Yoma 27
הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ! אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: אַשְׁכַּחְתֵּיהּ לְאַבָּיֵי דַּהֲוָה מַסְבַּר לֵיהּ לִבְרֵיהּ: ״וְשָׁחַט״ — שְׁחִיטָה בְּזָר כְּשֵׁירָה. וְכִי מֵאַיִן בָּאתָ? מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ אִתְּךָ תִּשְׁמְרוּ אֶת כְּהוּנַּתְכֶם״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אֲפִילּוּ שְׁחִיטָה,
The Gemara asks: But that verse about putting fire on the altar is needed for its own sake, to teach that the wood must be brought by a priest; it should not be interpreted as an inference that other services, such as flaying and cutting, may be performed by non-priests. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: I found Abaye explaining Hizkiya’s derivation to his son based on the following baraita. It is written: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5), with no mention of a priest, which teaches that slaughter by a non-priest is acceptable. The baraita continues: Now, from where would you come to think otherwise? Why would one even suspect that a priest should be required to slaughter the offering, so that a specific verse is required to tell us otherwise? From the fact that it is stated: “And you and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood” (Numbers 18:7), I would derive that no part of the sacrificial service may be performed by a non-priest, not even slaughtering.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְהִקְרִיבוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים אֶת הַדָּם״, מִקַּבָּלָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה. ״וְסָמַךְ יָדוֹ וְשָׁחַט״, לִימֵּד עַל הַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר.
The baraita continues: Therefore, the verse states: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord, and the sons of Aaron…shall sacrifice the blood” (Leviticus 1:5), from which it is inferred that from the sacrificing of blood, which begins with the collection of the blood, and onward is a mitzva exclusively of priesthood. Just prior to this the Torah states: “And he shall place his hands upon the head of the burnt-offering…and he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:4–5). In this verse the Torah is referring to the donor of the offering when it says: He shall place his hands, and therefore when it continues: And he shall slaughter, it is also referring to the donor. The Torah thereby taught that the slaughter of the offering is acceptable if performed by a non-priest.
מִכְּדֵי מִקַּבָּלָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, ״וְנָתְנוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ.
Abaye asked: Since, as this baraita establishes, from the collection of the blood and onward is a mitzva exclusively of priesthood, why do I need the Torah to say afterward: “The sons of Aaron shall put fire on the altar” (Leviticus 1:7)? Since the verse about putting the fire on the altar follows the verse about collection of blood, it is clear that it must be done by priests, and the verse’s stipulation of this fact appears superfluous. This is why Ḥizkiya concluded that the verse is not required for its own sake but is needed to teach the following inference: It is only the placing of fire on the altar that requires priests, to the exclusion of flaying and cutting up the animal, which may be performed by a non-priest.
וְאַכַּתִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ: סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו עֲבוֹדָה דִּמְעַכְּבָא כַּפָּרָה הִיא — לָא תִּיבְעֵי כְּהוּנָּה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּבָעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה!
The Gemara asks: But still, the verse about the placement of wood by priests is necessary for its own sake. As it might have entered your mind to say that since placing the wood is not a service that is indispensable for obtaining atonement, as atonement is achieved solely through the blood of the offering, it should not be required to be performed by priests. And one might have thought that the principle that all tasks from the collection of the blood and onward require a priest applies only to services relating to the blood. Therefore, the verse teaches us that nevertheless, priesthood is required. Consequently, it cannot be asserted that the verse is written for the purpose of excluding other services.
אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא: ״וְעָרְכוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים אֵת הַנְּתָחִים אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְאֶת הַפָּדֶר״, מִכְּדֵי, מִקַּבָּלָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, ״וְעָרְכוּ״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ.
Rather, Hizkiya’s derivation must be rejected, and the acceptability of non-priests for flaying and cutting the animal must be learned from here: It is written: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay out the pieces, the head and the fat” (Leviticus 1:8). Since, as the baraita above establishes, from the collection of the blood and onward is a mitzva exclusively of priesthood, why do I need the verse to specify: “And Aaron’s sons shall lay out the pieces”? Since the specification of priesthood here appears superfluous, one must conclude that it is written not for its own sake but to exclude flaying and cutting up the animal, to teach that those acts need not be performed by a priest.
וְאֵימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי סִידּוּר שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים! מִסְתַּבְּרָא דִּיבְחָא דִּכְוָתֵיהּ מְמַעֵט.
