יומא 24 — Soncino English Talmud

¹It includes worn-out garments. And he shall leave them there, that teaches that they must be hidden away. R. Dosa says: They are fit for use by a common priest. What does ‘And he shall leave them there’ intimate? That he [the high priest] must not use them on another Day of Atonement. Now would you not say that this is the subject of their dispute: that one holds it [the removal of the ashes] to be a service and the other does not consider it such? — No. Everybody agrees it is a service; the point of dispute here is this: One says another scriptural passage is necessary to include also for this service [the four garments]; the other: no such passage is necessary. R. Abin asked: How much of the ashes of the altar is to be removed? Shall we infer [the quantity] from the taking off of the tithe, or from what was taken off from the [spoil of] Midian? — Come and hear: For R. Hiyya taught: Here the word ‘herim’ [‘he shall take up’] is used and there the expression ‘we-herim’ [‘and he shall take up’] is used. Just as in the latter case it means taking a handful, so in the former case it means taking a handful. Rab said: There are four services for the performance of which a non-priest [stranger] incurs penalty of death: sprinkling, smoking [the fat], the water libation, and the libation of wine. Levi says: also the removal of the ashes. Thus did Levi also teach us in his Baraitha: Also the removal of the ashes. What is the reason for Rab's view? It is written: And thou and thy sons with thee shall keep the priesthood in everything that pertaineth to the altar, and to that within the veil; and ye shall serve; I give you the priesthood as a service of gift; and the common man that draweth nigh shall be put to death. ‘A service of gift’, but not a service of removal; ‘and you shall serve, i.e., a complete service, not a service followed by another. And Levi? — The Divine Law included it in saying: ‘In every thing that pertaineth to the altar.’ And Rab? — That is meant to include the seven sprinklings within, and those concerning the leper. And Levi? — He infers [these] from [the fact that instead of] ‘the thing’, [is written] ‘every thing’, [that pertaineth]. And Rab? — He does not infer aught from ‘every thing’. But say this: ‘In everything that pertaineth to the altar’ is a general proposition; ‘service of gift’ is a specification. Now: if a general proposition is followed by a specification, the scope of the proposition is limited by the specification, hence the ‘service of gift’ would be included, but a service of removal would be excluded? — The scriptural text reads:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ

^ᵃnote:They may be worn for any service as long as they are wearable, i.e., whole.
^ᵇnote:Lev. XVI, 23. With reference to the garments worn by the high priest on the Day of Atonement.
^ᶜnote:This is the end of the Baraitha, 46a.
^ᵈnote:R. Judah.
^ᵉnote:And therefore it requires for it all the four garments.
^ᶠnote:R. Dosa.
^ᵍnote:And therefore holds that the linen tunic and breeches are sufficient without the mitre and girdle.
^ʰnote:Lest one assume that the verse is to be taken literally, that only two garments are required, hence that this is no service proper.
^ⁱnote:Since Scripture insists on the tunic and breeches it is evidently considered a service, requiring all the four garments.
^ʲnote:Num. XVIII, 25, where about one per cent is taken off.
^ᵏnote:Ibid. XXXI, 28-40, where it is but one-fifth of one per cent.
^ˡnote:Lev. VI, 3.
^ᵐnote:Ibid. 8.
^ⁿnote:[It is not inferred either from tithe or from the spoil of Midian, but from the handful taken by the priest. This however applies only to the minimum, which may however be exceeded at will (Rashi).]
^ᵒnote:Zeb.112b .
^ᵖnote:Although the common man is forbidden to perform any service in the sanctuary, he does not incur the penalty of death in any but the following cases.
^ᵠnote:Or ‘the handful of the meal-offering’.
^ʳnote:Num. XVIII, 7.
^ˢnote:E.g., the removal of the ashes.
^ᵗnote:The Hebrew word o,scg is divided into vn, ,sucg so as to read: perfect service, i.e., one complete, without additional functions such as the four services mentioned by Rab. This excludes a service such as slaughtering which is not complete without the rites connected with the sprinkling of the blood that follow it.
