Ready to get started?
Today’s Daf – Chullin 76 / Jul. 15th, 2026 / א׳ באב תשפ״ו
Ready to get started?
Share this shiur:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Lesley Glassberg Nadel and Don Nadel in memory of the yahrzeits of their mothers Theresa Glassberg Tova Bat Zvi Hirsch on Rosh Chodesh Sivan and Rhoda Nadel. Zisa Risa bat Aliya haCohen on 2nd Sivan.
Abaye brought the tradition that he was taught in the name of Abba Shaul regarding the order of daily activities in the Temple. The gemara begins to go through each item on the list and explain why each one comes before the next.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
לְכָךְ שָׁנִינוּ: רוֹב אֶחָד בָּעוֹף וְרוֹב שְׁנַיִם בַּבְּהֵמָה. וְכִי מֵאַחַר דַּאֲפִילּוּ פְּסוּלָא מִדְּרַבָּנַן לֵיכָּא, לְמָה לִי לְמָרֵק! מִצְוָה לְמָרֵק.
therefore, we learned again: The majority of one organ in a bird and the majority of each of two organs in an animal, to teach that slaughtering the majority of each of the signs is sufficient. The Gemara asks: And since there is not even an invalidation by rabbinic law, why do I need another priest to finish cutting the organs? Why not suffice with the High Priest’s slaughter of the majority of each of the two organs? The Gemara answers: It is nevertheless a mitzva to complete the slaughter ab initio to cause the blood to flow more freely.
אַבָּיֵי מְסַדֵּר מַעֲרָכָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּגְמָרָא וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל: מַעֲרָכָה גְּדוֹלָה קוֹדֶמֶת לְמַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁל קְטוֹרֶת, מַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁל קְטוֹרֶת קוֹדֶמֶת לְסִידּוּר שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים, וְסִידּוּר שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים קוֹדֵם לְדִישּׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי, וְדִישּׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי קוֹדֵם לַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת,
§ Abaye arranged the sequence of the daily services in the Temple based on tradition and in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul: Setting up the large arrangement of wood on the altar on which the offerings were burned precedes the second arrangement of wood. This second arrangement was arranged separately near the southwest corner of the altar, and twice every day priests raked coals from it and placed them on the inner altar in order to burn the incense. The second arrangement for the incense precedes setting up the two logs of wood above the large arrangement to fulfill the mitzva of bringing wood. And the setting up of the two logs of wood precedes the removal of ashes from the inner altar. And the removal of ashes from the inner altar precedes the removal of ashes from five of the seven lamps of the candelabrum.
וַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת קוֹדֵם לְדַם הַתָּמִיד, וְדַם הַתָּמִיד קוֹדֵם לַהֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת, וַהֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת קוֹדֵם לִקְטוֹרֶת, וּקְטוֹרֶת קוֹדֵם לְאֵבָרִים, וְאֵבָרִים לְמִנְחָה, וּמִנְחָה לַחֲבִיתִּין, וַחֲבִיתִּין לִנְסָכִין,
And removal of ashes from five lamps precedes the slaughter and the receiving and sprinkling of the blood of the daily morning offering. The sprinkling of the blood of the daily offering precedes the removal of ashes from the two remaining lamps of the candelabrum. And the removal of ashes from two lamps precedes the burning of the incense. The burning of the incense on the inner altar precedes the burning of the limbs of the daily offering on the outer altar. The burning of the limbs precedes the sacrifice of the meal-offering which accompanies the daily offering. The sacrifice of the meal-offering precedes the sacrifice of the High Priest’s daily griddle-cake offering, half of which he sacrificed in the morning and half in the afternoon. And the griddle-cake offering precedes the pouring of the libations of the daily offering.
וּנְסָכִין לְמוּסָפִין, וּמוּסָפִין לְבָזִיכִין, וּבָזִיכִין לְתָמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִקְטִיר עָלֶיהָ חֶלְבֵי הַשְּׁלָמִים״, ״עָלֶיהָ״ הַשְׁלֵם כׇּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת כּוּלָּן.
And the libations precede the sacrifice of the additional offerings on days when the additional offerings are sacrificed. And the additional offerings precede the vessels of frankincense that are offered on Shabbat. And the vessels precede the sacrifice of the daily afternoon offering, as it is stated: “And he shall lay out the burnt-offering on it, and burn on it the fat parts of the peace-offerings” (Leviticus 6:5). The term on it, means complete sacrifice of all other offerings, i.e., after the daily morning offering rather than after the daily afternoon offering. In all cases, the daily afternoon offering is the final offering sacrificed.
אָמַר מָר: מַעֲרָכָה גְּדוֹלָה קוֹדֶמֶת לְמַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁל קְטוֹרֶת. מְנָא לַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״הִיא הָעוֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה״ — זוֹ מַעֲרָכָה גְּדוֹלָה. ״וְאֵשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תּוּקַד בּוֹ״ — זוֹ מַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁל קְטוֹרֶת.
The Gemara proceeds to analyze the items listed by Abaye and seeks biblical or logical sources for each. The Master said: Setting up the large arrangement of wood on the altar on which the offerings were burned precedes the second arrangement of wood for incense. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: The verse states: “The burnt-offering itself shall go up on its bonfire upon the altar all night” (Leviticus 6:2); this is referring to the large arrangement of wood. “And the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it” (Leviticus 6:2); this is referring to the second arrangement of wood near the corner of the altar, from which coals are taken for the incense.
וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא! מִסְתַּבְּרָא מַעֲרָכָה גְּדוֹלָה עֲדִיפָא, שֶׁכֵּן כַּפָּרָתָהּ מְרוּבָּה.
The Gemara asks: And perhaps I should reverse them and say that the first verse refers to the arrangement of wood for the incense, and the second verse refers to the large arrangement of wood. The Gemara answers: It is reasonable that the large arrangement of wood takes precedence, as the atonement that it effects is extensive. All of the offerings are sacrificed on the large pile, not just the incense.
אַדְּרַבָּה, מַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה עֲדִיפָא, שֶׁכֵּן מַכְנִיסִין מִמֶּנָּה לִפְנִים! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, כַּפָּרָתָהּ מְרוּבָּה עֲדִיפָא. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִי לָא מַשְׁכַּח עֵצִים לְמַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה, מִי לָא מְעַיֵּיל מִמַּעֲרָכָה גְּדוֹלָה?!
The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, the second arrangement takes precedence, as unlike the large arrangement in which offerings are burned exclusively on the outer altar, coals from it are taken inside the Sanctuary. The Gemara answers: Even so, the contention that the atonement that it effects is extensive takes precedence. And if you wish, say instead: If one does not find wood for the second arrangement, wouldn’t he take coals from the large arrangement into the Sanctuary to burn the incense? There is no fundamental obligation to bring coals from a special arrangement, and the second arrangement is only an addition to the large arrangement on which all the offerings are burned.
מַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁל קְטוֹרֶת קוֹדֶמֶת לְסִידּוּר שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים. מְנָא לַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבִעֵר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן עֵצִים בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״. ״עָלֶיהָ״, וְלֹא עַל חֲבֶרְתָּהּ. מִכְּלָל דְּאִיתָא לַחֲבֶרְתַּהּ.
Abaye continued and said that the second arrangement for incense precedes the setting up of the two logs. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is written: “And the priest shall burn wood upon it in the morning, in the morning” (Leviticus 6:5); there is an obligation to place new logs upon the large arrangement. The term upon it underscores that the wood is placed only on the large arrangement, and not on the other arrangement from which coals are taken for the incense. From the fact that this exclusionary term is necessary, it can be derived by inference that there is another pile on the altar, meaning that when the new logs are placed on the altar, the two arrangements are already there.
וְהַאי ״עָלֶיהָ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ! תְּרֵי ״עָלֶיהָ״ כְּתִיבִי.
The Gemara asks: But this term: Upon it, is needed for its own sake, to teach the obligation to place the logs on the altar; therefore, how can the timing of their placement be derived from that term? The Gemara answers: The term: Upon it, is written twice in that verse: “And the priest shall burn wood upon it in the morning, in the morning, and he shall place the burnt-offering upon it.” From one instance of this term the fundamental obligation to place the logs is derived, and from the other instance the order of their placement is derived.
סִידּוּר שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים קוֹדֵם לְדִישּׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי. אַף עַל גַּב דְּהָכָא כְּתִיב ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״, וְהָכָא כְּתִיב ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי מַכְשִׁיר עָדִיף. מַכְשִׁיר מַאי נִיהוּ — שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים, וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים לְמַעֲרָכָה גְּדוֹלָה אָזְלִי!
Abaye continued: The setting up of the two logs precedes the removal of ashes from the inner altar. Although here, with regard to the two logs, it is written: In the morning, in the morning, meaning that the priest must arise early in the morning to perform this act, and here, with regard to removal of the ashes from the inner altar, it is also written: “In the morning, in the morning” (Exodus 30:7), even so, an action that facilitates another service takes precedence. Therefore, setting up the logs, from which coals are taken, facilitating the burning of the incense, precedes removal of ashes from the inner altar. The Gemara asks: What is the act that facilitates? It is the placement of the two logs. But didn’t you say that the two logs go to the large arrangement of wood and not to the arrangement of wood from which the coals are taken for the incense? These logs in no way facilitate the burning of the incense.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: שׁוּם עֵצִים. רָבִינָא אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וְהִתְחִיל בַּמַּעֲרָכָה, גּוֹמֵר. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אִי לָא מַשְׁכַּח עֵצִים לְמַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה מִי לָא מְעַיֵּיל מִמַּעֲרָכָה גְּדוֹלָה?!
Rabbi Yirmeya said: The reference is to the category of wood. Although these logs do not facilitate the burning of the incense, wood facilitates its burning, and the two logs are wood. Therefore, they take precedence. Ravina said a different reason: Since he began with the service of setting up the arrangement, he completes it by placing two logs. Only then he moves on to perform a different service. Rav Ashi said: If one does not find wood for the second arrangement, won’t he take coals from the large arrangement into the Sanctuary to burn the incense? This demonstrates that there are circumstances in which placing the logs facilitates the burning of the incense. Therefore, it takes precedence.
וְדִישּׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי קוֹדֵם לַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: גְּמָרָא גְּמִירְנָא, סְבָרָא — לָא יָדַעְנָא. וְרָבָא אָמַר: כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הַמִּצְוֹת,
Abaye continued: And removal of ashes from the inner altar precedes the removal of ashes from five of the seven lamps of the candelabrum. What is the reason for this? Abaye said: I learned this through tradition; however, I do not know the rationale behind it. And Rava said: The reason is in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish said: One may not forego performance of any of the mitzvot in order to perform another mitzva.
