יומא דף כו

למאי אתא? לכדתניא: כיצד היה עושה? נותן את הפדר אבית השחיטה ומעלהו, וזה הוא דרך כבוד של מעלה.

what does that come to teach us? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita: In what manner would the priest placing the pieces on the altar do so? He would place the fat right over the place of slaughter, that is, on the cut neck, and bring it up that way, and that is the most respectful way toward the Most High, that the bloody point of slaughter not be exposed.

מתני׳ הפייס השלישי: חדשים לקטרת באו והפיסו. והרביעי: חדשים עם ישנים — מי מעלה אברים מן הכבש למזבח.

MISHNA: Before the third lottery, the appointee declared: Let only those priests who are new to offering the incense come and participate in the lottery for the incense. The fourth lottery was open to those new to the service along with those old hands who had already performed it, to determine who would take the limbs up from the ramp, where they had been placed earlier, to the altar.

גמ׳ תנא: מעולם לא שנה אדם בה. מאי טעמא? אמר רבי חנינא: מפני שמעשרת.

GEMARA: A Sage taught in the Tosefta: No person ever performed the service of the incense twice, as a new priest was always found for this service. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they were insistent that no priest should be assigned this task more than once in his life? Rabbi Ḥanina said: It is because it brings wealth to the one who performs it. Since bringing the incense was a blessing for wealth, it was decided that as many different priests as possible should have an opportunity to do this service.

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי: מאי טעמא? אילימא משום דכתיב: ״ישימו קטורה באפך״, וכתיב בתריה: ״ברך ה׳ חילו״, אי הכי עולה נמי, הכתיב: ״וכליל על מזבחך״!

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: What is the reason for this assertion that the one who burns the incense becomes wealthy? If we say it is because it is written: “They shall put incense before You and whole burnt-offerings on Your altar” (Deuteronomy 33:10), and it is written immediately after that: “Bless, O Lord, his substance” (Deuteronomy 33:11), if so, we should also make the same assertion concerning those who perform the sacrifice of a burnt-offering, since it is written in that same verse: “And whole burnt-offerings on Your altar.”

אמר ליה: הא שכיחא והא לא שכיחא.

Abaye said to him: There is a difference between the two: This, the sacrifice of a burnt-offering, is frequent, and that, the burning of incense, is infrequent. There were many burnt-offerings, both obligatory and voluntary, brought during the course of a day, whereas the incense was burned only twice a day. It is logical to assume that the blessing of riches was not extended to the many priests who participated in the burnt-offerings, but to the few priests who performed the burning of the incense.

אמר רבא: לא משכחת צורבא מרבנן דמורי אלא דאתי משבט לוי או משבט יששכר. לוי, דכתיב: ״יורו משפטיך ליעקב״. יששכר, דכתיב:

Apropos this passage in Deuteronomy, Rava said: You do not find a young Torah scholar who gives halakhic instruction unless he comes from the tribe of Levi or from the tribe of Issachar. The assertion with regard to the tribe of Levi is as it is written: “They shall teach Jacob Your ordinances and Israel Your law” (Deuteronomy 33:10). And the assertion with regard to the tribe of Issachar is as it is written: “And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel should do” (I Chronicles 12:33). The Gemara asks: And say that scholars come from the tribe of Judah also, as it is written: “Judah is my lawgiver” (Psalms 60:9). Rava answers: While it is true that the tribe of Judah also taught Torah, in my statement I was speaking only of those who can draw conclusions according to the halakha. Although Judah produces great scholars, men capable of translating abstract analysis of the Torah into legal principles come from the two tribes mentioned.

״(ובני) יששכר יודעי בינה לעתים לדעת מה יעשה ישראל״. ואימא יהודה נמי, דכתיב: ״יהודה מחוקקי״! אסוקי שמעתא אליבא דהילכתא קאמינא.

אמר רבי יוחנן: אין מפייסין על תמיד של בין הערבים, אלא כהן שזכה בו בשחרית זוכה בו ערבית, מיתיבי: כשם שמפייסין שחרית כך מפייסין בין הערבים!

