Yoma 33b (לג:) — 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 tending of five lamps. For

when he enters

the Sanctuary,

he encounters the

golden altar

first [

he encounters it first], because the altar was closer to the entrance of the Sanctuary than the menora. And once he encounters the altar, he must perform the mitzva of removing the ashes that applies to it before turning to tend the lamps of the menora.

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

As it was taught:

The

Table

stood

in the north

of the Sanctuary,

set apart

at a distance

from the wall

of the northern side of the Sanctuary

of two and a half cubits.

And

the

menora

stood

in the south

of the Sanctuary,

set apart

at a distance

of two and a half cubits from the wall.

And the

altar

of gold was

midway

between the Table and the menora,

and stood in the middle

of the width of the Sanctuary.

And it was set apart

at a distance

toward the outside,

in the direction of the entrance on the eastern side of the Sanctuary,

slightly

a little.

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

And we challenge the words of the beraita:

Why not place it alongside them,

placing the altar between the Table and the menora in a single line? And why did the beraita teach that the altar was set apart toward the east?

And we answer:

Since it is written [

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

and the menora opposite [

opposite]

the Table”—

we require

that we place them in such a manner

that they see one another,

so that nothing will obstruct them from one another.

And in passing, when Rava cited the words of Reish Lakish that one does not pass over a mitzva, Rava teaches us another law that can be derived from the words of Reish Lakish:

Rava said: Learn from it:

one can learn

from the

words of

Reish Lakish,

with regard to putting on the tefillin of the arm and of the head:

To pass over the arm,

to skip putting on the tefillin on the arm [the arm tefillin]

for the head-tefillin,

in order to put on the head-tefillin first, —

is prohibited!

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

Rather,

what should he do,

how should he act?

He should begin putting them on

from the arm,

from the arm, and afterward proceed

to the totafot [

to the head-tefillin]. And now the Gemara explains two additional stages in the order of the service, based on the words of Abaye:

And.

The tending of five lamps

was performed

before

the services performed with

the blood of the daily offering.

And.

The blood of the daily offering precedes the tending of two lamps.

Above, we already cited the verse stated concerning the incense: “In the morning, in the morning, when he tends the lamps, he shall burn it.” From this verse we learn about three matters performed “in the morning, in the morning.”

A. The tending of the lamps [mentioned in the verse], and the Sages divided the tending of the lamps into two tendings, as follows.

B. The burning of the incense [which is 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 the other, except that the blood of the daily offering interrupts between them. This is their order: [

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

B] Tending five of the seven lamps of the menora. [

C] The blood of the daily offering. [Here Abaye inserted a service not mentioned in this verse]. [

D] Tending the remaining two lamps. [

E] Burning the incense.

Below, the Gemara will explain why the Sages divided the tending of the seven lamps into two parts [A. five lamps, B. two lamps]. Now the Gemara explains why the services involving the blood of the daily offering were performed between the tending of the five lamps and the tending of the remaining two lamps.

And we inquire:

What is the reason

for preceding the tending of the five lamps to the blood of the daily offering? And likewise, what is the reason for preceding the blood of the daily offering to the remaining two lamps?

Abaye said:

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

Therefore, it would have been appropriate to perform the tending of all seven lamps before the blood of the daily offering.

However, we find in the Torah two superfluous instances of “morning,” which we apply elsewhere [according to the principle: “If it is not needed for what is stated here, apply it to another matter”], as follows:

We attach one “morning” to the two mornings stated concerning the tending 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” concerning the two logs of wood [“And the priest shall burn wood upon it in the morning, in the morning”],

which

are not needed,

since it was explained above that the arrangement of the two logs of wood precedes the removal of the ashes from the altar by logical reasoning [because “that which enables is preferable,” or because once he has begun with the large pyre, he completes it],

cast them

out of their original context

to here,

to teach through them about these matters:

One—

one “morning,”

cast it

and apply it

to the tending of five lamps.

