יומא 26:2 — Soncino English Talmud

he is in accord with neither R. Eliezer b. Jacob, nor with R. Judah. MISHNAH. THE CONTlnual OFFERING WAS OFFERED UP BY NINE, TEN, ELEVEN OR TWELVE [PRIESTS], NEITHER BY MORE [THAN TWELVE], NOR BY LESS [THAN NINE]. HOW THAT? [THE OFFERING] ITSELF [WAS BROUGHT] UP BY NINE; AT THE FEAST [OF SUKKOTH] WHEN ONE CARRIED A BOTTLE OF WATER, THERE WERE TEN. AT DUSK BY ELEVEN: [THE OFFERING] ITSELF BY NINE AND TWO MEN WHO CARRIED TWO LOGS OF WOOD. ON THE SABBATH BY ELEVEN: [THE OFFERING] ITSELF BY NINE WITH TWO MEN HOLDING IN THEIR HAND THE TWO CENSERS OF FRANKINCENSE FOR THE SHEWBREAD. AND ON THE SABBATH WHICH FELL DURING THE FEAST OF SUKKOTH ONE MAN CARRIED IN HIS HAND A BOTTLE OF WATER. GEMARA. R. Abba, or as some say Rami b. Hama or again as some say R. Johanan, said: The water libation on the Feast of Sukkoth is offered up only at the continual sacrifice of the morning. Whence is this to be inferred? Because [the Mishnah] teaches: AND ON THE SABBATH WHICH FELL DURING THE FEAST OF SUKKOTH ONE MAN CARRIED IN HIS HAND A BOTTLE OF WATER. Now if the thought could arise in you that [also] at the continual offering at dusk is the water of libation offered up, then it would also happen during the weekday. R. Ashi said: We also have learned thus: One said to the priest offering the libation: Hold your hands up! For it happened once that he poured it upon his feet and all the people stoned him with their citrons. This proves it. It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: Whence do we know that at the continual offering of dusk two logs of wood were to be brought up by two priests? Because it is said: And [the sons of Aaron the priest shall] lay wood in order upon the fire. If it has no bearing on the morning sacrifice because it is written: And the priest shall kindle wood on it every morning, and he shall lay the burnt-offering in order upon it, make it bear on the dusk sacrifice! — But perhaps, say: Both refer to the morning sacrifice, the Divine Law enjoining: Do it! And do it! again. — If that [were intended] the Divine Law should have said: ‘And he shall kindle wood.’ ‘And he shall kindle wood.’ But if the Divine Law had stated: ‘And he shall kindle [wood]’ I would have assumed it may be done by one only, not by two, therefore we are taught that both one and two shall do so? — If that were intended the Divine Law should have stated: ‘He shall kindle [wood]’ . . . and ‘they shall kindle wood,’ or ‘He shall lay [wood] in order’ and ‘they shall lay [wood] in order.’ Why the words ‘He shall kindle’ and ‘They shall lay in order’? That we infer from it as we have said above. R. Hiyya taught: The [second] count at times [affects] thirteen priests, at times fourteen, fifteen, or sixteen. But has it not been taught: [At times] seventeen? — That teaching is in accord not with R. Eliezer b. Jacob, but with R. Judah. M I S H N A H. A RAM WAS OFFERED BY ELEVEN: THE FLESH BY FIVE, THE INWARDS, THE FINE FLOUR, AND THE WINE BY TWO EACH. A BULLOCK WAS OFFERED BY TWENTY-FOUR: THE HEAD AND [RIGHT] HIND-LEG — THE HEAD BY ONE AND THE [RIGHT] HIND-LEG BY TWO [PRIESTS]. THE TAIL AND [LEFT] HIND-LEG — THE TAIL BY TWO AND THE [LEFT] HIND-LEG BY TWO. THE BREAST AND NECK — THE BREAST BY ONE AND THE NECK BY THREE. THE TWO FORE-LEGS BY TWO, THE TWO FLANKS BY TWO. THE INWARDS, THE FINE FLOUR, AND THE WINE BY THREE EACH. THIS APPLIES ONLY TO OFFERINGS OF THE COMMUNITY. IN PRIVATE OFFERINGS, HOWEVER, IF A SINGLE PRIEST WANTS TO OFFER [ALL], HE MAY DO SO. BUT AS TO THE FLAYING AND DISMEMBERING OF BOTH COMMUNAL, AND PRIVATE OFFERINGS THE SAME REGULATIONS APPLY. GEMARA. A Tanna taught: The law regarding the flaying and the dismembering is alike in both [communal and private sacrifices] in that they may be done by a non-priest. Hezekiah said: Whence do we know that the law regarding flaying and dismembering is alike [with all sacrifices] in that they may be done by a non-priest? Because it is written: And the sons of Aaron the high priest shall put fire upon the altar, i.e., priesthood is required for the putting of the fire upon the altar, but not for the flaying and dismembering.^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^ᵃᵉ

^ᵃnote:Beginning with the taking up of the limbs to the ramp.