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They did not hold a separate lottery for the slaughtering and sacrifice of the daily afternoon offering. Rather, the same priest who won a particular privilege for the morning offering wins the privilege for the corresponding task in the evening, i.e., for the afternoon service. In this way, the morning lottery covered both services. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Just as they hold a lottery in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery in the afternoon. This shows that there was a separate lottery for the daily afternoon offering. The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught, it referred only to the incense, which, as stated above, was given to a different priest each time it was offered.

כי תניא ההיא — בקטורת.

והתניא: כשם שמפייסין לו שחרית כך מפייסין לו ערבית! אימא ״לה״.

The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Just as they hold a lottery for it [lo] in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [lo] in the afternoon. The masculine pronoun lo indicates that it is not referring to the incense, which is a feminine noun in Hebrew, but to the daily afternoon offering, which is described by a masculine noun. The Gemara answers: Change the wording of the baraita and say: Lah, using the feminine pronoun instead of the masculine lo, so that it is indeed referring to the incense.

והתניא: כשם שמפייסין לו שחרית כך מפייסין לו ערבית, וכשם שמפייסין לה שחרית כך מפייסין לה ערבית!

The Gemara asks further: But wasn’t it taught in another baraita: Just as they hold a lottery for it [lo] the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [lo] in the afternoon; and just as they hold a lottery for it [lah] in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [lah] in the afternoon. This baraita makes the statement twice, once using the masculine pronoun and once using the feminine pronoun, which shows that there was a separate lottery in the afternoon not only for the incense but also for the daily offering.

אמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק: הכא בשבת עסקינן, הואיל ומשמרות מתחדשות.

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: There is no contradiction. Here, in this last baraita, we are dealing with Shabbat, when a second lottery in the afternoon was necessary, since the priestly rotations are renewed each Shabbat. On Shabbat the outgoing watch of priests performs the morning service, and the incoming watch performs the afternoon service. Therefore, the same priest could not perform the service of both the morning and afternoon offerings, necessitating a second lottery on that day to designate priests for the various afternoon tasks.

ולמאי דסליק אדעתין מעיקרא, נפישי להו פייסות! מייתי כולהו מצפרא אתו, דזכי ביה שחרית — זכי, דזכי בערבית — זכי.

The Gemara asks: And according to what we thought initially, that there was a separate lottery each day for the daily afternoon offering, there would be too many lotteries, as the mishna states that there were just four lotteries daily. How was it conceivable even to consider such a possibility? The Gemara answers: The thought was that all the priests would come and assemble just once, in the morning, for both lotteries, and the priest who would win the lottery for sacrificing the daily morning offering would win that privilege for the morning only, and the priest who would win the lottery for sacrificing the daily afternoon offering would win the privilege for the afternoon.

הרביעי חדשים עם ישנים וכו׳. מתניתין דלא כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב. דתנן, רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר: המעלה איברים לכבש, הוא מעלה אותן למזבח.

§ The mishna states: The fourth lottery was open to those new to the service along with those old hands who had already performed it, to determine who would take the limbs up from the ramp to the altar. The Gemara states: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. As we learned in a mishna in tractate Tamid that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: The priest who takes the limbs up to the ramp is the one who takes them up from the ramp to the altar. In contrast, according to the mishna discussed here, it is implied that a different priest won the privilege for the latter service in the lottery.

במאי קמיפלגי? מר סבר: ״ברב עם הדרת מלך״, ומר סבר: מקום שכינה לאו אורח ארעא.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, the tanna of the mishna discussed here, holds that it is proper to follow the verse: “In the multitude of people is the king’s glory” (Proverbs 14:28). It is a glorification of God for many priests to participate in the service, so different priests were assigned the task of taking the limbs to the ramp, and others were tasked with carrying them up the ramp to the altar. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, holds that it is not proper conduct in the place of the Divine Presence to have two sets of priests for these tasks, as it gives the appearance that the first set does not want to be bothered to take the limbs up to the altar.

