יומא כ״ב א:א׳-כ״ח א:ט׳

MISHNA: Initially, the practice among the priests was that whoever wishes to remove the ashes from the altar removes them. And when there are many priests who wish to perform that task, the privilege to do so is determined by a race: The priests run and ascend on the ramp leading to the top of the altar. Any priest who precedes another and reaches within four cubits of the top of the altar first is privileged to remove the ashes. And if both of them were equal and neither preceded the other, the appointed priest says to all the priests: Extend your fingers, and a lottery was performed, as will be explained.,And what fingers do they extend for the lottery? They may extend one or two fingers, and the priests do not extend a thumb in the Temple. The reason is that the lottery was conducted by the appointee choosing a number and counting the extended fingers of the priests standing in a circle. As the count progressed, a priest could calculate and manipulate the result in his favor by surreptitiously extending his thumb and an additional finger. Since there is separation between the thumb and the forefinger it could appear as though they belonged to two different priests, skewing the results of the lottery.,Initially, that was the procedure; however, an incident occurred where both of them were equal as they were running and ascending on the ramp, and one of them shoved another and he fell and his leg was broken. And once the court saw that people were coming to potential danger, they instituted that priests would remove ashes from the altar only by means of a lottery. There were four lotteries there, in the Temple, on a daily basis to determine the priests privileged to perform the various services, and this, determining which priest would remove the ashes, was the first lottery.,GEMARA: The Gemara questions the original practice of holding a race to determine which priest would remove the ashes: And what is the reason that the Sages did not initially institute a lottery for the removal of the ashes as they did for other parts of the service? The Gemara answers: Initially they thought: Since it is a service performed at night it would not be important to the priests, and not many of them would come to perform it, so a lottery would be unnecessary. Then, when they saw that many priests did indeed come and that they were coming to danger by racing up the altar’s ramp, they instituted a lottery.,The Gemara poses a question against the assertion that nighttime Temple services did not normally require a lottery: But there is the burning of the limbs of burnt-offerings and the fats of other offerings, which is a service that is performed at night, and nevertheless the Sages instituted a lottery for that from the outset. The Gemara answers: The burning of those parts is not considered a nighttime service but the end of a daytime service, as the main part of the sacrificial service, the slaughtering and the sprinkling of blood, took place during the day.,The Gemara asks: If so, it could be argued that this service of removing the ashes is also not a nighttime service but the start of a daytime service, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If a priest has sanctified his hands at night by washing them for the removal of the ashes, the next day, i.e., after daybreak, if he remained in the confines of the Temple, he need not sanctify his hands again, because he already sanctified them at the start of the service. Apparently, the removal of the ashes, though performed at night, is considered the start of the next day’s service.,The Gemara responds by emending Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: Say the following version of the end of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: Because he had already sanctified them at the outset for service. According to this formulation, Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say that the removal of the ashes is considered the start of the following day’s service. Rather, he said that although the removal of the ashes is a nighttime service, since the priest sanctified his hands before performing that service, the sanctification remains in effect for the services performed after daybreak as well, since there is no interruption between the two activities.,Some say that the original practice should be explained as follows: Initially, the Sages thought that since there is a likelihood of being overcome by sleep at that time of night, not many priests would come. When they saw that they did indeed come and that they were also coming to danger, the Sages instituted a lottery for this task. The Gemara asks: But there is the burning of the limbs of burnt-offerings and the fats of other offerings, a service for which there is the same likelihood of being overcome by sleep, and nevertheless the Sages instituted a lottery for that from the outset. The Gemara answers: Lying down to go to sleep late is different from rising in the middle of the night. It is not as difficult to stay up late in order to burn limbs on the altar as it is to rise before dawn to remove the ashes from the altar.,The Gemara addresses the substance of the mishna’s claim: But was the ordinance to assign the removal of ashes by means of a lottery due to that reason cited in the mishna, the matter of the dangerous incident? The ordinance was instituted due to this reason: There were other important tasks associated with the removal of the ashes that required a lottery in their own right, as it was taught in a baraita: The priest who was privileged to perform the removal of the ashes was also privileged with laying out the arrangement of wood on the altar and with placing the two logs that were placed on the altar each morning. Since these were inherently important tasks, the only way to assign them was through a lottery, which would also determine who removed the ashes.,The Gemara answers: Rav Ashi said: There were two separate ordinances instituted. Initially, the Sages thought that priests would not come forward to perform the task of removing the ashes. Once they saw that many priests did come and that they were also coming to danger, the Sages instituted a lottery for this task. Once they established a lottery for removing the ashes, the priests did not come anymore. They said: Who says the lottery will fall in our favor? Therefore, they did not bother to come. Then the Sages instituted for the priests that whoever was privileged with performing the removal of the ashes would also be privileged with laying out the arrangement of wood on the altar and with placing the two logs, so that the importance of all these tasks combined would ensure that the priests would come and participate in the lottery.,§ It was taught in the mishna that before the lottery was instituted, when there were many priests who sought to perform the removal of the ashes, the first priest to reach within four cubits of the top of the altar was privileged with performing the removal of the ashes. Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that the four cubits the mishna is referring to are not the four cubits adjacent to the ramp on the ground, because we learned in the mishna that the priests run and ascend on the ramp, and not adjacent to the ramp. It is also not referring to the first four cubits from the foot of the ramp, because we learned that the priests run and ascend on the ramp, and only afterward it says: Any priest who precedes another and reaches within four cubits of the altar first, indicating that the competition begins only once they have ascended the ramp to some extent.,It is also not referring to four cubits somewhere in the middle, between the four on the bottom and the top of the altar, because the matter is not defined and there is no clear indication which four cubits on the ramp are the determining cubits. In light of all this, it is obvious to me that the four cubits we learned in the mishna are referring to the four cubits that are adjacent to the altar itself. The priest who reaches those four cubits first is the one privileged to remove the ashes.,Rav Pappa raised a dilemma based on the above clarification: Are the four cubits that they stated, which are the four cubits adjacent to the altar, calculated including the cubit of the base of the altar and the cubit of its ledge, as the ramp continues and overlaps these two cubits at the top of the altar, or are they perhaps calculated excluding the cubit of the base of the altar and the cubit of its ledge? The altar’s edge can be considered to be at the end of the ramp, the point at which it meets the altar, or it can be considered the point on the ramp that is directly over the external base of the altar, which is two cubits away from the point where the ramp meets the altar. Which of these two calculations is the correct one? Rav Pappa’s question remains unanswered, and the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.,§ It was taught in the mishna that if both of them were equal and neither preceded the other, the appointed priest says to all the priests: Extend your fingers [hatzbiu], and a lottery was performed. A tanna taught the meaning of the unusual term hatzbiu: Put out your fingers for a count. The Gemara asks: Let him count the priests themselves directly, rather than counting their fingers. The Gemara answers: This is a support for a teaching of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak said: It is prohibited to count Jews directly, even for the purposes of a mitzva, as it is written concerning King Saul and his count of his soldiers: “And he numbered them with bezek” (I Samuel 11:8), meaning that he counted them through shards, one shard representing each man, rather than counting them directly.,Rav Ashi strongly objects to this interpretation of the verse: From where do you derive that this word bezek is a term related to the verb meaning to break apart, so that it means shards? Perhaps it is the name of a town, and it means that Saul counted them in Bezek, as it is written: “And they found Adoni-bezek in Bezek” (Judges 1:5), which shows that Bezek is the name of a place. The Gemara answers: Indeed, the proof is not from that verse but from here, where it says: “And Saul summoned the people and numbered them by sheep” (I Samuel 15:4), meaning that Saul tallied his soldiers by having each one take a sheep and put it aside to represent him in the count.,Rabbi Elazar said: Whoever counts a group of Jews violates a negative mitzva, as it is stated: “And the number of the children of Israel will be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured” (Hosea 2:1). Rabbi Elazar interprets the verse to be saying: Which may not be measured. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: One who counts a group of Jews in fact violates two negative mitzvot, as it is stated in that verse: “Which cannot be measured and cannot be counted” (Hosea 2:1).,Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan raised a contradiction: It is written in this verse: “And the number of the children of Israel will be like the sand of the sea,” suggesting that they will have a specific number, though it will be very large. On the other hand, it continues and says: “Which cannot be measured and cannot be counted,” which means they will not be countable at all. How can these two statements be reconciled?,It is not difficult: Here, in the second statement, it is referring to a time when the Jewish people fulfill the will of God; then they will be innumerable. There, in the first statement, it is referring to a time when the Jewish people do not fulfill the will of God; then they will be like the sand of the sea, having a specific number. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said a different resolution in the name of Abba Yosei ben Dostai: It is not difficult: Here, in the second statement, it is referring to counting by the hand of man; the Jewish people will be too numerous to count by man. There, in the first statement, it is referring to counting by the hand of God, and He will find that they are like the number of the grains of the sand of the sea.,Rav Nehilai bar Idi said that Shmuel said: Once a man is appointed as a leader of the community, he becomes wealthy. This is derived from the verses cited above. Initially, it is written with regard to Saul: “And he numbered them with bezek,” meaning pottery shards, and in the end it is written: “And he numbered them with sheep,” indicating that he was able to provide enough of his own sheep to use them in counting the people. The Gemara asks: But perhaps the people provided these sheep from their own flocks. The Gemara rejects this: If so, what is the novelty in the matter? Why would the text tell us that the people were counted with sheep if not to illustrate incidentally the great wealth of Saul?,§ Having mentioned the verse about Saul, the Gemara proceeds to interpret more of that passage: “And Saul came to the city of Amalek and he strove in the valley” (I Samuel 15:5). Rabbi Mani said: This means that Saul strove with God, as it were, concerning the matter of the valley. At the time when the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Saul: “Now go and attack Amalek and proscribe all that belongs to him; do not pity him, but kill men and women alike, infants and sucklings alike, oxen and sheep alike, camel and donkey alike” (I Samuel 15:3), Saul countered and said: Now, if on account of one life that is taken, in a case where a slain person’s body is found and the murderer is unknown, the Torah said to bring a heifer whose neck is broken to a barren valley, in the atonement ritual described in Deuteronomy 21:1–9, all the more so must I have pity and not take all these Amalekite lives.,And he further reasoned: If the men have sinned, in what way have the animals sinned? Why, then, should the Amalekites’ livestock be destroyed? And if the adults have sinned, in what way have the children sinned? A Divine Voice then came forth and said to him: “Do not be overly righteous” (Ecclesiastes 7:16). That is to say: Do not be more merciful than the Creator Himself, Who has commanded you to do this, for to do so would not be an indication of righteousness but of weakness. At a later time, when Saul said to Doeg: “Turn around and strike down the priests, and Doeg the Edomite turned around and struck down the priests, and he killed on that day eighty-five men who wore the linen ephod, and he struck Nob the city of priests by the sword, man and woman alike, infants and sucklings alike, oxen and donkeys and sheep, by the sword” (I Samuel 22:18–19), a Divine Voice came forth and said to him: “Do not be overly wicked” (Ecclesiastes 7:17).,Apropos Saul’s contravention of God’s command to obliterate Amalek, the Gemara observes that Rav Huna said: How little does a person who has the support of his Lord have to worry or be concerned. The proof for this assertion is a comparison between Saul and David. Saul failed with one single sin and it was counted against him, costing him the throne. David, however, failed with two sins and they were not counted against him, as he retained his position. The Gemara asks: What was Saul’s one sin? The incident with Agag, king of Amalek, whom Saul spared in defiance of God’s command (see I Samuel 15:9). But was this his sole sin? There is also the incident of Nob, the city of priests, in which Saul later slew many innocent people, as cited above. The Gemara answers: It was after the incident with Agag, and even before the incident at Nob, that God said: “I regret that I have crowned Saul to be king” (I Samuel 15:11).,Rav Huna stated above that David failed with two sins. What were they? One was the incident in which he had Uriah killed. The other was the matter of the incitement of David to conduct a census of the Jewish people (see II Samuel 24:1), which led to many deaths in a plague.,The Gemara asks: But were these his only two sins? There is also the incident of Bathsheba, in which he took another man’s wife as his own. The Gemara answers: There, in that case, punishment was exacted from him separately, so the matter is no longer listed among his sins, as it is written with regard to this incident: “And he shall restore the lamb fourfold” (II Samuel 12:6). The lamb was a metaphor for Bathsheba, and ultimately David was indeed given a fourfold punishment for taking Bathsheba: The first child born to Bathsheba and David died (see II Samuel 12:13–23); David’s son Amnon was killed; Tamar, his daughter, was raped by Amnon (see II Samuel 13); and his son Avshalom rebelled against him and was ultimately killed (see II Samuel 15–18).,The Gemara asks: If sins for which David was punished separately are not counted, one could ask: There, too, with regard to the sin of the census, he was punished separately, as it is written: “And the Lord sent a plague against Israel from the morning until the appointed time” (II Samuel 24:15). The Gemara responds: There, David was not punished personally, in his own body; rather, the punishment was inflicted on the Jewish people.,The Gemara challenges this: There, too, in the incident with Bathsheba, David was not punished personally, in his own body; rather, it was his children who suffered punishment. The Gemara answers: That is not so; he was punished personally, in his own body, for that sin, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: David was stricken with leprosy for six months after that incident, and the Sanhedrin withdrew from him in protest over his behavior, and the Divine Presence also left him. As it is written that David prayed: “May those who fear You return to me, and they who know Your testimonies” (Psalms 119:79). Since he prayed for the return of those who fear God and who know His testimonies, referring to the Sages of the Sanhedrin, it can be inferred that they had withdrawn from him. And it is written as well: “Restore to me the joy of Your salvation, let a vigorous spirit support me” (Psalms 51:14), where David asks for the return of the Divine Spirit, which had left him.,The Gemara asks: And didn’t David commit other sins? Didn’t Rav say: David accepted a slanderous report from Ziba about Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, stating that the latter was pleased with David’s downfall? There was, in that case, this additional sin. The Gemara responds: Consequently, it is necessary to follow the approach of Shmuel, who said: David did not accept a slanderous report, because Ziba’s claim was true.,The Gemara continues: And even according to Rav, who said that David accepted a slanderous report, one could answer that that sin is not counted, as was he not punished for it? As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: At the time when David said to Mephibosheth: “I say that you and Ziba should divide the field” (II Samuel 19:30), a Divine Voice came forth and said to him: Rehoboam and Jeroboam will divide the kingship. Because David believed Ziba’s slanderous report and awarded him half of Mephibosheth’s field, David was punished by having his kingdom divided into two. Following King Solomon’s death the Jewish people split into two kingdoms, Israel to the north and Judea to the south (see I Kings 12). Therefore, David was punished for that sin too.,§ The Gemara continues its discussion of Saul and David. It is written: “Saul was one year old when he began to reign” (I Samuel 13:1), which cannot be understood literally, as Saul was appointed king when he was a young man. Rav Huna said: The verse means that when he began to reign he was like a one-year–old, in that he had never tasted the taste of sin but was wholly innocent and upright.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak strongly objects to this interpretation of the verse, saying: You could just as well say that he was like a one-year-old in that he was always filthy with mud and excrement. Rav Naḥman was shown a frightful dream that night, and he understood it as a punishment for having disparaged Saul. He said: I humbly submit myself to you, O bones of Saul, son of Kish, and beg your forgiveness. But once again he was shown a frightful dream, and he understood that he had not shown enough deference in his first apology. He therefore said this time: I humbly submit myself to you, O bones of Saul, son of Kish, king of Israel, and beg your forgiveness. Subsequently, the nightmares ceased.,Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Why did the kingship of the house of Saul not continue on to succeeding generations? It is because there was no flaw in his ancestry; he was of impeccable lineage. As Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: One appoints a leader over the community only if he has a box full of creeping animals hanging behind him, i.e., he has something inappropriate in his ancestry that preceded him. Why is that? It is so that if he exhibits a haughty attitude toward the community, one can say to him: Turn and look behind you and be reminded of your humble roots. This is why David’s kingdom lasted while Saul’s did not, as David descended from a family with problematic ancestry, namely Tamar (see Genesis, chapter 38) and Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 4:18–22).,Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Why was Saul punished in that he was ultimately led to commit the sins described above? Because at the very outset of his reign he inappropriately forwent his royal honor, as it is stated with regard to Saul’s inauguration: “And some base fellows said: How can this man save us? So they disparaged him and brought him no present. But he made himself as if he did not hear” (I Samuel 10:27). And it is stated immediately afterward: “And Nahash the Ammonite marched up and encamped against Jabesh-gilead” (I Samuel 11:1). The implication is that if Saul had forcefully assumed his throne, Nahash would not have dared to attack the people of Jabesh-gilead. In this way, his humility led to the crisis.,And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Any Torah scholar who does not avenge himself and bear a grudge like a snake when insulted is not considered a Torah scholar at all, as it is important to uphold the honor of Torah and its students by reacting harshly to insults. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written explicitly in the Torah: “You shall not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the children of your people” (Leviticus 19:18)? The Gemara responds: That prohibition is written with regard to monetary matters and not personal insults, as it was taught in a baraita: What is revenge and what is bearing a grudge? Revenge is illustrated by the following example: One said to his fellow: Lend me your sickle, and he said: No. The next day he, the one who had refused to lend the sickle, said to the other person: Lend me your ax. If he said to him: I will not lend to you, just as you did not lend to me, that is revenge.,And what is bearing a grudge? If one said to his fellow: Lend me your ax, and he said: No, and the next day he, the one who had refused to lend the ax, said to the other man: Lend me your robe; if the first one said to him: Here it is, as I am not like you, who would not lend to me, that is bearing a grudge. Although he does not respond to his friend’s inconsiderate behavior in kind, he still makes it known to his friend that he resents his inconsiderate behavior. This baraita shows that the prohibition relates only to monetary matters, such as borrowing and lending.,The Gemara asks: But does the prohibition against vengeance really not relate also to matters of personal anguish suffered by someone? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Those who are insulted but do not insult others, who hear themselves being shamed but do not respond, who act out of love for God, and who remain happy in their suffering, about them the verse states: “They that love Him be as the sun when it goes forth in its might” (Judges 5:31). This baraita shows that one should forgive personal insults as well as wrongs in monetary matters.,The Gemara responds that the prohibition against taking vengeance and bearing a grudge indeed applies to cases of personal anguish; however, actually, the scholar may keep resentment in his heart, though he should not act on it or remind the other person of his insulting behavior. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rava say: With regard to whoever forgoes his reckonings with others for injustices done to him, the heavenly court in turn forgoes punishment for all his sins? The Gemara answers: Indeed, even a scholar who is insulted must forgive insults, but that is only in cases where his antagonist has sought to appease him, in which case he should allow himself to be appeased toward him. However, if no apology has been offered, the scholar should not forgive him, in order to uphold the honor of the Torah.,§ The mishna describes that the lottery between competing priests is conducted by the priests extending their fingers for a count. And the mishna elaborated: And what fingers do they extend for the lottery? They may extend one or two fingers, and the priests do not extend a thumb in the Temple. The Gemara asks: Now that the mishna states that the priest may extend two fingers, is it necessary to state that they may also extend one finger?,Rav Ḥisda said: This is not difficult. Here, when the mishna speaks of extending one finger, it is referring to a healthy person, who has no difficulty extending just one finger without extending a second one. There, when the mishna mentions two fingers, it is referring to a sick person, for whom it is difficult to extend a single finger at a time. And so it was taught in a baraita: They may extend one finger, but they may not extend two. In what case is this statement said? It is said in reference to a healthy person; however, a sick person may extend even two fingers. And the sick priests who sit or lie alone, separately from the other priests, extend two fingers, but their two fingers are counted only as one.,The Gemara asks: And are the sick priest’s two fingers really counted as only one? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: The priests may not extend the third finger, i.e., the middle finger, or the thumb, together with the index finger, due to concern for cheaters. One who sees that the count is approaching him might intentionally extend or withdraw an extra finger so that the lottery will fall on him. But if he does extend the third finger it is counted for him. This is because the third finger cannot be stretched very far from the index finger, so that it is easily recognizable that both fingers are from the same person, and this is not taken as an attempt to cheat. If he extends his thumb, however, it is not counted for him, and moreover he is punished with lashes administered by the person in charge of the pakia. The implication of the baraita is that when the third finger is extended along with the index finger, both fingers are counted.,The Gemara answers: What does the baraita mean when it says that if the priest extended his middle finger along with his index finger, it is counted for him? It also means, as stated earlier, that the two fingers are counted as one.,The baraita mentions lashes administered by the person in charge of the pakia. What is a pakia? Rav said: It is a madra. However, the meaning of that term also became unclear over time, so the Gemara asks: What is a madra? Rav Pappa said: It is a whip [matraka] used by the Arabs, the end of which is split into several strands. That is the pakia mentioned above, which was used for punishing the priests.,Apropos this discussion, Abaye said: At first I would say as follows: When we learned in a mishna that ben Beivai was in charge of the pakia, I would say that it means that he was in charge of producing wicks, as we learned in another mishna: They would tear [mafkia] strips from the priests’ worn-out trousers and belts and make wicks out of them, with which they lit the lamps for the Celebration of Drawing Water. But once I heard that which is taught in the previously cited baraita: And moreover, he is punished with lashes administered by the person in charge of the pakia, I now say: What is a pakia? It is lashes. Ben Beivai was in charge of corporal punishment in the Temple.,§ It was taught in the mishna: An incident occurred where both of the priests were equal as they were running and ascending on the ramp, and one of them shoved the other and he fell and his leg was broken. The Sages taught in the Tosefta: An incident occurred where there were two priests who were equal as they were running and ascending the ramp. One of them reached the four cubits before his colleague, who then, out of anger, took a knife and stabbed him in the heart.,The Tosefta continues: Rabbi Tzadok then stood up on the steps of the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary and said: Hear this, my brothers of the house of Israel. The verse states: “If one be found slain in the land... and it be not known who had smitten him; then your Elders and your judges shall come forth and they shall measure…and it shall be that the city which is nearest to the slain man…shall take a heifer” (Deuteronomy 21:1–3). And the Elders of that city took that heifer and broke its neck in a ritual of atonement. But what of us, in our situation? Upon whom is the obligation to bring the heifer whose neck is broken? Does the obligation fall on the city, Jerusalem, so that its Sages must bring the calf, or does the obligation fall upon the Temple courtyards, so that the priests must bring it? At that point the entire assembly of people burst into tears.,The father of the boy, i.e., the young priest who was stabbed, came and found that he was still convulsing. He said: May my son’s death be an atonement for you. But my son is still convulsing and has not yet died, and as such, the knife, which is in his body, has not become ritually impure through contact with a corpse. If you remove it promptly, it will still be pure for future use. The Tosefta comments: This incident comes to teach you that the ritual purity of utensils was of more concern to them than the shedding of blood. Even the boy’s father voiced more concern over the purity of the knife than over the death of his child. And similarly, it says: “Furthermore, Manasseh spilled innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another” (II Kings 21:16), which shows that in his day as well people paid little attention to bloodshed.,The Gemara asks: Which incident came first, the one about the broken leg reported in the mishna or the one about the slain priest in the Tosefta? If we say that the incident of bloodshed came first, this raises a problem: Now, if in response to a case of bloodshed they did not establish a lottery but continued with the running competition, can it be that in response to an incident of a priest’s leg being broken they did establish a lottery? Rather, we must say that the case in which the priest’s leg was broken in the course of the race came first, and as the mishna states, the establishment of the lottery was in response to that incident.,The Gemara asks: If the running competition was abolished immediately after the incident of the broken leg and a lottery was instituted to replace it, once they established the lottery, what were they doing still running to within the four cubits in the incident that led to the priest’s murder? Rather, actually, it is necessary to return to the approach suggested earlier, that the case involving bloodshed came first. Initially, the Sages thought that it was merely a random, i.e., isolated, event, and because it was extremely unlikely for a murder to happen again they did not abolish the competition due to that incident. Then, once they saw that in any event the priests were coming to danger, as one of them was pushed and broke his leg, the Sages established a lottery.,The Gemara returns to the incident of the slain priest and discusses several details of it. It was related that Rabbi Tzadok stood up on the steps of the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary and said: Hear this, my brothers of the house of Israel. The verse states: “If one be found slain in the land, etc.” But what of us, in our situation? Upon whom is the obligation to bring the heifer whose neck is broken? Does the obligation fall upon the city, Jerusalem, or does the obligation fall upon the Temple courtyards? The Gemara asks: Is Jerusalem subject to bringing a heifer whose neck is broken? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Ten things were said about Jerusalem to distinguish it from all other cities in Eretz Yisrael, and this is one of them: Jerusalem does not bring a heifer whose neck is broken. The reason for this is that the halakha of the heifer whose neck is broken applies only to land that was apportioned to a specific tribe of the Jewish people. Jerusalem alone was not divided among the tribes, but was shared equally by the entire nation. And furthermore, it is written that the heifer whose neck is broken is brought when “it be not known who had smitten him,” and here, in the case of the slain priest, it was well known who had smitten him. Rather, one must conclude that Rabbi Tzadok invoked the halakha of the heifer whose neck is broken not because it actually applied in this case but only in order to arouse the people’s grief and to increase weeping.,In relating the above incident the Tosefta said: The father of the boy came and found that he was still convulsing. He said: May my son’s death be an atonement for you. But my son is still alive, etc. This incident comes to teach you that the ritual purity of utensils was of more concern to them than the shedding of blood. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Should one conclude from this comment that bloodshed had become trivialized in their eyes but their concern for purity of utensils remained where it was originally, meaning that while they cared less than they should have about murder, they did not exaggerate the importance of purity of utensils; or perhaps their concern for bloodshed remained where it was originally, but their concern for purity of vessels had become too strict, to the extent that its importance was exaggerated beyond concern for human life?,The Gemara answers: Come and hear an answer to the dilemma: Since the Tosefta adduces a biblical teaching from the verse, “Furthermore, Manasseh spilled innocent blood,” conclude from this that it was bloodshed that had become trivialized, and the importance of purity of utensils remained where it had been.,§ The Gemara returns to the mitzva of removing the ashes from the altar and associated issues. The Sages taught in a baraita: The Torah states, after describing the removal of the ashes: “And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry the ashes out of the camp to a clean place” (Leviticus 6:4). I might understand from here that this change of garments is a mitzva to change into a different kind of garment, similar to the change of garments performed on Yom Kippur, when the High Priest changes back and forth from gold clothes to white clothes. Here, too, the Torah requires that he remove his sacred garments and put on non-sacred garments.,The baraita continues: To teach us otherwise, the verse states: “And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments,” thereby juxtaposing the garments he puts on to the garments he takes off. This indicates that just as there, the garments he removes, i.e., those in which he had performed the mitzva of removal of the ashes, are sacred garments, so too here, the clothes he puts on to take the ashes out of the camp are sacred garments.,If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: Other garments, which implies that the second set of garments is different from the first? It means they are of lower quality than the first set of garments. Rabbi Eliezer says a different interpretation of the words: Other garments. The verse states: “And put on other garments, and carry the ashes out of the camp,” in which the Hebrew juxtaposes the words “other” and “carry out.” This teaches that priests with physical blemishes, who are considered others in that they are not eligible to perform sacred tasks, are eligible to carry out the ashes.,The Gemara now explains the baraita in detail. The Master said in the baraita: The words: Other garments, teach that they are to be of lower quality than the garments worn during the removal of the ashes. This is in accordance with what was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Clothes worn by a servant as he was cooking food for his master that became soiled in the process should not be worn by him when he pours a cup for his master, which is a task that calls for the servant to present a dignified appearance. Similarly, one who performs the dirtying task of carrying out the ashes should not wear the same fine clothes worn to perform other services.,The baraita taught that Rabbi Eliezer derived from the word other that blemished priests are eligible for the task of carrying out the ashes, while the first tanna derived a different teaching from those words. The Gemara clarifies the scope of the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Eliezer. Reish Lakish said: Just as there is a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the first tanna with regard to carrying the ashes out of the camp, so too, there is a dispute with regard to the removal of the ashes from the altar. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the removal of the ashes may also be performed by blemished priests, while the first tanna disagrees. But Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The dispute is only with regard to carrying the ashes out of the camp, but all agree that the removal of the ashes is a bona fide Temple service that cannot be performed by blemished priests.,The Gemara explains: What is the reason behind the opinion of Reish Lakish? Reish Lakish could have said to you: If it enters your mind that the removal of the ashes is a bona fide Temple service, you are faced with the following difficulty: Do you have any Temple service that may be performed with only two garments rather than the full set of four vestments worn by the priests? In the Torah’s description of the garments worn to remove the ashes it says: “And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen trousers shall he put on his flesh” (Leviticus 6:3).,And what is the explanation for Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion? In fact, the priest is required to wear all four priestly garments. The Merciful One reveals in the Torah that the priest must wear the tunic and the trousers like any other service so that one would not think that taking out the ashes may be performed in regular, non-sacred clothes. Once the Torah has made this point and mentioned these two specific garments, the same is true for the other two garments as well, i.e., the mitre and the belt.,The Gemara asks: If the Torah requires all four garments and mentions the tunic and trousers only as examples, what is different about these two that the Torah mentioned them in particular? The Gemara answers that these two particular garments were mentioned in order to teach certain halakhot. The Torah refers to the tunic as “his linen garment,” with the words “his garment” [middo], indicating that the tunic must conform to his exact size [middato] and should fit the priest perfectly. As for the words “linen trousers,” they come to teach that which was taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that as the priest gets dressed no garment should precede the trousers? As it is stated: “And his linen trousers shall he put on his flesh,” which implies that the trousers should be donned when the priest has nothing but his flesh, i.e., when he has no other garments on him yet.,The Gemara asks: And with regard to Reish Lakish, who maintains that these two garments are mentioned because they are the only two that the priest wears when removing the ashes, from where does he derive these two halakhot? The Gemara answers: The halakha that his linen garment, i.e., the tunic, must be according to his size is derived the fact that the Merciful One uses the expression “his garment,” i.e., his fitted garment, in the Torah, rather than calling it by its usual name, tunic. And the halakha that no garment should precede the trousers when the priest dresses is derived from the fact that the Torah added the phrase “on his flesh.”,Let us say that the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im. As it was taught in a baraita that the Torah states: “And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen trousers shall he put on his flesh” (Leviticus 6:3). The words “shall he put on” seem superfluous, since these same words were already stated earlier in the verse. Therefore, the Torah could have sufficed with saying: “And linen trousers on his flesh.” What is the meaning when the verse states: “Shall he put on”? This extra expression comes to include the donning of the mitre and the belt, which are not mentioned here explicitly, for the removal of the ash; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.,Rabbi Dosa says: The extra expression comes to include the permissibility of the High Priest’s clothes that he wears on Yom Kippur, which are linen garments identical to those of the common priest, to teach that they are acceptable to be used afterward by common priests in their service. In other words, the expression teaches that the High Priest’s garments need not be permanently retired from service after Yom Kippur, unlike the opinion of another Sage, as will be explained below.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: There are two refutations against Rabbi Dosa’s interpretation: One is that the belt of the High Priest that he wears on Yom Kippur is made only of linen and is not identical to the belt of the common priest, which, in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, is made of wool and linen. Therefore, it is impossible for the High Priest’s Yom Kippur garments to be used by a common priest. And furthermore, with regard to garments that you used to perform the services of the most severe sanctity, i.e., the services performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, can it be that you will then use them to perform services of lesser sanctity by a common priest? Instead of this, a different interpretation must be said. What, then, is the meaning when the verse states the superfluous words “shall he put on”? The phrase comes to include worn out garments, teaching that as long as they have not become tattered they may be used for Temple services.,The Gemara continues with another baraita connected to this debate. With regard to the garments of the High Priest, the Torah states: “And Aaron shall go into the tent of meeting, and he shall take off the linen garments that he had put on when he went into the Sanctuary, and shall leave them there” (Leviticus 16:23). This verse teaches that the linen garments worn by the High Priest during the Yom Kippur service require storing away, i.e., they may not be used again. Rabbi Dosa says: They do not have to be stored away, because although they may not be used again by the High Priest on a subsequent Yom Kippur, they are acceptable for use for a common priest. And what, then, is the meaning when the verse states: “And shall leave them there,” which implies that they are not to be used again? It means that the High Priest himself may not use them on a subsequent Yom Kippur for service in the Holy of Holies; it does not mean that they may not be used at all.,The Gemara returns to the question of whether or not the removal of the ashes is considered a bona fide Temple service, requiring all four priestly garments, and whether or not this is the subject of debate between tanna’im. What, is it not with regard to this that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Dosa disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, who derives from the phrase “he shall wear” that all four garments are required, holds that the removal of the ashes is a bona fide service; and one Sage, Rabbi Dosa, who derives a different teaching from “he shall wear,” holds that it is not a bona fide service, and consequently only two of the four garments are required? Their dispute would therefore be identical to the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish.,The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is possible to say that this is not the subject of debate between these two tanna’im. Rather, everyone agrees that the removal of ashes is a bona fide Temple service requiring all four garments, and here they disagree about a different point, which is this: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that a derivation from the verse is necessary to include the mitre and belt, which are not mentioned explicitly in the verse. And one Sage, Rabbi Dosa, holds that since the removal of the ash is a bona fide Temple service it is obvious that all four garments are required, so a derivation from a verse to include the other two garments is not necessary. Accordingly, both tanna’im are in agreement that the removal of ash is a bona fide service and requires all four priestly garments.,§ Rabbi Avin raised a dilemma: How much ash must be removed in order to fulfill the mitzva of removal of the ashes? Do we derive it from the teruma of the tithe, the portion that the Levite sets aside for the priest, in which case one hundredth of the total is separated, or do we derive it from the donations that were set aside from the spoils of the war with Midian, where one five-hundredth was taken from the spoils of war (see Numbers 31:28)? Come and hear a teaching with regard to this dilemma. As Rabbi Ḥiyya taught in a baraita that it is stated here: “And he shall take up the ashes” (Leviticus 6:3), and it is said elsewhere, with regard to a meal-offering: “And he shall take up a handful of the choice flour of the meal-offering” (Leviticus 6:8). Just as there, the amount he removes is a handful of flour, so too, here, he removes a handful of ash. The amount of ashes removed from the altar is therefore not a fixed percentage of the total ash.,§ Rav said: Although a non-priest may not perform any Temple service, there are only four Temple services for which a non-priest is liable to receive the punishment of death by God’s hand for doing so. They are: Sprinkling sacrificial blood on the altar, and burning incense or parts of sacrificial animals on the altar, and pouring out the water libation on the altar on the festival of Sukkot, and pouring out the wine libation on the altar. And Levi said: This is true also for the removal of the ashes. And similarly, Levi taught in his collection of baraitot: The removal of ashes is also included among those services for which a non-priest incurs the death penalty if he performs them.,The Gemara explains: What is the reason for Rav’s opinion? As it is written: “And you and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood in everything pertaining to the altar and to that within the veil; and you shall serve; I give you the priesthood as a service of gift; and the common man that draws near shall be put to death” (Numbers 18:7). Rav interprets this verse as follows: “A service of gift” indicates a service that involves giving, i.e., placing something on the altar, and not a service that involves removal from the altar, to the exclusion of removing the ashes. “And you shall serve [va’avadtem]” is interpreted as referring to a service that is complete [avoda tamma] on its own, such as sprinkling the blood, and not a service that is not complete, i.e., a service that is only a preparatory step and has another service after it that completes its purpose, such as slaughtering the animal or collecting its blood, which are only preparatory steps leading up to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar.,And what is the reason for the opinion of Levi? Why does he include the removal of ashes? According to him, the Merciful One includes this service by adding “in everything pertaining to the altar,” which teaches that all actions performed on the altar, including the removal of ashes, are significant and are prohibited to a non-priest on pain of death. The Gemara asks: And what does Rav learn from the phrase “in everything pertaining to the altar”? The Gemara answers: According to him, the word “everything” in that phrase comes to include the seven sprinklings that are performed inside the Sanctuary, when the blood of certain offerings is sprinkled on the veil of the Holy of Holies, and the seven sprinklings of oil of the leper, which are also performed inside the Sanctuary. Rav learns from the word “everything” that if a non-priest were to perform any of these actions he would be liable to receive the death penalty, despite the fact that they are not performed on the altar.,The Gemara asks: And from where does Levi derive these cases? The Gemara answers: He derives them from the superfluous wording of the text. As the entire phrase “pertaining to the altar” is superfluous, he derives from this the inclusion of the removal of the ashes. Additionally, the expression “everything pertaining” implies a further inclusion, from which he derives the internal sprinklings mentioned above. And what does Rav learn from this superfluous wording? Rav does not derive anything particular from the distinction between the expressions “pertaining to the altar” and “everything pertaining to the altar.”,The Gemara asks about Levi’s position: But say that the verse should be interpreted as follows: “In everything pertaining” is a generalization, and “a service of gift” is a specification, indicating a case of a generalization followed by a specification. One of the principles of hermeneutics states that in such cases, the generalization includes only what is mentioned explicitly in the specification. Following that rule, one would conclude: A service of giving, i.e., placing on the altar, yes, this is included, but a service of removal is not included. This presents a difficulty for Levi. The Gemara responds that the verse states: “To that within the veil; and you shall serve; I give you the priesthood as a service of gift” (Numbers 18:7), indicating