讛 砖诇 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讜讘砖讘转 砖讘转讜讱 讛讞讙 讘讬讚 讗讞讚 爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 诪讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诪谞住讻讬谉 诪讬诐 讘讞讙 讗诇讗 讘转诪讬讚 砖诇 砖讞专 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 讜讘砖讘转 砖讘转讜讱 讛讞讙 讘讬讚 讗讞讚 爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 诪讬诐 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘转诪讬讚 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 诪谞住讻讬谉 讘讞讜诇 谞诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

GEMARA: Rabbi Abba, and some say it was Rami bar 岣ma, and some say it was Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜诇诪谞住讱 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛讙讘讛 讬讚讬讱 砖驻注诐 讗讞讚 谞住讱 注诇 讙讘讬 专讙诇讬讜 讜专讙诪讜讛讜 讻诇 讛注诐 讘讗转专讜讙讬讛谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬讬谉 诇转诪讬讚 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 砖讟注讜谉 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 讘砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜注专讻讜 注爪讬诐 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇转诪讬讚 砖诇 砖讞专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘注专 注诇讬讛 讛讻讛谉 注爪讬诐 讘讘拽专 讘讘拽专 讜注专讱 注诇讬讛 转谞讬讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇转诪讬讚 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i 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: 鈥淭he sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and lay out wood [etzim] in order upon the fire鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and arrange the burnt-offering on it鈥 (Leviticus 6:5), apply it to the daily afternoon offering. The verse therefore teaches us that two logs should be added before that offering.

讜讗讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘转诪讬讚 砖诇 砖讞专 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 注讘讬讚 讜讛讚专 注讘讬讚 讗诐 讻谉 谞讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜讘注专 讜讘注专

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鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd he shall burn wood on it,鈥 and again: 鈥淎nd he shall burn wood on it.鈥 Since the text does not do so, but instead employs two different verbs, saying: 鈥淭hey shall lay out wood鈥 once and: 鈥淗e shall burn wood鈥 the second time, this indicates that the Torah is describing two different times.

讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘注专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讞讚 讗讬谉 转专讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚谞注讘讬讚 讞讚 讜谞注讘讬讚 转专讬

The Gemara rejects this inference: If the Merciful One had written in the Torah: 鈥淎nd he shall burn wood on it鈥 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.

讗诐 讻谉 谞讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜讘注专 讜讘注专讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 讜注专讱 讜注专讻讜 诪讗讬 讜讘注专 讜注专讻讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讚拽讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara rejects this: If so, if this were what the Torah wished to indicate, the verse should say: 鈥淎nd he shall burn wood鈥 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: 鈥淎nd they shall lay out wood,鈥 in the plural. What is the reason the Torah uses two different verbs in the two verses, stating: 鈥淎nd he shall burn wood鈥 and then: 鈥淎nd they shall lay out wood鈥? 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: 鈥淭hey shall lay out wood [etzim]鈥 is referring to the daily afternoon offering, mandating that at that time 鈥渢hey,鈥 i.e., two priests, shall lay out etzim, the plural term for wood, referring to two logs.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 驻讬讬住 驻注诪讬诐 砖诇砖讛 注砖专 驻注诪讬诐 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 驻注诪讬诐 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 驻注诪讬诐 砖砖讛 注砖专

Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讘注讛 注砖专

The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 statement: But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that sometimes there are seventeen priests involved in the daily offering?

