Yoma 24a — the Talmud in English

To include worn-out garments

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

At the conclusion 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 shall leave them there.”

This teaches that they require concealment.

So that the High Priest should not use them on another Yom Kippur, nor the ordinary priest throughout the entire year.

Rabbi Dosa says: They are fit for an ordinary priest

throughout the entire year.

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

That he should not use them

the High Priest on

another Yom Kippur.

And the Gemara concludes the question: Let us say that this is a dispute between tannaim:

What, is it not

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Dosa—

and this is what they disagree about: that one

Rabbi Judah

holds:

the removal of the ashes

is a service,

and therefore he requires him to wear all four garments at the time of performing it.

And the other

Rabbi Dosa

holds: It is not a service.

And therefore he does not derive from “he shall wear” the inclusion of the turban and the belt, but a tunic and trousers alone are sufficient?

And we answer:

No! Everyone holds that it is a service.

And here, this is what they disagree about:

That

one

Rabbi Judah

holds: A verse is required to include

the turban and the belt, so that we should not say that it is not a service and that a tunic and trousers alone are sufficient.

And the other

Rabbi Dosa

holds: No verse is required to include them.

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

And consequently, the verse “he shall wear” is superfluous, to include the garments of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, which are fit for an ordinary priest.

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

how much?

How much ash must the priest lift from upon the altar?

Whether

we derive it from the tithe offering,

whose measure is one tenth, and here too the priest must estimate one tenth of the ashes upon the altar.

For in both of them the expression “lifting” is written: concerning the removal of the ashes it is stated, “And he shall lift the ashes,” and concerning the tithe offering it is stated, “And you shall lift from it.”

Or from the offering of Midian,

which the men of the army who returned from the war against Midian gave from the spoils

we derive it,

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

Come and hear: For Rabbi Hiyya taught: It is stated here

concerning the removal of the ashes

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

concerning a 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 here, with his handful!

The priest must estimate that it should be at least the measure of a full handful; and if he wishes to add, he may add. [For it cannot be said that precisely a full handful is required, because he cannot put his hands into the burning coals and take a handful. Rashi].

Rav said: With regard to only four services,

alone,

an outsider is liable

to death

at the hands of Heaven if he performed them in the Temple. But for the others he is not liable to death; rather, he is 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 all the days of the year.

And Levi said: Also the removal of the ashes

if an outsider performed it, he is liable to death.

And Levi likewise taught in his matanita

in his beraita:

Also the removal of the ashes

the outsider is liable to death for it.

And we explain:

What is Rav’s reason?

For it is written: “And you and your sons with you shall safeguard your priesthood for every matter of the altar and for within the curtain, and you shall serve; a service of gift I shall give your priesthood, and the outsider who approaches shall be put to death.”

And we derive:

“A service of gift”

specifically such a service, in which you give something upon the altar, carries liability for death,

but not a service of removal,

in which you remove and take away from the altar, such as the removal of the ashes; there is no liability for death for it.

And we further derive

“and you shall serve”—

a complete service,

which finishes and completes [fulfills] the matter,

but not a service after which there is another service,

such as slaughtering, receiving the blood and conveying the blood, after which there is the service of sprinkling the blood.

But sprinkling is the final service concerning the blood.

Likewise, the burning of the limbs or of the handful of the meal offering, and likewise the pouring of the wine and the pouring of the water, are services after which there is no other service.

And Levi

holds:

The Merciful One included

the service of removal as well, 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 upon 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 were included by “every,” so that an outsider is liable to death for them as well.

And Levi derives

the two derivations

from “a matter” and “every matter.”

For the word “matter” is also superfluous, since he could have written only “for the altar”; and we derive from “matter” the inclusion of the removal of the ashes, while from “every” we include the seven sprinklings within.

And Rav: “a matter” and “every matter”—

does not expound them

as two derivations, but as one derivation, to include the seven sprinklings within.

And we challenge Levi:

But let us say

that we should expound the verse as follows:

“For every matter of the altar”—

a generalization. “A service of gift”—

a specification.

A generalization and a specification—

the generalization contains only what is in the specification,

namely:

“a service of gift”—yes,

so.

“A service of removal”—no.

And should we exclude the removal of the ashes?