Yoma 25b — the Talmud in English

Come and hear a proof:

It was taught in a beraita—a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

For the third lottery, which they conducted every day for the service of the incense,

there was no separate lottery

for the

shovel.

For two priests were involved in the service of the incense: One carried the incense into the Sanctuary and burned it, while the other took coals from the outer Altar with a shovel, brought them into the Sanctuary, and placed them on the inner Altar, so that the second priest could burn the incense upon them.

Rather,

they conducted only one lottery to determine who would have the privilege of burning the incense, and

the priest who won the incense said to the one

standing to his right:

You have won the shovel with me!

Thus, for the third lottery, they did not conduct a separate lottery for each service included in that lottery. The same applies to the second lottery in our Mishna: They conducted only one lottery.

And we reject this:

The shovel and the incense are different—

they constitute a single service.

Therefore, one lottery suffices for both of them. But as for the thirteen services listed in our Mishna, each of which is a separate service, it is possible that they conducted a lottery for each individual service.

Some say:

We should infer the opposite from Rabbi Yehuda’s words:

Specifically, the shovel and the incense constitute a single service,

and therefore they conducted only one lottery for both of them.

But for the other services—

a lottery is required

separately for each service.

We reject this: In fact, even for the other services, one lottery for all of them is sufficient. And the reason Rabbi Yehuda specifically mentioned the shovel is that

the shovel was necessary

for him to teach us the following:

You might have thought: Since

the service of the incense

is not frequent,

because it is burned only twice each day, and incense is not brought as a voluntary offering,

and it makes one wealthy,

as the incense enriches those involved with it,

therefore

they should establish for it

the shovel

a lottery of its own.

He teaches us

that even so, one lottery for it is sufficient.

Come and hear a proof

from this

that Rabbi Hiyya taught: They did not conduct a lottery for each individual service.

Rather, the priest who won

the slaughter of the

daily offering—

his twelve fellow priests followed him

to win the other services, according to the order in which they stood to his right.

And we conclude:

Learn from this.

We learned in the Mishna:

The second lottery

determines who slaughters and who sprinkles the blood.

They raised a question: Who receives

the blood from the animal’s neck after the slaughter? Since the tanna, the sage who taught the Mishna, did not list receiving the blood as a separate service for which a priest won the privilege, we may learn from this that one of the priests who won the service adjacent to it—that is, either the slaughter or the sprinkling—also won this service.

The question is: Who is that priest?

Is it the priest who

slaughters

who

receives

the blood?

Because

if you say

that the priest who

sprinkles should receive it,

there is concern that

because of his fondness for it,

since the priest prefers the service of sprinkling over the service of receiving the blood [because sprinkling is a service performed on the Altar], he will hurry to bring the blood for sprinkling and

will not receive all of the blood. He will not wait until all the blood has been received into the vessel. The law is that all the animal’s blood must be received.

He will not wait until all the blood has been received into the vessel. The law is that all the animal’s blood must be received.

Or perhaps,

the priest who

sprinkles

is the one who

receives

the blood.

Because

if you say

that the

slaughterer receives it, sometimes the slaughterer is a non-priest,

as the slaughter is valid even when performed by a non-priest, whereas he cannot receive the blood, since receiving it is invalid when performed by a non-priest. Therefore, necessarily, the one who sprinkles is the one who receives it.

Come and hear a proof:

It was taught in a beraita:

Ben Katin,

the name of one of the High Priests,

made twelve spouts

as faucets

for the basin, so that his twelve fellow priests who were engaged in the daily offering could sanctify their hands and feet simultaneously,

before beginning the service.

These are the twelve priests listed in our Mishna, in addition to the slaughterer, who does not need to sanctify his hands and feet. Since the slaughter is valid even when performed by a non-priest, even when a priest performs the slaughter he is exempt from sanctifying his hands and feet.

And if it enters your mind

that the

slaughterer receives the blood,

it follows that the slaughterer, too, must sanctify his hands and feet because of the receiving; and if so,

thirteen

thirteen

there would be!?

Rather, is it not that this proves

that the

one who sprinkles

is the one who

receives

the blood, and there are only twelve. For the one who sprinkles was already counted among the twelve priests engaged in the daily offering.

And we conclude:

Learn from this!

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: We too have learned this

in the Mishna of tractate Tamid:

The slaughterer slaughtered, the receiver received, and he came

to the Altar

to sprinkle.

This implies that the one who receives the blood is the one who sprinkles it.

And we conclude:

Learn from this!

We learned in the Mishna:

Ben Azzai said before Rabbi Akiva

in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: It was brought in the order of its movement:

That is, the closer a limb was to the animal’s head, the earlier it was brought. For the animal moves in the direction of its head.

The Sages taught: What is the order of its movement?

The head and the leg

the right hind leg were brought first [and this is agreed upon by all: The head is learned from a verse to be brought first . The leg is brought with it for the reason that will be explained below].

And after them,

the breast and the neck.

The two forelegs

after them.

The two flanks

after them.

The tail and the leg

the left hind leg after them.

Rabbi Yosei says: It was brought in the order in which it was skinned.

That is, according to the order in which its hide was removed, from the legs toward the head.

What is the order in which it was skinned?

The head and the leg. The tail and the leg. The two flanks. The two forelegs. The breast and the neck.

Rabbi Akiva says: It was brought in the order in which it was dissected.

That is, in the order in which it was cut up, limb by limb, after it had been skinned.

What is the order in which it was dissected?

The head and the leg. The two forelegs. The breast and the neck. The two flanks. The tail and the leg.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It was brought in the order of its excellence.

The more excellent and choice a limb was, the earlier it was brought.

What is the order of its excellence?

The head and the leg. The breast and the neck. The two flanks. The tail and the leg. The two forelegs.

And we challenge Rabbi Yosei HaGelili:

But is it not written: “Every choice piece, the thigh and the shoulder”?

The thigh is evidently more excellent than the shoulder, whereas Rabbi Yosei HaGelili places the two flanks, which contain the shoulders, before the leg, which contains the thigh.

And we answer:

That verse—

speaks of a lean animal.

The verse speaks of a lean animal, in which the thigh is better than the shoulder.

But in the daily offering, for which they took care to bring a fat animal, the shoulder is more excellent than the thigh, because the shoulder contains a great deal of fat.

Rava said: Both the tanna of our Mishna,

the first tanna of the Mishna, whose order differs from that of all the earlier authorities,

and Rabbi Yosei

HaGelili agree that

we follow the excellence of the meat

and that the more excellent the meat, the earlier it is brought.

They disagree only about the nature of this excellence.

One master,

the tanna of our Mishna,

follows the size of the meat-bearing limb,

the size of the limbs.

And the other master,

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

follows the amount of fat in the meat,

the meat that is fattier.

We inquire about this:

What is the reason

that all the tannaitic authorities agree that

the leg is brought together with the head,

meaning that the right leg is brought together with the head?

And we answer:

Because the head,

the head,

has many

of them,

bones.

Therefore,

the leg is brought

with it.

We inquire further:

At least, everyone agrees

in any event,

that the head is brought first. And from where do we know

this?

And we answer:

As it was taught in a beraita: From where is it derived that the head and the fat

the suet

precede all the limbs?

The verse states: “

And he shall cut it into its pieces,

and its head and its fat.

And he shall arrange

the priest shall arrange them on the wood that is on the fire that is on the Altar.”

This implies that the head and the fat are to be arranged first.

The Gemara—the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna—explains further:

And the other occurrence of the word “fat”

is in another verse, which states: “And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall arrange the pieces, the head, and the fat on the wood that is on the fire that is on the Altar.”