Mi vami - Graph Database of the Talmud 1.0
Previous | Next | Yoma 24a


לרבות את השחקים

The phrase comes to include worn out garments, teaching that as long as they have not become tattered they may be used for Temple services.

והניחם שם מלמד שטעונין גניזה רבי דוסא אומר ראוין הן לכהן הדיוט ומה תלמוד לומר והניחם שם שלא ישתמש בהן יום הכפורים אחר

The Gemara continues with another baraita connected to this debate. With regard to the garments of the High Priest, the Torah states: “ And Aaron shall go into the tent of meeting, and he shall take off the linen garments that he had put on when he went into the Sanctuary, and shall leave them there” (Leviticus 16:23). This verse teaches that the linen garments worn by the High Priest during the Yom Kippur service require storing away, i. e., they may not be used again. Rabbi Dosa says: They do not have to be stored away, because although they may not be used again by the High Priest on a subsequent Yom Kippur, they are acceptable for use for a common priest. And what, then, is the meaning when the verse states: “ And shall leave them there, ” which implies that they are not to be used again? It means that the High Priest himself may not use them on a subsequent Yom Kippur for service in the Holy of Holies; it does not mean that they may not be used at all.

מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי דמר סבר עבודה היא ומר סבר לאו עבודה היא

The Gemara returns to the question of whether or not the removal of the ashes is considered a bona fide Temple service, requiring all four priestly garments, and whether or not this is the subject of debate between tanna’im. What, is it not with regard to this that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Dosa disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, who derives from the phrase“ he shall wear” that all four garments are required, holds that the removal of the ashes is a bona fide service; and one Sage, Rabbi Dosa, who derives a different teaching from“ he shall wear, ” holds that it is not a bona fide service, and consequently only two of the four garments are required? Their dispute would therefore be identical to the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish.

לא דכולי עלמא עבודה היא והכא בהא קא מיפלגי מר סבר צריכא קרא לרבויי ומר סבר לא צריכא קרא לרבויי

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is possible to say that this is not the subject of debate between these two tanna’im. Rather, everyone agrees that the removal of ashes is a bona fide Temple service requiring all four garments, and here they disagree about a different point, which is this: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that a derivation from the verse is necessary to include the mitre and belt, which are not mentioned explicitly in the verse. And one Sage, Rabbi Dosa, holds that since the removal of the ash is a bona fide Temple service it is obvious that all four garments are required, so a derivation from a verse to include the other two garments is not necessary. Accordingly, both tanna’im are in agreement that the removal of ash is a bona fide service and requires all four priestly garments.


בעי רבי אבין תרומת הדשן בכמה מתרומת מעשר ילפינן לה או מתרומת מדין ילפינן לה תא שמע דתני רבי חייא נאמר כאן והרים ונאמר להלן והרים מה להלן בקומצו אף כאן בקומצו

§ Rabbi Avin raised a dilemma: How much ash must be removed in order to fulfill the mitzva of removal of the ashes? Do we derive it from the teruma of the tithe, the portion that the Levite sets aside for the priest, in which case one hundredth of the total is separated, or do we derive it from the donations that were set aside from the spoils of the war with Midian, where one five-hundredth was taken from the spoils of war (see Numbers 31: 28)? Come and hear a teaching with regard to this dilemma. As Rabbi Ḥiyya taught in a baraita that it is stated here: “ And he shall take up the ashes” (Leviticus 6:3), and it is said elsewhere, with regard to a meal-offering:“ And he shall take up a handful of the choice flour of the meal-offering” (Leviticus 6:8). Just as there, the amount he removes is a handful of flour, so too, here, he removes a handful of ash. The amount of ashes removed from the altar is therefore not a fixed percentage of the total ash.


אמר רב ארבע עבודות זר חייב עליהן מיתה זריקה והקטרה וניסוך המים וניסוך היין ולוי אמר אף תרומת הדשן וכן תני לוי במתניתיה אף תרומת הדשן

§ Rav said: Although a non-priest may not perform any Temple service, there are only four Temple services for which a non-priest is liable to receive the punishment of death by God’s hand for doing so. They are: Sprinkling sacrificial blood on the altar, and burning incense or parts of sacrificial animals on the altar, and pouring out the water libation on the altar on the festival of Sukkot , and pouring out the wine libation on the altar. And Levi said: This is true also for the removal of the ashes. And similarly, Levi taught in his collection of baraitot: The removal of ashes is also included among those services for which a non-priest incurs the death penalty if he performs them.

מאי טעמא דרב דכתיב ואתה ובניך אתך תשמרו את כהונתכם לכל דבר המזבח ולמבית לפרוכת ועבדתם עבודת מתנה אתן את כהונתכם והזר הקרב יומת עבודת מתנה ולא עבודת סילוק ועבדתם עבודה תמה ולא עבודה שיש אחריה עבודה

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for Rav’s opinion? As it is written: “ And you and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood in everything pertaining to the altar and to that within the veil; and you shall serve; I give you the priesthood as a service of gift; and the common man that draws near shall be put to death” (Numbers 18:7). Rav interprets this verse as follows:“ A service of gift” indicates a service that involves giving, i. e., placing something on the altar, and not a service that involves removal from the altar, to the exclusion of removing the ashes.“ And you shall serve [va’avadtem]” is interpreted as referring to a service that is complete [avoda tamma] on its own, such as sprinkling the blood, and not a service that is not complete, i. e., a service that is only a preparatory step and has another service after it that completes its purpose, such as slaughtering the animal or collecting its blood, which are only preparatory steps leading up to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar.

ולוי רבי רחמנא לכל דבר המזבח ורב ההוא לאתויי שבע הזאות שבפנים ושבמצורע

And what is the reason for the opinion of Levi? Why does he include the removal of ashes? According to him, the Merciful One includes this service by adding“ in everything pertaining to the altar, ” which teaches that all actions performed on the altar, including the removal of ashes, are significant and are prohibited to a non-priest on pain of death. The Gemara asks: And what does Rav learn from the phrase“ in everything pertaining to the altar”? The Gemara answers: According to him, the word“ everything” in that phrase comes to include the seven sprinklings that are performed inside the Sanctuary, when the blood of certain offerings is sprinkled on the veil of the Holy of Holies, and the seven sprinklings of oil of the leper, which are also performed inside the Sanctuary. Rav learns from the word“ everything” that if a non-priest were to perform any of these actions he would be liable to receive the death penalty, despite the fact that they are not performed on the altar.

ולוי נפקא ליה מדבר וכל דבר ורב דבר וכל דבר לא דריש

The Gemara asks: And from where does Levi derive these cases? The Gemara answers: He derives them from the superfluous wording of the text. As the entire phrase“ pertaining to the altar” is superfluous, he derives from this the inclusion of the removal of the ashes. Additionally, the expression“ everything pertaining” implies a further inclusion, from which he derives the internal sprinklings mentioned above. And what does Rav learn from this superfluous wording? Rav does not derive anything particular from the distinction between the expressions“ pertaining to the altar” and“ everything pertaining to the altar. ”

ואימא לכל דבר המזבח כלל עבודת מתנה פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט עבודת מתנה אין עבודת סילוק לא אמר קרא

The Gemara asks about Levi’s position: But say that the verse should be interpreted as follows:“ In everything pertaining” is a generalization, and“ a service of gift” is a specification, indicating a case of a generalization followed by a specification. One of the principles of hermeneutics states that in such cases, the generalization includes only what is mentioned explicitly in the specification. Following that rule, one would conclude: A service of giving, i. e., placing on the altar, yes, this is included, but a service of removal is not included. This presents a difficulty for Levi. The Gemara responds that the verse states: