Yoma 33b — the Talmud in English

And

according to the words of Reish Lakish, it is understood that the removal of the ashes from the inner altar must precede the preparation of the five lamps. For

when he enters

when he enters

the Sanctuary, the altar

of gold

is encountered first [

encountered first], since the altar was closer to the entrance of the Sanctuary than the menorah. And once he encountered the altar, he must perform the mitzva of removing the ashes that pertains to it, before he turns to prepare the lamps of the menorah.

And from where do we know that the golden altar was closer to the entrance of the Sanctuary than the menorah?

For it was taught:

The

table

stood

in the north

of the Sanctuary,

drawn back

set apart

from the wall

the northern wall of the Sanctuary

two and a half cubits.

And

the

menorah

stood

in the south

of the Sanctuary,

drawn back

set apart

from the wall by two and a half cubits.

And the

altar

of gold

was centered

between the table and the menorah,

and stood in the middle

of the width of the Sanctuary.

And it was drawn back

set apart

toward the outside,

toward the entrance in the east of the Sanctuary,

slightly

a little.

And we learned from the words of the beraita that the altar was closer to the entrance of the Sanctuary than the menorah.

And we raise an objection to the words of the beraita:

And let us place it opposite them,

let us place the altar between the table and the menorah in one straight line! And why did they teach in the beraita that the altar was set farther back toward the east?

And we answer:

Since it is written [

in Exodus 26]: “And you shall place the table outside the curtain,

and the menorah opposite [

opposite]

the table”—

we require

we require them to be placed in such a manner

that they see one another

so that they see one another. And there should be nothing obstructing between them.

And in passing, since Rava brought the words of Reish Lakish that one does not pass over mitzvot, Rava teaches us an additional law that is to be learned from the words of Reish Lakish:

Rava said: Learn from this,

it is to be learned

from the

words of

Reish Lakish,

concerning the placing of the tefillin of the arm and of the head:

to pass over the arm,

to skip the placing of the tefillin on the arm [the arm tefillin] in order to place first the head tefillin,

the headpiece,

for the sake of placing first the head tefillin—

is forbidden!

For a person’s arm is closer to his other hand, with which he places the tefillin, than his head is, and one does not pass over mitzvot.

Rather,

how does he act,

how should he act?

He begins to place them

from the arm,

from the arm, and afterward he proceeds

to the headpiece [

to the head tefillin]. And now the Gemara explains two additional stages in the order of the service, from the words of Abaye: This is how Rashi explained it. And Tosafot challenged his words: Behold, this matter is learned from the order of the verses. First: “And you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand,” and afterward: “And they shall be as frontlets between your eyes,” as explained in Menachot [36a]. And Tosafot explained, in accordance with Rav Hai Gaon, that Rava learned from the words of Reish Lakish that when one removes the tefillin, he must place the head tefillin below and the arm tefillin above, so that when he comes to place the arm tefillin he will not pass over the head tefillin. And this explanation was brought by the other early authorities. And see there another explanation. [And see the Tosafot of the RiD, who reconciles Rashi’s words, that the arrangement of the verse is not a complete proof. For perhaps the verse was not particular about the order].

The

preparation of the five lamps

was performed

before

the services performed with

the blood of the daily offering.

And

the blood of the daily offering precedes the preparation of the two lamps.

We already brought above the verse stated concerning the incense: “In the morning, in the morning, when he prepares the lamps, he shall burn it.” And from this verse we learn about three things that are performed “in the morning, in the morning.”

a. The preparation of the lamps [which was mentioned in the verse], and the Sages divided the preparation of the lamps into two preparations, as follows.

b. The burning of the incense [which was also mentioned in the verse].

c. The removal of the ashes from the inner altar, which was performed before the incense [so that the altar would be clean in honor of its burning].

And Abaye arranged these services one after another, except that the blood of the daily offering interrupts between them. And this is their order:

[a] Removal of the ashes from the inner altar.

[b] Preparation of five of the seven lamps of the menorah.

[c] The blood of the daily offering. [Here Abaye inserted a service that is not stated in this verse].

[d] Preparation of the two remaining lamps.