that it is only with regard to services that are performed within the veil, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, that there is a distinction between services, and a non-priest who performs services of giving there, such as sprinkling the blood inside the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, is subject to the death penalty, but not one who performs services of removing there, such as the removal of the censer from the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. This leads to the conclusion that when it comes to services performed outside of the Holy of Holies, a non-priest would be liable if he performed any service, even a service of removal, such as the removal of ashes from the altar.,The Gemara asks: If it is so that the limitations of the verse apply only to those services performed in the Holy of Holies, one should say that the phrase: “And you shall serve [va’avadtem],” from which it is derived that one is liable only for a service that is complete [avoda tamma] on its own and not incomplete, should also be similarly limited to services performed to what is within the veil. In that case, the liability of the non-priest, which is limited to cases where he performs a complete service and does not apply if he performs a service that is only preparatory and has another service after it that completes its purpose, should apply only to services performed in the Holy of Holies. But for services performed outside the Holy of Holies, a non-priest should be liable even if it is a service that is incomplete and has a service after it.,The Gemara answers: The phrase: “And you shall serve [va’avadtem],” which begins with the conjunction vav, meaning: And, indicates that the verse goes back and combines the service performed within the veil to services performed outside of it. This teaches that with regard to this halakha there is no difference between a service performed outside and a service performed inside.,According to Levi, if a non-priest performs a service involving removal within the veil, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, he does not incur the death penalty, but if he performs a service involving removal outside, such as the removal of the ashes from the external altar, he is liable to the death penalty. Rava raised a dilemma relating to Levi’s approach: What would be the halakha with regard to a service of removal performed in the Sanctuary chamber that is before the Holy of Holies, such as removing the burnt incense from the inner altar, or removing burnt wicks and leftover oil from the candelabrum? Do we compare such an act to a service performed inside the Holy of Holies, so that he would be exempt from the death penalty, or do we compare it to the outer service?,Rava himself went back and resolved the dilemma: Had the Torah said only: Within the veil, it would have been understood that it is referring only to actions performed in the Holy of Holies. But since the Torah says: And to what is within the veil, the added conjunction: And, teaches that it is referring to something else besides the Holy of Holies, i.e., the Sanctuary.,The Gemara asks: However, if it is so that a non-priest is liable for performing a service that is complete on its own that takes place in the Sanctuary, one should say that a non-priest who arranges the loaves on the shewbread table should be liable. The Gemara answers: After arranging the bread there is still the arranging of the vessels of frankincense on the table that remains to be done, so the arrangement of the bread is not a service that is complete on its own. The Gemara asks: If so, a non-priest who arranges the vessels of frankincense on the table should be liable. The Gemara rejects this: After arranging the vessels, there is still the removal of these vessels and the burning of their frankincense on the altar that remain to be done; therefore, arranging the vessels is not considered a service that is complete on its own.,The Gemara asks further with regard to the notion that a non-priest is liable for performing a service that is complete on its own that takes place in the Sanctuary: If so, a non-priest who arranges the lamps of the candelabrum should be liable. The Gemara rejects this: There is still the placing of the wicks in the lamps that remains to be done, so arranging the lamps is not considered a service that is complete on its own. The Gemara asks: If so, a non-priest who placed a wick in the candelabrum’s lamps should be liable. The Gemara answers: That too is not a service that is complete on its own, as there is still the necessity of placing the oil.,The Gemara asks: If so, a non-priest who placed the oil should be liable. The Gemara answers: That too is not a service that is complete on its own, as there is still the service of lighting that needs to be done. The Gemara asks: If so, if a non-priest who lit the lamps should be liable. The Gemara answers: Lighting the lamps is not considered a bona fide Temple service, since in doing so nothing is done to the candelabrum itself.,The Gemara asks: And is kindling a fire really not considered a Temple service? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that it is written: “And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar and lay out wood in order upon the fire” (Leviticus 1:7), which teaches that the kindling of chips [alita] added to keep the altar’s fire going must be performed only by a proper priest and that he must be wearing the priestly garments? This shows that kindling is considered a service. The Gemara answers: Kindling the chips is a bona fide service, but lighting the candelabrum is not a bona fide service.,The Gemara further asks: However, if it is so that a non-priest is liable for performing any service involving placing, as established above, a non-priest who set up the arrangement of wood on the altar should be liable, since that is a service involving placing. The Gemara answers: There is still the mitzva of the arrangement of two logs on the altar that remains to be done, so that setting up the arrangement of wood is not a service that is complete on its own. The Gemara asks: If so, a non-priest who arranged the two logs should be liable. The Gemara answers: There is still the arrangement of limbs of offerings on the fire that remains to be done, so placing the two logs is also not considered a service that is complete on its own.,The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav Asi say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A non-priest who arranged the two pieces of wood is liable? This shows that placing the two logs is a complete service and contradicts Rav’s statement that a non-priest is liable only if he performs the four services that he mentioned above. The Gemara answers: Indeed, Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree on this point. One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that the placement of the two logs is a service that is complete on its own, as the arrangement of limbs that follows is not considered a continuation of the setting up of the wood; and one Sage, Rav, holds that the placement of the two logs is not considered a service that is complete on its own, since it is followed by the arrangement of the limbs on the wood.,The Gemara returns to the disagreement between Rav and Levi and notes: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it was taught in a second baraita in accordance with the opinion of Levi. It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: These are the services for which a non-priest who performs them is liable to receive the penalty of death by God’s hand: One who performs the sprinkling of blood, whether inside the Sanctuary; on the golden altar or at the veil; or inside the innermost chamber, the Holy of Holies, on Yom Kippur; or outside on the main altar; and one who sprinkles blood in the case of a bird sin-offering; and one who squeezes the blood of a bird burnt-offering on the wall of the altar or burns the bird on the altar; and one who pours out three log of water on the altar for the Sukkot water libation or three log of wine on the altar for an ordinary libation. The removal of ashes from the altar is not listed here.,It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Levi: These are the services for which a non-priest who performs them is liable to receive the penalty of death by God’s hand: One who removes the ashes from the altar; one who performs the seven sprinklings that are performed inside the Sanctuary or the sprinklings of the leper; and one who raises up an offering onto the altar, whether it is a proper offering or a disqualified one. In this baraita, the removal of ashes is listed.,§ The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the mishna. The mishna states that there were four lotteries held in the Temple every day. One of the Sages asked: Why did the Temple authorities hold lotteries? Before answering the question, the Gemara expresses astonishment at the question itself: Why did they hold lotteries? The reason is as we said clearly in the mishna: To prevent quarrels among the priests. The Gemara explains: Rather, this is the meaning of the question: Why did they assemble all the priests together and hold a lottery, and once again gather them together to hold another lottery, four times, when the priests could be gathered one time and all the necessary lotteries held at that time?,Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It was done this way in order to create a commotion throughout the Temple courtyard, as the priests would converge from all over to assemble there, as it is stated: “We took sweet counsel together, in the House of God we walked with the throng” (Psalms 55:15). This verse teaches that it is proper to stir up a commotion and to cause public excitement in the course of the Temple services and the preliminary steps leading up to them, such as the assignment of tasks to the priests.,The Gemara asks: With what garments were the priests clothed when they held the lottery? Rav Naḥman said: The priests were clothed in their own non-sacred garments. And Rav Sheshet said: The priests were dressed in the priestly sacred garments.,The Gemara explains the two approaches. Rav Naḥman said: The priests were dressed in non-sacred garments, because if you say the lottery was to be held when they were dressed in their sacred garments, there are strong-armed men who might act with force and perform the service even if they did not win the lottery. Since they were already wearing the sacred garments, they would simply force their way into performing the service. Rav Sheshet said: They were wearing the sacred garments, as, if you say they wore their non-sacred garments, due to the fact that the service was so beloved to them, in their excitement over having been granted the privilege to perform the service, it may happen that they would perform the service immediately, forgetting to don their sacred garments, thereby disqualifying the service.,Rav Naḥman said: From where do I state my opinion? As we learned in a mishna: After the lottery they gave the priests over to the attendants, and they would take their clothes off them and they would leave only their trousers on them. What, is this not talking about those priests who won the lottery, describing how their non-sacred garments were removed from them before they were dressed in the priestly garments? Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rav Sheshet said, rejecting that interpretation: No, it is possible to explain that all the priests at the lottery were wearing sacred garments and that, on the contrary, the mishna speaks about those priests who did not win the lottery. The text describes how the sacred garments they wore during the lottery were removed from them.,The Gemara supports this latter interpretation: So too, it is reasonable to follow Rav Sheshet’s interpretation of the mishna. As, if it were to enter your mind to say that the mishna is dealing with those who won the lottery and describes how their non-sacred garments were removed and sacred garments put on, how would one understand the statement: They would leave only their trousers on them? One would have to explain that the priests subsequently donned the sacred clothes on top of the non-sacred trousers; then they would remove the non-sacred trousers and replace them with the sacred trousers. But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that nothing should precede the trousers when the priest dresses? The verse states: “And he shall have linen trousers upon his flesh” (Leviticus 16:4)? However, according to the proposed interpretation of the mishna, the priests donned the other sacred garments and put on the trousers after them.,The Gemara asks: And how would the other one, Rav Naḥman, resolve this difficulty? He would respond that this is not difficult, as this is what the mishna is teaching: While the non-sacred garments are still on them they put the sacred trousers on them, and then they remove from them the non-sacred clothes, and they left them wearing only the sacred trousers. Therefore, it is possible to interpret the mishna either way.,Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say that the priests wore sacred garments when the lottery was held? As it was taught in a baraita: The Chamber of Hewn Stone was built in the style of a large basilica [basileki]; the lottery is held in the east of the chamber, and an Elder of the court sits in its west to provide instruction and adjudicate any doubtful cases. And the priests stand in a circle in the shape of a bracelet [bekholyar], and the appointed priest comes and removes the mitre from the head of one of them, and everyone thereby knew that the count began from him. And if it were to enter your mind to say that the priests wore non-sacred garments during the lottery, is there such a thing as a mitre among one’s non-sacred garments? This shows that the priests were wearing their sacred garments when the lottery took place.,The Gemara rejects this reasoning: Yes, indeed, there is such a thing as a mitre that one wears as non-sacred apparel, as Rav Yehuda, and some say it was Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, taught: A priest whose mother made a tunic for him, to show her love for her son and her love for mitzvot, may perform an individual service with it on, but not communal services. Therefore, it is possible that the priests had non-sacred mitres in the style of the sacred mitres, just as they sometimes had non-sacred tunics.,Apropos the baraita that was just cited, Abaye said: Conclude from this baraita that the Chamber of Hewn Stone was built half in the sacred area, within the consecrated Temple grounds, and half in the non-sacred part of the Temple grounds. And conclude from it as well that the chamber had two doorways, one that opened to the sacred area of the Temple and one that opened to the non-sacred area. Abaye explains these inferences: As, were it to enter your mind that the Chamber of Hewn Stone stood entirely in the sacred area, how could one say that an Elder sat in its west? Didn’t the Master say: There is no sitting allowed in the Temple courtyard except for kings of the house of David alone? The Elder must therefore have been sitting in an area external to the Temple courtyard area.,And if it were to enter your mind to say the opposite, that the chamber stood entirely in the non-sacred area, how could the lottery be held in the east? Aren’t we required to fulfill the verse: “In the House of God we walked with the throng” (Psalms 55:15), from where it was derived earlier that it is desirable that the lotteries cause a commotion in the House of God, i.e., in the sacred area of the Temple? If the lottery were held in a non-sacred area, there would not be a fulfillment of this verse. Rather, one must conclude from this baraita that the chamber was situated half in the sacred area of the Temple and half in the non-sacred area.,Abaye continues: And were it to enter your mind that the chamber had just one doorway, which opened to the sacred area, how could the Elder sit in its west? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: Chambers that are built in the non-sacred area of the Temple Mount, but that open up into the sacred area, their interior is considered entirely sacred, despite the fact that they also occupy land outside the sacred area? And if, on the other hand, it were to enter your mind that the chamber had just one doorway, which opened to the non-sacred area, how could the lottery be held in its east? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to chambers that are built in the sacred area but which open up into the non-sacred area, the space within them is considered entirely non-sacred, despite the chambers’ location on sacred territory. Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from this that the Chamber of Hewn Stone had two doorways, one that opened up into the sacred area and one that opened into the non-sacred area?,MISHNA: The second lottery conducted daily among the priests determines the following: Who slaughters the daily morning offering, who sprinkles its blood, who removes the ashes from the inner altar, and who removes the ashes and burnt wicks from the candelabrum, and who takes the limbs of the daily offering up to the ramp to be burned later.,This is how the limbs were divided before taking them up to the altar: The head and the right leg were carried by one priest, and the two forelegs were carried by a second priest. The tail, including the lower vertebrae of the spinal column and the fat tail, and the left leg were carried by a third priest. And the breast and the throat and some of the inner organs attached to it were carried by a fourth priest. And the two flanks were taken by a fifth priest, and the intestines by a sixth priest. And the fine flour of the meal-offering accompanying the daily offering was carried by a seventh priest. And the High Priest’s daily griddle-cake offering was carried by an eighth priest, and the wine for libation was carried by a ninth priest. Altogether thirteen priests prevailed in this lottery: Nine priests who carried the daily offering and its accompanying elements, and four who performed the slaughter, sprinkling, and removal of ashes from the inner altar and the candelabrum.,Ben Azzai said before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: That was not the sequence of taking the limbs up to the ramp; rather, the order in which it was sacrificed was according to the way it walks when alive, as will be explained in the Gemara.,GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When the priests performed the lottery, did they perform a lottery for just one service, such as the slaughtering, and the other twelve tasks were divided among the priests adjacent to the chosen one; or perhaps they performed a separate lottery for each and every service of the thirteen acts listed? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a proof from that which was taught in the mishna: There were four lotteries there. And if it were to enter your mind that they performed a lottery for each and every service separately, there would be many more than four lotteries. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: That is not a conclusive proof, because one could argue that this is what the mishna is saying: The priests gathered four times for a lottery, but each gathering involved many lotteries for many individual services. Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: When the third lottery was held to determine who would perform the burning of the incense, there was no separate lottery held for carrying the coal pan, although a second priest was required to rake up coals from the outer altar, carry them in a coal pan, and put them on the inner altar, where the priest assigned the task of burning the incense would then place the incense onto the coals. Rather, the priest who won the privilege of the incense said to the one who was next to him: Be privileged along with me with the task of carrying the coal pan. This shows that each individual service did not have its own lottery; rather, the other priests adjacent to the winner of the lottery were automatically chosen for the ancillary tasks.,The Gemara rejects this proof: The tasks of carrying the coal pan and burning the incense are different, because together they are considered as a single service, so that a single lottery determined the participants for the two tasks.,There are those who say that this baraita was brought to derive the opposite conclusion: It was specifically concerning the case of carrying the coal pan and burning the incense, which are considered as two parts of one and the same service, that Rabbi Yehuda said one lottery can be used to assign the two tasks. However, the implication is that other services, which are not interrelated in this manner, require a lottery for each and every separate task. If Rabbi Yehuda had meant this to be a general principle, why did he mention the specific example of the coal pan and the incense?,This argument is rejected: That is not a proof that other services require their own lotteries. The reason Rabbi Yehuda mentioned this specific example is that it was necessary for him to teach explicitly that the coal pan and the burning of the incense do not have separate lotteries but a single, combined lottery. It might have entered your mind to say that since the burning of incense is infrequent, being performed only twice a day, unlike other offerings, which may be donated by private individuals and brought many times a day, and also since it brings about wealth for whoever performs it, as the Gemara teaches later, we should institute a separate lottery for bringing in the coal pan itself, as many priests wished to perform this task. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda teaches us that despite this, the bringing in of the coal pan does not have its own lottery. Consequently, there is no proof either way from this baraita.,Come and hear a proof from what Rabbi Ḥiyya taught explicitly in a baraita: A lottery is not held for each individual service; rather, beginning with the priest who won the lottery of the daily offering, twelve of his fellow priests, those standing next to him, are drawn in along with him to perform the other acts of the daily offering. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that it is so.,§ It was taught in the mishna: The second lottery determines who slaughters, who sprinkles the blood, etc. The task of collecting the blood in a vessel, which is between slaughtering and sprinkling, is not mentioned. Therefore, it must be assumed that either the priest who slaughtered or the priest who sprinkled the blood was assigned this task as well. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Who collects the blood? Is it the one who slaughters the offering who also collects the blood? The reason to support this conclusion is that if you say that the one who sprinkles the blood is the one who collects it, a situation might arise in which, due to his enthusiasm and his love for the mitzva of sprinkling, a service that is considered more important than collecting because it directly involves the altar, the priest might not collect all the blood as the halakha requires but would hurry to go on and sprinkle it after he has collected only some of the blood.,Or perhaps one should draw the opposite conclusion, that it is the one who sprinkles that collects the blood, as, if you say that the one who slaughters is the one who collects, this principle could not be universally applied, as sometimes a non-priest slaughters the offering. Slaughtering offerings is not a sacred service and may be performed by anyone, unlike the collection of the blood, which is performed by a priest. In those cases when a non-priest slaughtered the daily offering, he would not be able to collect the blood.,The Gemara cites a source as evidence for one side of the argument: Come and hear from that which was taught in a mishna: Ben Katin made twelve spigots for the large laver to replace the original two spouts that were there, so that his twelve fellow priests who were engaged in the sacrifice of the daily offering could all sanctify their hands and feet at one time. Although there are thirteen participants listed in the mishna, the slaughterer of the offering was not required to sanctify his hands and feet because, as mentioned above, slaughtering is not a sacred service. Therefore, only twelve spigots were needed.,And if it should enter your mind to say that the one who slaughters is the one who collects the blood, then there are sometimes thirteen participants, so thirteen spigots should be needed. On those occasions when a non-priest slaughtered the daily offering, an extra priest would be required to come and collect its blood. Since the collection of blood is a sacred service, it too requires sanctification of the hands and feet. Rather, since there were only twelve spigots, isn’t it correct to conclude from this that it is the one who sprinkles, and not the one who slaughters, who collects the blood? The Gemara concludes: Conclude from this that it is so.,Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: We too have learned a support for this conclusion in a mishna that gives the sequence of the services for the daily offering: The slaughterer of the offering slaughtered, the collector of its blood collected, and he then comes to sprinkle the blood. The wording indicates that the one who collects the blood is also the one who subsequently sprinkles it. The Gemara concludes: Conclude from this that it is so.,§ The mishna states that ben Azzai said before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua that the sequence for carrying up the animal’s limbs was based on the way it walks when alive, meaning that its front parts are taken up first. The Sages taught in the Tosefta: In what manner is the animal brought up according to the way it walks? It is in this manner: The head and the right hind leg are brought up first. The other parts follow this sequence: The breast and the neck, and then the two forelegs, and then the two flanks, then the tail and the left hind leg. Rabbi Yosei says: It was sacrificed according to the way it was skinned. In what manner is the animal brought up according to the way it was skinned? It is in this manner: The head and the right leg are brought first, then the tail and the left leg together, then the two flanks, and then the two forelegs, then the breast and the neck.,Rabbi Akiva says: It was sacrificed according to the way it was cut up into limbs after the skinning. In what manner is the animal brought up according to the way it was cut up? It is in this manner: The head and the right leg first, and then the two forelegs, then the breast and the neck, and then the two flanks, and then the tail and the left leg. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It was sacrificed according to the quality of its various sections, so that the best pieces were taken up first. In what manner is the animal brought up according to the quality of the pieces? It is in this manner: The head and the right leg, then the breast and the neck, and then the two flanks, then the tail and the left leg, and then the two forelegs.,The Gemara poses a question with regard to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s position: But isn’t it written: “Every good piece, the thigh and the shoulder” (Ezekiel 24:4), indicating that these are the best cuts of the animal? Why doesn’t Rabbi Yosei HaGelili say that these are offered first (Rabbeinu Ḥananel)? The Gemara answers: That verse is speaking of a lean sheep, whose thigh and shoulder are indeed the best pieces. However, in the sheep brought for the daily offering, which were of the finest quality, there were other parts that were of higher quality.,The Gemara explains the reason behind the order of the pieces in the mishna. Rava said: Both the tanna of our mishna and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili agree that we follow the relative quality of the meat in the various pieces. The difference in opinion between them is that one Sage, the tanna of this mishna, follows the limb, i.e., the amount, of the meat; the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei, follows the fattiness of the meat.,The Gemara asks: According to all opinions, what is the reason that the right leg goes up to the altar together with the head? What is the connection between these two pieces? The Gemara explains: Because the head has much bone in it, the leg is offered with it.,The Gemara asks further: Although the Sages disagree as to the order of bringing up the various pieces, at any rate everyone agrees that the head is sacrificed first. From where do we derive this? As it was taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that when sacrificing an animal the head and the fat precede all the other limbs? The verse states: “And he shall cut it up into its pieces and its head and its fat, and the priest shall arrange them on the wood that is on the fire upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:12). The Gemara asks: And the other mention of fat before this, where the verse states: “The pieces, the head and the fat” (Leviticus 1:8), 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.,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.,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.,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.”,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.,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.,§ 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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,§ 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.,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.,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.,And if you find a tanna in a baraita who teaches that there were five lotteries for the Temple service, 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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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?,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.,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.,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.,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.,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. The Gemara asks: But that verse about putting fire on the altar is needed for its own sake, to teach that the wood must be brought by a priest; it should not be interpreted as an inference that other services, such as flaying and cutting, may be performed by non-priests. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: I found Abaye explaining Hizkiya’s derivation to his son based on the following baraita. It is written: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5), with no mention of a priest, which teaches that slaughter by a non-priest is acceptable. The baraita continues: Now, from where would you come to think otherwise? Why would one even suspect that a priest should be required to slaughter the offering, so that a specific verse is required to tell us otherwise? From the fact that it is stated: “And you and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood” (Numbers 18:7), I would derive that no part of the sacrificial service may be performed by a non-priest, not even slaughtering.,The baraita continues: Therefore, the verse states: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord, and the sons of Aaron…shall sacrifice the blood” (Leviticus 1:5), from which it is inferred that from the sacrificing of blood, which begins with the collection of the blood, and onward is a mitzva exclusively of priesthood. Just prior to this the Torah states: “And he shall place his hands upon the head of the burnt-offering…and he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:4–5). In this verse the Torah is referring to the donor of the offering when it says: He shall place his hands, and therefore when it continues: And he shall slaughter, it is also referring to the donor. The Torah thereby taught that the slaughter of the offering is acceptable if performed by a non-priest.,Abaye asked: Since, as this baraita establishes, from the collection of the blood and onward is a mitzva exclusively of priesthood, why do I need the Torah to say afterward: “The sons of Aaron shall put fire on the altar” (Leviticus 1:7)? Since the verse about putting the fire on the altar follows the verse about collection of blood, it is clear that it must be done by priests, and the verse’s stipulation of this fact appears superfluous. This is why Ḥizkiya concluded that the verse is not required for its own sake but is needed to teach the following inference: It is only the placing of fire on the altar that requires priests, to the exclusion of flaying and cutting up the animal, which may be performed by a non-priest.,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.,Rather, Hizkiya’s derivation must be rejected, and the acceptability of non-priests for flaying and cutting the animal must be learned from here: It is written: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay out the pieces, the head and the fat” (Leviticus 1:8). Since, as the baraita above establishes, from the collection of the blood and onward is a mitzva exclusively of priesthood, why do I need the verse to specify: “And Aaron’s sons shall lay out the pieces”? Since the specification of priesthood here appears superfluous, one must conclude that it is written not for its own sake but to exclude flaying and cutting up the animal, to teach that those acts need not be performed by a priest.,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.,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.,The Gemara rejects this argument: It cannot enter your mind to say this, as the Master said: After mentioning the mitzva to collect the blood, the Torah states: “And the priest shall bring all of it near and burn it on the altar” (Leviticus 1:13), where bringing near is referring to carrying the limbs to the ramp. The specification of priesthood in this verse is not required for its own sake, since all services following the collection of blood require priesthood. Therefore, it must be that it comes to convey the inference that it is only carrying the limbs to the ramp that requires priesthood, but carrying wood to the altar does not require priesthood. This, in turn, implies that the actual arrangement of the two logs, which was not excluded, does require priesthood.,The Gemara returns to the derivation presented above, where the question was raised: Why do I need the words “and Aaron’s sons shall lay out the pieces”? The conclusion was that the specification of priesthood here comes to exclude flaying and cutting up the animal, to teach that these acts may be performed by a non-priest. The Gemara now rejects this derivation: But say that this verse too is necessary for its own sake, to teach the lesson that the Gemara will shortly derive from these words (Maharsha), and one can no longer assert that the verse comes solely for the purpose of conveying the inference that other, similar acts, i.e., flaying and cutting up the animal, do not require priesthood.,Rather, this derivation must be rejected as well, and another verse must be found from which to prove that non-priests may flay and cut up the animal. The Torah states: “And the priest shall burn all of it on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9). Since this is an act following the collection of the blood, the specification of priesthood is not needed for its own sake. Therefore, for what purpose does that verse come? It comes to exclude flaying and cutting up the animal, which may be performed by a non-priest.,The Gemara reviews the lessons taught by the other verses cited above. When the Torah writes: “The priest shall bring all of it near…the altar” (Leviticus 1:13), this is referring to carrying the limbs to the ramp, and the verse comes to exclude other, similar actions, teaching that although carrying the limbs to the ramp requires priesthood, carrying wood to the altar does not require priesthood. Therefore, it is derived from here as well that the arrangement of the two logs does require priesthood, as explained above. And when the Torah writes: “The sons of Aaron shall put fire on the altar” (Leviticus 1:7), this is necessary for its own sake, to teach that this service must be done by priests.,When the Torah states: “And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall lay out the pieces, the head and the fat” (Leviticus 1:8), it comes to teach the following: “And they shall lay out,” through the use of the plural, teaches that it must be done by two priests, as the minimum number implied by a plural word is two. “The sons of Aaron,” also in plural, indicates an additional two; “the priests,” also in plural, indicates two more. We therefore learn from this verse that the sacrificial lamb requires six priests to carry its limbs to the altar. The flesh is taken by five priests, and the innards by one, as described in an earlier mishna.,Rav Hamnuna said that Rabbi Elazar posed a difficulty: This verse is written about a young bull, not a lamb; and a bull requires twenty-four priests. How, then, can this verse be used as the source that six priests are required to carry the limbs of a lamb? And he resolved the difficulty himself as follows: The same verse states: “On the wood that is on the fire upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:8), all of which apparently teaches nothing new about the sacrifice. Therefore, it is seen as an allusion to the daily offering, which was a lamb, as what is an item about which it is stated that specially prepared wood and fire on an altar must be provided, and that pre-existing wood and fire do not suffice? 