וְכִי עָיֵיל לְהֵיכָל — בְּמִזְבֵּחַ פָּגַע בְּרֵישָׁא. דְּתַנְיָא: שֻׁלְחָן בַּצָּפוֹן מָשׁוּךְ מִן הַכּוֹתֶל שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה, וּמְנוֹרָה בַּדָּרוֹם מְשׁוּכָה מִן הַכּוֹתֶל שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה. מִזְבֵּחַ מְמוּצָּע וְעוֹמֵד בְּאֶמְצַע וּמָשׁוּךְ כְּלַפֵּי חוּץ קִימְעָא. וְנוֹקְמֵיהּ, לַהֲדַיְיהוּ? כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת הַמְּנוֹרָה נֹכַח הַשֻּׁלְחָן״, בָּעֵינַן דְּחָזוּ אַהֲדָדֵי.
And when he enters the Sanctuary it is the altar that he encounters first, before reaching the candelabrum; therefore, he performs the service of the altar before removing the ashes from the lamps, as it was taught in a baraita: The table stood in the north of the Sanctuary, removed two and a half cubits from the wall. And the candelabrum stood in the south of the Sanctuary, removed two and a half cubits from the wall. The altar was centered and standing in the middle of the Sanctuary, removed a bit outward. Therefore, one encounters the altar first. The Gemara questions the essence of the matter: And let us stand the altar alongside the table and the candelabrum; why was it removed outward? The Gemara answers: It is because it is written: “And the candelabrum opposite the table” (Exodus 26:35); we require that they are visible to each other. Were the altar aligned with the table and the candelabrum, it would interpose between them.
אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, עַבּוֹרֵי דְּרָעָא אַטּוֹטֶפְתָּא אָסוּר. הֵיכִי עָבֵיד? מִדְּרָעָא לְטוֹטֶפְתָּא.
Rava said: Conclude from the statement of Reish Lakish that one may not forego performance of any of the mitzvot, that it is prohibited to forego donning the phylacteries of the arm in order to don the phylacteries of the head, as when donning phylacteries, one encounters the arm first. How does he conduct himself? He proceeds from the phylacteries of the arm to the phylacteries of the head.
וַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת קוֹדֵם לְדַם הַתָּמִיד, וְדַם הַתָּמִיד קוֹדֵם לַהֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָהוּא ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״ דִּשְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים דְּלָא צְרִיכִי, שְׁדִינְהוּ לְהָכָא. חַד שִׁדְיֵיהּ לַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת — דְּלִיקְדְּמֵיהּ לְדַם הַתָּמִיד, וְחַד שִׁדְיֵיהּ לְדַם הַתָּמִיד — דְּנִקְדְּמֵיהּ לַהֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת.
§ Abaye continued: And removal of ashes from five lamps precedes the slaughter and the receiving and sprinkling of the blood of the daily morning offering. The sprinkling of the blood of the daily offering precedes the removal of ashes from the two remaining lamps of the candelabrum. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Abaye said: Take that phrase: In the morning, in the morning, written with regard to the two logs, which is unnecessary to establish the time for performance of that service, as its precedence was explained due to its association with the arrangement of wood. And cast that extraneous phrase to here, and apply it to other elements of the morning service. If the phrase is superfluous in its context, apply it elsewhere where a halakha can be derived. Cast one term: In the morning, and apply it to removal of ashes from five lamps so that it will precede the blood of the daily offering. And cast one term: In the morning, and apply it to the blood of the daily offering, so that it will precede the removal of ashes from the two additional lamps.
חַד שִׁדְיֵיהּ לַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת, דְּלִיקְדְּמֵיהּ לְדַם הַתָּמִיד — דְּהָכָא תְּלָתָא וְהָכָא תְּרֵי.
The Gemara elaborates: Cast one term: In the morning, and apply it to removal of ashes from five lamps so that it will precede the blood of the daily offering, as here, there are three instances of: In the morning; two instances are written explicitly with regard to removal of ashes from the lamps (see Exodus 30:7) and one is written with regard to the two logs. And here, with regard to the blood of the daily offering, there are two instances of the phrase; one explicit mention in the text (see Exodus 29:39) and one written with regard to the two logs.
וְחַד שִׁדְיֵיהּ לְדַם הַתָּמִיד — דְּנִקְדְּמֵיהּ לַהֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת. אַף עַל גַּב דְּהָכָא תְּרֵי וְהָכָא תְּרֵי — מְכַפֵּר עָדִיף.
And cast one term: In the morning, to the blood of the daily offering so that it will precede the removal of ashes from the two additional lamps. Although here, with regard to removal of ashes from the lamps, there are two instances of the phrase: In the morning, and here, with regard to the blood of the daily offering, there are two instances of the phrase: In the morning, one written and one cast from the portion of two logs, the blood of the daily offering takes precedence because an act that effects atonement, the sprinkling of blood, takes precedence.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, וְאֵימָא: חַד שִׁדְיֵיהּ לְדִישּׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי, דְּנִקְדְּמֵיהּ לְדַם הַתָּמִיד — דְּהָכָא תְּלָתָא וְהָכָא תְּרֵי. וְחַד שִׁדְיֵיהּ לְדַם הַתָּמִיד, דְּנִקְדּוֹם לַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת — דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּהָכָא תְּרֵי וְהָכָא תְּרֵי, מְכַפֵּר עָדִיף! אִם כֵּן אַפְסוֹקֵי בְּמַאי מַפְסְקַתְּ לְהוּ?
