Yoma 27a — the Talmud in English

And we object:

this “

sons of Aaron the priest” —

is it needed for its own matter!

To teach us that placing the fire requires a priest, and it is not superfluous so as to derive from it an exclusion concerning flaying and cutting up.

And we answer:

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: I found Abaye

I met him

when he was explaining it to his son

when he was explaining to his son Hezekiah’s exposition, as follows:

It was taught in the Torat Kohanim: It is stated

“And he shall slaughter” —

to teach that

slaughtering by a non-priest is valid.

And from where did you come [to say this]?

From where would I have learned that slaughtering is invalid when performed by a non-priest, so that you need to bring a verse to validate it?

And the beraita answers: Since

from the fact that it is stated, “And you and your sons with you shall guard your priesthood”

for every matter of the altar,

I might hear that even slaughtering

is included. For it too is needed for the altar, and it should therefore be invalid when performed by a non-priest.

Therefore

the verse states, “And he shall slaughter the son of the cattle before the Lord, and the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall bring the blood.”

Since priesthood is written concerning receiving the blood [“and they shall bring”] and priesthood is not written concerning slaughtering, it is proven that only

from receiving onward

from that point onward there is

a mitzva of priesthood,

but not before that.

Rather,

“And he shall place his hand” —

“and he shall slaughter.”

The owner of the offering places his hand upon the offering, and he is the one who slaughters it.

And thereby

he taught concerning slaughtering that it is valid when performed by a non-priest.

Thus far is the language of the beraita. And on the basis of the words of the beraita, Abaye explained Hezekiah’s words to his son:

Since

we have learned here that

from receiving onward there is a mitzva of priesthood,

then

“And the sons of Aaron

the priest shall place fire upon the altar” —

why do I need it?

For the placing of the fire too is written after receiving, and consequently we know that it requires a priest.

Rather, certainly

to exclude flaying and cutting up,

which are written before it, in which “priest” is not mentioned, and indeed they do not require a priest.

And we object:

And still it was necessary

to write priesthood concerning the placing of the fire, despite the fact that it is after receiving the blood.

For

it might enter your mind to say: Since it is not a service that prevents atonement,

since the atonement depends only upon the blood of the offering, whereas the placing of the fire is for the sake of burning the limbs —

it should not require priesthood.

It teaches us that it requires priesthood.

And since the priesthood stated concerning the placing of the fire is needed for its own matter, from where do we derive the exclusion of flaying and cutting up, which are valid when performed by a non-priest?

And we answer:

Rather, from here

we derive it: It is written

“And the sons of Aaron the priests shall arrange the pieces, the head, and the fat.”

Since,

after all,

from receiving onward there is a mitzva of priesthood.

And if so,

“And they shall arrange

the sons of Aaron the priests” —

why do I need it?

For arranging the pieces upon the fire too is after receiving.

Rather,

to exclude flaying and cutting up,

which do not require a priest.

And we object:

But say

that the priesthood stated concerning arranging the pieces comes

to exclude arranging the two logs of wood,

of the afternoon offering, which is learned [above, 26b] from the verse “And they shall arrange wood upon the fire,” written immediately before arranging the pieces, which does not require a priest.

But flaying and cutting up always require a priest!

And we answer:

It is reasonable

that the service of

the offering

the sacrifice

excludes its counterpart.

For arranging the pieces comes to exclude flaying and cutting up, which resemble it, as both are services performed upon the offering itself.

Whereas arranging the two logs of wood is not a service involving the body of the offering.

And we object:

On the contrary!

It is more reasonable that

arranging its counterpart excludes.

The two logs of wood resemble arranging the pieces, as both are arranging things upon the fire. Whereas flaying and cutting up are not so!?

And we answer:

It cannot enter your mind

that arranging the two logs of wood does not require priesthood.

Because

the master said:

It is stated

“And the priest shall bring up all of it to the altar” —

this is conveying the limbs to the ramp

of the altar [for burning is explicitly stated separately in that verse]. And why does the verse need to state that conveying the limbs requires a priest? Is it not the case that from receiving onward there is a mitzva of priesthood, and conveying the limbs is included?

Rather, it is in order to exclude another conveying from the mitzva of priesthood. And to tell you: only

conveying the limbs to the ramp requires priesthood.

But

conveying wood

to the altar

does not require priesthood.

Arranging the two logs of wood, then,

requires priesthood!

For if not, the verse would not have needed to exclude conveying wood. For even arranging the two logs, which are upon the altar, would not require priesthood, and all the more so conveying wood.

If so, “And the sons of Aaron the priests shall arrange the pieces” —

why do I need it?

It must be

to exclude flaying and cutting up. [

The continuation of the Gemara follows the reading of the Gra, who deleted several words.]

And we object:

Rather, “And the priest shall burn all of it

upon the altar” —

for what does it come?

For it is obvious that burning requires a priest, since from receiving onward there is a mitzva of priesthood.

And we answer:

Rather, “and he shall burn” comes to exclude flaying and cutting up

from the mitzva of priesthood. [

The Gemara now returns to the derivation from “And they shall arrange,” and below the Gemara will expound this verse as to what it comes for.]

And the Gemara explains the other verses in which priesthood is stated, which apparently are superfluous, since they are after receiving:

“And the priest shall bring up all of it to the altar” —

this is conveying the limbs to the ramp.

And it comes to teach that

only conveying the limbs to the ramp requires priesthood.

But

conveying wood does not require priesthood.

And consequently we learned:

arranging the two logs of wood —

requires priesthood.

“And the sons of Aaron

the priest shall place fire upon the altar” —

for its own matter.

For we said above that I might have thought that it does not require priesthood, since it is not a service that prevents atonement. “

And the sons of Aaron the priests shall arrange the pieces,” we shall expound as follows:

“And they shall arrange”

in the plural —

two.

“The sons of Aaron” —

two.

“The priests” —

two.

We learned

from here

concerning a lamb,

a sheep that is offered as a burnt offering,

that it requires six

priests to convey it to the altar.

The flesh by five, and the innards by one. As explained above in the Mishna [25a].

Rav Hamnuna said: It was difficult for Rabbi Elazar: this

verse, “And they shall arrange,” after all

is written concerning the son of the cattle,

as it is stated there at the beginning of the section, “If his offering is a burnt offering from the cattle.”

And the son of the cattle —

requires twenty-four

priests

it requires,

as explained in the Mishna [above, 26b], that the bull is offered by twenty-four. And how is it possible to learn from here concerning a lamb, which requires six?

And he resolves it,

Rabbi Elazar himself explains: after all, at the end of that verse it is stated, “And they shall arrange” ...

“upon the wood that is upon the fire that is upon the altar.”

And apparently this is superfluous, for earlier it was already stated, “And the sons of Aaron the priest shall place fire upon the altar, and they shall arrange wood upon the fire.” And it is self-evident that the arranging of the pieces written afterward will be upon this wood?

Rather, it was written again for this purpose: to expound that those six priests who were learned from the verse “And they shall arrange” were not stated concerning a son of the cattle, but concerning something concerning which wood, fire, and an altar are stated.

And what is the thing concerning which wood, fire, and an altar are stated

for which an arrangement of wood and fire must be prepared upon the altar?