^ᵘnote:Rab's inferences excluding the removal of the ashes seem to be right?
^ᵛnote:The removal of the ashes for the performance of which a non-priest incurs penalty of death.
^ʷnote:Everything that pertaineth obviously includes something else. Unless some other service is intended, Levi proves his case.
^ˣnote:Lev. IV, 6: And sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord; ibid. 17. also ibid. XVI, 14.
^ʸnote:Lev. XIV, 51: And he shall take the cedar-wood . . . and sprinkle the house seven times, which may not be considered as part of ‘the altar’ service; the same applies to the functions referred to in the preceding note.
^ᶻnote:Whence does he infer these?
^ᵃᵃnote:What does ‘everything’ suggest to him.
^ᵃᵇnote:Lit., ‘he does not expound the thing" as everything".’
^ᵃᶜnote:Already comprehended in the general proposition.
^ᵃᵈnote:This is one of the principles of hermeneutics (kelal u-ferat) according to R. Ishmael, v. Shebu., Sonc. ed., p. 12, n. 9.

²‘And to that within the veil . . . and you shall serve’, [i.e.] Only within the veil is ‘the service of gift’ [included] but not the ‘service of removal away’, but outside [the Temple] even a ‘service of removal’ [is included]. But [one could] similarly [argue with regard to the exposition of] ‘you shall serve’ only within the veil, is a complete service [included] but not one service which is followed by another service, but outside, even a service followed by another [is also included]? — [Scripture, by saying] ‘And ye shall serve’ has reconnected them. Raba asked: What is the law regarding [a service of] removal within the Temple? Do we compare it with [a service of removal] within [the veil] or with [one] outside [the Temple]? Then he answered the question himself: It is to be compared to [a removal service] within [the veil]. [For Scripture instead of] ‘within’ [says:] ‘And to that within [the veil]’. But then should the common man who arranged the [shewbread] table be guilty? — There is the arrangement of the censer of frankincense. — Then if he arranges the censers let him incur the penalty! — There is the removal of the censers and the smoking of the incense. Let the common man who put the candlestick in order incur the penalty! — That is to be followed by the putting in of the wick. Then if he put the wick in let him incur that penalty! — There is the adding of the oil. Then if he puts the oil in let him incur that penalty? There is the lighting. Then if he lights it let him incur that penalty! — Lighting is not considered a service. Is it, indeed, not [considered a service]? But it has been taught: And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay wood in order upon the fire — this teaches that the kindling of the wood of the fig-tree must be performed by a priest who is fit [for service] and with garments of ministration. The kindling of the fig-wood is considered service, but not the lighting of the candlestick. Then let the common man who puts the pile of wood [on the altar] in order, incur that penalty! — There is the arrangement of the two logs of wood. — Then if he arranged the two logs of wood, let him incur that penalty? — It is followed by the arranging of the limbs. But R. Assi had said in the name of R. Johanan: A common man who arranged the two logs of wood incurred the penalty of death? — In this indeed there is division of opinion, one holding [the arrangement of the two logs of wood] is a complete service, the other holding that it is not a complete service. There is a teaching in accord with Rab, and there is a teaching in accord with Levi. ‘There is the teaching in accord with Rab’: These are the services for the performance of which a common man incurs penalty of death: the sprinkling of the blood, both within [the Temple] and within the Holy of Holies: and he who sprinkles the blood of a bird offered as a sin-offering; and he who wrings out the blood, and who smokes the bird offered up as a burnt-offering; and he who makes the libation of three logs of water or of wine. ‘There is a teaching in accord with Levi’: The services for the performance of which a common man incurs penalty of death are: the removal of the ashes, the seven sprinklings within [the Holy of Holies] and he who offers up on the altar a sacrifice whether fit or unfit. THERE WERE FOUR COUNTS etc. Why do they decide by count? [You ask,] ‘Why?’ As we have explained. Rather: Why did they decide by count once and again? — R. Johanan said: To stir up the whole Temple Court, as it is said: We took sweet counsel together, in the house of God we walked be-ragesh [with tumult]. What garments do they wear when taking the count? R. Nahman said: Common garments, R. Shesheth said: Sacred garments. ‘R. Nahman said: Common garments’. For if you were to say these garments were sacred there would be violent men who would serve by force. ‘R. Shesheth said: Sacred garments’. For if you were to say common garments, it would happen that, out of sheer love [of the service] they would perform it in common clothes. R. Nahman said: On what ground do I hold my view? Because we have learnt: They delivered them to the Temple sextons, who stripped them of their garments and left them with their breeches only.32^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ

^ᵃᵉnote:These words separate the general proposition from the specification, and thus sever the connection with them and render any inference as from one to the other invalid.