אמר רבא: לא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אית ליה דרבי יהודה, ולא רבי יהודה אית ליה דרבי אליעזר בן יעקב. דאם כן, בצרו להו פייסות.

Rava said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who holds that the same priest who brought the limbs to the ramp also brought them up to the altar, is not of the same opinion as Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is no separate lottery for the privilege of carrying the coal pan for the incense. And conversely, Rabbi Yehuda is not of the same opinion as Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. As, if it would be so that these two Sages agreed with each other, there would be too few lotteries; there would be only three lotteries rather than four. Rather, one must say that according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who maintains that there was no lottery held for taking the limbs up to the altar, there was a fourth lottery to determine who would carry the coal pan; and according to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that there was no lottery for carrying the coal pan, there must have been a lottery for carrying the limbs up to the ramp.

ואי משכחת תנא דתני חמש —

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

ההוא דלא כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב ודלא כרבי יהודה.

the opinion of that tanna would be in accordance with neither the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov nor the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as these five lotteries would include one for carrying the coal pan and another one for taking the limbs up to the altar.

מתני׳ תמיד קרב בתשעה, בעשרה, באחד עשר, בשנים עשר. לא פחות ולא יותר. כיצד? עצמו בתשעה. בחג, ביד אחד צלוחית של מים — הרי כאן עשרה.

MISHNA: The daily offering is sacrificed and its limbs are carried by nine priests, as mentioned in a previous mishna. These nine carry the limbs and the accompanying libations and meal-offerings. Occasionally, the service is performed by ten priests, occasionally by eleven, and sometimes by twelve priests; no fewer than nine and no more than twelve. How so? The daily offering itself is sacrificed by nine priests, as explained earlier. On the festival of Sukkot a priest in whose hand is a jug of water for the water libation is added, and there are ten priests. On Sukkot, a water libation is poured on the altar in addition to the standard wine libation.

בין הערבים באחד עשר: הוא עצמו בתשעה, ושנים בידם שני גזירי עצים. בשבת באחד עשר: הוא עצמו בתשעה, ושנים בידם שני בזיכי לבונה של לחם הפנים.

In the daily afternoon offering, eleven priests participate in the service. How so? The daily offering itself is sacrificed by nine, and there are an additional two priests in whose hands are two logs that are placed on the altar. The mitzva of placing the two logs in the morning was assigned in the first lottery, as the Gemara explained earlier. On Shabbat, eleven priests participate. How so? The daily morning offering itself is performed by nine, and there are an additional two priests in whose hands are two vessels of frankincense that accompany the shewbread. This frankincense is burned on Shabbat. And on Shabbat that occurs within the festival of Sukkot there is an additional priest in whose hand is a jug of water for the water libation, for a total of twelve priests.

ובשבת שבתוך החג ביד אחד צלוחית של מים.

גמ׳ אמר רבי אבא ואיתימא רמי בר חמא, ואיתימא רבי יוחנן: אין מנסכין מים בחג אלא בתמיד של שחר. ממאי? מדקתני:

GEMARA: Rabbi Abba, and some say it was Rami bar Ḥama, and some say it was Rabbi Yoḥanan, said: On the festival of Sukkot they pour the water libation only during the sacrifice of the daily morning offering and not in the afternoon. From where is this derived? It is derived from the fact that it is taught in the mishna: And on Shabbat that occurs within the festival of Sukkot there is a priest in whose hand is a jug of water, bringing the number of participating priests to twelve. And if it should enter your mind to say that they pour water during the daily afternoon offering also, if so, you find that there were twelve priests on a weekday as well, that is, during the intermediate days of the Festival: Nine priests for the daily offering, two to carry the logs, and one to pour the water.

ובשבת שבתוך החג ביד אחד צלוחית של מים. ואי סלקא דעתך בתמיד של בין הערבים מנסכין, בחול נמי משכחת לה.

אמר רב אשי, אף אנן נמי תנינא: ולמנסך אומר לו ״הגבה ידיך״, שפעם אחת נסך על גבי רגליו, ורגמוהו כל העם באתרוגיהן. שמע מינה.

