t.Yom.2.6
A. The members of the house of Abtinas were experts in preparing the incense for producing smoke [cf. M.Yoma 3.11C], and they did not want to teach others how to do so.
B. Sages sent and brought experts from Alexandria, in Egypt, who knew how to concoct spices in much the same way.
C. But they were not experts in making the smoke ascend [as well as the others].
D. The smoke coming from the incense of the house of Abtinas would ascend straight as a stick up to the beams, and afterward it scattered in all directions as it came down.
E. That of the Alexandrians would scatter as it came down forthwith [not rising properly].
F. Now when the sages realized this, they said, ``The Omnipresent has created the world only for his own glory, as it is said, The Lord has made everything for his own purpose (Prov.16.4).``
G. Sages sent to them [the members of the house of Abtinas], but they declined to come until the sages doubled their wages.
H. ``They had been receiving twelve manehs every day, and now they went and got twenty-four,`` the words of R. Meir [T4].
I. R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] says, ``They had been getting twenty-four every day. Now they went and got forty-eight manehs.``
J. Sages said to them, ``Now why were you unwilling to teach [others]?``
K. They said to them, ``The members of father`s house knew that the Temple is destined for destruction, and they did not want to teach others their art, so that people would not burn incense before an idol in the same way in which they burn incense before the Omnipresent.``
L. And in this [next] matter, they are remembered for good:
A woman of their household never went out wearing perfume at any time,
M. and not only so, but when they would marry into their household a woman from some other place, they made an agreement that she not put on perfume,
N. so that people should not say, ``Their women are putting on perfume made up from the preparation of the incense for the Temple.``
O. This they did to carry out the following verse, And you shall be clear before the Lord and before Israel (Num.32.22).
MISHNAH: m.Yom.2.6A ram was offered by eleven: the flesh by five, the inwards, the fine flour, and the wine by two each.
MISHNAH: m.Yom.2.7A bullock was offered by twenty-four: the head and [right] hind-leg the head by one and the [right] hind-leg by two [priests] the tail and [left] hind-leg the tail by two and the [left] hind-leg by two. The breast and neck the breast by one and the neck by three. The two fore-legs by two, the two flanks by two. The inwards, the fine flour, and the wine by three each. This applies only to offerings of the community. In private offerings, however, if a single priest wants to offer [all], he may do so. But as to the flaying and dismembering of both communal, and private offerings the same regulations apply.
GEMARA: A Tanna taught: The law regarding the flaying and the dismembering is alike in both [communal and private sacrifices] in that they may be done by a non-priest. Hezekiah said: Whence do we know that the law regarding flaying and dismembering is alike [with all sacrifices] in that they may be done by a non-priest? Because it is written: And the sons of Aaron the high priest shall put fire upon the altar, i.e., priesthood is required for the putting of the fire upon the altar, but not for the flaying and dismembering. b.Yom.27a But that passage is required for its own information? R. Shimi b. Ashi said: I found Abaye [BA4] explaining it to his son: [It was taught]: `One shall kill,` hence we infer that even a non-priest may kill [the sacrificial animal]. But whence are you coming? Because Scripture says: And thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priesthood, [in everything that pertaineth to the altar]. I might have learned that even the killing [must be done by priests alone], therefore it is written: And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord,` and Aaron`s sons, the priests, shall present the blood, i.e., the work of the priesthood is commanded only from the receiving [`presenting`] of the blood and so on. And he shall lay his hand . . . and he shall kill, hence we are taught that the killing [of the sacrificial animal] is permissible even to a non-priest. Now, [Abaye [BA4] went on explaining to his son] since the work obligatory on the priests starts only with the receiving of the blood, what is the purpose of: And the sons of Aaron . . . shall put the fire? To exclude flaying and dismembering. But still that was necessary. For one might have thought since [the putting on of the fire] is not a kind of service, the omission of which prevents atonement, it did not require priesthood, hence we are taught [from this passage] that