Yoma 28a (כח.) — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection to Rabbi Zeira, who said that arranging the pyre is not a conclusive service.

But

the burning of

the limbs and fats

of the night offering is considered a conclusive service—for a non-koen is liable for performing it—even though it is followed by another service, the removal of the ashes, which completes the service of burning the limbs.

And necessarily, the reason is that only when the two services take place at the same time are they considered a service that is followed by another service. But here, since the time for burning the limbs begins the previous day, during the daytime, whereas the time for removing the ashes is specifically at night, the burning is considered a conclusive service and not a service that is followed by another service.

And if so, all the more so arranging the pyre should be considered a conclusive service, since its time is only at night, whereas the arranging of the two logs takes place only during the day! And we answer: In fact, two services, even when they take place at different times, are considered a service that is followed by another service. Therefore, arranging the pyre is considered a service that is followed by another service, since arranging the logs completes the arranging of the pyre.

And one should not raise a difficulty from the limbs and fats, because there the reason is that the removal of the ashes is entirely unrelated to the burning of the limbs; it does not complete that service and is not subordinate to it.

Rather, on the contrary, the burning of the limbs—

it is the conclusion of the daytime service

, as it completes the daytime services that preceded it and is subordinate to them. Therefore, it is considered a conclusive service.

And we raise an objection:

But the removal of the ashes

, which is followed by the taking out of the ashes, nevertheless is considered a conclusive service, since the time for removing the ashes is specifically at night, whereas the taking out of the ashes may take place either during the day or at night.

And if so, all the more so arranging the pyre, whose time is only at night, should not be considered a service that is followed by another service on account of arranging the logs, whose time is only during the day?

And we answer: There is another reason for the removal of the ashes, on account of which it is considered a conclusive service.

Because the taking out of the ashes is entirely unrelated to it; it does not complete the service of removing the ashes.

Rather, the removal of the ashes—

it is the beginning of the daytime service!

That is, ordinarily, one does not take out the ashes after it, but continues with the other services of the day. For there is no obligation to take out the ashes every day, but only when a large amount of ash has accumulated on the altar.

As Rabbi Yohanan said: If he sanctified his hands

at night

for the removal of the ashes—

the next day he need not sanctify

his hands for the services of the day, because

he has already sanctified

his hands and feet

at the beginning of the service!

It follows that the removal of the ashes is considered the beginning of the services of the day.

And we conclude:

Rather, it is difficult

to reconcile Rabbi Zeira’s objection to Rabbi Yohanan, who holds a non-koen liable for arranging the pyre. But is this not a service that is followed by another service?!

And we answer:

Rather, if

the statement of Rabbi Yohanan was reported,

this is how it was reported:

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: A non-koen who arranged the two logs is liable, since it is a conclusive service.

For through it the arranging of the pyre is completed.

Rava raised an objection to this: If that is so

—that arranging the two logs is so important that it is a conclusive service, and a non-koen is liable for performing it—

should a lottery be held for it?

And we are astonished at Rava’s question:

And

for arranging the two logs

should a lottery not be held?

But it was taught in a beraita: The one who was chosen for the removal of the ashes—

will be chosen for arranging the two logs?!

And we answer:

This is what

Rava meant when objecting to Rabbi Yohanan’s statement:

A separate lottery should be held for it,

at a special assembly, like the four lotteries.

And on the basis of Rava’s objection we conclude:

Rather, we must say

as we stated

in the first formulation: Rabbi Yohanan holds a non-koen liable for arranging the two logs because it is a daytime service [Maharsha, in accordance with Tosafot, s.v. Yafisu].

And we raise an objection to Rava’s statement:

Does this mean that

only

a conclusive service and

one for which

a non-koen is liable for death

is what

requires a lottery

of its own?

But a service for which

a non-koen is not liable for death—

does not require a lottery

of its own.

But slaughtering

, which is valid when performed by a non-koen, nevertheless had a lottery of its own?

And we answer:

Slaughtering is different, for it is the beginning of the daytime service.

Therefore, a lottery is held for it separately, even though it is valid when performed by a non-koen.