Rav Ashi said: We too have learned this in a different mishna, that the water libation was offered only in the morning, as it was taught: And they would say to the pourer: Raise your hand so everyone will see as you pour the water into the aperture on the altar, in accordance with the proper procedure. This was done because one time a Sadducee priest, who did not accept that there is a mitzva of water libation, poured the water onto his feet, whereupon all the people pelted him with their etrogim in anger. Since the episode involved etrogim, it is apparent that it took place in the morning, when people have their etrogim with them. Since the mishna mentions the fact that it was etrogim that were used to pelt the priest, it is apparently coming to teach that the water libation takes place only in the morning. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.

תניא, רבי שמעון בן יוחאי אומר: מניין לתמיד של בין הערבים שטעון שני גזירי עצים בשני כהנים, שנאמר: ״וערכו עצים״, אם אינו ענין לתמיד של שחר דכתיב:

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: From where is it derived that the daily afternoon offering requires that two logs be brought along with it, and that they must be brought by two priests? As it is stated with regard to the burnt-offering: “The sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and lay out wood [etzim] in order upon the fire” (Leviticus 1:7). The word etzim is plural, which teaches that two logs are called for. If this is not applicable to the daily morning offering, as it is already written about the morning offering explicitly: “And the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and arrange the burnt-offering on it” (Leviticus 6:5), apply it to the daily afternoon offering. The verse therefore teaches us that two logs should be added before that offering.

״ובער עליה הכהן עצים בבקר בבקר וערך עליה״, תניהו ענין לתמיד של בין הערבים.

ואימא אידי ואידי בתמיד של שחר, ואמר רחמנא: עביד והדר עביד! אם כן, נימא קרא ״ובער״ ״ובער״.

But say that this and this, i.e., both verses cited above, are dealing with the daily morning offering, and that the Merciful One states in the Torah: Perform the arrangement of wood and then return and perform it again. In other words, perhaps the Torah’s intention is that two logs be arranged on the altar twice in the morning, and that accounts for the two verses. The Gemara rejects this possibility: If it were so, the text should use the same expression both times and say: “And he shall burn wood on it,” and again: “And he shall burn wood on it.” Since the text does not do so, but instead employs two different verbs, saying: “They shall lay out wood” once and: “He shall burn wood” the second time, this indicates that the Torah is describing two different times.

אי כתב רחמנא ״ובער״, הוה אמינא חד — אין, תרי — לא, קא משמע לן דנעביד חד ונעביד תרי!

The Gemara rejects this inference: If the Merciful One had written in the Torah: “And he shall burn wood on it” twice, I would have said it means that one priest should arrange the wood, not two. The change of terminology to a plural verb is therefore necessary because it teaches us that one priest should perform it the first time and two priests should perform it the second time, but they are both performed in the morning.

אם כן, נימא קרא: ״ובער״ ״ובערו״, אי נמי: ״וערך״ ״וערכו״, מאי ״ובער״ ״וערכו״? שמע מינה כדקא אמרינן.

The Gemara rejects this: If so, if this were what the Torah wished to indicate, the verse should say: “And he shall burn wood” in the singular, and then, in the second verse, say: And they shall burn wood, in the plural, using the same verb both times, changing only the number of the verb. Or, alternatively, the verse should say: And he shall lay out wood, in the singular, and then, in the second verse, say: “And they shall lay out wood,” in the plural. What is the reason the Torah uses two different verbs in the two verses, stating: “And he shall burn wood” and then: “And they shall lay out wood”? Learn from this as we have said, that the Torah in these two verses is referring to two separate times of day, and the verse: “They shall lay out wood [etzim]” is referring to the daily afternoon offering, mandating that at that time “they,” i.e., two priests, shall lay out etzim, the plural term for wood, referring to two logs.

תני רבי חייא: פייס פעמים שלשה עשר, פעמים ארבעה עשר, פעמים חמשה עשר, פעמים ששה עשר.