讛讛讬讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara responds: That baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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鈥檃kov, 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鈥檃kov. As the Gemara explained earlier, the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov are mutually exclusive; consequently, since the baraita contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, it must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi 岣yya, 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬诇 拽专讘 讘讗讞讚 注砖专 讛讘砖专 讘讞诪砖讛 讛拽专讘讬讬诐 讜讛住讜诇转 讜讛讬讬谉 讘砖谞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 驻专 拽专讘 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讛专讗砖 讜讛专讙诇 讛专讗砖 讘讗讞讚 讜讛专讙诇 讘砖谞讬诐 讛注讜拽抓 讜讛专讙诇 讛注讜拽抓 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讛专讙诇 讘砖谞讬诐 讛讞讝讛 讜讛讙专讛 讛讞讝讛 讘讗讞讚 讜讛讙专讛 讘砖诇砖讛 砖转讬 讬讚讬诐 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖转讬 讚驻谞讜转 讘砖谞讬诐 讛拽专讘讬讬诐 讜讛住讜诇转 讜讛讬讬谉 讘砖诇砖讛 砖诇砖讛

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.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘拽专讘谞讜转 爪讬讘讜专 讗讘诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛拽专讬讘 诪拽专讬讘 讛驻砖讬讟谉 讜谞讬转讜讞谉 砖诇 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 砖讜讬谉

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讛驻砖讬讟谉 讜谞讬转讜讞谉 砖讜讬谉 讘讝专

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.

讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 砖砖讜讛 讘讝专 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞转谞讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谉 讗砖 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 谞转讬谞转 讗砖 讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛

岣zkiya 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: 鈥淎nd he shall flay the burnt-offering and cut it into its pieces鈥 (Leviticus 1:6), and following that it is stated: 鈥淭he sons of Aaron the priest shall place fire on the altar鈥 (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.

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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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 26: The Incense Blessing of Prosperity

Lotteries #3 and #4, per day in the Beit HaMikdash! For the ketoret, incense, only those who had never done...

Yoma 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 26

诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛驻讚专 讗讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 讜诪注诇讛讜 讜讝讛 讛讜讗 讚专讱 讻讘讜讚 砖诇 诪注诇讛

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛驻讬讬住 讛砖诇讬砖讬 讞讚砖讬诐 诇拽讟专转 讘讗讜 讜讛驻讬住讜 讜讛专讘讬注讬 讞讚砖讬诐 注诐 讬砖谞讬诐 诪讬 诪注诇讛 讗讘专讬诐 诪谉 讛讻讘砖 诇诪讝讘讞

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 砖谞讛 讗讚诐 讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注砖专转

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 岣nina 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讬砖讬诪讜 拽讟讜专讛 讘讗驻讱 讜讻转讬讘 讘转专讬讛 讘专讱 讛壮 讞讬诇讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 注讜诇讛 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讜讻诇讬诇 注诇 诪讝讘讞讱

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: 鈥淭hey shall put incense before You and whole burnt-offerings on Your altar鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:10), and it is written immediately after that: 鈥淏less, O Lord, his substance鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd whole burnt-offerings on Your altar.鈥

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚诪讜专讬 讗诇讗 讚讗转讬 诪砖讘讟 诇讜讬 讗讜 诪砖讘讟 讬砖砖讻专 诇讜讬 讚讻转讬讘 讬讜专讜 诪砖驻讟讬讱 诇讬注拽讘 讬砖砖讻专 讚讻转讘 (讜讘谞讬) 讬砖砖讻专 讬讜讚注讬 讘讬谞讛 诇注转讬诐 诇讚注转 诪讛 讬注砖讛 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讬诪讗 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讜拽拽讬 讗住讜拽讬 砖诪注转讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讛讬诇讻转讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗

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: 鈥淭hey shall teach Jacob Your ordinances and Israel Your law鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:10). And the assertion with regard to the tribe of Issachar is as it is written: 鈥淎nd of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel should do鈥 (I Chronicles 12:33). The Gemara asks: And say that scholars come from the tribe of Judah also, as it is written: 鈥淛udah is my lawgiver鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 注诇 转诪讬讚 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讗诇讗 讻讛谉 砖讝讻讛 讘讜 讘砖讞专讬转 讝讜讻讛 讘讜 注专讘讬转 诪讬转讬讘讬 讻砖诐 砖诪驻讬讬住讬谉 砖讞专讬转 讻讱 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘拽讟讜专转

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讻砖诐 砖诪驻讬讬住讬谉 诇讜 砖讞专讬转 讻讱 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 诇讜 注专讘讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讛

The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讻砖诐 砖诪驻讬讬住讬谉 诇讜 砖讞专讬转 讻讱 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 诇讜 注专讘讬转 讜讻砖诐 砖诪驻讬讬住讬谉 诇讛 砖讞专讬转 讻讱 诪驻讬讬住讬谉 诇讛 注专讘讬转

The Gemara asks further: But wasn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘砖讘转 注住拽讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪砖诪专讜转 诪转讞讚砖讜转

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k 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.

