Yoma 24b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

The verse says ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the folio")

“And from within the curtain, and you shall perform

“a service of gift.” The words “and from within the curtain” constitute an interruption between the general statement and the particular statement.

To tell you:

It is only within the curtain that there is a service of gift, but not a service of removal.

Only with regard to services performed within the curtain, that is, in the Holy of Holies, does this rule apply, that a non-kohen is liable only for a service of gift—for example, the sprinklings between the staves on the Day of Atonement and placing the incense on the fire, which are performed within the curtain—but not for a service of removal, such as removing the censer and the pan of incense on the Day of Atonement.

But outside, even for a service of removal,

he is liable for it, such as the taking of the ash.

And we raise an objection:

If so, “and you shall perform,”

from which we derive that a non-kohen is liable only for a complete service,

also

let us derive this:

“Within the curtain”—

it is only a complete service

such as placing the incense on the fire, which is the completion of that service,

but not a service after which there is another service,

such as bringing in the censer and the pan to the Holy of Holies, which is not the completion of the service, since afterward he transfers the incense from the censer into his handfuls and burns it upon the coals in the pan.

But outside,

the non-kohen is liable

even

for

a service after which there is another service.

But concerning this law, we do not find that Levi disagreed with Rav?

And we answer:

The verse again combined them,

through the vav of “and you shall perform,” which adds it to the first matter, meaning that it also applies to “for every matter of the altar.” But “a service of gift,” which has no vav, applies only to “and from within the curtain.”

Rava raised a dilemma: A service of removal

that is

in the Sanctuary,

such as clearing the inner altar and the menorah, which are performed in the Sanctuary outside the curtain [in the “Holy”], and which are complete services—

what

is its law according to Levi?

Do we compare it to the inside,

to a service of removal in the Holy of Holies, for which Levi exempts him?

Or do we compare it to the outside,

to a service of removal outside, for which Levi makes him liable?

He subsequently resolved it:

Since it is not written

“from within

the curtain,” but it is written

“and from within

the curtain,” we learn that the Sanctuary is included, whose law is like that of the Holy of Holies, and in it Levi concedes that a non-kohen is exempt for a service of removal.

And we examine it: Since we heard from Rava’s words that he was uncertain concerning a service of removal in the Sanctuary, it follows that concerning a service of gift a non-kohen is certainly liable in the Sanctuary.

If that is so, a non-kohen who arranged the

showbread upon

the table

in the Sanctuary—

let him be liable!

And why did Rav enumerate above only four services and no more?

And we answer:

There is the arranging of the bowls,

for they place two bowls [spoons] of frankincense on the table after placing the bread. Therefore, arranging the bread on the table alone is not a complete service , and the non-kohen is not liable to death for it.

And we still raise an objection:

If

the non-kohen arranged

the bowls—

let him be liable?

For through this he completed the service of arranging the table.

And we answer: There is still

another

service after it, that of

removing

the bowls on the following Shabbat,

and burning

the frankincense in the bowls upon the outer altar.

And we examine it:

A non-kohen who arranged the menorah,

for every morning they would remove the lamps [like bowls in which they placed the oil and wicks] from the menorah, clean it of the ash, and then reattach them to the menorah . But this is a complete service? And we answer:

There is

after it

placing the wick

inside the lamps.

And we still raise an objection: A non-kohen who

placed

the

wick—let him be liable?

And we answer:

There is the placing of oil

in the lamps.

And we still raise an objection:

If he placed oil, let him be liable?

And we answer:

There is kindling.

And we still raise an objection:

If he kindled

the menorah,

let him be liable?

And we answer:

Kindling is not a service!

And one does not make the non-kohen liable to death for it.

And we raise an objection:

And

if

not

a service is it?

But it was taught:

It is written:

“And the sons of Aaron the kohen shall place fire upon the altar and arrange wood upon the fire”—

this teaches concerning the kindling of the wood splinters,

the lighting of fire on the altar by means of thin wooden sticks when one of the arrangements is about to be extinguished,

that it must be performed only by a fit kohen and with a service vessel,

when he is wearing the priestly garments.

That is, if he is an ordinary kohen, in four garments, and if he is a High Kohen, in eight garments. Wherever “the kohen” is stated, implying that he is in his priestly status, it means that he is in the priestly garments.

