We are studying Yoma 26b. This study is dedicated anonymously to couples who are trying to have children. Amen. Today’s page is being studied for the recovery of Miriam bat Malka. Amen.
We are at the bottom of the page, beginning with the passage we read yesterday. The Gemara is discussing the disagreement between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish regarding whether the removal of the ashes from the altar is considered a Temple service. Rabbi Yohanan says that everyone agrees that this is a service, while Reish Lakish says that even this point is subject to disagreement; not everyone agrees that the removal of the ashes is a service. We suggested that this disagreement may correspond to a disagreement among the Tannaim as well.
The verse states: “And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and the linen trousers shall he put on his flesh.” The Gemara asks: What does the additional word “put on” come to teach? It appears to be redundant. The Gemara answers that it comes to include the two garments that the Torah did not explicitly mention: the belt and the head covering.
That is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. He understands the additional word as teaching that the ordinary priest must wear all four garments when performing this service. Rabbi Dosa, however, understands the verse differently. In his view, the additional word does not come to add two garments. Rather, it teaches that the four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur may be worn by an ordinary priest during the rest of the year.
Let us first understand the disagreement itself, and afterward we will return to the question of how it relates to the disagreement between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish.
Rabbi Dosa’s position is challenged by Rabbi. Rabbi says that he does not accept Rabbi Dosa’s ruling that an ordinary priest may wear the High Priest’s garments during the year. He gives two reasons. First, the belts are different. The belt of the High Priest on Yom Kippur is made entirely of linen, whereas the belt of the ordinary priest contains wool and linen. Since they are different garments, how can one say that the High Priest’s garments may be given to an ordinary priest?
Second, the garments of the High Priest are used for a more stringent service. The High Priest wears them in the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. How could those garments be downgraded, so to speak, from the sanctity of the High Priest to the lesser sanctity of an ordinary priest? The High Priest performs the service in a place of greater sanctity, while the ordinary priest does not enter the Holy of Holies. These are Rabbi’s two objections.
Rabbi must therefore explain the word “put on.” He says that it teaches that a priest may wear worn garments, provided that they are not torn and remain intact. The verse is speaking about the condition of the garments, not about adding two garments or allowing an ordinary priest to wear the High Priest’s garments.
The Gemara then discusses the verse that says that after the High Priest removes the garments worn on Yom Kippur, he places them there. If one follows the view that the garments must be placed in storage, this suggests that they may not be used again. What will Rabbi Dosa do with this verse? Rabbi Dosa answers that the High Priest may not wear those garments again on the following Yom Kippur. However, if an ordinary priest wishes to wear them during the year, he may do so. Thus, according to Rabbi Dosa, the garments are not necessarily placed in permanent storage; they simply may not be reused by the High Priest for the Yom Kippur service.
We therefore have two disagreements: how to interpret the word “put on,” and how to interpret the instruction to place the garments there. These disagreements also relate to the status of the belt worn by the ordinary priest throughout the year.
Now we return to the issue that brought us to this discussion: Is the removal of the ashes a service or not? The Gemara suggests that perhaps the disagreement between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Dosa is based on that very question. Rabbi Yehudah holds that the removal of the ashes is a service. Therefore, he interprets “put on” as teaching that the priest must wear two additional garments, since a priest performing a service must wear all four garments.
Rabbi Dosa, on the other hand, does not derive the additional garments from that word. He uses the word for a different teaching. Perhaps this is because he does not consider the removal of the ashes to be a service.
The Gemara rejects this proof. It is not necessarily true that Rabbi Dosa disputes the status of the removal of the ashes. Everyone may agree that it is a service and that the priest must wear all four garments. The only disagreement may be whether a special derivation is needed to teach that the additional two garments must be worn.
Rabbi Yehudah says that a special derivation is necessary. Since the verse specifically mentions only the linen garment and the linen trousers, the additional word teaches that the belt and head covering must also be worn. Rabbi Dosa says that no special derivation is needed. Once the Torah requires a priest to perform a service, it is obvious that he must wear the priestly garments. It is all or nothing: if he is wearing the priestly garments, he wears all four; if he is not wearing them, he cannot perform the service. Therefore, the word “put on” can be used for another teaching.