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And say instead, cast one of the extraneous phrases: In the morning, and apply it to the removal of ashes from the inner altar, so that it will precede the blood of the daily offering, as here there are three instances of the phrase and there there are two. And cast one of the extraneous phrases: In the morning, and apply it to the blood of the daily offering so that it will precede the removal of ashes from five lamps, and say that although here there are two instances of the phrase: In the morning, and here there are two instances of the phrase: In the morning, still an act that effects atonement, the sprinkling of blood, takes precedence. Abaye dismisses this question by saying: If the blood of the daily offering precedes the removal of ashes from five lamps, with what will you demarcate between the removal of ashes from five lamps and the removal of ashes from two lamps?
הָנִיחָא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר: לָמָּה מְטִיבִין וְחוֹזְרִים וּמְטִיבִין — כְּדֵי לְהַרְגִּישׁ כׇּל הָעֲזָרָה כּוּלָּהּ, שַׁפִּיר.
That works out well according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, who said: Why does the priest remove the ashes from five lamps of the candelabrum and then return and remove the ashes from two lamps of the candelabrum rather than arrange all seven lamps at once? It is in order to enliven those present in the entire Temple courtyard, since people are coming and going to fulfill this mitzva with great ceremony. It works out well according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, because he says there is no need for any other service to demarcate between removal of ashes from five lamps and removal of ashes from two.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר: ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״ — חַלְּקֵהוּ לִשְׁנֵי בְקָרִים, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
However, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said the following based on the verse: “And Aaron shall burn upon it incense of sweet spices; in the morning, in the morning, when he removes the ashes from the lamps” (Exodus 30:7); take the term in the morning, in the morning, and divide the service of removal of ashes from the lamps into two mornings, i.e., into two parts, by performing a service in between, what can be said? According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, since the result would be that there is no service demarcating between the five lamps and the two lamps, there is no alternative to interpreting the matter in accordance with the explanation of Abaye.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״ דְּעֵצִים, מִי מְיַיתַּר? הָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ, דְּקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא — נִקְדְּמוּ לְמַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁל קְטוֹרֶת! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלָאו מִי אוֹקֵימְנָא ״עָלֶיהָ״ וְלֹא עַל חֲבֶרְתָּהּ, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיתַהּ לַחֲבֶרְתַּהּ.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi with regard to the basis for Abaye’s argument: Is this term: In the morning, in the morning, written with regard to the two logs actually superfluous and therefore available to have other matters derived from it? Isn’t it necessary to teach its own basic halakha, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: Have it precede the second arrangement of wood, from which coals are taken for the incense? Rav Ashi said to him: And did we not establish that it is written: Upon it, underscoring the fact that wood is placed only on the large arrangement and not on the other arrangement from which coals are taken for the incense? From the fact that this exclusionary term is necessary, it can be derived by inference that there is another pile on the altar, meaning that when the new logs are placed on the altar, the two arrangements are already there.
מַאי שְׁנָא דְּעָבֵיד הֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת בְּרֵישָׁא? נֶעְבֵּיד הֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת בְּרֵישָׁא! כֵּיוָן דְּאַתְחֵיל בְּהוּ — עָבֵיד רוּבָּא. וְנֶעְבֵּיד שֵׁית! אָמַר קְרָא: ״בְּהֵיטִיבוֹ אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת יַקְטִירֶנָּה״, וְאֵין נֵרוֹת פְּחוּתוֹת מִשְּׁתַּיִם.
The Gemara asks with regard to the sequence in which the priest removes the ashes from the lamps: What is different that he performs the removal of ashes from five lamps first? Let us perform the removal of ashes from two lamps first. The Gemara answers: Since he begins the service with them, he performs the service on a majority of the lamps. The Gemara asks: If so, let him perform the service on six lamps. The Gemara responds that the verse states: “When he removes the ashes from the lamps, he shall burn it” (Exodus 30:7), and lamps is plural, meaning no fewer than two. Apparently, removal of ashes from lamps must be performed on a minimum of two lamps.
וַהֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת קוֹדֶמֶת לִקְטוֹרֶת, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״בְּהֵיטִיבוֹ אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת״, וַהֲדַר ״יַקְטִירֶנָּה״.
Abaye continued: And the removal of ashes from two lamps precedes the burning of the incense, as the verse first states: “When he removes the ashes from the lamps,” and then states: “He shall burn it.” The removal of the ashes precedes the burning of the incense.
וּקְטוֹרֶת לְאֵבָרִים, דְּתַנְיָא: יוּקְדַּם דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״, לְדָבָר שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ אֶלָּא ״בֹּקֶר״ אֶחָד בִּלְבַד.
Abaye continued: And the burning of the incense on the inner altar precedes the burning of the limbs of the daily offering on the outer altar, as it was taught in a baraita: Let the matter with regard to which it is stated: In the morning, in the morning, i.e., the burning of the incense, precede the matter with regard to which only one: In the morning, is stated, i.e., the daily morning offering, in the verse: “You shall offer one lamb in the morning” (Exodus 29:39).
וְאֵבָרִים לְמִנְחָה, דְּתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא דָּבָר קוֹדֵם לְתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר?