[e] Burning of the incense.

Below, the Gemara will explain why the Sages divided the preparation of the seven lamps into two parts [a. five lamps, b. two lamps]. And now the Gemara explains why the services involving the blood of the daily offering were performed between the preparation of the five lamps and the preparation of the two remaining lamps.

And we inquire about it:

What is the reason

what is the reason that they advanced the preparation of the five lamps before the blood of the daily offering? And likewise, what is the reason that they advanced the blood of the daily offering before the two remaining lamps?

Abaye said:

Concerning the preparation of the lamps it is stated “morning” twice, whereas concerning the blood of the daily offering it is stated only once “morning” [“You shall make the one lamb in the morning.” Exodus 29:39].

And therefore, it would have been proper to advance the preparation of all seven lamps before the blood of the daily offering.

But we find in the Torah two superfluous “mornings,” which we add [according to the rule, “If it is not relevant to what is stated here, apply it to another place”], as follows:

We attach one “morning” to the two mornings stated concerning the preparation of the lamps, and we attach the remaining “morning” to the one morning stated concerning the daily offering, as follows:

That “in the morning, in the morning” of the two pieces of wood [“And the priest shall burn wood upon it in the morning, in the morning”],

that

are not needed,

for they are not needed, since it was explained above that the arranging of the two pieces of wood precedes the removal of the ashes from the altar by logical reasoning [because “that which enables is preferable,” or because once he began with the large arrangement, he completes it],

he cast them

he cast them from their place

to here,

to here, to teach through them about these places:

One—

one “morning,”

he cast it

cast it

to the preparation of the five lamps.

That is, attach it to the two “mornings” stated in the verse speaking of the preparation of the five lamps—“In the morning, in the morning, when he prepares the lamps, he shall burn it”—and there are thus three “mornings” together.

[But we do not learn from this attachment with regard to all the matters hinted at in the verse; rather, we learn three “mornings” only with regard to the preparation of the five lamps, as follows ].

And since three “mornings” were stated concerning the preparation of the five lamps, we learn

that they should precede

that they should precede

the blood of the daily offering,

as will be explained below.

And one—

the second superfluous “morning” stated concerning the two pieces of wood,

he cast it

cast it

to the blood of the daily offering.

That is, attach it to the “morning” stated concerning the blood of the daily offering [“You shall make the one lamb in the morning”], and there are thus two mornings together.

And since two mornings were stated concerning the blood of the daily offering, just as two mornings were stated concerning the preparation of the two lamps [“In the morning, in the morning, when he prepares the lamps”], we learn [as will be explained below]

that we should advance it,

that the blood of the daily offering should be advanced

before the preparation of the two lamps.

And Abaye continues explaining:

What I said:

“One, he cast it

cast it

to the preparation of the five lamps, that they should precede the blood of the daily offering.”

This is what I intended to say:

Here,

in the preparation of the five lamps,

three

three mornings were stated [two mornings were stated explicitly in Scripture, and an additional morning is attached to them from what is stated concerning the two pieces of wood].

And

whereas

here,

in the blood of the daily offering, only

two

two mornings were stated [one morning is stated explicitly in Scripture, and an additional morning was attached from what is stated concerning the two pieces of wood].

And therefore, the preparation of the five lamps, concerning which three mornings were stated, precedes the blood of the daily offering, concerning which only two mornings were stated.

And what I, Abaye, said:

“And one

one morning

he cast it

cast it

to the blood of the daily offering, that it should precede the preparation of the two lamps.”

This is what I intended to say:

Even though here

in the blood of the daily offering,

two

two mornings were stated,

and

also

here

in the preparation of the two lamps,

two [

two mornings] were stated, and from where do we know that the blood of the daily offering comes first?

In any event, since we added a “morning” to the blood of the daily offering, and from now it is equal to the preparation of the two lamps, logically the blood of the daily offering should be advanced. For the daily offering atones for one who transgresses a positive commandment and for one who transgresses a negative commandment that is remedied by a positive commandment.

For

that which atones—

is preferable!

It is more important than the preparation of the two lamps, and therefore it precedes them.

