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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 8, 2021 | 讻状讜 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 learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Yoma 27

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Deborah Hamilton in honor of Susan Rosenberg’s birthday. “With love from the women of IAM who wish Susan a day of her favorite things including a swim at the Point, chocolate-covered pomegranate, and learning with the amazing women of Hadran.”

From where is it derived that the flaying and cutting of the animal of a sacrifice can be done by a non-kohen? If a non-kohen sets up the ma’aracha, the pile of logs on the altar, is he liable for death by the hands of God? What if he brings the two logs that the kohen is supposed to bring in the morning?

讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讗砖讻讞转讬讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讛讜讛 诪住讘专 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讜砖讞讟 砖讞讬讟讛 讘讝专 讻砖讬专讛 讜讻讬 诪讗讬谉 讘讗转 诪讻诇诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗转讛 讜讘谞讬讱 讗转讱 转砖诪专讜 讗转 讻讛讜谞转讻诐 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讞讬讟讛

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鈥檚 derivation to his son based on the following baraita. It is written: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd you and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood鈥 (Numbers 18:7), I would derive that no part of the sacrificial service may be performed by a non-priest, not even slaughtering.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖讞讟 讗转 讘谉 讛讘拽专 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗转 讛讚诐 诪拽讘诇讛 讜讗讬诇讱 诪爪讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讜住诪讱 讬讚讜 讜砖讞讟 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛砖讞讬讟讛 砖讻砖讬专讛 讘讝专

The baraita continues: Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord, and the sons of Aaron鈥hall sacrifice the blood鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hands upon the head of the burnt-offering鈥and he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 1:4鈥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.

诪讻讚讬 诪拽讘诇讛 讜讗讬诇讱 诪爪讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讜谞转谞讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞

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: 鈥淭he sons of Aaron shall put fire on the altar鈥 (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鈥檚 stipulation of this fact appears superfluous. This is why 岣zkiya 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.

讜讗讻转讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讚诪注讻讘讗 讻驻专讛 讛讬讗 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 讻讛讜谞讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘注讬 讻讛讜谞讛

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.

讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜注专讻讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗转 讛谞转讞讬诐 讗转 讛专讗砖 讜讗转 讛驻讚专 诪讻讚讬 诪拽讘诇讛 讜讗讬诇讱 诪爪讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讜注专讻讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞

Rather, Hizkiya鈥檚 derivation must be rejected, and the acceptability of non-priests for flaying and cutting the animal must be learned from here: It is written: 鈥淎nd Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests, shall lay out the pieces, the head and the fat鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd Aaron鈥檚 sons shall lay out the pieces鈥? 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 住讬讚讜专 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 诪住转讘专讗 讚讬讘讞讗 讚讻讜转讬讛 诪诪注讟

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.

讗讚专讘讛 住讚讜专 讚讻讜转讬讛 诪诪注讟

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.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗诪专 诪专 讜讛拽专讬讘 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 讛诪讝讘讞讛 讝讜 讛讜诇讻转 讗讘专讬诐 诇讻讘砖 讛讜诇讻转 讗讘专讬诐 诇讻讘砖 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛 讛讜诇讻转 注爪讬诐 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛 讛讗 住讬讚讜专 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall bring all of it near and burn it on the altar鈥 (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.

讜注专讻讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讙讜驻讬讛

The Gemara returns to the derivation presented above, where the question was raised: Why do I need the words 鈥渁nd Aaron鈥檚 sons shall lay out the pieces鈥? 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.

讗诇讗 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall burn all of it on the altar鈥 (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.

讜讛拽专讬讘 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 讛诪讝讘讞讛 讝讜 讛讜诇讻转 讗讘专讬诐 诇讻讘砖 讛讜诇讻转 讗讘专讬诐 诇讻讘砖 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛 讛讜诇讻转 注爪讬诐 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛 讛讗 住讚讜专 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛 讜谞转谞讜 诇讙讜驻讬讛

The Gemara reviews the lessons taught by the other verses cited above. When the Torah writes: 鈥淭he priest shall bring all of it near鈥he altar鈥 (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: 鈥淭he sons of Aaron shall put fire on the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:7), this is necessary for its own sake, to teach that this service must be done by priests.