We again raise an objection to Rava:

Does this mean that

only

a conclusive service,

one that completes all the services of the night or day, is what

requires a lottery

of its own?

But

a service that is followed by another service

on that day or night—

does not require a lottery

of its own?!

But the limbs and fats,

which are followed by additional services at night [such as the removal of the ashes, arranging the pyre, and arranging the two logs], nevertheless had a lottery of their own [in the fourth lottery: “Who will bring the limbs from the ramp to the altar?” above, on 26a]!

And we answer:

It is the conclusion of the daytime service.

For it completes the services of the day, and no further service follows it on that day; therefore, a lottery is held for it separately.

We again raise an objection to Rava:

But the removal of the ashes,

which is followed by services at night, nevertheless had a lottery of its own [the first lottery]?

And we answer: There

on account of an incident that occurred

they instituted a separate lottery for it.

Mar Zutra said, and some say Rav Ashi: We too have learned

in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s words that the service of arranging the two logs took place at night, and therefore it is considered a conclusive service since it completes the arranging of the pyre. Whereas arranging the limbs on the two logs, which was performed afterward, begins the services of the following day and does not complete the arranging of the pyre.

For we learned in the Mishna:

The appointed priest said to them: Go out and see whether the time for slaughtering has arrived.

But the time for arranging the logs is not taught.

This indicates that it is valid at night.

And we reject this: In fact, the time for arranging the logs is also specifically during the day.

And the reason it is not taught is that

this one, which has no remedy,

namely, slaughtering, which cannot be remedied if it is disqualified,

is taught.

,

But

this one, which has a remedy,

namely, arranging the logs, which can be dismantled and arranged again during the day if it was performed at night and thereby disqualified,

is not taught.

,

We will return to you, chapter “At First.”

Mishna:

Shortly before the time of dawn on Yom Kippur,

the supervisor said to them:

the deputy, to those standing in the courtyard:

Go out

and stand on the wall or on the roof,

and see whether the time for slaughtering

the daily offering had arrived, for its time is from dawn.

Slaughtering an offering is invalid at night, as it is stated concerning offerings, “On the day of your sacrifice” [Leviticus 19], and zevach, “sacrifice,” is an expression referring to slaughtering.

And

if

indeed

the time

for slaughtering had arrived, then

the one who sees

dawn

says

and announces:

Barkai!

That is, the light of dawn has begun to shine at the edge of the sky.

Mattitya ben Shmuel says:

This is what they would say:

The face of the entire east has become illuminated, until

the light is visible

in Hebron.

This time is later than the time of “Barkai” stated by the first tanna [Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura].

And he says, “Yes.”

The Gemara explains who said “Yes.”

And why was this necessary,

to ascend to the roof and see, rather than being satisfied with seeing from the ground?

Since

once the light of the moon rose,

the light that emerged from the moon [Rashash] rose and illuminated shortly before dawn,

and they imagined,

and it appeared to them,

that the

east

had become illuminated

by the sun,

and they slaughtered the daily offering.

Eventually they realized that they had erred, for they had slaughtered it at night,

and they took it to the place of burning,

because a daily offering slaughtered at night is invalid.

And so that they would not err another time, the Sages instituted that the observer should stand on the wall or on the roof.

And now the Mishna returns to explain the order of the Yom Kippur service:

After the observer said “Barkai” [and according to Mattitya ben Shmuel: “The face of the east has become illuminated”—“Yes”],

they brought down

the

High Priest to the immersion chamber,

since all the services of Yom Kippur are performed by the High Priest, and he is required to immerse before entering the courtyard to begin the day’s services.

And since the Mishna mentioned that they brought the High Priest down to the immersion chamber, it expands upon and explains the law of immersion in the courtyard, as well as the law of sanctifying the hands and feet from the basin, in general.

This was the general rule in the Temple,

regarding one who performed service in the Temple, throughout the year:

Anyone who relieves himself,

who needs to evacuate his bowels,

is required to immerse,

even though he had already immersed before entering [Tiferet Yisrael].

And every

priest

who urinates—

is required to sanctify his hands and feet,

washing his hands and feet from the basin, before beginning or continuing to perform service, but he is not required to immerse.