Abaye continued: The burning of the limbs precedes the sacrifice of the meal-offering that accompanies the daily offering, as it was taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that there may be no item placed on the arrangement of wood prior to the daily morning offering?
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Bronx, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Richmond, CA, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
לְכָךְ שָׁנִינוּ: רוֹב אֶחָד בָּעוֹף וְרוֹב שְׁנַיִם בַּבְּהֵמָה. וְכִי מֵאַחַר דַּאֲפִילּוּ פְּסוּלָא מִדְּרַבָּנַן לֵיכָּא, לְמָה לִי לְמָרֵק! מִצְוָה לְמָרֵק.
therefore, we learned again: The majority of one organ in a bird and the majority of each of two organs in an animal, to teach that slaughtering the majority of each of the signs is sufficient. The Gemara asks: And since there is not even an invalidation by rabbinic law, why do I need another priest to finish cutting the organs? Why not suffice with the High Priest’s slaughter of the majority of each of the two organs? The Gemara answers: It is nevertheless a mitzva to complete the slaughter ab initio to cause the blood to flow more freely.
אַבָּיֵי מְסַדֵּר מַעֲרָכָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּגְמָרָא וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל: מַעֲרָכָה גְּדוֹלָה קוֹדֶמֶת לְמַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁל קְטוֹרֶת, מַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁל קְטוֹרֶת קוֹדֶמֶת לְסִידּוּר שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים, וְסִידּוּר שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים קוֹדֵם לְדִישּׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי, וְדִישּׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי קוֹדֵם לַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת,
§ Abaye arranged the sequence of the daily services in the Temple based on tradition and in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul: Setting up the large arrangement of wood on the altar on which the offerings were burned precedes the second arrangement of wood. This second arrangement was arranged separately near the southwest corner of the altar, and twice every day priests raked coals from it and placed them on the inner altar in order to burn the incense. The second arrangement for the incense precedes setting up the two logs of wood above the large arrangement to fulfill the mitzva of bringing wood. And the setting up of the two logs of wood precedes the removal of ashes from the inner altar. And the removal of ashes from the inner altar precedes the removal of ashes from five of the seven lamps of the candelabrum.
וַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת קוֹדֵם לְדַם הַתָּמִיד, וְדַם הַתָּמִיד קוֹדֵם לַהֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת, וַהֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת קוֹדֵם לִקְטוֹרֶת, וּקְטוֹרֶת קוֹדֵם לְאֵבָרִים, וְאֵבָרִים לְמִנְחָה, וּמִנְחָה לַחֲבִיתִּין, וַחֲבִיתִּין לִנְסָכִין,
And removal of ashes from five lamps precedes the slaughter and the receiving and sprinkling of the blood of the daily morning offering. The sprinkling of the blood of the daily offering precedes the removal of ashes from the two remaining lamps of the candelabrum. And the removal of ashes from two lamps precedes the burning of the incense. The burning of the incense on the inner altar precedes the burning of the limbs of the daily offering on the outer altar. The burning of the limbs precedes the sacrifice of the meal-offering which accompanies the daily offering. The sacrifice of the meal-offering precedes the sacrifice of the High Priest’s daily griddle-cake offering, half of which he sacrificed in the morning and half in the afternoon. And the griddle-cake offering precedes the pouring of the libations of the daily offering.
וּנְסָכִין לְמוּסָפִין, וּמוּסָפִין לְבָזִיכִין, וּבָזִיכִין לְתָמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִקְטִיר עָלֶיהָ חֶלְבֵי הַשְּׁלָמִים״, ״עָלֶיהָ״ הַשְׁלֵם כׇּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת כּוּלָּן.
And the libations precede the sacrifice of the additional offerings on days when the additional offerings are sacrificed. And the additional offerings precede the vessels of frankincense that are offered on Shabbat. And the vessels precede the sacrifice of the daily afternoon offering, as it is stated: “And he shall lay out the burnt-offering on it, and burn on it the fat parts of the peace-offerings” (Leviticus 6:5). The term on it, means complete sacrifice of all other offerings, i.e., after the daily morning offering rather than after the daily afternoon offering. In all cases, the daily afternoon offering is the final offering sacrificed.
אָמַר מָר: מַעֲרָכָה גְּדוֹלָה קוֹדֶמֶת לְמַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁל קְטוֹרֶת. מְנָא לַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״הִיא הָעוֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה״ — זוֹ מַעֲרָכָה גְּדוֹלָה. ״וְאֵשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תּוּקַד בּוֹ״ — זוֹ מַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁל קְטוֹרֶת.
The Gemara proceeds to analyze the items listed by Abaye and seeks biblical or logical sources for each. The Master said: Setting up the large arrangement of wood on the altar on which the offerings were burned precedes the second arrangement of wood for incense. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: The verse states: “The burnt-offering itself shall go up on its bonfire upon the altar all night” (Leviticus 6:2); this is referring to the large arrangement of wood. “And the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it” (Leviticus 6:2); this is referring to the second arrangement of wood near the corner of the altar, from which coals are taken for the incense.
וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא! מִסְתַּבְּרָא מַעֲרָכָה גְּדוֹלָה עֲדִיפָא, שֶׁכֵּן כַּפָּרָתָהּ מְרוּבָּה.