it requires priesthood? Rather do we infer it from here: And Aaron`s sons, the priests, shall lay it, order the pieces, and the head, and the suet. Now, since the work obligatory upon priests starts with the receiving of the blood, why was the passage: `And they shall lay in order` [etc.] necessary? It meant to exclude the flaying and the dismemberment. But say perhaps that it means to exclude the arranging of the two logs of wood? It seems logical that the passage excludes [a service relating to the sacrifice itself] which is of the type referred to. On the contrary: [it seems logical that] it excludes the `putting in order` of [wood], which is analogous [to the `laying in order` of the pieces referred to]. This thought should not arise in your mind, for a Master taught: `And the priest shall offer the whole . . . upon the altar.` This refers to the bringing up of the limbs to the ramp. Now only the bringing of the limbs to the ramp requires a priest, but not the bringing of the logs of wood, implying that the putting in order of the two logs of wood requires a priest. Why, then, is it necessary to state `And they [the priests] shall lay [the pieces] in order`? To exclude flaying and dismembering. But say, perhaps, that this text is necessary for its own meaning? --[In reality so.] What then is the purpose of [the passage], `And the priest shall make the whole smoke upon the altar`? To exclude flaying and dismembering. [So that] `And the priest shall offer the whole` refers to the bringing up of the limbs to the ramp; only the bringing up of the limbs to the ramp requires a priest, but not the bringing of the two logs of wood to the ramp. Implying that the putting in order of the two logs of wood that does require the services of a priest and the words: `And they shall put` have immediate text meaning; the words `And they shall lay in order [the pieces]` indicate it must be two; the words: `The sons of Aaron` also indicate two; the words: `The priests` also indicate two, together we learn from them that the [offering up of the] lamb requires the services of six priests. R. Hamnuna [BA2 or BA3] said: To R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] it seems difficult, for this passage refers to the young bullock, the service in connection with which required twenty-four priests! But he found it right again , for Scripture says: Upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar ; now what thing is it in connection with which `wood`, `fire` and `altar` are mentioned? b.Yom.27b Say it is the lamb.
R. Assi [BA1 or PA3] said in the name of R. Johanan [PA2]: A non-priest who laid the pile of wood in order [on the altar] incurs the penalty [of death]. What should he do [post facto]? Let him break it up and then put it in order again. What is the good of that? Rather: Let the non-priest break it up again and let a priest put it in order afterwards. R. Ze`ira demurred to this: But is there not a service which may be performed also at night and which a non-priest would render invalid? Surely, there is the smoking of the limbs and the fat-pieces. That is but the conclusion of the service of the day. But there is the removing of the ashes? That is the beginning of the work of the day, as R. Assi [BA1 or PA3] has reported in the name of R. Johanan [PA2]: If he has sanctified his hands [by washing] in the morning for the removal of the ashes, he need not sanctify [them] on the morrow, for he has already sanctified them from the beginning of the service. But the difficulty remains! If this statement was made, it was stated thus: R. Assi [BA1 or PA3] said in the name of R. Johanan [PA2]: A non-priest who laid the two logs of wood in order incurs the penalty [of death] because this is a day service. Raba [BA4] demurred to this: If so, a count should be required for it! It escaped him what had been taught: He who secured the task of clearing the ashes off the altar, [thereby also] secured the task of putting in order the pile of wood and the two logs of wood. Shall we, then, say that only service performed during the day requires the count but service performed during the night does not require the count? Surely there is the [smoking of the] members and the fat-pieces? That is the end of the service of the day. But there is the removal of the ashes? That is due to a certain event. Shall we say that only for service performed during the day and for participation in which a non-priest incurs the penalty of death, a count is required, but that wherever a non-priest does not incur penalty of death for performance of a service, no count is required? But then what of the killing [of the animal]? It is different with the killing because that is the beginning of the service.
