We will begin today’s Gemara where we left off. We are up to the passage beginning “Tanya,” in the middle of the daf, slightly above the Tosafot.
Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says that the daily arrangement of the altar required two pieces of wood in the morning and two pieces of wood in the afternoon. The question is simple: The Torah says that, in the morning, before bringing the daily offering, the priests must go up onto the altar and place two pieces of wood in order to prepare the arrangement. How do we know that this mitzvah also applies in the afternoon, and that the altar must again be prepared with two pieces of wood?
The Gemara answers that there could not be a better proof than the verse itself. The verse says that the wood must be arranged on the altar. We do not need a separate verse concerning the morning daily offering, because we already have a verse that says the wood on the altar must be burned in the morning. Therefore, when another verse says that the altar must be arranged with wood, it must be referring to the afternoon.
The Gemara objects: Perhaps both verses are speaking about the morning daily offering. The Torah may be telling us to perform the act twice. In other words, perhaps the verse says, “Do it, and then do it again,” teaching that two sets of wood must be placed on the altar.
The Gemara responds that if the verses are referring to the same offering, why does the Torah change its wording? If it wanted to teach that the act must be performed twice, it could have used the same expression twice. One verse uses one expression, while the other uses a different expression. That suggests that the verses are referring to two different times: one to the morning and one to the afternoon.
The Gemara then asks whether the change in wording might be teaching something else. Perhaps the first verse refers to one priest going up, while the second refers to two priests going up. Why, then, does the Torah begin with one form and conclude with another? If the purpose were only to teach the number of priests, it could have used the same expression in the singular and then changed it to the plural.
The discussion then turns to the number of priests required for the various services. Sometimes the lottery involved thirteen priests, sometimes fourteen, sometimes fifteen, and sometimes sixteen. We had not yet heard of a case involving seventeen priests, and the Gemara proceeds to explain how such a number could arise.
For the regular daily offering, thirteen priests were required. On Sukkot, there was an additional priest who carried the water for the water libation, bringing the total to fourteen. On Shabbat, there were the thirteen regular priests, plus two priests who carried the bowls containing the frankincense for the showbread, bringing the total to fifteen. On Shabbat during Sukkot, there were thirteen regular priests, two for the bowls, and one for the water libation, making sixteen.
At first, the discussion was about the afternoon daily offering, which is why the water libation was not included in the original calculation. The Gemara then asks how one could arrive at seventeen. It answers that this follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and not the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.
Whenever Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is mentioned in this context, remember his opinion concerning the ramp. We previously had a dispute about whether the same priest who carried the limbs up the ramp also carried them from the ramp onto the altar, or whether a different priest carried them from the ramp to the altar. Rashi explains that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds that a different priest carries them from the ramp to the altar. The other opinion holds that the same priest does both.
According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, the number should be seventeen because an additional priest is included in the lottery to carry the limbs from the ramp to the altar. However, the Gemara asks: If this is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s opinion, how can we arrive at seventeen? Rabbi Yehuda says that there was no separate lottery for the shovel, because the priest who received the incense would give the shovel to his colleague. If so, there is one fewer lottery. On the other hand, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, there is also an additional priest for carrying the limbs from the ramp to the altar. Thus, one is removed and one is added, leaving the total unchanged.
The Gemara therefore explains that the teaching mentioning seventeen priests is not following Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, but rather Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda agrees that there was no separate lottery for the shovel, but he maintains that there was an additional priest for carrying the limbs from the ramp to the altar. That brings the number to seventeen.
In other words, on Shabbat during Sukkot there were thirteen regular priests, two for the bowls, one for the water libation, and one for carrying the limbs from the ramp to the altar. That totals seventeen. According to Rabbi Yehuda, although one priest is removed because there was no separate lottery for the shovel, another priest is added for carrying the limbs. The two changes offset one another, and the total remains seventeen.
Rashi has a different version of the passage, and it is somewhat difficult. According to that version, the teaching that counts seventeen priests does not count an additional priest for carrying the limbs to the altar. Rather, it follows the interpretation that the priests who had already carried the limbs up the ramp themselves carried them from the ramp to the altar. Nevertheless, the teaching counts seventeen priests because of the other services included in the lotteries.
Rashi explains that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, there was no separate lottery for the shovel. The priest who had received the incense would stand beside the priest who received the shovel and assist him. According to this interpretation, the passage cannot be following Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, because if there were no priest for the shovel and no additional priest for carrying the limbs from the ramp to the altar, the number of lotteries would be too small.
Rashi then discusses the wording of the teaching and explains that the various services were distributed among the priests. One priest removed the ashes from the inner altar, another removed the ashes from the menorah, other priests brought the limbs of the offering, and the priests who received the various portions of the offering carried them up. The priest who received the lottery for carrying the limbs from the ramp to the altar also carried them onto the altar according to this version.