The Gemara asks: And perhaps I should reverse them and say that the first verse refers to the arrangement of wood for the incense, and the second verse refers to the large arrangement of wood. The Gemara answers: It is reasonable that the large arrangement of wood takes precedence, as the atonement that it effects is extensive. All of the offerings are sacrificed on the large pile, not just the incense.
אַדְּרַבָּה, מַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה עֲדִיפָא, שֶׁכֵּן מַכְנִיסִין מִמֶּנָּה לִפְנִים! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, כַּפָּרָתָהּ מְרוּבָּה עֲדִיפָא. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִי לָא מַשְׁכַּח עֵצִים לְמַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה, מִי לָא מְעַיֵּיל מִמַּעֲרָכָה גְּדוֹלָה?!
The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, the second arrangement takes precedence, as unlike the large arrangement in which offerings are burned exclusively on the outer altar, coals from it are taken inside the Sanctuary. The Gemara answers: Even so, the contention that the atonement that it effects is extensive takes precedence. And if you wish, say instead: If one does not find wood for the second arrangement, wouldn’t he take coals from the large arrangement into the Sanctuary to burn the incense? There is no fundamental obligation to bring coals from a special arrangement, and the second arrangement is only an addition to the large arrangement on which all the offerings are burned.
מַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁל קְטוֹרֶת קוֹדֶמֶת לְסִידּוּר שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים. מְנָא לַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבִעֵר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן עֵצִים בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״. ״עָלֶיהָ״, וְלֹא עַל חֲבֶרְתָּהּ. מִכְּלָל דְּאִיתָא לַחֲבֶרְתַּהּ.
Abaye continued and said that the second arrangement for incense precedes the setting up of the two logs. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is written: “And the priest shall burn wood upon it in the morning, in the morning” (Leviticus 6:5); there is an obligation to place new logs upon the large arrangement. The term upon it underscores that the wood is placed only on the large arrangement, and not on the other arrangement from which coals are taken for the incense. From the fact that this exclusionary term is necessary, it can be derived by inference that there is another pile on the altar, meaning that when the new logs are placed on the altar, the two arrangements are already there.
וְהַאי ״עָלֶיהָ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ! תְּרֵי ״עָלֶיהָ״ כְּתִיבִי.
The Gemara asks: But this term: Upon it, is needed for its own sake, to teach the obligation to place the logs on the altar; therefore, how can the timing of their placement be derived from that term? The Gemara answers: The term: Upon it, is written twice in that verse: “And the priest shall burn wood upon it in the morning, in the morning, and he shall place the burnt-offering upon it.” From one instance of this term the fundamental obligation to place the logs is derived, and from the other instance the order of their placement is derived.
סִידּוּר שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים קוֹדֵם לְדִישּׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי. אַף עַל גַּב דְּהָכָא כְּתִיב ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״, וְהָכָא כְּתִיב ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי מַכְשִׁיר עָדִיף. מַכְשִׁיר מַאי נִיהוּ — שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים, וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ שְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים לְמַעֲרָכָה גְּדוֹלָה אָזְלִי!
Abaye continued: The setting up of the two logs precedes the removal of ashes from the inner altar. Although here, with regard to the two logs, it is written: In the morning, in the morning, meaning that the priest must arise early in the morning to perform this act, and here, with regard to removal of the ashes from the inner altar, it is also written: “In the morning, in the morning” (Exodus 30:7), even so, an action that facilitates another service takes precedence. Therefore, setting up the logs, from which coals are taken, facilitating the burning of the incense, precedes removal of ashes from the inner altar. The Gemara asks: What is the act that facilitates? It is the placement of the two logs. But didn’t you say that the two logs go to the large arrangement of wood and not to the arrangement of wood from which the coals are taken for the incense? These logs in no way facilitate the burning of the incense.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: שׁוּם עֵצִים. רָבִינָא אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וְהִתְחִיל בַּמַּעֲרָכָה, גּוֹמֵר. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אִי לָא מַשְׁכַּח עֵצִים לְמַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה מִי לָא מְעַיֵּיל מִמַּעֲרָכָה גְּדוֹלָה?!
Rabbi Yirmeya said: The reference is to the category of wood. Although these logs do not facilitate the burning of the incense, wood facilitates its burning, and the two logs are wood. Therefore, they take precedence. Ravina said a different reason: Since he began with the service of setting up the arrangement, he completes it by placing two logs. Only then he moves on to perform a different service. Rav Ashi said: If one does not find wood for the second arrangement, won’t he take coals from the large arrangement into the Sanctuary to burn the incense? This demonstrates that there are circumstances in which placing the logs facilitates the burning of the incense. Therefore, it takes precedence.
וְדִישּׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי קוֹדֵם לַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: גְּמָרָא גְּמִירְנָא, סְבָרָא — לָא יָדַעְנָא. וְרָבָא אָמַר: כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הַמִּצְוֹת,
Abaye continued: And removal of ashes from the inner altar precedes the removal of ashes from five of the seven lamps of the candelabrum. What is the reason for this? Abaye said: I learned this through tradition; however, I do not know the rationale behind it. And Rava said: The reason is in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish said: One may not forego performance of any of the mitzvot in order to perform another mitzva.