Thus, the kindling of the wood splinters is a service. If so, the kindling of the menorah is also a service?

And we answer: Indeed,

the kindling of the wood splinters is a service,

but

kindling is not a service.

And we examine it:

If that is so, a non-kohen who arranged the arrangement

of wood upon the altar—

let him be liable?

And we answer:

There is

after it

the arranging of the second two logs

upon the arrangement. Therefore, arranging the arrangement is not a complete service.

And we still raise an objection:

If he arranged the second two logs, let him be liable?

And we answer:

There is

after it

the arranging of the limbs

of the daily offering upon the arrangement, which is also part of the service of arranging. [And it is indeed mentioned in Rav’s words, who enumerated “burning” among the four services for which a non-kohen is liable to death].

And we raise an objection:

But Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A non-kohen who arranged the second two logs is liable.

Thus it is considered a complete service; why, then, did Rav not enumerate it?

And we answer: Indeed,

in this they disagree,

Rav and Rabbi Yohanan.

For

one master,

Rabbi Yohanan,

holds: It is a complete service;

arranging the second logs is the completion of the services of arranging, while arranging the limbs is the beginning of another arranging.

And the other master,

Rav,

holds: It is not a complete service,

but the arranging of the limbs completes the services of arranging, since it too is called arranging.

It was taught in accordance with Rav’s view. It was taught in accordance with Levi’s view.

It was taught in accordance with Rav’s view:

These are

the services for which a non-kohen is liable to death:

The sprinkling of blood

from the offering upon the outer altar.

And likewise the sprinklings

between

those that are

inside,

in the Sanctuary upon the curtain,

between

those that are

within and before the curtain,

in the Holy of Holies between the staves on the Day of Atonement.

And one who sprinkles the bird sin-offering.

And one who drains

the blood in the bird burnt-offering [which is its sprinkling]

and one who burns the bird burnt-offering.

And one who pours three log of water and three log of wine.

Thus, the beraita did not mention the taking of the ash, a proof for Rav.

It was taught in accordance with Levi’s view,

that a non-kohen is also liable for the taking of the ash:

These are

the services for which a non-kohen is liable to death:

One who lifts the ash.

And the seven sprinklings inside, and those for the leper.

And one who brings up upon the altar both a fit matter

for offering

and a disqualified matter

for offering, provided that it is a disqualification such that, if it was brought up upon the altar after the fact, it is not taken down [for “its disqualification is in the Holy”]; therefore, it is considered burning.

We learned in the Mishna: There were four lotteries there.

And we examine it:

Why do they conduct a lottery?

For what purpose did they cast lots?

And we wonder about the Gemara’s question: Is

“Why do they conduct a lottery”

difficult for you? After all,

as we said,

if not for the lotteries, they would come to dispute.

Rather,

the question is:

Why do they conduct a lottery and then conduct another lottery?

Why did they need to gather four times a day to cast lots, as it teaches in the Mishna? They could have conducted all the lotteries at the first gathering.

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said: In order to make

the

entire courtyard resound!

To make the sound of a great multitude of people heard in the courtyard several times a day, which is honor for the King.

As it is stated, “When together we sweetened counsel,

as

we walked in tumult in the house of God.”

And we examine it:

With what do they conduct the lottery?

In what garments were the kohanim dressed when they gathered to conduct the lottery, sacred garments or ordinary garments?

Rav Nahman said: In ordinary garments [

and the one who won the lottery would remove them and put on sacred garments].

And Rav Sheshet said: In sacred garments.

And we explain:

Rav Nahman said: In ordinary garments,

because

if you say in sacred garments, there are men of force

who seize and act,

who will jump forward to perform the service by force even though they did not win the lottery.

But if they must change garments before the service, there is no concern for this.

Rav Sheshet said: In sacred garments,

because

if you say in ordinary garments,

there is concern that

because of their affection

for the service,

they will hurry and act.

It may happen that those kohanim who won the lottery will hurry to the service while they are still in ordinary garments.

Rav Nahman said: From where do I say it,

that they conduct the lottery in ordinary garments?

As we learned:

After conducting the lottery,

they handed over

the kohanim

to the attendants,

the servants.

And they would strip them of their garments, and would leave upon them only undergarments.