It 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:ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