Yoma 28a — the Talmud in English

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

But behold,

the burning of

limbs and fats

.of the night is considered a completed service—for a non-kohen is liable for it—even though another service follows it, namely the removal of the ashes, which is the completion of the service of consuming the limbs.

.Necessarily, the reason is that only when the two services are at the same time are they considered a service after which another service follows. But here, since the time for burning the limbs begins on the previous day, while it is still day, whereas the time for the removal of the ashes is specifically at night, the burning is considered a completed service, and not a service after which another service follows.

.And if so, kal va-chomer, arranging the pyre should be considered a completed service, since its time is only at night, whereas arranging the two logs is performed only during the day!? And we answer: In fact, two services, even though they are at different times, are considered a service after which another service follows. Therefore, arranging the pyre is considered a service after which another service follows, since arranging the logs is the completion of arranging the pyre.

.And one should not raise an objection from the limbs and fats, because there the reason is that the removal of the ashes is not connected at all to the burning of the limbs, and is not the completion of its service, nor subordinate to it.

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

is the end of the daytime service,

.since it completes the daytime services preceding it and is subordinate to them. .Therefore, it is considered a completed service.

And we raise an objection:

But behold, the removal of the ashes,

.which is followed by taking out the ashes, .and nevertheless it is considered a completed service, .since the time for the removal of the ashes is specifically at night, whereas the time for taking out the ashes is both during the day and at night.

?And if so, kal va-chomer, arranging the pyre, whose time is only at night, should not be judged a service after which another service follows on account of arranging the logs, whose time is only during the day?

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

.Because taking out the ashes is not connected to it at all, nor is it the completion of the service of removing the ashes.

Rather, the removal of the ashes—

is the beginning of the daytime service!

That is, ordinarily he 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 much ash has accumulated on the altar.

For 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 daytime services, because

he already sanctified

his hands and feet

at the beginning of the service!

.Thus, the removal of the ashes is considered the beginning of the daytime services.

And we conclude:

Rather, there is a difficulty

with Rabbi Zeira’s objection against Rabbi Yohanan, who holds a non-kohen liable for arranging the pyre. But is it not a service after which another service follows?!

And we answer:

Rather, if it was stated

the statement of Rabbi Yohanan,

it was stated as follows:

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

.For through it the arranging of the pyre is completed.

Rava raised an objection against this: If so,

since arranging the two logs is so important that it is a completed service, and a non-kohen is liable for it—

should it require a separate allotment?

And we are astonished at Rava’s question:

And

does arranging the two logs

Does arranging the two logs not require an allotment?

But it was taught in a beraita: Whoever was chosen for the removal of the ashes—

shall be chosen for arranging the two logs!?

And we answer:

This is what

Rava meant in objecting to Rabbi Yohanan’s words:

Let them conduct an allotment for it separately,

.at a special gathering, like the four allotments.

And we conclude by virtue of Rava’s objection:

Rather, we must say,

as we said

in the first formulation: Rabbi Yohanan holds a non-kohen liable for arranging the two logs, since it is a daytime service [Maharsha, according to Tosafot, s.v. yafisu]].

And we raise an objection against Rava’s words:

Does this mean that

only

a concluding service, and

that

a non-kohen is liable to be put to death for performing it,

is what

requires a separate lottery assignment

.Is this to say that only a completed service for which a non-kohen is liable for death requires a separate allotment?

But a service for which

—

does not require a separate lottery assignment

.But a service for which a non-kohen is not liable for death does not require a separate allotment.

,

?But behold, slaughtering, which is valid when performed by a non-kohen, nevertheless had a separate allotment?

And we answer:

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

.Therefore, an allotment is conducted for it separately, even though it is valid when performed by a non-kohen.

We again raise an objection against Rava:

Does this mean that

only

a concluding service,

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

is what

.Is this to say that only a completed service, one that completes all the services of the night or day,

separately?

But

—

does not require a separate lottery assignment

!?But a

— separately!? ,

]!But behold, the limbs and fats, which have additional services following them at night [such as the removal of the ashes, arranging the pyre, and the two logs], nevertheless had a separate allotment [in the fourth allotment: who would bring limbs from the ramp to the altar, above, 26a]!

And we answer:

.It is the end of the daytime service.

.For it completes the services of the day, and there is no further service after it on that day; therefore, an allotment is conducted for it separately.

We again raise an objection against Rava:

,

]?But behold, the removal of the ashes, which has services following it at night, nevertheless had a separate allotment [the first allotment]?

And we answer: There,

on account of an incident that occurred,

.they instituted a separate allotment 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 was at night, and therefore it is considered a completed service .since it is the completion of arranging the pyre. Whereas arranging the limbs upon the two logs, which is done afterward, begins the services of the following day and is not the completion of arranging the pyre.

For we learned in the Mishna:

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

.But it does not teach the time for arranging the logs.

.And it indicates that it is valid at night.

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

And the reason it was not taught is that

,

namely, slaughtering, which cannot be rectified if it becomes disqualified,

.And for this reason it does not teach it, because

,

. But

this one, which has a remedy,

namely, arranging the logs, which can be dismantled and arranged again during the day if they were arranged at night and thereby became disqualified,

.

,

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

Mishna:

Near the time of dawn on the Day of Atonement,

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, whose time is from dawn.

The slaughtering of an offering is invalid at night, as it is stated concerning the offerings, “On the day of your slaughter” [Leviticus 19], and “slaughter” 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.

Matya ben Shmuel says:

This is what they used to say:

“The face of all the east has become light, until

the light is seen

in Hebron.”

And this time is later than the time of “Barkai” stated by the first tanna [Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro].

And he says, “Yes.”

And the Gemara explains who says “Yes.”

And why did they need this,

to go up to the roof and see, and did they not suffice with seeing from the ground?

Because

once the light of the moon rose,

the light that broke forth from the moon [Rashash] rose and illuminated near dawn,

and they imagined,

and it appeared to them,

that the

east

had become light

from the sun,

and they slaughtered the daily offering.

And in the end they understood that they had erred, that they had slaughtered it at night,

and they took it out 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 one who sees 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 one who sees said “Barkai” [and according to Matya ben Shmuel: “The face of the east has become light”—“Yes”],

they brought down

the

High Priest to the ritual-immersion chamber,

because all the services of the Day of Atonement are performed by the High Priest, and he requires ritual immersion before he enters the courtyard to begin the services of the day.

And incidentally, since the Mishna said that they brought the High Priest down to the ritual-immersion chamber, it broadens and explains the law of ritual immersion in the courtyard, and likewise the law of sanctifying hands and feet from the basin, in general.

This was the general rule in the Temple,

concerning a person serving in the Temple, throughout all the days of the year:

Anyone who relieves himself,

who needs to make a bowel movement,

requires ritual immersion,

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

And every

priest

who urinates—

requires the sanctification of hands and feet,

washing his hands and feet from the basin before he begins or continues serving, but he is not required to immerse.