讜注专讻讜 砖谞讬诐 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 砖谞讬诐 讛讻讛谞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 诇诪讚谞讜 诇讟诇讛 砖讟注讜谉 砖砖讛

When the Torah states: 鈥淎nd the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall lay out the pieces, the head and the fat鈥 (Leviticus 1:8), it comes to teach the following: 鈥淎nd they shall lay out,鈥 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. 鈥淭he sons of Aaron,鈥 also in plural, indicates an additional two; 鈥渢he priests,鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗讬 讘讘谉 讛讘拽专 讻转讬讘 讜讘谉 讛讘拽专 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讘注讬 讜谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 注诇 讛注爪讬诐 讗砖专 注诇 讛讗砖 讗砖专 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讗讬讝讛讜 讚讘专 砖谞讗诪专 讘讜 注爪讬诐 讗砖 讜诪讝讘讞

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: 鈥淥n the wood that is on the fire upon the altar鈥 (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?

讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讟诇讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝专 砖住讬讚专 讗转 讛诪注专讻讛 讞讬讬讘 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 驻讜专拽讛 讜讞讜讝专 讜住讜讚专讛 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 驻讜专拽讛 讝专 讜住讜讚专讛 讻讛谉

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A non-priest who set up the arrangement of wood on the altar is liable to receive the death penalty by God鈥檚 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讻讬 讬砖 诇讱 注讘讜讚讛 砖讻砖讬专讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜驻住讜诇讛 讘讝专

Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 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.

讜诇讗 讜讛专讬 讗讘专讬诐 讜驻讚专讬诐 住讜祝 注讘讜讚讛 讚讬诪诪讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara expresses wonder at Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 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鈥檛 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.

讜讛专讬 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 转讞诇转 注讘讜讚讛 讚讬诪诪讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讬讚砖 讬讚讬讜 诇转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 诇诪讞专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讚砖 砖讻讘专 拽讬讚砖 诪转讞诇转 注讘讜讚讛 讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks further: But isn鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan 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鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan remains difficult.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝专 砖住讬讚专 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注讘讜讚转 讬讜诐 讛讬讗 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 转讬讘注讬 驻讬讬住 讗砖转诪讬讟转讬讛 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讬 砖讝讻讛 讘转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讝讻讛 讘住讚讜专 诪注专讻讛 讜讘住讚讜专 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement must be revised, and one must posit that when it was stated, this is how it was stated. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A non-priest who arranges the two logs on the altar is liable to receive the death penalty by God鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚注讘讜讚转 讬讜诐 讘注讬讗 驻讬讬住 注讘讜讚转 诇讬诇讛 诇讗 讘注讬讗 驻讬讬住 讜讛专讬 讗讘专讬诐 讜驻讚专讬诐 住讜祝 注讘讜讚讛 讚讬诪诪讗 讛讬讗 讜讛专讬 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛

Another difficulty is raised with regard to Rava鈥檚 statement: Is that to say that a daytime service requires a lottery and, conversely, a nighttime service does not require a lottery? Isn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚注讘讜讚转 讬讜诐 讜砖讝专 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪讬转讛 讘注讬讗 驻讬讬住 讗讬谉 讝专 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪讬转讛 诇讗 讘注讬讗 驻讬讬住 讜讛专讬 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讗谞讬 砖讞讬讟讛 讚转讞诇转 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 诇讗 转谞谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛诪诪讜谞讛 爪讗讜 讜专讗讜 讗诐 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讛砖讞讬讟讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讝诪谉 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks with regard to the revised version of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: But didn鈥檛 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.