וְכִי עָיֵיל לְהֵיכָל — בְּמִזְבֵּחַ פָּגַע בְּרֵישָׁא. דְּתַנְיָא: שֻׁלְחָן בַּצָּפוֹן מָשׁוּךְ מִן הַכּוֹתֶל שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה, וּמְנוֹרָה בַּדָּרוֹם מְשׁוּכָה מִן הַכּוֹתֶל שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה. מִזְבֵּחַ מְמוּצָּע וְעוֹמֵד בְּאֶמְצַע וּמָשׁוּךְ כְּלַפֵּי חוּץ קִימְעָא. וְנוֹקְמֵיהּ, לַהֲדַיְיהוּ? כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת הַמְּנוֹרָה נֹכַח הַשֻּׁלְחָן״, בָּעֵינַן דְּחָזוּ אַהֲדָדֵי.
And when he enters the Sanctuary it is the altar that he encounters first, before reaching the candelabrum; therefore, he performs the service of the altar before removing the ashes from the lamps, as it was taught in a baraita: The table stood in the north of the Sanctuary, removed two and a half cubits from the wall. And the candelabrum stood in the south of the Sanctuary, removed two and a half cubits from the wall. The altar was centered and standing in the middle of the Sanctuary, removed a bit outward. Therefore, one encounters the altar first. The Gemara questions the essence of the matter: And let us stand the altar alongside the table and the candelabrum; why was it removed outward? The Gemara answers: It is because it is written: “And the candelabrum opposite the table” (Exodus 26:35); we require that they are visible to each other. Were the altar aligned with the table and the candelabrum, it would interpose between them.
אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, עַבּוֹרֵי דְּרָעָא אַטּוֹטֶפְתָּא אָסוּר. הֵיכִי עָבֵיד? מִדְּרָעָא לְטוֹטֶפְתָּא.
Rava said: Conclude from the statement of Reish Lakish that one may not forego performance of any of the mitzvot, that it is prohibited to forego donning the phylacteries of the arm in order to don the phylacteries of the head, as when donning phylacteries, one encounters the arm first. How does he conduct himself? He proceeds from the phylacteries of the arm to the phylacteries of the head.
וַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת קוֹדֵם לְדַם הַתָּמִיד, וְדַם הַתָּמִיד קוֹדֵם לַהֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָהוּא ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״ דִּשְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים דְּלָא צְרִיכִי, שְׁדִינְהוּ לְהָכָא. חַד שִׁדְיֵיהּ לַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת — דְּלִיקְדְּמֵיהּ לְדַם הַתָּמִיד, וְחַד שִׁדְיֵיהּ לְדַם הַתָּמִיד — דְּנִקְדְּמֵיהּ לַהֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת.
§ Abaye continued: And removal of ashes from five lamps precedes the slaughter and the receiving and sprinkling of the blood of the daily morning offering. The sprinkling of the blood of the daily offering precedes the removal of ashes from the two remaining lamps of the candelabrum. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Abaye said: Take that phrase: In the morning, in the morning, written with regard to the two logs, which is unnecessary to establish the time for performance of that service, as its precedence was explained due to its association with the arrangement of wood. And cast that extraneous phrase to here, and apply it to other elements of the morning service. If the phrase is superfluous in its context, apply it elsewhere where a halakha can be derived. Cast one term: In the morning, and apply it to removal of ashes from five lamps so that it will precede the blood of the daily offering. And cast one term: In the morning, and apply it to the blood of the daily offering, so that it will precede the removal of ashes from the two additional lamps.
חַד שִׁדְיֵיהּ לַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת, דְּלִיקְדְּמֵיהּ לְדַם הַתָּמִיד — דְּהָכָא תְּלָתָא וְהָכָא תְּרֵי.
The Gemara elaborates: Cast one term: In the morning, and apply it to removal of ashes from five lamps so that it will precede the blood of the daily offering, as here, there are three instances of: In the morning; two instances are written explicitly with regard to removal of ashes from the lamps (see Exodus 30:7) and one is written with regard to the two logs. And here, with regard to the blood of the daily offering, there are two instances of the phrase; one explicit mention in the text (see Exodus 29:39) and one written with regard to the two logs.
וְחַד שִׁדְיֵיהּ לְדַם הַתָּמִיד — דְּנִקְדְּמֵיהּ לַהֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת. אַף עַל גַּב דְּהָכָא תְּרֵי וְהָכָא תְּרֵי — מְכַפֵּר עָדִיף.
And cast one term: In the morning, to the blood of the daily offering so that it will precede the removal of ashes from the two additional lamps. Although here, with regard to removal of ashes from the lamps, there are two instances of the phrase: In the morning, and here, with regard to the blood of the daily offering, there are two instances of the phrase: In the morning, one written and one cast from the portion of two logs, the blood of the daily offering takes precedence because an act that effects atonement, the sprinkling of blood, takes precedence.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, וְאֵימָא: חַד שִׁדְיֵיהּ לְדִישּׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי, דְּנִקְדְּמֵיהּ לְדַם הַתָּמִיד — דְּהָכָא תְּלָתָא וְהָכָא תְּרֵי. וְחַד שִׁדְיֵיהּ לְדַם הַתָּמִיד, דְּנִקְדּוֹם לַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת — דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּהָכָא תְּרֵי וְהָכָא תְּרֵי, מְכַפֵּר עָדִיף! אִם כֵּן אַפְסוֹקֵי בְּמַאי מַפְסְקַתְּ לְהוּ?
