Yoma 24a (כד.) — the Talmud in English

To include worn garments

—worn garments that are fit for every service of the priests, provided that they are not torn.

At the completion of the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, it is stated: “And Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting and remove the linen garments that he wore when he entered the Sanctuary

and leave them there.”

This teaches that they require concealment.

The High Priest may not use them on another Yom Kippur, nor may the ordinary priest use them during the rest of the year.

Rabbi Dosa says: They are fit for an ordinary priest

throughout the year.

And what does the verse “and leave them there” teach?

That he may not use them

the High Priest on

another Yom Kippur.

The Gemara concludes its question by suggesting that this is a dispute between tannaim:

What, is it not

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Dosa—

who disagree concerning this: One Master

Rabbi Yehuda

holds that

the removal of the ashes

is a service,

and therefore he requires all four garments to be worn when it is performed.

And the other Master,

Rabbi Dosa,

holds: It is not a service.

Therefore, he does not derive from the word “shall wear” that the turban and the sash are included; rather, a tunic and trousers alone suffice?

The Gemara answers:

No; everyone agrees that it is a service.

And here, they disagree concerning this:

For

one Master,

Rabbi Yehuda,

holds: A verse is needed to include

the turban and the sash, so that we should not say that it is not a service and that a tunic and trousers alone suffice.

And the other Master,

Rabbi Dosa,

holds: No verse is needed to include them.

Since the verse reveals that specifically a tunic and trousers from the priestly garments are required, and not ordinary clothing, we already know that it is a service and that all four garments are required.

Consequently, the verse “shall wear” is superfluous, and is available to include the High Priest’s Yom Kippur garments as garments that are fit for an ordinary priest.

Rabbi Avin raised a dilemma: The removal of the ashes—

how much?

How much ash must the priest lift from the altar?

Does

one derive it from the tithe-offering

whose measure is one tenth, and here too the priest must measure one tenth of the ashes on the altar,

since in both cases the language of “lifting” is written? Concerning the removal of the ashes it says, “And he shall lift the ashes,” and concerning the tithe-offering it says, “And you shall lift from it.”

Or does one derive it from the offering of Midian,

the offering that the soldiers who returned from the war with Midian gave from the spoils,

from which one derives it,

as it is stated there: “And you shall raise a levy for the Lord … one out of every five hundred.”

Come and hear, as Rabbi Hiyya taught: It is stated here,

concerning the removal of the ashes,

“and he shall lift,” and it is stated elsewhere,

concerning the meal-offering,

“and he shall lift

from it, with his handful, from the fine flour of the meal-offering and from its oil.”

Just as there, with his handful,—

so too here, with his handful!

The priest must assess the amount so that it is at least the measure of a full handful; and if he wishes to add, he may add. For one cannot say that precisely a full handful is required, since he cannot place his hands into the burning coals and take a handful. Rashi.

Rav said: With regard to only four services,

alone,

an unauthorized person is liable

to death

at the hands of Heaven if he performs them in the Temple. For the rest, he is not liable to death; he is merely warned against them by a prohibition.

And these are they:

sprinkling and burning, and the pouring of the water

on the altar during the festival of Sukkot,

and the pouring of the wine

on the altar throughout the year.

And Levi said: The removal of the ashes is also included

and an unauthorized person who performs it is liable to death.

And Levi likewise taught in his Mishna

in his beraita:

The removal of the ashes is also included;

an unauthorized person who performs it is liable to death.

And we explain:

What is Rav’s reason?

As it is written: “And you and your sons with you shall safeguard your priesthood for every matter of the altar and for what is within the curtain, and you shall serve. A service of offering I assign to your priesthood, and the unauthorized person who approaches shall be put to death.”

And we expound:

“A service of offering”

specifically a service in which one places something upon the altar carries liability for death;

but not a service of removal,

in which one removes something from the altar, such as the removal of the ashes; one is not liable to death for it.

We further expound

“and you shall serve”—

a complete service,

which completes and perfects the matter,

but not a service after which there is another service.

For example, slaughtering, receiving the blood and conveying the blood, after which there is the service of sprinkling the blood.

But sprinkling is the final service performed with the blood.

Likewise, burning the limbs or the handful of the meal-offering, as well as pouring the wine and pouring the water, are services after which there is no further service.

And Levi

holds:

The Merciful One included

even a service of removal, from

“for every matter of the altar,”

provided that it is a complete service, such as the removal of the ashes.

And Rav

could say to you:

That

verse, “for every matter of the altar,”—

comes to include the seven sprinklings within

of the blood of the inner sin-offerings, which he sprinkles inside the Sanctuary on the curtain,

and those concerning the leper,

when he sprinkles seven sprinklings in the Sanctuary from the log of oil of the leper, for although they are not “a matter of the altar,” nevertheless they are included by the word “every,” so that an unauthorized person is liable to death for performing them as well.

And Levi derives

the two interpretations

from “matter” and “every matter.”

The word “matter” is also superfluous, since it could have written merely “for the altar.” We therefore expound “matter” to include the removal of the ashes, and “every” to include the seven sprinklings within.

And Rav: “matter” and “every matter”—

does not expound

them as two separate interpretations, but as one interpretation, to include the seven sprinklings within.

And we challenge Levi:

But perhaps

we should expound the verse as follows:

“For every matter of the altar”—

a generalization. “A service of offering”—

a specification.

A generalization followed by a specification—

the generalization includes only what is specified,

namely:

“a service of offering”—yes,

so.

A service of removal—no.

And we should exclude the removal of the ashes?