Yoma 33a (לג.) — the Talmud in English

And Reish Lakish concludes his statement:

For this reason we learned

at the end of the Mishna in tractate Hullin: One who slaughters

the majority

of one סימן

in a bird, and the majority of two

simanim

in an animal—his slaughter is valid. This Mishna is superfluous, and it comes to teach that even with regard to sacrificial animals, one who slaughters the majority of the simanim renders the animal valid after the fact.

his slaughter is valid. This Mishna is an extra Mishna, and it comes to teach that even with offerings, if one slaughters the majority of the signs, the slaughter is valid after the fact.

And we learn from the words of Reish Lakish that “he cut its throat” means that he slaughtered the majority of the animal’s simanim, and that in this case the slaughter is valid.

And we raise an objection:

Since even a rabbinic disqualification

does not apply

to one who slaughters the majority of the simanim,

why is it necessary

for another

to complete

the slaughter?

And we answer: Since

it is a mitzva to complete

the slaughter initially, in order to extract a large quantity of blood from the animal’s neck and receive it in a service vessel with the intention of sprinkling it on the altar. [Rashi, Hullin 99b].

Our Mishna deals with the order of the daily offering service and with other services performed every day. The Gemara here expands on this matter and cites the statement of Abaye, who arranged the order of the services performed daily in the Temple.

Abaye arranges

the order of

the arrangement

—he arranged the order of the services performed daily in the Temple—

in the name of the Gemara,

in the name of the accepted tradition of all the members of the academy [who received it from their teachers. Rashi 14b].

And

he arranged this

according to

the view of

Abba Shaul [

and not according to the view of the Sages above, 14b ]: a.

The large arrangement,

the arrangement of wood on the outer altar, in a large pile [a pyre] upon which all the sacrifices were burned—

precedes

the arrangement of

the second arrangement for the incense.

And this was a second pile, from which they made a pyre beside the outer altar, and from it they brought coals into the Sanctuary to burn incense upon them. [

And below the reason for this, as well as the remainder of Abaye’s statements, is explained.]

b.

The second arrangement for the incense—

precedes the arrangement of the two logs of wood,

which they added to the large arrangement.

c.

And the arrangement of the two logs of wood,

which they added to the large arrangement—

precedes the removal

of the ashes [the ash] from the

inner altar.

d.

And the removal of the ashes,

the removal of the ash from the

inner altar—

precedes the cleaning of five lamps.

Cleaning five of the cups from among the seven cups in the menorah [he removed the wicks and the ash that remained in them]. It is explained below that they did not clean all the lamps of the menorah at once; rather, they interrupted the cleaning midway in order to perform another service.

e.

And the cleaning [

preparation]

of five lamps—

precedes

the services performed with

the blood of the daily offering,

which are the slaughter of the daily offering and the sprinkling of its blood on the altar.

f.

And

the services performed with

the blood of the daily offering—

are performed

before the cleaning of the two

remaining

lamps,

which had not yet been cleaned.

g.

And the cleaning of the two lamps—

precedes

the burning of the

incense,

on the inner altar.

h.

And

the burning of the

incense—

precedes

the burning of the

limbs

of the daily offering on the outer altar.

i.

And

the burning of the

limbs

of the daily offering—precedes

the

burning of the

meal-offering

that accompanies the daily offering [one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-fourth of a hin of pure olive oil. Numbers 28].

j.

And

the burning of the

meal-offering—

precedes

the

burning of the meal-offering of the

High Priest,

which he brought every day.

k.

And

the burning of the

High Priest’s meal-offering—

precedes

the

pouring of the

libations

of wine [one-fourth of a hin] that accompanied the daily offering.

l.

And

on Shabbat or on other days on which there was an additional offering, the pouring of the

libations

preceded

the

offering of the sacrifices of the

additional offerings.

m.

And

on Shabbat, when the two bowls of frankincense that accompanied the showbread were offered, the

additional offerings

preceded

the

burning of the

bowls.

n.

And

the burning of the

bowls

precedes

the daily offering of the afternoon.