We now turn to the number of priests required to bring the different offerings to the altar. For a ram, eleven priests were required. The meat required five priests, the innards required one, the flour required two, and the wine required two. That totals eleven.
For a bull, twenty-four priests were required. The head and the right hind leg were carried by two priests. The tail and the left hind leg were carried by two more, and the right hind leg was counted separately in the distribution. The chest and the neck were carried by one priest, while the stomach required three. The two forelegs were carried by two priests, and the two sides of the animal were carried by two more. At that point the calculation reached fifteen.
The remaining portions were the innards, the flour, and the wine. Each of those required two or three priests, bringing the total to twenty-four. The calculation must be read carefully: the head required one priest and the leg one; the tail and leg required two; the chest and neck required one; the stomach required three; the two forelegs required two; and the two sides required two. That brings the meat portions to fifteen, and the innards, flour, and wine complete the total of twenty-four.
All these numbers apply to communal offerings. In the case of an individual offering, however, if the owner wants to bring the offering with fewer priests, he may do so. If he wants to bring the entire offering himself, he may do that as well. No lottery is required in the case of an individual offering.
The flaying and cutting of the animal are the same for a communal offering and an individual offering. The process of flaying the animal and cutting it into its parts is identical in both cases.
Rashi explains that the flaying of a communal offering and the flaying of an individual offering are equally valid even when performed by a non-priest. A priest is not required to flay the animal.
The Gemara teaches that the flaying and cutting of the offering are equally valid when performed by a non-priest. Chizkiyah asks: From where do we know that flaying and cutting the offering may be performed by a non-priest?
The Gemara initially attempts to derive this from the verse that says that the priests must place the fire on the altar. The verse specifically assigns that act to the priests. From this we might infer that flaying and cutting do not require a priest, because the Torah mentions the priest only with regard to placing the fire on the altar.
This seems like an unusual proof. The verse is needed to teach that a priest must place the fire on the altar. How can we use a verse that is needed for its own teaching to infer what a priest does not need to do? If the verse is required to tell us that the priest places the fire on the altar, then it cannot simultaneously be used as an exclusion to teach that the priest does not perform the flaying and cutting.
Abaye taught his son the relevant laws and explained the matter through the verse concerning slaughter. The Torah says that the owner slaughters the offering, and the slaughter of an offering by a non-priest is valid. Why might we have thought that slaughter performed by a non-priest is invalid? Because the Torah repeatedly emphasizes that the priestly service applies to everything associated with the altar. Slaughter is also connected with the altar, so one might have thought that it requires a priest.
The Torah therefore says that the owner slaughters the offering, and afterward the sons of Aaron, the priests, bring the blood. The priests do not begin their service until the receiving of the blood and its bringing to the altar. Everything before that stage may be performed by non-priests.
Do not read the verse as though it says that the priests slaughter the offering. The Torah mentions the priests only when it says that the sons of Aaron bring the blood. From that point onward, the priestly service begins. Before the receiving of the blood, including the laying on of hands and the slaughter, the service may be performed by the owner, even if he is not a priest.
The laying on of hands is performed by the owner of the offering, as the verse says, “He shall place his hand,” followed by, “He shall slaughter.” This demonstrates that until the receiving of the blood, the service belongs to the owner and does not require a priest.
Abaye was therefore teaching his son an important principle: the priestly service begins with the receiving of the blood and continues from there. It does not begin with the earlier stages of the offering.
Once this principle has been established, the Gemara asks: If the priestly service begins with receiving the blood, why does the Torah need to say that the priests place the fire on the altar? From the receiving of the blood onward, we already know that the service is performed by priests. The verse concerning the priests placing the fire on the altar should therefore be available for an additional derivation.
The Gemara answers that perhaps the verse is still needed for its own teaching. One might have thought that placing the fire on the altar does not require a priest, because it is not part of the service connected with receiving the blood. The receiving of the blood is essential to the sacrificial service, while placing wood and fire on the altar is not dependent on the receiving of the blood. Therefore, one might have thought that any person could place the fire on the altar. The verse teaches that this act, too, must be performed by priests.
Since the verse is needed to teach that priests must place the fire on the altar, it cannot be used to derive that flaying and cutting may be performed by a non-priest. We therefore need another source.
The Gemara then turns to the verse that says that the priests shall arrange the pieces of the offering—the portions, the head, and the fat—on the altar. Again, the question arises: From the receiving of the blood onward, we already know that the service requires priests. Why does the Torah need to state that the priests arrange the pieces on the altar?