Mar Zutra [BA6] or R. Ashi [BA6] said: But we have learned otherwise: The officer said to them: Go forth and see if the time for the killing [of the continual morning sacrifice] has arrived, but he is not teaching about the laying in order of the two logs of wood? It speaks only of such things as cannot be remedied again, but not such for which there is a remedy. Some say this is what R. Ze`ira asked: Is there any service followed by another service, which would be invalidated if performed by a non-priest? b.Yom.28a Surely there is [the smoking of] the limbs and fat-pieces? That is the end of the service of the day. But what of the removal of the ashes? It is the beginning of the service of the day, for R. Johanan [PA2] said: If he sanctified his hands by washing for the removal of the ashes, in the morning he need not sanctify [his hands] since he had already sanctified them at the beginning of the service. If so the difficulty remains? Rather if this statement was made it was made thus: R. Assi [BA1 or PA3] said in the name of R. Johanan [PA2]: If a non-priest arranged in order two logs of wood [on the altar] he incurs the penalty of death, because it is a complete service. To this Raba [BA4] demurred: If this is so let it require a count. But it requires no count? Surely it was taught, He who secures the privilege in respect of the removal of the ashes, secures also the privilege in respect of the arranging of the two logs of wood? This is what he means. It should have a separate count for itself? The [reason is] as we have already stated. Are we to say that for a service which is complete, and for the performance of which a non-priest incurs the penalty of death, a count is required, but for one, for performance of which a non-priest does not incur such penalty, no count is required but there is the killing [of the sacrificial animal]? It is different with that killing, because it is the beginning of the service of the day. Shall we say that only a complete service requires the count, but a service followed by another does not require it but there is the smoking of the members and the fat-pieces? That is the end of the service of the day. But there is the removal of the ashes? Here [the count is due] because of what happened. Mar Zutra [BA6] or R. Ashi [BA6] said: We too have learnt thus: The officer said to them: go forth and set whether the time for the killing of the morning sacrifice has arrived. But he does not teach anything about the time for the laying in order of the two logs of wood? He teaches only concerning such things as cannot be remedied again, but not concerning such for which there is a remedy.
m.Yom.2.5
[A] The daily whole-offering was offered by nine, ten, eleven, or twelve [priests], no less, no more.
[B] How so?
[C] It itself was offered by nine [priests].
[D] On the Festival [of Tabernacles], in the hand of one [additional priest] was a flask of water - thus ten.
[E] At dusk, by eleven: it itself by nine, and two, with two pieces of wood in their hands.
[F] And on the Sabbath, by eleven: it itself by nine and two priests, with two dishes of frankincense for the show bread in their hands.
[G] And on the Sabbath which coincides with the Festival [of Tabernacles], in the hand of yet another priest was a flask of water.
m.Yom.2.6
[H] A ram was offered by eleven: the meat by five, the innards, flour, and wine by two each.
m.Yom.2.7
[I] An ox was offered by twenty-four:
[J] the head and the right hind-leg - the head by one, and the right hind-leg by two;
[K] the rump and the left hind-leg - the rump by two, and the left hind-leg by two;
[L] the breast and the neck - the breast by one, and the neck by three;
[M] the two forelegs by two;
[N] the two flanks by two;
[O] the innards, the fine flour, and the wine by three each.
[P] Under what circumstances?
[Q] In the case of public offerings.
[R] But in the case of an individual`s offering,
[S] if [one priest] wanted to offer it up [all by himself], he offered it up.
[T] Flaying and cutting up both these and those [offerings] are subject to the same rules. y.Yom.2.4 I
[A] ``And [Aaron`s sons the priests] shall lay [the pieces, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire upon the altar]`` (Lev.1.8).
[B] [With reference to Lev.15.25: ``(If a woman has a discharge of blood for many) days, (not at the time of her impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her impurity, all the days of the discharge she shall continue in uncleanness; as in the days of her impurity, she shall be unclean),``] is it possible to suppose that involved are a hundred [days]? Is it possible to suppose that involved are two hundred? [At issue is the number of days involved at Lev.15.25.]
[C] Said R. Aqiba, ``In any case in interpreting the law in which you have the choice of imposing either a considerable measure or a small measure, if you impose the larger criterion, you may end up holding on to nothing, while if you impose the smaller criterion [which in any case is encompassed in the larger one], you end up holding on to something. [Accordingly, one should assume the smallest possible number in interpreting a given requirement.]``
[D] It has been taught: R. Judah b. Beterah says, ``If you have two measures, one which contains what you wish to measure, and one which does not contain it [but is much larger], all measure with the one which contains what you wish to measure, and do not measure with the one which does not contain it.``
[E] Said R. Nehemiah [T4], ``Now does the Scripture come to open or to close [off possibilities]? Its purpose is not to close but to open, thus: If you say, `[If a woman has a discharge of blood for many] days, [not at the time of her impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her impurity, all the days of the discharge she shall continue in uncleanness; as in the days of her impurity, she shall be unclean]` (Lev.15.25), so that `days` means ten, [one might maintain] they are not ten but a hundred, two hundred, a thousand, ten thousand.