We also noted that Rabbi uses the word for a different teaching, namely that worn but intact garments may be used. The Gemara focuses on Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Dosa because that is the direct disagreement among the Tannaim, although technically Rabbi’s interpretation also enters the discussion.
The Gemara now raises another question through Rabbi Abin: How much of the ashes must be removed from the altar? There were ashes on the altar every day, and we need to know the required amount.
The Gemara first considers whether the measure should be derived from the portion given to the priest from the tithes. When a Levite receives his tithe, he must give a portion to the priest. That portion is one tenth. Since the Torah calls it a contribution, perhaps the removal of the ashes should also be one tenth.
Alternatively, perhaps the measure should be derived from the contribution taken from the spoils of Midian. The soldiers kept the spoils, but they had to give a contribution to the priests. There the contribution was one five-hundredth. The question is therefore whether the measure should be one tenth, like the contribution from the tithe, or one five-hundredth, like the contribution from the spoils of Midian.
The Gemara rejects both possibilities and offers a third source. It says that the same expression used for the removal of the ashes is also used regarding the handful taken from a meal offering. That handful is called a kometz. Perhaps the measure of the removal of the ashes is therefore a handful.
Of course, the priest does not literally place his hand into burning ashes and remove a handful. He uses a shovel. The comparison would mean that he should remove approximately the amount that constitutes a handful. This may be why the Gemara did not initially choose this source: the removal of the ashes is not literally performed with the hand in the same manner as the handful of a meal offering. Nevertheless, the matching expression provides a stronger connection.
Someone asked whether all the ashes on the altar had to be removed. No. That was a separate procedure called the removal of the ashes from the altar when the altar became full. Several times a year, when the mound of ashes became too large, they removed all of it. The discussion here concerns the regular daily procedure. Each day, only a small amount was removed and placed beside the altar. It was not general maintenance, nor was it done because the altar was logically in need of cleaning. It was done because the Torah commanded the procedure.
The measure of a handful in this context is also not exact in the same way as the handful taken from a meal offering. With a meal offering, the priest can form a precise handful. Here, the priest uses a shovel, so he takes an amount corresponding approximately to a handful. It would be impossible to measure it with complete precision.
The Gemara could also have considered other contributions, such as the large contribution, which is assigned a small percentage. But it does not choose those sources. Regarding the contribution from the tithe, the ten percent is calculated from what the Levite received, not from the entire agricultural production. The question is not ten percent of the original produce; it is ten percent of the tithe that came into the Levite’s possession.
The Gemara then begins a new discussion. It derives from the verse that a non-priest who performs a service that is designated for priests in the Temple is liable to death by Heaven. The Gemara must determine which services are included.
Several distinctions are necessary. First, in which area of the Temple does the rule apply? There are three relevant areas: the Holy of Holies, the Sanctuary, and the courtyard. Second, which actions are considered services? Some actions are services but are not the final service in a process. For example, receiving the blood of a sacrifice and bringing it toward the altar are services, but the sprinkling of the blood still follows. The sprinkling is considered the completed service.
Rav says that there are four services for which a non-priest is liable to death. They are the sprinkling of the blood, the burning of the handful of a meal offering, the burning of the limbs of a sacrifice, the pouring of the water on Sukkot, and the pouring of the wine that accompanies sacrifices. The wording gives several examples within the category of burning, but the essential point is that these are services of placing something on the altar and completing the process.
Levi adds the removal of the ashes to the list. This is taught in a tradition attributed to Levi.
To understand the discussion, we must examine the key verse. It says: “You and your sons with you shall safeguard your priesthood for every matter of the altar and for what is inside the curtain, and you shall perform the service. I have given your priesthood as a service of gift.” The verse contains several expressions that may teach us where the service is performed and what type of service is included.
The phrase “a service of gift” refers to a service of placing or giving something. It does not refer to a service of removal. According to Rav, this is why the removal of the ashes is excluded. The four services he listed are all services of placing something: sprinkling the blood, burning the relevant materials, and pouring the wine or water. The removal of the ashes, although it is a service, is a service of removal rather than a service of giving.
The verse also contains the phrase “for every matter of the altar.” Levi derives from the word “every” that even a service of removal may be included, provided that it is a completed service. The removal of the ashes is a completed service because, with respect to that procedure, nothing further is required. Thus, Levi holds that the removal of the ashes is a service of removal, but it is still a completed service, and it is therefore included.