The Gemara asks: Granted, the verse comes to convey the inference that another act does not require priesthood, but say that it comes to exclude the arrangement of the two logs, to teach that this activity may be done by a non-priest. The Gemara rejects this: It is more reasonable that the verse, which deals with laying out the pieces of the offering on the altar, would exclude a service that is similar to itself, i.e., something related to the body of the sacrificial animal, such as flaying it and cutting it up, rather than the arrangement of the wood, which is not related to the animal itself.
אַדְּרַבָּה, סִדּוּר דִּכְוָתֵיהּ מְמַעֵט!
The Gemara responds: On the contrary, one should say that it excludes something relevant to arrangement, i.e., the placement of the logs, which is similar to the laying of the pieces of the offering in that both pertain to the placement of an item on the altar. Perhaps, then, the verse is coming to convey the inference that the arrangement of the logs, unlike the arrangement of the pieces of the offering, may be performed by a non-priest.
לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּאָמַר מָר: ״וְהִקְרִיב הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״, זוֹ הוֹלָכַת אֵבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ. הוֹלָכַת אֵבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ הוּא דְּבָעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה, הוֹלָכַת עֵצִים לָא בָּעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה. הָא סִידּוּר שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים — בָּעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה!
The Gemara rejects this argument: It cannot enter your mind to say this, as the Master said: After mentioning the mitzva to collect the blood, the Torah states: “And the priest shall bring all of it near and burn it on the altar” (Leviticus 1:13), where bringing near is referring to carrying the limbs to the ramp. The specification of priesthood in this verse is not required for its own sake, since all services following the collection of blood require priesthood. Therefore, it must be that it comes to convey the inference that it is only carrying the limbs to the ramp that requires priesthood, but carrying wood to the altar does not require priesthood. This, in turn, implies that the actual arrangement of the two logs, which was not excluded, does require priesthood.
״וְעָרְכוּ״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ. וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי לְגוּפֵיהּ!
The Gemara returns to the derivation presented above, where the question was raised: Why do I need the words “and Aaron’s sons shall lay out the pieces”? The conclusion was that the specification of priesthood here comes to exclude flaying and cutting up the animal, to teach that these acts may be performed by a non-priest. The Gemara now rejects this derivation: But say that this verse too is necessary for its own sake, to teach the lesson that the Gemara will shortly derive from these words (Maharsha), and one can no longer assert that the verse comes solely for the purpose of conveying the inference that other, similar acts, i.e., flaying and cutting up the animal, do not require priesthood.
אֶלָּא: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְמַעוֹטֵי הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ.
Rather, this derivation must be rejected as well, and another verse must be found from which to prove that non-priests may flay and cut up the animal. The Torah states: “And the priest shall burn all of it on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9). Since this is an act following the collection of the blood, the specification of priesthood is not needed for its own sake. Therefore, for what purpose does that verse come? It comes to exclude flaying and cutting up the animal, which may be performed by a non-priest.
״וְהִקְרִיב הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״ — זוֹ הוֹלָכַת אֵבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ. הוֹלָכַת אֵבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ הוּא דְּבָעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה, הוֹלָכַת עֵצִים — לָא בָּעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה, הָא סִדּוּר שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים — בָּעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה. ״וְנָתְנוּ״ לְגוּפֵיהּ.
The Gemara reviews the lessons taught by the other verses cited above. When the Torah writes: “The priest shall bring all of it near…the altar” (Leviticus 1:13), this is referring to carrying the limbs to the ramp, and the verse comes to exclude other, similar actions, teaching that although carrying the limbs to the ramp requires priesthood, carrying wood to the altar does not require priesthood. Therefore, it is derived from here as well that the arrangement of the two logs does require priesthood, as explained above. And when the Torah writes: “The sons of Aaron shall put fire on the altar” (Leviticus 1:7), this is necessary for its own sake, to teach that this service must be done by priests.
״וְעָרְכוּ״, שְׁנַיִם. ״בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״, שְׁנַיִם. ״הַכֹּהֲנִים״, שְׁנַיִם. לָמַדְנוּ לְטָלֶה שֶׁטָּעוּן שִׁשָּׁה.
When the Torah states: “And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall lay out the pieces, the head and the fat” (Leviticus 1:8), it comes to teach the following: “And they shall lay out,” through the use of the plural, teaches that it must be done by two priests, as the minimum number implied by a plural word is two. “The sons of Aaron,” also in plural, indicates an additional two; “the priests,” also in plural, indicates two more. We therefore learn from this verse that the sacrificial lamb requires six priests to carry its limbs to the altar. The flesh is taken by five priests, and the innards by one, as described in an earlier mishna.
אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא, קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַאי בְּבֶן הַבָּקָר כְּתִיב, וּבֶן הַבָּקָר עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה בָּעֵי! וְנִיחָא לֵיהּ: ״עַל הָעֵצִים אֲשֶׁר עַל הָאֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ עֵצִים אֵשׁ וּמִזְבֵּחַ —
Rav Hamnuna said that Rabbi Elazar posed a difficulty: This verse is written about a young bull, not a lamb; and a bull requires twenty-four priests. How, then, can this verse be used as the source that six priests are required to carry the limbs of a lamb? And he resolved the difficulty himself as follows: The same verse states: “On the wood that is on the fire upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:8), all of which apparently teaches nothing new about the sacrifice. Therefore, it is seen as an allusion to the daily offering, which was a lamb, as what is an item about which it is stated that specially prepared wood and fire on an altar must be provided, and that pre-existing wood and fire do not suffice?
הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה טָלֶה.
You must say that this is the lamb of the morning daily offering, concerning which the Torah commands that a new woodpile be prepared every day and that the altar must be lit anew each morning. Therefore, although the verse is ostensibly speaking of a bull, it also alludes to the lamb of the daily offering and to the fact that it should be brought by six priests.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זָר שֶׁסִּידֵּר אֶת הַמַּעֲרָכָה חַיָּיב. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה — פּוֹרְקָהּ וְחוֹזֵר וְסוֹדְרָהּ. מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ? אֶלָּא: פּוֹרְקָהּ זָר, וְסוֹדְרָהּ כֹּהֵן.
§ Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A non-priest who set up the arrangement of wood on the altar is liable to receive the death penalty by God’s hand for having performed an act that is restricted to priests, and the woodpile that he placed is invalid. What should he do to repair the woodpile? He should dismantle it and then rearrange it. The Gemara is surprised at this: What good would this do for the woodpile? How would it help for the non-priest himself to rearrange the wood? It would be just as invalid as it was the first time. Rather, one must say that the non-priest should dismantle it, as there is nothing wrong with a non-priest dismantling the woodpile, and a priest then rearranges it.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: וְכִי יֵשׁ לְךָ עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בַּלַּיְלָה וּפְסוּלָה בְּזָר?
Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s teaching: And do you have any service that is valid if performed at night and yet is invalid if performed by a non-priest? A bona fide Temple service must be performed during the day. That the wood on the altar may be arranged while it is still nighttime shows that it is not a bona fide service, and therefore it should be permitted for non-priests to perform it.
וְלָא? וַהֲרֵי אֵבָרִים וּפְדָרִים? סוֹף עֲבוֹדָה דִימָמָא הִיא.
The Gemara expresses wonder at Rabbi Zeira’s equation of the two issues: And is there really no such thing as a service that may be performed at night but which is prohibited for a non-priest to perform? Isn’t there the burning of the limbs and the fats of offerings on the altar, which continues throughout the night, and yet it was taught earlier in this chapter that a non-priest who participates in that service incurs the death penalty? The Gemara rejects this objection: The burning of sacrificial limbs and fats, though it may be done at night, is not considered a nighttime service but the end of the daytime service, as it is merely the culmination of the sacrificial service that began during the day.
וַהֲרֵי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן! תְּחִלַּת עֲבוֹדָה דִּימָמָא הִיא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קִידֵּשׁ יָדָיו לִתְרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן, לְמָחָר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַדֵּשׁ, שֶׁכְּבָר קִידֵּשׁ מִתְּחִלַּת עֲבוֹדָה. וְאֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא!
The Gemara asks further: But isn’t there the removal of the ashes from the altar, which may be performed at night, and yet may not be done by a non-priest? The Gemara rejects this too: The removal of ashes is also not considered a nighttime service but the start of the daytime service. And the proof for this is that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If a priest has sanctified his hands at night by washing them for the removal of the ashes, the next day, i.e., after daybreak, he need not sanctify his hands again, as he already sanctified them at the start of the service. Rabbi Zeira’s equation between services performed at night and services that may be performed by non-priests therefore remains intact. If so, the objection that he raised to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan remains difficult.
אֶלָּא, כִּי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זָר שֶׁסִּידֵּר שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים חַיָּיב, הוֹאִיל וַעֲבוֹדַת יוֹם הִיא. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה תִּיבְּעֵי פַּיִיס! אִשְׁתְּמִיטְתֵּיהּ הָא דְּתַנְיָא: מִי שֶׁזָּכָה בִּתְרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן, זָכָה בְּסִדּוּר מַעֲרָכָה וּבְסִדּוּר שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים.
Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement must be revised, and one must posit that when it was stated, this is how it was stated. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A non-priest who arranges the two logs on the altar is liable to receive the death penalty by God’s hand, since it is a daytime service. Rava strongly objects to this: But if that is so, if arranging the two logs is a bona fide daytime service and is prohibited to non-priests on pain of death, it should require a lottery; and yet in practice this service is not assigned by a lottery. The Gemara comments that it must have escaped Rava’s mind that which is taught explicitly in a baraita: The priest who was privileged to perform the removal of the ashes was also privileged with setting up the arrangement of wood on the altar and with placing the two logs.
לְמֵימְרָא דַּעֲבוֹדַת יוֹם בָּעֲיָא פַּיִיס עֲבוֹדַת לַיְלָה לָא בָּעֲיָא פַּיִיס? וַהֲרֵי אֵבָרִים וּפְדָרִים! סוֹף עֲבוֹדָה דִימָמָא הִיא. וַהֲרֵי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן! מִשּׁוּם מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה.
Another difficulty is raised with regard to Rava’s statement: Is that to say that a daytime service requires a lottery and, conversely, a nighttime service does not require a lottery? Isn’t there the burning of the limbs and the fats on the altar, which is done at night and yet is assigned through a lottery? The Gemara responds: That is not difficult, since the burning of the limbs and the fats is the end of the daytime service, as explained above. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the removal of the ashes from the altar, which is a nighttime service and yet requires a lottery? The Gemara answers: Indeed, a lottery should not have been required for that service, but one was instituted due to the incident that occurred, when the priests came to danger, as related in the mishna.
לְמֵימְרָא דַּעֲבוֹדַת יוֹם וְשֶׁזָּר חַיָּיב עָלֶיהָ מִיתָה בָּעֲיָא פַּיִיס, אֵין זָר חַיָּיב עָלֶיהָ מִיתָה לָא בָּעֲיָא פַּיִיס? וַהֲרֵי שְׁחִיטָה! שָׁאנֵי שְׁחִיטָה דִּתְחִלַּת עֲבוֹדָה הִיא.
The Gemara asks further: Is that to say that any service that is a daytime service and for which a non-priest would be liable to receive the death penalty requires a lottery, and conversely, a daytime service for which a non-priest would not be liable to receive the death penalty does not require a lottery? But isn’t there the slaughtering of the daily offering, which may be performed by a non-priest and yet requires a lottery? The Gemara rejects this point: Slaughtering is different, because it is the beginning of the service of the daily offering and is therefore considered important enough to warrant a lottery.
אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אָשֵׁי, וְהָא אֲנַן לָא תְּנַן הָכִי: אָמַר לָהֶם הַמְמוּנֶּה צְאוּ וּרְאוּ אִם הִגִּיעַ זְמַן הַשְּׁחִיטָה. וְאִילּוּ ״זְמַן שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים״ לָא קָתָנֵי.
The Gemara asks with regard to the revised version of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: But didn’t we learn that it is not so that arranging the logs must be done during the day, as it was taught in a mishna: The appointed priest said to them: Go out and see if the time for slaughtering has arrived. The mishna does not teach that the appointee said: Go and see if the time for arranging the two logs has arrived. This shows that the logs need not be placed after daybreak but may be arranged while it is still night.
הָךְ דְּלֵית לַהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא — קָתָנֵי, הָךְ דְּאִית לַהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא — לָא קָתָנֵי.
The Gemara rejects this argument: The reason the mishna mentions slaughtering is that it prefers to teach this statement with regard to that which has no rectification if it is done at night, such as slaughtering the offering, which is rendered irreparably invalid if done before daybreak. It does not want to teach something that has rectification if done at night, such as arranging the two logs, which can always be removed and replaced properly. However, the proper time for arranging the logs is indeed daytime.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: וְכִי יֵשׁ לְךָ עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ אַחֲרֶיהָ עֲבוֹדָה וּפְסוּלָה בְּזָר?
And some say a different version of Rabbi Zeira’s objection: Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that a non-priest who arranged the woodpile incurs the death penalty: And do you have any service that is not complete on its own but is followed by a different service, such as the arrangement of the two logs, and yet is invalid and is punishable by death if performed by a non-priest? It was taught earlier in the chapter that a non-priest incurs the death penalty only for performing a service that is complete, i.e., a service that is not followed by other services that complete the task being performed.