The Gemara suggests that the verse is not needed to teach that priests arrange the pieces of the offering. Rather, it excludes flaying and cutting. The Torah mentions the arranging of the pieces, but not the flaying and cutting, implying that the latter do not require priests.
The Gemara objects that perhaps the verse is coming to exclude something else. Maybe it teaches that the priests do not have to arrange the wood on the altar in the afternoon. We know that wood must be placed on the altar in the afternoon, but perhaps that afternoon arrangement does not require priests.
The response is that the context of the verse concerns the actual parts of the offering. The verse speaks about arranging the pieces, the head, and the fat on the altar. It is therefore more reasonable to use it to derive a law concerning the offering itself—namely, that flaying and cutting need not be done by priests—rather than to derive a law concerning the wood placed on the altar in the afternoon.
In other words, the priest must arrange the pieces of meat on the altar. We do not need the verse to teach that the priest must do this, because priestly service is already known from the receiving of the blood. The verse must therefore be teaching that another stage in preparing the offering is not included in the priestly service. That stage is the flaying and cutting.
The Gemara continues to test this reasoning. Perhaps the verse is needed for the actual arrangement of the pieces, and therefore cannot be used as an exclusion. Again, the difficulty is that every time we try to make a derivation, the Gemara asks whether the verse is needed for its own explicit teaching.
The discussion becomes especially difficult because flaying and cutting seem to be the simplest services to assign to a non-priest. Slaughter is clearly valid when performed by a non-priest, because the Torah explicitly indicates that the owner slaughters the offering and that the priests begin with the blood. But with flaying and cutting, there is no equally explicit verse, and the Gemara struggles to find the precise derivation.
We therefore return to the verse that says that a priest shall burn everything on the altar. The phrase “a priest shall burn” is not needed merely to teach that the act is performed by a priest, because we already know that priestly service is performed by priests. The verse is coming to exclude the flaying and cutting. Those stages do not require a priest.
This provides the source: flaying and cutting may be performed by a non-priest.
The Gemara then summarizes the various derivations. The verse stating that the priest brings the portions to the altar refers to carrying the limbs from the ramp to the altar. Carrying the portions of the offering requires a priest, but carrying the wood does not. Even carrying the wine does not require a priest.
However, although a non-priest may carry the wood to the altar, placing it on the altar requires a priest. That is the derivation from the verse discussed earlier. The act of bringing the wood and the act of placing it on the altar are separate. Carrying it may be done by a non-priest, while placing it on the altar must be done by a priest.
The verse that says that they shall place the fire on the altar is needed for its own teaching. One might have thought that, because placing the fire is not directly part of the atoning service, it does not require a priest at all. The verse therefore teaches that a priest must place the fire on the altar.
The verse then says that the priests shall carry or arrange the pieces. The plural wording teaches that two priests are involved. The phrase “the sons of Aaron” also indicates two priests. From this we learn that carrying a sheep to the altar requires six priests: five for the pieces of meat and one for the innards, as we learned in the Mishnah.
Rabbi Minuna challenges this derivation. The verse being quoted is not speaking about a sheep. It is speaking about a bull. The verse says that the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall arrange the pieces, the head, and the fat. But we learned that bringing a bull requires twenty-four priests, not six. How, then, can this verse be used to teach that a sheep requires six priests?
The Gemara answers, “From where do you know?” In other words, it questions the assumption that the verse is being applied to the entire bull. Rashi explains that the derivation returns to the wood placed on the fire of the altar. Which offering is associated with both wood and fire on the altar? The daily offering, which is a sheep.
Every offering has pieces placed on the altar, but this passage is speaking specifically about the arrangement of wood upon the fire. The bull itself does not require a separate arrangement of wood. The wood had already been arranged in the morning for the daily offering, and the bull was then placed upon that existing arrangement.
Why, then, does the Torah mention the law in the context of a bull? The Torah had not yet discussed the complete procedure for arranging the pieces on the altar. It therefore teaches the matter incidentally while discussing the bull. The verse is not coming to say that a bull requires its own separate arrangement of wood. Rather, it is referring back to the wood that had already been arranged for the daily offering.
If we did not have this interpretation, we might read the verse as teaching that whenever a bull is brought, a new arrangement of the altar must be prepared. That would mean that every time a bull was offered, the altar would require a separate arrangement. The Torah is not teaching that. It is describing the pieces placed upon the wood that had already been prepared for the daily offering.
Once the reference to the wood directs us back to the daily offering, the verse can be applied to the sheep. It teaches that six priests are required: five to carry the pieces of meat and one to carry the innards.
Thus, the final calculation is that a sheep requires six priests for bringing its portions to the altar: five for the meat and one for the innards. This is the teaching derived from the verse concerning the priests arranging the pieces on the altar.