Rashi explains that a completed service is not merely an action that has ended in the narrow sense. It must either complete the object or complete the service. Receiving the blood is completed as an act of receiving, but it does not complete the blood service, because the blood must still be carried and sprinkled. The handful of a meal offering, once placed on the altar, completes that service. The same is true of the wine libation and the water libation.
In contrast, arranging the handful on the way to the altar is not the completed service. It is part of the process leading to the placement on the altar. The same distinction applies to the blood: the receiving and carrying are stages in the blood service, but the service is completed when the blood is applied.
Levi’s derivation therefore adds a service of removal that is also a completed service, such as the removal of the ashes. Rav does not accept this inclusion. Rav understands “every matter of the altar” as including other services that take place inside the Sanctuary, even though they are not performed on the altar. These include the seven sprinklings of the inner sin offerings, such as the offerings brought for an unknown communal sin, for the anointed priest, and on Yom Kippur. The blood is brought into the Sanctuary and sprinkled toward the curtain.
The same principle applies to the sprinkling performed for the person afflicted with the skin condition: the blood and oil are applied inside the Sanctuary. Although these actions are not performed on the altar itself, Rav understands “every matter of the altar” as expanding the rule to include them.
Levi also includes these sprinklings, but he derives them from the word “matter” rather than from the word “every.” Both Rav and Levi therefore ultimately include services performed inside the Sanctuary. Their disagreement at this stage concerns whether the derivation also includes a service of removal.
The Gemara then examines the apparent grammatical structure of the verse. It seems to say: “For every matter of the altar—a service of gift.” That could be understood as a general statement followed by a specific limitation. If so, the specific phrase, “a service of gift,” would limit the general phrase, and only services of placing would be included. Why, then, does Levi include a service of removal?
The answer is that the phrase “and for what is inside the curtain” interrupts the general statement and the limitation. Because the clauses are not directly adjacent, the standard rule of a generalization followed immediately by a limitation does not apply in the ordinary way. The interruption creates a new derivation.
From this interruption, the Gemara derives a distinction between locations. In the Holy of Holies, the verse limits the liability to a service of placing and excludes a service of removal. Outside the Holy of Holies, however, even a service of removal may be included. The classic example is the removal of the ashes from the outer altar.
Thus, according to Levi, if a non-priest performs a service of removal in the Holy of Holies, he is not liable under this rule. If he performs a completed service of removal outside the Holy of Holies, he is liable. The outer altar is outside the Sanctuary, and the removal of its ashes is therefore included.
The Gemara then asks whether the same limitation should apply not only to a service of removal but also to the requirement that the service be completed. Perhaps a completed service is required only in the Holy of Holies, while outside the Holy of Holies even an incomplete service should create liability.
The Gemara rejects this possibility. The verse contains a connecting word that joins the entire discussion together. That connection teaches that the requirement of a completed service applies everywhere: in the Holy of Holies, in the Sanctuary, and outside. The location distinction affects a service of removal, but it does not eliminate the requirement that the service be completed.
The Gemara next asks about the Sanctuary itself. We have the Holy of Holies on one side and the outer courtyard on the other. Is the Sanctuary treated like the Holy of Holies, where a service of removal is excluded, or like the outside, where a service of removal is included?
The Sanctuary contains the inner altar and the menorah. Cleaning the menorah is a service of removal. Removing the ashes from the inner altar is also a service of removal. The question is whether such services are treated like services performed outside or like services performed inside the curtain.
The Gemara answers from the phrase “from inside and from inside the curtain.” The additional wording includes the Sanctuary with the Holy of Holies. Therefore, a service of removal performed in the Sanctuary is also excluded from the liability of death by Heaven. The only place where a completed service of removal creates liability is outside, at the outer altar.
This does not mean that the action is permitted for a non-priest. A person who enters the Holy of Holies or performs a forbidden act there may incur other liabilities. The discussion here concerns this specific liability of death by Heaven for performing a priestly service.
The Gemara then returns to the requirement that the service be completed. Since the verse joins the various areas together, the requirement of a completed service applies everywhere. The Gemara tries to find an example of a completed service in the Sanctuary, but several possible examples are rejected because they are not actually complete.