And from where do we know that no sacrifices are offered after the daily offering of the afternoon?

As it is stated

with regard to the daily burnt-offering of the morning [Leviticus 6]:

“And he shall burn upon it the fats of the peace-offerings.”

And the Sages expounded: “Upon it”—upon the daily burnt-offering of the morning—“the peace-offerings.”

From here they said: Specifically,

upon it,

upon the daily burnt-offering of the morning, continue after it with the offering of the other sacrifices, and

complete

upon it the offering of

all the sacrifices [

of that day]

entirely.

But do not continue and complete the offering of the day’s sacrifices upon the second daily offering, which is offered in the evening.

This teaches you that no sacrifice may be offered on the altar after the daily offering of the afternoon.

The Gemara now explains Abaye’s statements in order, one matter at a time.

The Master said

Abaye:

a.

The large arrangement

of wood for offering most of the sacrifices

precedes the second arrangement for the incense.

And we inquire:

From where do we know

that the large arrangement precedes it?

And we answer:

As it was taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 6:2] concerning the daily burnt-offering:

“It is the burnt-offering upon its firewood upon the altar all night.”

And “its firewood” means a wood pyre. And

this is the large arrangement.

And later in the verse it states:

“And the fire of the altar shall burn upon it.” “

“Shall burn” means that it shall burn in the pyre. From here it follows that there was another pyre on the outer altar, and

this is the second arrangement for the incense.

And Abaye understands that the order of the verse indicates that this arrangement was second, and that the large arrangement preceded it.

And we object: The verse cited by the baraita teaches only that there were two arrangements on the outer altar, but not their order.

And it still must be asked:

But I can reverse it!

I can reverse the order stated by Abaye and say that the incense arrangement precedes the large arrangement! From where does Abaye know that the large arrangement precedes it?

And we answer:

It is logical that the large arrangement is superior,

more important,

since its atonement is greater,

as most of the sacrifices that come to effect atonement are offered upon it [apart from the incense]. And since the large arrangement is more important, it precedes the other.

And we object:

On the contrary! The second arrangement is superior,

it is more important,

since from it they bring

coals [for burning the incense]

inside

the Sanctuary!

And we answer:

Even so,

despite this, the advantage of the large arrangement—“since

its atonement is greater”—

is superior!

It is more important than the advantage of the incense arrangement, from which they bring coals inside.

Alternatively,

if you wish, you can give another reason why the large arrangement is preferable to the second arrangement, from which they bring coals inside:

For

if he does not find

if he does not find

wood for the second arrangement,

will he not bring them in,

will he not bring coals into the Sanctuary

from the large arrangement,

and burn the incense upon them?!

In other words, the large arrangement is also suitable for bringing coals into the Sanctuary. Therefore, the second arrangement, which is designated only for the incense, cannot be considered superior to it.

The Gemara now cites another matter from Abaye’s statement above:

b.

The second arrangement for the incense precedes the arrangement of the two logs of wood,

which they added to the large arrangement.

And we inquire:

From where do we know

that the second arrangement precedes the arrangement of the two logs of wood?

And we answer:

As it is written [

in Leviticus 6:5]: “And the fire upon the altar shall burn upon it; it shall not be extinguished,

and the priest shall burn wood upon it every morning, every morning.” “

“Wood” implies at least two pieces, and from here they learned that the priest adds two logs of wood to the large arrangement.

And the verse says

“upon it”,

to emphasize that specifically upon it he shall add the two logs of wood,

and not upon its companion,

which is the second arrangement for the incense.

And from the fact that the verse had to teach that he should not add the logs of wood to the second arrangement,

by inference,

it is proven here

that its companion exists,

that the second arrangement is already in place.

For if it were to be said that he added the two logs before arranging the second arrangement, it would be obvious that he could not add them to the second arrangement, since it did not yet exist at all. Why, then, does the verse say “upon it”?

It must therefore be that the second arrangement for the incense precedes the arrangement of the two logs of wood!

And we object: From where do we know that “upon it” comes to exclude: “upon it—and not upon its companion”?

And

after all,

this “upon it”

is needed for its own purpose!