讜诇诪讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 讗讚注转讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 谞驻讬砖讬 诇讛讜 驻讬讬住讜转 诪讬讬转讬 讻讜诇讛讜 诪爪驻专讗 讗转讜 讚讝讻讬 讘讬讛 砖讞专讬转 讝讻讬 讚讝讻讬 讘注专讘讬转 讝讻讬

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.

讛专讘讬注讬 讞讚砖讬诐 注诐 讬砖谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讛诪注诇讛 讗讬讘专讬诐 诇讻讘砖 讛讜讗 诪注诇讛 讗讜转谉 诇诪讝讘讞

搂 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鈥檃kov. As we learned in a mishna in tractate Tamid that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讘专讘 注诐 讛讚专转 诪诇讱 讜诪专 住讘专 诪拽讜诐 砖讻讬谞讛 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞 讗专注讗

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: 鈥淚n the multitude of people is the king鈥檚 glory鈥 (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鈥檃kov, 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讚讗诐 讻谉 讘爪专讜 诇讛讜 驻讬讬住讜转

Rava said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, 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鈥檃kov. 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鈥檃kov, 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.

讜讗讬 诪砖讻讞转 转谞讗 讚转谞讬 讞诪砖

And if you find a tanna in a baraita who teaches that there were five lotteries for the Temple service,

讛讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

the opinion of that tanna would be in accordance with neither the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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.

诪转谞讬壮 转诪讬讚 拽专讘 讘转砖注讛 讘注砖专讛 讘讗讞讚 注砖专 讘砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诇讗 驻讞讜转 讜诇讗 讬讜转专 讻讬爪讚 注爪诪讜 讘转砖注讛 讘讞讙 讘讬讚 讗讞讚 爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 诪讬诐 讛专讬 讻讗谉 注砖专讛

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.

讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讘讗讞讚 注砖专 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讘转砖注讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讘讬讚诐 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 讘砖讘转 讘讗讞讚 注砖专 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讘转砖注讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讘讬讚诐 砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬 诇讘讜谞讛 砖诇 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讜讘砖讘转 砖讘转讜讱 讛讞讙 讘讬讚 讗讞讚 爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 诪讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诪谞住讻讬谉 诪讬诐 讘讞讙 讗诇讗 讘转诪讬讚 砖诇 砖讞专 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 讜讘砖讘转 砖讘转讜讱 讛讞讙 讘讬讚 讗讞讚 爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 诪讬诐 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘转诪讬讚 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 诪谞住讻讬谉 讘讞讜诇 谞诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

GEMARA: Rabbi Abba, and some say it was Rami bar 岣ma, and some say it was Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜诇诪谞住讱 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛讙讘讛 讬讚讬讱 砖驻注诐 讗讞讚 谞住讱 注诇 讙讘讬 专讙诇讬讜 讜专讙诪讜讛讜 讻诇 讛注诐 讘讗转专讜讙讬讛谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬讬谉 诇转诪讬讚 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 砖讟注讜谉 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 讘砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜注专讻讜 注爪讬诐 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇转诪讬讚 砖诇 砖讞专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘注专 注诇讬讛 讛讻讛谉 注爪讬诐 讘讘拽专 讘讘拽专 讜注专讱 注诇讬讛 转谞讬讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇转诪讬讚 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i 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: 鈥淭he sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and lay out wood [etzim] in order upon the fire鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and arrange the burnt-offering on it鈥 (Leviticus 6:5), apply it to the daily afternoon offering. The verse therefore teaches us that two logs should be added before that offering.