For example, arranging the showbread is not a completed service, because the bowls containing the incense still have to be placed upon it. The placement of the bowls is also not necessarily the end, because the incense will later be burned. Similarly, arranging the menorah is not a completed service, because it still has to be lit. Lighting the menorah itself is not considered a priestly service for this purpose.
The Gemara therefore continues searching for a service in the Sanctuary that is both a service of removal and a completed service. The discussion is not asking whether there is any service in the Sanctuary that is completed; the burning of the incense, for example, is one of Rav’s four services. The question is whether there is an additional service of removal in the Sanctuary that fulfills all the conditions.
Rashi frames the issue precisely. We are not discussing whether the service is completed; that requirement applies. We are discussing a completed service of removal in the Sanctuary. The Gemara attempts to find such a case through the menorah and the inner altar, but in each case another action follows, so the proposed action is not considered the final service.
The Gemara then discusses the arrangement of the wood on the altar. One might think that arranging the wood is both a service of placing and a completed service. The Gemara rejects this because, after the first arrangement, additional pieces of wood must still be placed. Perhaps when the final two pieces of wood are placed, that is a service of placing. But even then, the limbs of the sacrifice must still be placed on the wood.
This leads to a disagreement between Rabbi Yohanan and Rav concerning the arrangement of the wood and the limbs. Rabbi Yohanan considers the arrangement of the two final pieces of wood to be a completed service. Rav considers the arrangement of the wood and the placement of the limbs to be one continuous process. According to Rav, arranging the wood alone is not yet a completed service, because the purpose of the arrangement is to prepare the altar to receive the limbs.
These are two ways of viewing the procedure. One may view the arrangement of the wood as a distinct service that ends when the structure of wood is complete. Alternatively, one may view the entire procedure as a single service whose purpose is achieved only when the limbs are placed upon the wood.
Let us review the conclusions we have reached. Rav identifies four services for which a non-priest is liable to death by Heaven. Those services have two common features: they are services of placing or giving, and they are completed services. Rav does not include the removal of the ashes because that is a service of removal rather than a service of giving.
Levi agrees that the service must be a completed service, but he adds that a completed service of removal is also included. He derives this from the words of the verse concerning every matter of the altar. He also includes services performed away from the altar, such as the inner sprinklings in the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.
The Gemara then challenged Levi with the apparent generalization and limitation in the verse. The answer was that the reference to the area inside the curtain interrupts the generalization and limitation. This creates a distinction between locations. In the Holy of Holies and in the Sanctuary, a service of removal is excluded. Outside, even a service of removal is included.
Nevertheless, the requirement of a completed service applies everywhere. The connecting word in the verse joins all the locations and teaches that a non-priest is liable only for a service that completes the relevant process. That is why the Gemara rejected the proposed examples involving the showbread and menorah: in each case, another action remains to be performed.
The question regarding the Sanctuary was therefore whether one could find a service there that is both a service of removal and a completed service. The Gemara did not establish such a case. The four services listed by Rav remain the primary examples, while Levi adds the removal of the ashes and the inner sprinklings according to his derivations.
The discussion then turns to a teaching that lists services for which a non-priest is liable. The list includes the sprinkling and application of blood, including applications performed inside and outside. It also includes the burning of offerings and the seven sprinklings performed inside. One version of the teaching does not mention the removal of the ashes.
A second teaching, attributed to Levi, does mention the removal of the ashes and the seven inner sprinklings. This supports Levi’s position that a completed service of removal is included. The absence of the removal of the ashes from the first teaching can be understood as reflecting Rav’s view.
When we examine the common denominator of the services listed, the services chosen are services of placing or giving. That is consistent with Rav’s principle. The fact that the removal of the ashes is omitted from that list indicates that the list follows the view that a service of removal is not included.
At the same time, not every possible service of placing is necessarily listed. The purpose of the teaching is not to provide an exhaustive list of every example, but to establish the categories and the relevant principles. The omission of a particular service does not automatically exclude it if it fulfills the requirements of a completed service and a service of placing.
We are left with the fundamental distinction: Rav requires both a service of placing and a completed service, while Levi agrees regarding the completed service but expands the category to include a completed service of removal. The question of arranging the wood reflects another disagreement about when a process is considered complete—whether the arrangement of the wood is itself a completed service or whether the service remains incomplete until the limbs are placed upon it.
That is where we will stop for today.