Rav Pappa said to him

an objection

to Abaye:

From where do you know that we attach one “morning” to the preparation of the five lamps and advance it before the blood of the daily offering?

But say

say it differently:

One, one “morning,”

one “morning”

he cast it—

cast it

to the removal of the ashes from the inner altar,

for the removal of the ashes from the inner altar is also learned from the verse above, in which two mornings were stated [“In the morning, in the morning, when he prepares the lamps, he shall burn it.” And the removal of the ashes precedes the burning, as explained above].

And learn from here

that we should advance

the removal of the ashes from the inner altar

before the blood of the daily offering.

Since

here,

in the removal of the ashes from the inner altar,

three

three mornings were stated.

And

whereas

here,

in the blood of the daily offering, only

two

two mornings were stated [one morning is explicit in the verse, and a second morning is attached from what is stated concerning the two pieces of wood]. And as the Gemara will say immediately:

And one,

the second superfluous morning stated concerning the two pieces of wood,

he cast it

cast it and attach it

to

the “morning” stated in

the blood of the daily offering,

and there are thus two mornings together.

And learn from here

that it should precede,

that the blood of the daily offering should precede

the preparation of the five lamps,

for concerning them too only two mornings were stated [“In the morning, in the morning, when he prepares the lamps, he shall burn it”].

For even though here there are two and here there are two [

also concerning the preparation of the two lamps and concerning the blood of the daily offering, two “mornings” were stated], nevertheless the blood of the daily offering should be advanced before the preparation of the lamps, because the blood of the daily offering atones [for one who transgresses a positive commandment and a negative commandment remedied by a positive commandment], and

that which atones is preferable,

more important than the preparation of the lamps, which do not come for atonement.

And what emerges from the words of Rav Pappa is that it would have been possible to arrange the order not according to Abaye’s words, and not to interrupt between the preparation of the five lamps and the preparation of the two lamps, but as follows:

[d] Removal of the ashes from the inner altar [as according to Abaye].

[e] The blood of the daily offering [not as according to Abaye].

[f] Preparation of the five lamps [not as according to Abaye].

[g] Preparation of the two lamps [as according to Abaye].

[h] Burning of the incense [as according to Abaye].

And Abaye answered Rav Pappa: It follows from your words that the preparation of the five lamps and the preparation of the two remaining lamps were one immediately after the other.

And

if so, with what do you interrupt—

with what do you interrupt between them?

With what do you interrupt and divide the preparation of the lamps into two parts? Yet the preparation of the lamps must be divided into two parts, as will be explained below!

And one cannot say that indeed there is no need to interrupt between the two preparations by means of another service.

For

that works,

your words indeed fit

the

opinion of

Reish Lakish, who says: Why do they prepare

only part of the lamps,

and return and prepare

the remaining lamps separately?

In order to make heard

to make heard throughout

the entire Temple court

by the footsteps of the priests entering for the service [so that everyone would sense that they had begun the sacred service ]. According to him,

it is well

one can indeed say that they did not interrupt between the preparation of the five lamps and the preparation of the two lamps with another service. Rather, after they finished preparing the five lamps, they went out. And they entered again and prepared the two remaining lamps. And by this they caused the sound of footsteps in the Temple court.

But according to Rabbi Yohanan, who says

that they divided the preparation of the lamps into two parts for another reason: because concerning the preparation of the lamps it is stated

“in the morning, in the morning”—

divide it,

divide the preparation of the lamps

into two mornings,

into two times; that is, he should interrupt in the middle of the preparation of the lamps and engage in another service.

According to this,

what can be said?

How can one say, as you say, that he performs the preparation of the five lamps and the preparation of the two lamps one immediately after the other, without interrupting between them with another service? Since he does not interrupt between them with another service, it is as though the entire preparation were performed at one time!

And through this Abaye proved his words: they interrupted between the preparation of the five lamps and the preparation of the two remaining lamps with another service. And it is necessarily the service involving the blood of the daily offering that interrupts between them, for there is no other service that interrupts between them.