That is, attach it to the two “mornings” stated in the verse concerning the tending of the five lamps—“In the morning, in the morning, when he tends the lamps, he shall burn it”—and there are now three “mornings.” [

However, we do not derive from this combination with regard to all the matters alluded to in the verse; rather, we derive three “mornings” only with regard to the tending of five lamps, as follows ].

And since three “mornings” are stated concerning the tending of the five lamps, we learn

that they should precede

that they precede

the blood of the daily offering,

as will be explained below.

And one—

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

cast it

and apply 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 offer one lamb in the morning,”] and there are now two mornings.

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

that it should precede,

that the blood of the daily offering should precede

the tending of two lamps.

And Abaye continues to explain:

What I said:

“One, cast it

and apply it

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

This is what I intended to say:

Here,

concerning the tending of the five lamps, there are

three

three mornings [two mornings are stated explicitly in the verse, and an additional morning is attached to them from the statement concerning the two logs of wood].

And

whereas

here,

concerning the blood of the daily offering, only

two

two mornings are stated [one morning is stated explicitly in the verse, and an additional morning is attached from the statement concerning the two logs of wood].

Therefore, the tending of the five lamps, concerning which three mornings are stated, precedes the blood of the daily offering, concerning which only two mornings are stated.

And what I, Abaye, said:

“And one

one morning

cast it

and apply it

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

This is what I intended to say:

Although here,

concerning the blood of the daily offering,

two

two mornings are stated,

and

also

here,

concerning the tending of the two lamps,

two [

two mornings] are stated, from where do we know that the blood of the daily offering precedes?

In any event, since we have added a “morning” to the blood of the daily offering, and it is now equal to the tending of the two lamps, logical reasoning dictates that the blood of the daily offering should precede it, since the daily offering atones for one who violates a positive mitzva and for one who violates a prohibition that is remedied by a positive mitzva.

For

that which atones—

is preferable!

It is more significant than the tending of the two lamps and therefore precedes it.

Rav Pappa said to him,

a challenge

to Abaye:

From where do you know that we attach one “morning” to the tending of the five lamps and make it precede the blood of the daily offering?

But say

say it differently:

One, one

“morning”

cast it—

apply it

to the removal of the ashes from the inner altar,

since the removal of the ashes from the inner altar is also learned from the verse cited above, in which two mornings are stated [“In the morning, in the morning, when he tends the lamps, he shall burn it”; and the removal of the ashes precedes the burning of the incense, as explained above].

And learn from here

that it should precede

the removal of the ashes from the inner altar

the blood of the daily offering.

Since

here,

concerning the removal of the ashes from the inner altar,

three

three mornings are stated.

And

whereas

here,

concerning the blood of the daily offering, only

two

two mornings are stated [one morning is explicit in the verse, and a second morning is attached from the statement concerning the two logs of wood]. As the Gemara will say immediately:

And one,

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

cast it

and attach it

to the

“morning” stated concerning the

blood of the daily offering,

and they are together two mornings.

And learn from here

that it should precede,

that the blood of the daily offering should precede

the tending of five lamps,

since only two mornings are stated concerning them [“In the morning, in the morning, when he tends the lamps, he shall burn it”].

Although here there are two and here there are two [

both concerning the tending of the two lamps and concerning the blood of the daily offering, two “mornings” are stated], nevertheless the blood of the daily offering should precede the tending of the lamps, because the blood of the daily offering atones [for one who violates a positive mitzva and for one who violates a prohibition that is remedied by a positive mitzva], and

that which atones is preferable,

more significant than the tending of the lamps, which do not come to effect atonement.

And it follows from Rav Pappa’s words that it would have been possible to arrange the services differently from Abaye’s arrangement, without interrupting between the tending of the five lamps and the tending of the two lamps, as follows: [

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

E] The blood of the daily offering [unlike Abaye]. [

F] Tending five lamps [unlike Abaye]. [

G] Tending two lamps [as according to Abaye]. [

H] Burning the incense [as according to Abaye].

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

And

if so, with what do you interrupt—

what do you use to interrupt between them?

What interrupts and divides the tending of the lamps into two parts? For the tending 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 tendings by means of another service.