^ᵃᶠnote:[E.g.. the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of incense in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, v. Lev. XVI, 13-14.]
^ᵃᵍnote:E.g.. the taking out of the censer on the Day of Atonement from the Holy of Holies.
^ᵃʰnote:[E.g.. the removal of the ashes.]
^ᵃⁱnote:In the services for his performance of which a non-priest incurs the penalty of death.
^ᵃʲnote:[E.g.. the putting of incense on the fire in the Holy of Holies.]
^ᵃᵏnote:E.g., the bringing in of the spoon and the censer in the Holy of Holies which must be followed by the burning of the incense.
^ᵃˡnote:E.g., the removal of the ashes.
^ᵃᵐnote:[The waw of o,scg connects the general statement and particularization as far as the deduction made from the word itself is concerned, but it does not affect the exposition based as ‘a service of gift’ which is still governed by the words ‘within the veil’.]
^ᵃⁿnote:E.g., the removal of the ashes of the golden altar and candlestick.
^ᵃᵒnote:According to Rab there is no difference between service within the veil or outside: a common man becomes guilty of death only if he performs a service of gift, not of removal. But according to Levi he becomes guilty also in case of a service of removal. Hence Raba's question addresses itself to Levi: Do we compare it to the service within the veil, so that the common man performing it would not incur penalty of death, or to service without, when he would incur it?
^ᵃᵖnote:The letter ‘waw is superfluous. It includes also the Temple, hence in case of a gift service, he would incur that penalty there too, and with a removal service he would be exempt as within the veil.
^ᵃᵠnote:If a common man who performs in the Temple a Service of gift incurs the penalty of death.
^ᵃʳnote:After the shewbread is arranged. V. Lev. XXIV, 7. Hence the former is not a complete service, for the performance of which a commoner incurs the penalty of death.
^ᵃˢnote:Assuming this to be a ‘complete’ service, not followed by anything else.
^ᵃᵗnote:On the following Sabbath, which forms a completion of this service. V. ibid, 8.
^ᵃᵘnote:Infra 45a.
^ᵃᵛnote:Lev. I, 7.
^ᵃʷnote:Used as kindling wood on the altar, V. Tam. II, 4.
^ᵃˣnote:Hence it is considered a proper service and the commoner performing it should incur the penalty.
^ᵃʸnote:v. infra, 33a.
^ᵃᶻnote:Of the Daily continual offering.
^ᵇᵃnote:Between Rab who limits the liability to the four he enumerates and R. Johanan who includes the arrangement of the two logs of wood.
^ᵇᵇnote:V. Lev. V, 9.
^ᵇᶜnote:V. Ibid. I, 15.
^ᵇᵈnote:Suk. 48a.
^ᵇᵉnote:The text here is corrected in accordance with Bah.
^ᵇᶠnote:The Mishnah speaks of four counts.
^ᵇᵍnote:Ps. LV, 15. The word, adrc, usually translated as ‘multitude’ is here connected with adr, meaning ‘to stir up’, thus, ‘enthusiasm’, ‘love’.
^ᵇʰnote:Even without having been chosen by count, his being fitly dressed encouraging such forwardness.
^ᵇⁱnote:If the lot fell on them.
^ᵇʲnote:Tam. V, 3.