And now the Gemara returns to explain what was stated above: in order to learn that the service involving the blood of the daily offering interrupts between the two preparations, Abaye said that the two “in the morning, in the morning” stated concerning the two pieces of wood are superfluous, and came to teach about the preparation of the five lamps and the blood of the daily offering.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This “in the morning, in the morning”

that is stated concerning

the

two pieces of

wood—

is it superfluous?

Is it indeed superfluous?!

It is needed for its own matter,

for it is needed for its own matter, concerning the wood itself,

for the Merciful One says

that Scripture says

that they precede the second arrangement of the incense! [

And not as Abaye said above, that the second arrangement of the incense precedes the arranging of the two pieces of wood].

He said to him

Rav Ashi said to Ravina, in answer:

And did we not establish

did we not establish above the verse [Leviticus 6:5]: “And the priest shall burn wood upon it,” to expound from here that the arranging of the two pieces of wood is performed

upon it,

upon the first arrangement,

and not upon its fellow!

For the second arrangement is that of the incense.

It follows

and it is proven from here

that its fellow exists,

that its fellow [the second arrangement of the incense] already exists at the time when he comes to arrange the two pieces of wood.

For if he had not arranged the second arrangement, it would be self-evident that it would be impossible to arrange additional two pieces of wood upon it. Rather, the verse comes to tell you that once both arrangements already exist, the two pieces of wood are to be placed upon the first arrangement and not upon the second.

And from here, the second arrangement precedes the arranging of the two logs.

And since the second arrangement precedes the arranging of the two logs, if so, “in the morning, in the morning,” which is stated concerning the two logs, did not come to teach that the arranging of the two logs precedes the second arrangement, and it is therefore superfluous, as Abaye said. Rather, it comes to teach concerning the tending of the five lamps and the blood of the tamid.

And now the Gemara returns to discuss the order of the division of the tending of the lamps: And we raised the matter:

What is different

in what way is the tending of the five lamps different and preferable to the tending of the two remaining lamps,

that he does

that he tends

the tending of the five lamps first

at the beginning?

And why not

let him do

let him perform

the tending of the two lamps first

at the beginning, and afterward perform the tending of the remaining five?

And we answer:

Since he began with them

since he began to engage in the tending of the lamps,

he performs the majority

he tends the majority of them [that is, he must tend all the lamps that he can tend, apart from what is necessary for the second tending, as follows].

And we object: Since we have said, “Once he began to tend the lamps, he tends the majority of them,” if so, this is difficult:

Then let him perform six!

Let him perform the tending of six lamps first, and after the blood-related procedures of the tamid, let him tend the final lamp!

And we answer:

The verse says

[in Exodus 30:7]:

“When he tends the lamps

he shall burn it.”

And the verse says “lamps” in the plural,

and “lamps” are no fewer than two.

And therefore they tended only five lamps at the beginning, so that two lamps would remain for the second tending.

And now the Gemara brings an additional stage in the order of the service, according to Abaye:

Z.

And the tending of the two lamps

precedes the incense.

And we explain the reason for the matter:

For the verse says

[in Exodus 30:7], concerning the burning of the incense.

It says at the beginning of the verse:

“When he tends the

lamps.”

And afterward,

and afterward the verse says,

“he shall burn it.”

From here, the tending of the lamps precedes the burning of the incense.

Abaye further said:

H.

And the incense

precedes

the

burning of the

limbs

of the tamid.

And the reason for the matter is:

For it was taught: A matter concerning which “in the morning, in the morning” was said shall be brought earlier

namely, the incense,

than a matter concerning which only one “morning” was said,

namely, the tamid, concerning which it is said [Exodus 29]: “You shall make the one lamb in the morning.”

And although earlier we combined with this verse the additional “morning” stated with regard to the two logs, we combined that “morning” only to teach about the blood of the daily offering, and not about the burning of its limbs.

Abaye further said concerning the order of the arrangement:

T.

And

the burning of the

limbs

precedes

the

burning of the

meal-offering.

And the reason for the matter is:

For it was taught: From where is it derived that no matter

offered upon the great arrangement

shall precede

the burning of the limbs of the

morning tamid.