For

that works well,

your words are indeed consistent

with

the view of

Reish Lakish, who said: Why do they tend

only part of the lamps

and return and tend

the remaining lamps separately?

In order to make heard

to cause

the entire courtyard

to resound with the footsteps of the kohanim entering for the service [so that everyone would sense that the sacred service had begun ]. According to him,

it is fine

to say that they indeed did not interrupt between the tending of the five lamps and the tending of the two lamps with another service. Rather, after they finished tending the five lamps, they went out. Then they entered again and tended the remaining two lamps. In this way, they caused the courtyard to resound with the sound of footsteps.

But according to Rabbi Yohanan, who said

that they divided the tending of the lamps into two parts for another reason: because “in the morning, in the morning” is stated concerning the tending of the lamps—

“in the morning, in the morning”—

divide it,

divide the tending of the lamps

into two mornings,

into two times; that is, he must interrupt the tending of the lamps midway and engage in another service.

Accordingly,

what can be said?

How can one say as you do that he should perform the tending of the five lamps and the tending 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 tending were performed at one time!

And with this Abaye proved his position: they interrupted between the tending of the five lamps and the tending of the remaining two lamps with another service. And it necessarily follows that the service involving the blood of the daily offering is what interrupts between them, since no other service interrupts between them.

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

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

stated concerning

the

two logs of

wood—

is it superfluous?

Is it indeed superfluous?!

It is needed for its own matter:

it is needed for the matter itself, with regard to the wood,

for the Merciful One says,

the verse says:

They precede the second arrangement of the incense! [

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

He said to him,

Rav Ashi replied to Ravina:

Did we not establish

above that the verse [Leviticus 6:5], “And the priest shall burn wood upon it,” is expounded to teach that the placement of the two logs of wood is performed

upon it,

upon the first arrangement,

and not upon the other one!

For the second arrangement is the arrangement of the incense.

By inference,

and it is demonstrated from here

that the other one exists,

that the other arrangement [the second arrangement of the incense] is already in existence when he comes to place the two logs of wood.

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

And from here it follows that the second arrangement precedes the placement of the two logs of wood.

And since the second arrangement precedes the placement of the two logs of wood, the phrase “in the morning, in the morning,” stated with regard to the two logs of wood, does not come to teach that the placement of the two logs precedes the second arrangement—for that phrase would then be superfluous, as Abaye said. Rather, it comes to teach with regard to the tending of the five lamps and the blood of the daily offering.

The Gemara now returns to discuss the order of the division of the tending of the lamps: And we raised a difficulty concerning this:

What is different

What makes the tending of the five lamps different and preferable to the tending of the remaining two lamps,

that he performs

that he tends

the tending of the five lamps first

at the outset?

And why not

perform

perform

the tending of the two lamps first

and afterward perform the tending of the remaining five?

And we answer:

Once he began with them

once he began occupying himself with 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 is able to tend, apart from what is necessary for the second tending, as follows].

And we object: Since we have said that once he began tending the lamps, he tends the majority of them, this is difficult:

Then let him perform six!

Let him first tend six lamps, and after the rites involving the blood of the daily offering, 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” cannot mean fewer than two.

Therefore, at the outset he tended only five lamps, so that two lamps would remain for the second tending.

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

7.

And the tending of the two lamps

precedes the incense.

And we explain the reason:

As the verse says

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

At the beginning of the verse it says:

“When he tends the

lamps.”

And afterward,

and afterward the verse says

“he shall burn it.”

From here it follows that the tending of the lamps precedes the burning of the incense.

Abaye further said:

8.

And incense

precedes

the

burning of the

limbs

of the daily offering.

And the reason is:

As it was taught: The matter concerning which “in the morning, in the morning” is stated takes precedence

namely, the incense,

over the matter concerning which only “morning” is stated,

namely, the daily offering, concerning which it is stated [in Exodus 29]: “You shall perform the one lamb in the morning.”

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

Abaye further said concerning the order of the arrangement:

9.

And

the burning of the

limbs

precedes

the

burning of the

meal-offering.

And the reason is:

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

offered on the great arrangement

shall precede

the burning of the limbs of the

morning daily offering?