Parallel
יומא 25
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Don't [you agree] that this refers to those who had obtained part in the day's services by the count? — R. Shesheth said: No, it refers to those who had not obtained part in the day's service by the count. Thus also does it appear provable by logic. For, if it were to refer to those who were allotted part in the service by count, how could it be stated that they left them the breeches only; surely it has been taught: Whence do we know that nothing may be put on before the breeches? To teach us that it says: And breeches of linen shall be on his flesh. — And the other? — This is no difficulty: This is what it teaches: Whilst they still wore the common clothes, they put on the holy breeches, after that they removed the common clothes and left them with the [holy] breeches. Said R. Shesheth: Whence do I hold my view? From what has been taught: The Cell of the Hewn Stone was [built] in the style of a large basilica. The count took place in the eastern side, with the elder sitting in the west, and the priests in the form of a spiral figure. The officer came and took the mitre from the head of one of them. One would know then that the count would start from him. Now, if the thought should arise that the priests [came to the count] in common garment — is there a mitre in common dress? — Yes, there is, as Rab Judah or, as some say, R. Samuel b. Judah reported: A priest for whom his mother made a tunic, could officiate therein at an individual [not community] service. Abaye said: We can infer from this the Cell of Hewn Stone was [situated] half on holy ground, half on non-holy ground; that the Cell had two doors, one opening on holy ground, the other opening on non — holy ground. For, if the thought should arise in you that the whole of it was on holy ground — how could the elder sit to the west; has not a Master said: Nobody could sit in the Temple Court except the kings of the House of David. Furthermore, if you could think that the whole cell was outside holy ground, how could the count take place on its eastern side, is it not required: ‘In the house of God we walked with the throng’ and this would not be [the house of God]! Hence [the inference is valid]: It is half on holy ground, half on non-holy ground. And if the thought should arise in you that the Cell has but one door opening on holy ground, how could the elder sit to the west, and we have learnt: If the cells are built on non-holy ground and open on holy ground the space within them is holy. And if the thought should arise in you that it opened into unholy ground how could the count take place in the eastern part [of the Cell]; have we not learnt: If they are built on holy ground and open out on non-holy ground, their space within is non-holy, hence you must needs say: the Cell had two doors, one opening on holy ground, the other on non-holy ground. MISHNAH. THE SECOND COUNT: WHO SHOULD SLAUGHTER [THE DAILY REGULAR OFFERING], WHO SHOULD SPRINKLE THE BLOOD, WHO SHOULD REMOVE THE ASHES FROM THE INNER ALTAR, WHO SHOULD REMOVE THE ASHES FROM THE CANDLESTICK, WHO SHOULD TAKE UP TO THE RAMP THE LIMBS [OF THE OFFERING], THE HEAD AND THE [RIGHT] HIND-LEG, THE TWO FORELEGS, THE TAIL AND THE [LEFT] HIND-LEG, THE BREAST AND THE THROAT, THE TWO FLANKS, THE INWARDS, FINE FLOUR, THE CAKES AND THE WINE. ALTOGETHER THIRTEEN PRIESTS OBTAINED A TASK. BEN AZZAI SAID BEFORE R. AKIBA IN THE NAME OF JOSHUA: IT [THE DAILY OFFERING] WAS OFFERED UP IN THE WAY IT WALKS. GEMARA. The question was asked: When they take the count, do they do so for one service or for each individual task? — Come and hear: Four counts were there. Now if the thought should arise in you that there was a separate count for each task, there would be need of many counts! — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: This is what [the Mishnah] means: Four times they went in for counting, and on each occasion there were many counts.
—
Come and hear: R. Judah said: There was no count for the coal-pan, but the priest who had obtained the task of [smoking] the incense said to his assistant: Obtain with me the privilege of serving the coal-pan. — It is different with incense and coal-pan, because they form together one service. Some argue thus: This is the case only with coal-pan and incense, because they form one service, but all other tasks require individual count! — [No.] With regard to the coal-pan it is necessary to inform us [that no separate count is required] for the thought could have arisen that because it takes place rarely and enriches, therefore a special count should be arranged for it, hence we are taught [that it is not so]. Come and hear: R. Hiyya taught: There was no count for each individual task, the priest who secured the task of [the killing of] the daily burnt-offering drew twelve priests to himself [for the tasks involved]. This proves it. THE SECOND COUNT: The question was asked: Who receives the blood? [Do we say that] he who killed? For if you were to say that the one who sprinkles the blood receives it, perhaps in his enthusiasm he may not receive the whole blood; or does the sprinkler receive it, for if you were to say that he who kills the animal receives the blood, occasionally a non-priest kills [the animal]? — Come and hear: Ben Katin made twelve spigots for the laver so that his twelve brethren, the priests, who are occupied with the daily regular sacrifice, may simultaneously wash their hands and feet. Now, if you were to think that he who kills [the animal] also receives its blood there would be thirteen. Must we not therefore infer therefrom that he who sprinkles receives the blood? This proves it. R. Aha, the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: We have also learnt thus: He whose lot it was to slaughter it, slaughtered it; he whose lot it was to receive the blood, received it — and then he came to sprinkle it. This proves it. BEN ‘AZZAI SAID BEFORE R. AKIBA, etc.: Our Rabbis taught: What is ‘THE WAY OF ITS WALKING’? The head, right hind-leg, breast and neck, the two fore-legs, the two flanks, the tail and the left hind-leg. R. Jose says: It was offered up in the order in which it is flayed. Which is the order of its being flayed? The head, the right hind-leg, the tail, the left hind-leg, the two flanks, the two fore-legs, the breast, and the neck. R. Akiba says: It was offered up in the order in which it was dissected. Which is the order of the dissection? The head, the right hind-leg, the two forelegs, the breast and the neck, the two flanks, the tail and the left hind-leg. R. Jose the Galilean says: It was offered up in the order of its best parts. Which is the order of its best parts? The head, the [right] hind-leg, the breast and neck, the two flanks, the tail and the [left] hind-leg and the two fore-legs. But is it not written: Even every good piece, the thigh and the shoulder? — That refers to a lean animal: Raba said: Both our Tanna and R. Jose the Galilean follow the order of quality of the meat, but one takes into consideration the size [of the limbs], the other the fatness. Why does the head go together with the [right] hind-leg? Because the head has many bones; one attaches the [meaty] hindleg to it. All agree at any rate that the head is offered up first. Whence do we derive this rule? Because it has been taught: Whence do we know that the head and the suet come before all other parts [of the animal]? To teach us that, it says: He shall lay it in order with its head and its suet. And as to the other ‘suet’,16
—