^ᵇnote:In the same manner in which the parts of the sacrificial animal were brought up to the ramp, so were they thence carried to the altar, thus six priests were required to carry the lamb's parts, and three to convey the flour and wine-offerings to the altar.
^ᶜnote:For the water libation, v. Suk. 48a.
^ᵈnote:Strictly speaking ‘in the afternoon’.
^ᵉnote:They were added to the pile of wood on the altar.
^ᶠnote:Lev. XXIV, 7-8: And thou shalt put pure frankincense with each row, that it may be to the bread for a memorial-part, even all offering made by the fire unto the Lord. Every Sabbath day he shall set it before the Lord continually, it is from the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant.
^ᵍnote:The report came in the name of these three, without preponderance of evidence as to the real author.
^ʰnote:The Mishnah states that only on the Sabbath of the Feast of Sukkoth was the continual offering offered up by twelve priests. But if the water libation were offered up in connection with the continual dusk offering too, twelve priests would then too be necessary: nine for the lamb itself, two for the logs of wood, one for the bottle of water.
^ⁱnote:So that on a week-day too, twelve priests would be required for the offering, which contradicts the Mishnah.
^ʲnote:V. Suk. 48b.
^ᵏnote:The Sadducees rejected the water libation, hence, when in charge, they would invalidate the ceremony. The people observant of such sabotage, punished the hypocrite by pelting him with their citrons (ethrog). But these citrons were used only at the morning prayer. The Mishnah in Sukkoth mentions the citrons to indicate that the libation of the water took place only at the time citrons were part of the service, i.e., in the morning. The first proof was textual, the second factual.
^ˡnote:Lev. I, 7.
^ᵐnote:Ibid. VI, 5.
^ⁿnote:Hence there would be no repetition and the inference as to the dusk sacrifice would be invalid.
^ᵒnote:In both instances why the change of expression? That has definite significance.
^ᵖnote:The double form, singular and plural, was thus necessary.
^ᵠnote:For the water libation, v. Suk. 48a.
^ʳnote:In the same manner in which the parts of the sacrificial animal were brought up to the ramp, so were they thence carried to the altar, thus six priests were required to carry the lamb's parts, and three to convey the flour and wine-offerings, to the altar.
^ˢnote:But what it is meant to convey, could have been conveyed without change of phrase.
^ᵗnote:V. Mishnah supra 25a.
^ᵘnote:On the Sukkoth Festival; on the Sabbath; and on the Sabbath of the Sukkoth Festival, respectively.
^ᵛnote:[On Sabbath of Sukkoth, cf. Rashi and MS. M. Tosaf. however refers this to ordinary days omitting the words ‘at times’. The number 17 can only be arrived at by adding to the 13 priests an additional four: (1) for removal of ashes; (2) for bringing up the limbs from the ramp to the altar; (3) for smoking the incense; (4) for bringing the coal-pan. This would not be in accordance with R. Eliezer b. Jacob; v. R. Hananel's reacting in next note.]
^ʷnote:Who as stated supra 26a requests an extra priest for carrying the limbs from the ramp to the altar. Rabbenu Hananel (v. p. 123, n. 11) reads: Neither with R. Eliezer b. Jacob, nor with R. Judah. For R. Judah holds there was no count for the coal-pan, the priest who had secured the task of the incense inviting his assistant to share the function of the coal-pan. Nor with R. Eliezer b. Jacob, who omits the count of the function of the limbs being brought to the altar from the ramp; according to him the priest who carried them up to the ramp, also brought them thence to the altar. V. Rashi, Tosaf. and ohbah ,ux’.
^ˣnote:The lamb for the continual offering must not be older than one year. The ram could be between one and two years of age, hence its inwards were much heavier.
^ʸnote:The wine-offering with the ram was heavier by one fourth, the flour-offering was twice as heavy as that of the lamb.
^ᶻnote:Lit., ‘as far as head and hind-leg are concerned’, which usually were offered by one person here etc.
^ᵃᵃnote:Num. XV, 9.
^ᵃᵇnote:Ibid. 10.
^ᵃᶜnote:Of the division ministering that week, whom the owner of the sacrifice entrusted with the task.
^ᵃᵈnote:Non-priests, too, might either flay or dissect the sacrifices. Hence there were no counts for them. The sacrifices of the community, however, although even they could be slaughtered by non-priests, were welcome to, and sought after by priests, whence the necessity of a count in connection with them.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lev. I, 7.