讛讱 讚诇讬转 诇讛 转拽谞转讗 拽转谞讬 讛讱 讚讗讬转 诇讛 转拽谞转讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬

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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讻讬 讬砖 诇讱 注讘讜讚讛 砖讬砖 讗讞专讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讜驻住讜诇讛 讘讝专

And some say a different version of Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 objection: Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 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.

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 learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

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 27: Lottery after Lottery

Arranging the wood for the fire - if a non-kohen does this, he is subject to death. If he did...
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 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 27

讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讗砖讻讞转讬讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讛讜讛 诪住讘专 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讜砖讞讟 砖讞讬讟讛 讘讝专 讻砖讬专讛 讜讻讬 诪讗讬谉 讘讗转 诪讻诇诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗转讛 讜讘谞讬讱 讗转讱 转砖诪专讜 讗转 讻讛讜谞转讻诐 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讞讬讟讛

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鈥檚 derivation to his son based on the following baraita. It is written: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd you and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood鈥 (Numbers 18:7), I would derive that no part of the sacrificial service may be performed by a non-priest, not even slaughtering.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖讞讟 讗转 讘谉 讛讘拽专 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗转 讛讚诐 诪拽讘诇讛 讜讗讬诇讱 诪爪讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讜住诪讱 讬讚讜 讜砖讞讟 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛砖讞讬讟讛 砖讻砖讬专讛 讘讝专

The baraita continues: Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord, and the sons of Aaron鈥hall sacrifice the blood鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hands upon the head of the burnt-offering鈥and he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 1:4鈥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.

诪讻讚讬 诪拽讘诇讛 讜讗讬诇讱 诪爪讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讜谞转谞讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞

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: 鈥淭he sons of Aaron shall put fire on the altar鈥 (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鈥檚 stipulation of this fact appears superfluous. This is why 岣zkiya 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.

讜讗讻转讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讚诪注讻讘讗 讻驻专讛 讛讬讗 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 讻讛讜谞讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘注讬 讻讛讜谞讛

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.

讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜注专讻讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗转 讛谞转讞讬诐 讗转 讛专讗砖 讜讗转 讛驻讚专 诪讻讚讬 诪拽讘诇讛 讜讗讬诇讱 诪爪讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讜注专讻讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞

Rather, Hizkiya鈥檚 derivation must be rejected, and the acceptability of non-priests for flaying and cutting the animal must be learned from here: It is written: 鈥淎nd Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests, shall lay out the pieces, the head and the fat鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd Aaron鈥檚 sons shall lay out the pieces鈥? 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 住讬讚讜专 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 诪住转讘专讗 讚讬讘讞讗 讚讻讜转讬讛 诪诪注讟

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.

讗讚专讘讛 住讚讜专 讚讻讜转讬讛 诪诪注讟

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.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗诪专 诪专 讜讛拽专讬讘 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 讛诪讝讘讞讛 讝讜 讛讜诇讻转 讗讘专讬诐 诇讻讘砖 讛讜诇讻转 讗讘专讬诐 诇讻讘砖 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛 讛讜诇讻转 注爪讬诐 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛 讛讗 住讬讚讜专 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall bring all of it near and burn it on the altar鈥 (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.

讜注专讻讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讙讜驻讬讛

The Gemara returns to the derivation presented above, where the question was raised: Why do I need the words 鈥渁nd Aaron鈥檚 sons shall lay out the pieces鈥? 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.

讗诇讗 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall burn all of it on the altar鈥 (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.

讜讛拽专讬讘 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 讛诪讝讘讞讛 讝讜 讛讜诇讻转 讗讘专讬诐 诇讻讘砖 讛讜诇讻转 讗讘专讬诐 诇讻讘砖 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛 讛讜诇讻转 注爪讬诐 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛 讛讗 住讚讜专 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛 讜谞转谞讜 诇讙讜驻讬讛

The Gemara reviews the lessons taught by the other verses cited above. When the Torah writes: 鈥淭he priest shall bring all of it near鈥he altar鈥 (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: 鈥淭he sons of Aaron shall put fire on the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:7), this is necessary for its own sake, to teach that this service must be done by priests.