讜讗讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘转诪讬讚 砖诇 砖讞专 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 注讘讬讚 讜讛讚专 注讘讬讚 讗诐 讻谉 谞讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜讘注专 讜讘注专

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鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd he shall burn wood on it,鈥 and again: 鈥淎nd he shall burn wood on it.鈥 Since the text does not do so, but instead employs two different verbs, saying: 鈥淭hey shall lay out wood鈥 once and: 鈥淗e shall burn wood鈥 the second time, this indicates that the Torah is describing two different times.

讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘注专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讞讚 讗讬谉 转专讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚谞注讘讬讚 讞讚 讜谞注讘讬讚 转专讬

The Gemara rejects this inference: If the Merciful One had written in the Torah: 鈥淎nd he shall burn wood on it鈥 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.

讗诐 讻谉 谞讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜讘注专 讜讘注专讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 讜注专讱 讜注专讻讜 诪讗讬 讜讘注专 讜注专讻讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讚拽讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara rejects this: If so, if this were what the Torah wished to indicate, the verse should say: 鈥淎nd he shall burn wood鈥 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: 鈥淎nd they shall lay out wood,鈥 in the plural. What is the reason the Torah uses two different verbs in the two verses, stating: 鈥淎nd he shall burn wood鈥 and then: 鈥淎nd they shall lay out wood鈥? 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: 鈥淭hey shall lay out wood [etzim]鈥 is referring to the daily afternoon offering, mandating that at that time 鈥渢hey,鈥 i.e., two priests, shall lay out etzim, the plural term for wood, referring to two logs.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 驻讬讬住 驻注诪讬诐 砖诇砖讛 注砖专 驻注诪讬诐 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 驻注诪讬诐 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 驻注诪讬诐 砖砖讛 注砖专

Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讘注讛 注砖专

The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 statement: But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that sometimes there are seventeen priests involved in the daily offering?

讛讛讬讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara responds: That baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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鈥檃kov, 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鈥檃kov. As the Gemara explained earlier, the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov are mutually exclusive; consequently, since the baraita contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, it must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi 岣yya, 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬诇 拽专讘 讘讗讞讚 注砖专 讛讘砖专 讘讞诪砖讛 讛拽专讘讬讬诐 讜讛住讜诇转 讜讛讬讬谉 讘砖谞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 驻专 拽专讘 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讛专讗砖 讜讛专讙诇 讛专讗砖 讘讗讞讚 讜讛专讙诇 讘砖谞讬诐 讛注讜拽抓 讜讛专讙诇 讛注讜拽抓 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讛专讙诇 讘砖谞讬诐 讛讞讝讛 讜讛讙专讛 讛讞讝讛 讘讗讞讚 讜讛讙专讛 讘砖诇砖讛 砖转讬 讬讚讬诐 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖转讬 讚驻谞讜转 讘砖谞讬诐 讛拽专讘讬讬诐 讜讛住讜诇转 讜讛讬讬谉 讘砖诇砖讛 砖诇砖讛

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.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘拽专讘谞讜转 爪讬讘讜专 讗讘诇 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛拽专讬讘 诪拽专讬讘 讛驻砖讬讟谉 讜谞讬转讜讞谉 砖诇 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 砖讜讬谉

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讛驻砖讬讟谉 讜谞讬转讜讞谉 砖讜讬谉 讘讝专

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.

讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 砖砖讜讛 讘讝专 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞转谞讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谉 讗砖 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 谞转讬谞转 讗砖 讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛

岣zkiya 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: 鈥淎nd he shall flay the burnt-offering and cut it into its pieces鈥 (Leviticus 1:6), and following that it is stated: 鈥淭he sons of Aaron the priest shall place fire on the altar鈥 (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.

Scroll To Top