[F] ``If you say that `days` means two [days only], you have opened [the way, with the minimum plural being two].``
[G] [Working along this same line of thought,] R. Mana [PA5] said in the name of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y], ```Days` means two days. Is it possible that there are many days [involved]? If you maintain that they are many days, has it not already been said `many`? Lo, Scripture speaks of only a few days, and how many are they? One must say, `They are two,` and `many` means they are three [in all].
[H] ``Is it possible to suppose that when it says `many,` it means ten?
[I] ``The Scripture has said `days,` and it has said `many.` Just as the smallest number of days is two, so the smallest addition referred to by `many` is three.
[J] ``Is it possible to reckon that the two and the three - lo they are five? [So if the flow persists for five days, the woman is unclean?]
[K] ``And is it said `days and many`? And is it not said only `many days`?
[L] ``How so? These many days should be more numerous than two, and how many are they? One must say `three.```
[M]] ``And Aaron`s sons the priests shall lay the pieces`` (Lev.1.8):
[N] Is it possible to maintain that there may be a hundred [priests]?
[O] Scripture states, ``And the priest shall lay them in order upon the wood`` (Lev.1.12).
[P] If Scripture states, ``And the priest shall lay them...,`` is it possible to suppose that it should be only a single priest to lay out all the limbs?
[Q] Scripture says, ``[And Aaron`s sons the priests] shall lay...``
[R] How so?
[S] One priest lays out two limbs.
[T] And how many limbs are there? Ten.
[U] And one for the innards.
[V] ``It turns out that a lamb is taken up to the altar by six priests,`` the words of R. Ishmael [T3].
[W] R. Aqiba says, ```And they shall lay` means two; `the sons of Aaron` means two; `the priests` means two. It turns out that six priests serve to bring a lamb up to the altar.``
[X] [The following is interpolated and does not belong:] ```The priests` serve to encompass the bald priests [and others who are blemished, that they too, even though they may not serve, nonetheless must avoid corpse-uncleanness in line with Lev.21.1ff.],`` the words of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y].
[Y] [Reverting to V-W,] And does not Scripture speak of a beast of the herd?
[Z] And how do you derive from scripture that the passage ad dresses the daily whole-offering of the morning?
[AA] Simeon bar Ba [PA3], R. Yohanan [PA2] in the name of R. Yannai: ``Here, `laying out` is stated, and below, the same word is used: `And the priest shall lay them...` (Lev.1.12).
[BB] ``Just as when the word `laying out` is stated there, it speaks of the daily whole-offering of the morning, so when the word `laying out` is used here, it speaks of the daily whole- offering of the morning.``
[CC] Ulla bar Ishmael in the name of R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3]: ``It is not necessary [to introduce the analogy by the repeated use of the same word AA-BB]. On the basis of the use of the language `and they shall lay,` do we not know that they are two [priests who are to do the work]? And thus do you interpret the passage `and they shall lay out` refers to two; `the sons of Aaron` refers to two, `the priests` refers to two. [This discourse surely refers to the lamb offered in the morning, which is the first offering of the day. For this is the first thing to be placed on the wood on the fire .]
[DD] ``And so it has been taught: `You have nothing that takes precedence over the daily whole-offering in the morning, except for burning the incense alone.``` y.Yom.2.4 II
[A] [As to m.Yom.2.4H: A ram was offered by eleven.] Three priests can bring it up to the altar. And why is a ram offered by eleven priests?
[B] It is so as to make the matter well known [by the participation of many priests].
[C] Rabbis of Caesarea say, ``On what account is the bullock offered by no fewer than twenty-four priests? It is so as to make the matter well known.
[D] ``It is on the count of the following verse: `Within God`s house we walked in fellowship` (Ps.55.14).`` y.Yom.2.4 III
[A] [With reference to m.Yom.2.4Q-S, we shall now prove that an ox belonging to an individual may be offered even by six priests:] Interpret the pertinent verse as follows: ``And they shall lay out`` refers to two priests. ``Sons of Aaron`` refers to two priests. ``The priests`` refers to two priests.
[B] On the basis of this passage, then, we learn that the ox offered by an individual is to be brought up by six priests.