讜注专讻讜 砖谞讬诐 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 砖谞讬诐 讛讻讛谞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 诇诪讚谞讜 诇讟诇讛 砖讟注讜谉 砖砖讛

When the Torah states: 鈥淎nd the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall lay out the pieces, the head and the fat鈥 (Leviticus 1:8), it comes to teach the following: 鈥淎nd they shall lay out,鈥 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. 鈥淭he sons of Aaron,鈥 also in plural, indicates an additional two; 鈥渢he priests,鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗讬 讘讘谉 讛讘拽专 讻转讬讘 讜讘谉 讛讘拽专 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讘注讬 讜谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 注诇 讛注爪讬诐 讗砖专 注诇 讛讗砖 讗砖专 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讗讬讝讛讜 讚讘专 砖谞讗诪专 讘讜 注爪讬诐 讗砖 讜诪讝讘讞

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: 鈥淥n the wood that is on the fire upon the altar鈥 (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?

讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讟诇讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝专 砖住讬讚专 讗转 讛诪注专讻讛 讞讬讬讘 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 驻讜专拽讛 讜讞讜讝专 讜住讜讚专讛 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 驻讜专拽讛 讝专 讜住讜讚专讛 讻讛谉

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A non-priest who set up the arrangement of wood on the altar is liable to receive the death penalty by God鈥檚 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讻讬 讬砖 诇讱 注讘讜讚讛 砖讻砖讬专讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜驻住讜诇讛 讘讝专

Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 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.

讜诇讗 讜讛专讬 讗讘专讬诐 讜驻讚专讬诐 住讜祝 注讘讜讚讛 讚讬诪诪讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara expresses wonder at Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 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鈥檛 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.

讜讛专讬 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 转讞诇转 注讘讜讚讛 讚讬诪诪讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讬讚砖 讬讚讬讜 诇转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 诇诪讞专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讚砖 砖讻讘专 拽讬讚砖 诪转讞诇转 注讘讜讚讛 讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks further: But isn鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan 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鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan remains difficult.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝专 砖住讬讚专 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注讘讜讚转 讬讜诐 讛讬讗 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 转讬讘注讬 驻讬讬住 讗砖转诪讬讟转讬讛 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讬 砖讝讻讛 讘转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讝讻讛 讘住讚讜专 诪注专讻讛 讜讘住讚讜专 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement must be revised, and one must posit that when it was stated, this is how it was stated. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A non-priest who arranges the two logs on the altar is liable to receive the death penalty by God鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚注讘讜讚转 讬讜诐 讘注讬讗 驻讬讬住 注讘讜讚转 诇讬诇讛 诇讗 讘注讬讗 驻讬讬住 讜讛专讬 讗讘专讬诐 讜驻讚专讬诐 住讜祝 注讘讜讚讛 讚讬诪诪讗 讛讬讗 讜讛专讬 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛

Another difficulty is raised with regard to Rava鈥檚 statement: Is that to say that a daytime service requires a lottery and, conversely, a nighttime service does not require a lottery? Isn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚注讘讜讚转 讬讜诐 讜砖讝专 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪讬转讛 讘注讬讗 驻讬讬住 讗讬谉 讝专 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪讬转讛 诇讗 讘注讬讗 驻讬讬住 讜讛专讬 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讗谞讬 砖讞讬讟讛 讚转讞诇转 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 诇讗 转谞谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛诪诪讜谞讛 爪讗讜 讜专讗讜 讗诐 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讛砖讞讬讟讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讝诪谉 砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks with regard to the revised version of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: But didn鈥檛 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.

讛讱 讚诇讬转 诇讛 转拽谞转讗 拽转谞讬 讛讱 讚讗讬转 诇讛 转拽谞转讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬

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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讻讬 讬砖 诇讱 注讘讜讚讛 砖讬砖 讗讞专讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讜驻住讜诇讛 讘讝专

And some say a different version of Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 objection: Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 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.

Scroll To Top