For the word “upon it” is needed for the arrangement of the two logs itself, to teach that he must place them on top of the arrangement, and not to the side or separately! [Ritva].

And we answer:

Two instances of “upon it” are written.

The word “upon it” is written twice in the same verse [“And the priest shall burn wood upon it ... and he shall arrange the burnt-offering upon it”], and one of them is superfluous. It comes to exclude “upon it and not upon its companion,” as stated above.

c.

The arrangement of the two logs of wood precedes the removal of the ashes from the inner altar.

Regarding the two logs of wood, the Torah makes clear that the time for placing them on the altar is “every morning, every morning.” The repetition of the word “morning” teaches that this should be done early in the morning.

And it is possible to prove that the time for removing the ashes from the inner altar is also “every morning, every morning.” For it is stated [Exodus 30:7] concerning the morning incense: “Every morning, every morning, when he cleans the lamps, he shall burn it,” and the burning of the incense is performed only after the removal of the ashes from the altar [Rashi. His intention is that the altar is certainly cleaned of its ashes before the incense, in order to honor it].

And we explain:

Although here,

with regard to arranging the two logs of wood,

it is written, “every morning, every morning,” and

also

here,

with regard to removing the ashes from the inner altar,

it is written, “every morning, every morning.”

If so, from where do we know that the arrangement of the two logs of wood was performed before the removal of the ashes from the inner altar?

Even so,

despite this, the wood enables the incense to be burned, since it is impossible to burn the incense except upon the coals of the wood.

And

an enabler is superior,

it precedes the removal of the ashes from the altar. For even without removing the ashes, it is possible to burn the incense. Therefore, they arranged the two logs of wood before removing the ashes from the altar [based on Tosafot Yeshanim].

And we question:

The enabler

under discussion—

what is it,

what were we referring to?

For we were speaking about

the two logs of wood!

If so, this is difficult:

But you said

above that

the two logs of wood—

go to the large arrangement [

are placed there], whereas the two logs do not enable the incense, since a special second arrangement was made for the incense!

The Gemara offers several answers:

a.

Rabbi Yirmeya said,

he answered: The “enabler” that we mentioned includes everything that is called

by the name of

“wood,” whether it is

some [

called by the name of]

wood.

In other words, since there is wood that enables the incense [namely, in the second arrangement], all the service involving wood is considered an important service, to which the status of enabling the incense applies [and for this reason the arrangement of the two logs precedes the removal of the ashes from the inner altar].

b. Ravina disagrees with what we said, “an enabler is superior,” and therefore:

Ravina said:

The arrangement of the two logs of wood precedes the removal of the ashes from the inner altar for another reason:

Since he began with

the arrangement of the

arrangement

the large one,

he completes it

and adds the two logs to it before turning to remove the ashes from the inner altar.

c. Rav Ashi agrees with the first reason stated above, that wood that is an “enabler” precedes the removal of the ashes from the inner altar. But we challenged this on the grounds that the arrangement of the two logs was on the large arrangement, and it does not enable the incense.

And regarding this he answered,

Rav Ashi [

not as Rabbi Yirmeya answered above]

said: If he does not find

if he does not find

wood for the second arrangement—

will he not bring them in,

will he not bring coals

from the large arrangement

and burn incense upon them?! It follows that the large arrangement, too, is considered an “enabler” of the incense.

The Gemara discusses another passage from Abaye’s statement:

d.

And the removal of the ashes from the inner altar precedes the cleaning of five lamps.

And we inquire:

What is the reason,

what is the reason for this?

Abaye said:

Indeed,

I have learned it as a received tradition,

I learned this matter from the students of the yeshiva, who received it from their teachers, that this was the order of events.

But

a rationale,

a reason for the matter—

I do not know.

I do not know how to provide a rationale on my own.

And Rava said

the reason for the matter,

in accordance with Reish Lakish:

For Reish Lakish said: One does not pass over—

one does not skip

the mitzvot

without performing them. Rather, if a mitzva presents itself to him, he should perform it immediately, and he should not turn to engage in another mitzva.