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And say instead, cast one of the extraneous phrases: In the morning, and apply it to the removal of ashes from the inner altar, so that it will precede the blood of the daily offering, as here there are three instances of the phrase and there there are two. And cast one of the extraneous phrases: In the morning, and apply it to the blood of the daily offering so that it will precede the removal of ashes from five lamps, and say that although here there are two instances of the phrase: In the morning, and here there are two instances of the phrase: In the morning, still an act that effects atonement, the sprinkling of blood, takes precedence. Abaye dismisses this question by saying: If the blood of the daily offering precedes the removal of ashes from five lamps, with what will you demarcate between the removal of ashes from five lamps and the removal of ashes from two lamps?
הָנִיחָא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר: לָמָּה מְטִיבִין וְחוֹזְרִים וּמְטִיבִין — כְּדֵי לְהַרְגִּישׁ כׇּל הָעֲזָרָה כּוּלָּהּ, שַׁפִּיר.
That works out well according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, who said: Why does the priest remove the ashes from five lamps of the candelabrum and then return and remove the ashes from two lamps of the candelabrum rather than arrange all seven lamps at once? It is in order to enliven those present in the entire Temple courtyard, since people are coming and going to fulfill this mitzva with great ceremony. It works out well according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, because he says there is no need for any other service to demarcate between removal of ashes from five lamps and removal of ashes from two.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר: ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״ — חַלְּקֵהוּ לִשְׁנֵי בְקָרִים, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
However, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said the following based on the verse: “And Aaron shall burn upon it incense of sweet spices; in the morning, in the morning, when he removes the ashes from the lamps” (Exodus 30:7); take the term in the morning, in the morning, and divide the service of removal of ashes from the lamps into two mornings, i.e., into two parts, by performing a service in between, what can be said? According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, since the result would be that there is no service demarcating between the five lamps and the two lamps, there is no alternative to interpreting the matter in accordance with the explanation of Abaye.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״ דְּעֵצִים, מִי מְיַיתַּר? הָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ, דְּקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא — נִקְדְּמוּ לְמַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁל קְטוֹרֶת! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלָאו מִי אוֹקֵימְנָא ״עָלֶיהָ״ וְלֹא עַל חֲבֶרְתָּהּ, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיתַהּ לַחֲבֶרְתַּהּ.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi with regard to the basis for Abaye’s argument: Is this term: In the morning, in the morning, written with regard to the two logs actually superfluous and therefore available to have other matters derived from it? Isn’t it necessary to teach its own basic halakha, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: Have it precede the second arrangement of wood, from which coals are taken for the incense? Rav Ashi said to him: And did we not establish that it is written: Upon it, underscoring the fact that wood is placed only on the large arrangement and not on the other arrangement from which coals are taken for the incense? From the fact that this exclusionary term is necessary, it can be derived by inference that there is another pile on the altar, meaning that when the new logs are placed on the altar, the two arrangements are already there.
מַאי שְׁנָא דְּעָבֵיד הֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת בְּרֵישָׁא? נֶעְבֵּיד הֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת בְּרֵישָׁא! כֵּיוָן דְּאַתְחֵיל בְּהוּ — עָבֵיד רוּבָּא. וְנֶעְבֵּיד שֵׁית! אָמַר קְרָא: ״בְּהֵיטִיבוֹ אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת יַקְטִירֶנָּה״, וְאֵין נֵרוֹת פְּחוּתוֹת מִשְּׁתַּיִם.
The Gemara asks with regard to the sequence in which the priest removes the ashes from the lamps: What is different that he performs the removal of ashes from five lamps first? Let us perform the removal of ashes from two lamps first. The Gemara answers: Since he begins the service with them, he performs the service on a majority of the lamps. The Gemara asks: If so, let him perform the service on six lamps. The Gemara responds that the verse states: “When he removes the ashes from the lamps, he shall burn it” (Exodus 30:7), and lamps is plural, meaning no fewer than two. Apparently, removal of ashes from lamps must be performed on a minimum of two lamps.
וַהֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת קוֹדֶמֶת לִקְטוֹרֶת, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״בְּהֵיטִיבוֹ אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת״, וַהֲדַר ״יַקְטִירֶנָּה״.
Abaye continued: And the removal of ashes from two lamps precedes the burning of the incense, as the verse first states: “When he removes the ashes from the lamps,” and then states: “He shall burn it.” The removal of the ashes precedes the burning of the incense.
וּקְטוֹרֶת לְאֵבָרִים, דְּתַנְיָא: יוּקְדַּם דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״, לְדָבָר שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ אֶלָּא ״בֹּקֶר״ אֶחָד בִּלְבַד.
Abaye continued: And the burning of the incense on the inner altar precedes the burning of the limbs of the daily offering on the outer altar, as it was taught in a baraita: Let the matter with regard to which it is stated: In the morning, in the morning, i.e., the burning of the incense, precede the matter with regard to which only one: In the morning, is stated, i.e., the daily morning offering, in the verse: “You shall offer one lamb in the morning” (Exodus 29:39).
וְאֵבָרִים לְמִנְחָה, דְּתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא דָּבָר קוֹדֵם לְתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר?
Abaye continued: The burning of the limbs precedes the sacrifice of the meal-offering that accompanies the daily offering, as it was taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that there may be no item placed on the arrangement of wood prior to the daily morning offering?
This will remove ALL the items in this section. You will lose any progress or history connected to them. This is irreversible.
You will lose any progress or history connected to this item.
