יומא 27 — parallel

27:1

But that passage is required for its own information? — R. Shimi b. Ashi said: I found Abaye explaining it to his son: [It was taught]: ‘One shall kill,’ hence we infer that even a non-priest may kill [the sacrificial animal]. But whence are you coming? — Because Scripture says: And thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priesthood, [in everything that pertaineth to the altar]. I might have learned that even the killing [must be done by priests alone], therefore it is written: And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord,’ and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood, i.e., the work of the priesthood is commanded only from the receiving [‘presenting’] of the blood and so on. And he shall lay his hand . . . and he shall kill, hence we are taught that the killing [of the sacrificial animal] is permissible even to a non-priest. Now, [Abaye went on explaining to his son] since the work obligatory on the priests starts only with the receiving of the blood, what is the purpose of: And the sons of Aaron . . . shall put the fire? To exclude flaying and dismembering. But still that was necessary. For one might have thought since [the putting on of the fire] is not a kind of service, the omission of which prevents atonement, it did not require priesthood, hence we are taught [from this passage] that it requires priesthood? — Rather do we infer it from here: And Aaron's sons, the priests, shall lay it, order the pieces, and the head, and the suet. Now, since the work obligatory upon priests starts with the receiving of the blood, why was the passage: ‘And they shall lay in order’ [etc.] necessary? It meant to exclude the flaying and the dismemberment. But say perhaps that it means to exclude the arranging of the two logs of wood? — It seems logical that the passage excludes [a service relating to the sacrifice itself] which is of the type referred to. On the contrary: [it seems logical that] it excludes the ‘putting in order’ of [wood], which is analogous [to the ‘laying in order’ of the pieces referred to]. This thought should not arise in your mind, for a Master taught: ‘And the priest shall offer the whole . . . upon the altar.’ This refers to the bringing up of the limbs to the ramp. Now only the bringing of the limbs to the ramp requires a priest, but not the bringing of the logs of wood, implying that the putting in order of the two logs of wood requires a priest. Why, then, is it necessary to state ‘And they [the priests] shall lay [the pieces] in order’? to exclude flaying and dismembering. But say, perhaps, that this text is necessary for its own meaning? --[In reality so.] What then is the purpose of [the passage], ‘And the priest shall make the whole smoke upon the altar’? To exclude flaying and dismembering. [So that] ‘And the priest shall offer the whole’ refers to the bringing up of the limbs to the ramp; only the bringing up of the limbs to the ramp requires a priest, but not the bringing of the two logs of wood to the ramp. Implying that the putting in order of the two logs of wood that does require the services of a priest and the words: ‘And they shall put’ have immediate text meaning; the words ‘And they shall lay in order [the pieces]’ indicate it must be two; the words: ‘The sons of Aaron’ also indicate two; the words: ‘The priests’ also indicate two, together we learn from them that the [offering up of the] lamb requires the services of six priests. R. Hamnuna said: To R. Eleazar it seems difficult, for this passage refers to the young bullock, the service in connection with which required twenty-four priests! But he found it right again , for Scripture says: Upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar ; now what thing is it in connection with which ‘wood’, ‘fire’ and ‘altar’ are mentioned?

—

27:2

Say it is the lamb. R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: A non-priest who laid the pile of wood in order [on the altar] incurs the penalty [of death]. What should he do [post facto]? — Let him break it up and then put it in order again. What is the good of that? — Rather: Let the non-priest break it up again and let a priest put it in order afterwards. R. Ze'ira demurred to this: But is there not a service which may be performed also at night and which a non-priest would render invalid? Surely, there is the smoking of the limbs and the fat-pieces. That is but the conclusion of the service of the day. But there is the removing of the ashes? That is the beginning of the work of the day, as R. Assi has reported in the name of R. Johanan: If he has sanctified his hands [by washing] in the morning for the removal of the ashes, he need not sanctify [them] on the morrow, for he has already sanctified them from the beginning of the service. But the difficulty remains! If this statement was made, it was stated thus: R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: A non-priest who laid the two logs of wood in order incurs the penalty [of death] because this is a day service. Raba demurred to this: If so, a count should be required for it! — It escaped him what had been taught: He who secured the task of clearing the ashes off the altar, [thereby also] secured the task of putting in order the pile of wood and the two logs of wood. Shall we, then, say that only service performed during the day requires the count but service performed during the night does not require the count? Surely there is the [smoking of the] members and the fat-pieces? — That is the end of the service of the day. But there is the removal of the ashes? — That is due to a certain event. Shall we say that only for service performed during the day and for participation in which a non-priest incurs the penalty of death, a count is required, but that wherever a non-priest does not incur penalty of death for performance of a service, no count is required? But then what of the killing [of the animal]? — It is different with the killing because that is the beginning of the service. Mar Zutra or R. Ashi said: But we have learned otherwise: The officer said to them: Go forth and see if the time for the killing [of the continual morning sacrifice] has arrived, but he is not teaching about the laying in order of the two logs of wood? It speaks only of such things as cannot be remedied again, but not such for which there is a remedy. Some say this is what R. Ze'ira asked: Is there any service followed by another service, which would be invalidated if performed by a non-priest?13

—