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.,§ Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A non-priest who set up the arrangement of wood on the altar is liable to receive the death penalty by God’s hand for having performed an act that is restricted to priests, and the woodpile that he placed is invalid. What should he do to repair the woodpile? He should dismantle it and then rearrange it. The Gemara is surprised at this: What good would this do for the woodpile? How would it help for the non-priest himself to rearrange the wood? It would be just as invalid as it was the first time. Rather, one must say that the non-priest should dismantle it, as there is nothing wrong with a non-priest dismantling the woodpile, and a priest then rearranges it.,Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s teaching: And do you have any service that is valid if performed at night and yet is invalid if performed by a non-priest? A bona fide Temple service must be performed during the day. That the wood on the altar may be arranged while it is still nighttime shows that it is not a bona fide service, and therefore it should be permitted for non-priests to perform it.,The Gemara expresses wonder at Rabbi Zeira’s equation of the two issues: And is there really no such thing as a service that may be performed at night but which is prohibited for a non-priest to perform? Isn’t there the burning of the limbs and the fats of offerings on the altar, which continues throughout the night, and yet it was taught earlier in this chapter that a non-priest who participates in that service incurs the death penalty? The Gemara rejects this objection: The burning of sacrificial limbs and fats, though it may be done at night, is not considered a nighttime service but the end of the daytime service, as it is merely the culmination of the sacrificial service that began during the day.,The Gemara asks further: But isn’t there the removal of the ashes from the altar, which may be performed at night, and yet may not be done by a non-priest? The Gemara rejects this too: The removal of ashes is also not considered a nighttime service but the start of the daytime service. And the proof for this is that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If a priest has sanctified his hands at night by washing them for the removal of the ashes, the next day, i.e., after daybreak, he need not sanctify his hands again, as he already sanctified them at the start of the service. Rabbi Zeira’s equation between services performed at night and services that may be performed by non-priests therefore remains intact. If so, the objection that he raised to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan remains difficult.,Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement must be revised, and one must posit that when it was stated, this is how it was stated. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A non-priest who arranges the two logs on the altar is liable to receive the death penalty by God’s hand, since it is a daytime service. Rava strongly objects to this: But if that is so, if arranging the two logs is a bona fide daytime service and is prohibited to non-priests on pain of death, it should require a lottery; and yet in practice this service is not assigned by a lottery. The Gemara comments that it must have escaped Rava’s mind that which is taught explicitly in a baraita: The priest who was privileged to perform the removal of the ashes was also privileged with setting up the arrangement of wood on the altar and with placing the two logs.,Another difficulty is raised with regard to Rava’s statement: Is that to say that a daytime service requires a lottery and, conversely, a nighttime service does not require a lottery? Isn’t there the burning of the limbs and the fats on the altar, which is done at night and yet is assigned through a lottery? The Gemara responds: That is not difficult, since the burning of the limbs and the fats is the end of the daytime service, as explained above. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the removal of the ashes from the altar, which is a nighttime service and yet requires a lottery? The Gemara answers: Indeed, a lottery should not have been required for that service, but one was instituted due to the incident that occurred, when the priests came to danger, as related in the mishna.,The Gemara asks further: Is that to say that any service that is a daytime service and for which a non-priest would be liable to receive the death penalty requires a lottery, and conversely, a daytime service for which a non-priest would not be liable to receive the death penalty does not require a lottery? But isn’t there the slaughtering of the daily offering, which may be performed by a non-priest and yet requires a lottery? The Gemara rejects this point: Slaughtering is different, because it is the beginning of the service of the daily offering and is therefore considered important enough to warrant a lottery.,The Gemara asks with regard to the revised version of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: But didn’t we learn that it is not so that arranging the logs must be done during the day, as it was taught in a mishna: The appointed priest said to them: Go out and see if the time for slaughtering has arrived. The mishna does not teach that the appointee said: Go and see if the time for arranging the two logs has arrived. This shows that the logs need not be placed after daybreak but may be arranged while it is still night.,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.,And some say a different version of Rabbi Zeira’s objection: Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that a non-priest who arranged the woodpile incurs the death penalty: And do you have any service that is not complete on its own but is followed by a different service, such as the arrangement of the two logs, and yet is invalid and is punishable by death if performed by a non-priest? It was taught earlier in the chapter that a non-priest incurs the death penalty only for performing a service that is complete, i.e., a service that is not followed by other services that complete the task being performed. The Gemara expresses wonder at Rabbi Zeira’s equation of these two issues: But isn’t there the burning of the limbs and the fats? The Gemara answers: That is not difficult, because the burning of the limbs and the fats is the end of the daytime service. The Gemara asks further: But isn’t there the removal of the ashes? The Gemara rejects that argument: Removing the ashes is the start of the daytime service, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If a priest sanctified his hands at night by washing them for the removal of the ashes, the next day, i.e., after daybreak, he need not sanctify his hands again, as he already sanctified them at the start of the service. Rabbi Zeira’s equation between services that are incomplete by themselves and services for which a non-priest does not incur the death penalty therefore remains intact. If so, the question that he asked concerning Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement remains difficult.,Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement must be revised, and one must posit that when it was stated, this is how it was stated: Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A non-priest who arranges the two logs is liable to receive the death penalty, since it is a service that is complete, i.e., it is not followed and completed by a subsequent service. Although the burning of the limbs upon the altar follows the placement of the logs, that is considered to be an independent act, not the completion of the service of placing the logs. This is because the placing of the logs is done while still night, while the burning of the limbs cannot be done until daybreak.,Rava strongly objects to this: However, if that is so, the service of placing the two logs should require a lottery. The Gemara expresses surprise at Rava’s comment: And doesn’t it require a lottery? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Whoever was privileged to perform the removal of the ashes is also privileged to perform the arrangement of the two logs? There was in fact a lottery for arranging the two logs.,Rather, this is what Rava actually said: If placing the logs is considered a complete service and is therefore a task important enough to warrant the death penalty for a non-priest who performs it, they should hold a separate lottery for it by itself. The Gemara answers: It is as we said at the beginning of the chapter, that the task of placing the logs was added to the lottery for the removal of ashes as an incentive for the priests to rise before dawn (Rabbeinu Ḥananel).,Based on Rava’s comments, the Gemara asks: Is that to say that any service that is a complete service and for which a non-priest would be liable to receive the death penalty requires a lottery, but if a non-priest would not be liable to receive the death penalty it would not require a lottery? But isn’t there slaughtering, which may be performed by non-priest and yet requires a lottery? The Gemara rejects this point: Slaughtering is different, because it is the beginning of the daytime service, which gives it added importance.,The Gemara asks further on Rava’s statement: Is that to say that a service that is complete requires a lottery, whereas a service which is followed by a subsequent service that completes it does not require a lottery? But isn’t there the burning of the limbs and the fats? The Gemara answers: That is not difficult because the burning of the limbs and the fats is the end of the daytime service. The Gemara asks: Isn’t there the removal of the ashes? The Gemara answers: A lottery was established for that service only due to the incident that occurred when the priests came to danger.,As explained above, the reason Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the arrangement of the logs is a complete service, and is not considered a prelude to the burning of limbs, is because the former is a nighttime service and the latter is a daytime service. Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: We too have learned in a mishna that the arrangement of the two logs is a nighttime service. As we learned: The appointed priest said to them: Go out and see if the time for slaughtering has arrived, whereas the mishna did not teach: See whether the time for arranging the two logs has arrived. This shows that arranging the logs may be done while it is still night; it is therefore not considered to be connected to, and complemented by, the placing of the limbs the following day.,The Gemara rejects this proof: 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 performed before daybreak. It does not want to teach it with regard to something that has rectification if done at night, such as arranging the two logs, which can always be removed and replaced properly. However, it is possible that the proper time for arranging the logs is daytime, and therefore it may be regarded as a service that is completed by the subsequent burning of limbs on the altar.,,MISHNA: The appointed priest said to the other priests: Go out and observe if it is day and the time for slaughter has arrived. If the time has arrived, the observer says: There is light [barkai]. Matya ben Shmuel says that the appointed priest phrased his question differently: Is the entire eastern sky illuminated even to Hebron? And the observer says: Yes. And why did they need to ascertain whether or not it is day, which is typically evident to all? It was necessary, as once, the light of the moon rose, and they imagined that the eastern sky was illuminated with sunlight, and they slaughtered the daily offering before its appropriate time. The animal was later taken out to the place designated for burning and burned because it was slaughtered too early. In order to prevent similar errors in the future, the Sages instituted that they would carefully assess the situation until they were certain that it was day.,After the priests announced the start of the day, they led the High Priest down to the Hall of Immersion. The Gemara comments: This was the principle in the Temple: Anyone who covers his legs, a euphemism for defecating, requires immersion afterward; and anyone who urinates requires sanctification of the hands and feet with water from the basin afterward.