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Sometimes thirteen priests were involved in sacrificing the daily offering, all these tasks being assigned in the second lottery, as the mishna taught earlier. But sometimes fourteen priests are chosen in this manner to participate, since on Sukkot an additional priest is chosen to pour the water libation. And sometimes fifteen priests are chosen, on Shabbat, when two priests are tasked with burning the frankincense in the vessels. And sometimes sixteen priests are chosen, on Shabbat that occurs during Sukkot, when three extra priests are added: One to pour the water and two to burn the frankincense.

והתניא שבעה עשר!

The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that sometimes there are seventeen priests involved in the daily offering?

ההיא דלא כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב, אלא כרבי יהודה.

The Gemara responds: That baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov but is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The seventeenth task of the daily morning offering referred to in the baraita is taking up the pieces of the offering from the ramp to the altar. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this task was not assigned to a new priest but was performed by the same priests who had brought the pieces to the ramp. The baraita, which does assign this task to a seventeenth priest, is therefore not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. As the Gemara explained earlier, the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov are mutually exclusive; consequently, since the baraita contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, it must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Ḥiyya, however, adopted the view of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, and for this reason he taught that the maximum number of tasks assigned through the second lottery is only sixteen.

מתני׳ איל קרב באחד עשר: הבשר בחמשה, הקרביים והסולת והיין בשנים שנים. פר קרב בעשרים וארבעה: הראש והרגל, הראש באחד והרגל בשנים. העוקץ והרגל,

MISHNA: A ram that is brought for a communal burnt-offering is sacrificed by eleven priests. The flesh on the various limbs is taken by five priests, as in the case of the sheep of the daily offering. The intestines, and the fine flour of the meal-offering, and the wine of the libation are carried by two priests each, because the meal-offering and wine libation that accompany a ram are larger than those that accompany a sheep. A bull is sacrificed by twenty-four priests. How so? The head and the right leg are sacrificed first, but due to its size the head is carried by one priest and the leg by two. The tail and the left leg are carried as follows: The tail is sacrificed by two and the leg by two. The breast and the neck are carried as follows: The breast is offered by one and the neck by three priests. The two forelegs are carried by two priests, and the two flanks are carried by two. The intestines and the fine flour and the wine are carried by three each, because the meal-offering and wine libation that accompany a bull are larger than those that accompany a ram.

העוקץ בשנים והרגל בשנים. החזה והגרה, החזה באחד והגרה בשלשה. שתי ידים בשנים, ושתי דפנות בשנים, הקרביים והסולת והיין בשלשה שלשה.

במה דברים אמורים — בקרבנות ציבור. אבל בקרבן יחיד, אם רצה להקריב — מקריב. הפשיטן וניתוחן של אלו ואלו שוין.

In what case is this statement said, that this is the sequence followed? It is in the case of communal offerings. However, in the case of an individual offering brought to fulfill a vow or an obligation, if a single priest wishes to sacrifice it alone he may sacrifice it alone, or if he chooses he may include other priests in the service. With regard to the flaying and the cutting of both these, individual offerings, and those, communal offerings, they are equal, as will be explained in the Gemara.

גמ׳ תנא: הפשיטן וניתוחן שוין בזר.

GEMARA: A Sage taught in the Tosefta: The individual offerings and communal offerings are equal with regard to their flaying and cutting, in that these may be performed by a non-priest. They are not considered services that require priests.

אמר חזקיה: מניין להפשט וניתוח ששוה בזר? שנאמר: ״ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן אש על המזבח״, נתינת אש בעיא כהונה, הפשט וניתוח לא בעיא כהונה.

Ḥizkiya said: From where is it derived that they are equal with regard to their flaying and cutting? From where is it derived that flaying and cutting of offerings, whether individual or communal, may be performed by a non-priest? At first it is stated with regard to the burnt-offering: “And he shall flay the burnt-offering and cut it into its pieces” (Leviticus 1:6), and following that it is stated: “The sons of Aaron the priest shall place fire on the altar” (Leviticus 1:7). The fact that the sons of Aaron are mentioned in the verse about putting fire on the altar but not in the verse about flaying and cutting teaches that placing fire on the altar requires priesthood, i.e., it must be performed by priests, but flaying and cutting do not require priesthood.