## Yoma Daf 24a

###### Yoma 24a:1
[Yoma 24a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/24a:1)

לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשְּׁחָקִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Yoma 24a:2
[Yoma 24a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/24a:2)

״וְהִנִּיחָם שָׁם״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנִין גְּנִיזָה. רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר: רְאוּיִן הֵן לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִנִּיחָם שָׁם״ — שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Yoma 24a:3
[Yoma 24a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/24a:3)

מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: עֲבוֹדָה הִיא, וּמָר סָבַר: לָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Yoma 24a:4
[Yoma 24a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/24a:4)

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא עֲבוֹדָה הִיא, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: צְרִיכָא קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיֵי, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא צְרִיכָא קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Yoma 24a:5
[Yoma 24a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/24a:5)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי אָבִין: תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן בְּכַמָּה? מִתְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר יָלְפִינַן לַהּ, אוֹ מִתְּרוּמַת מִדְיָן יָלְפִינַן לַהּ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״וְהֵרִים״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״וְהֵרִים״. מָה לְהַלָּן — בְּקוּמְצוֹ, אַף כָּאן — בְּקוּמְצוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Yoma 24a:6
[Yoma 24a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/24a:6)

אָמַר רַב: אַרְבַּע עֲבוֹדוֹת זָר חַיָּיב עֲלֵיהֶן מִיתָה: זְרִיקָה, וְהַקְטָרָה, וְנִיסּוּךְ הַמַּיִם, וְנִיסּוּךְ הַיַּיִן. וְלֵוִי אָמַר: אַף תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן. וְכֵן תָּנֵי לֵוִי בְּמַתְנִיתֵיהּ: אַף תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Yoma 24a:7
[Yoma 24a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/24a:7)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְרַב — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ אִתְּךָ תִּשְׁמְרוּ אֶת כְּהוּנַּתְכֶם לְכׇל דְּבַר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּלְמִבֵּית לַפָּרוֹכֶת וַעֲבַדְתֶּם עֲבוֹדַת מַתָּנָה אֶתֵּן אֶת כְּהוּנַּתְכֶם וְהַזָּר הַקָּרֵב יוּמָת״. ״עֲבוֹדַת מַתָּנָה״ — וְלֹא עֲבוֹדַת סִילּוּק, ״וַעֲבַדְתֶּם״ — עֲבוֹדָה תַּמָּה, וְלֹא עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ אַחֲרֶיהָ עֲבוֹדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Yoma 24a:8
[Yoma 24a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/24a:8)

וְלֵוִי — רַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״לְכׇל דְּבַר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״. וְרַב — הַהוּא לְאֵתוֹיֵי שֶׁבַע הַזָּאוֹת שֶׁבִּפְנִים וְשֶׁבִּמְצוֹרָע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yoma 24a:9
[Yoma 24a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/24a:9)

וְלֵוִי — נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״דְּבַר״ וְ״כׇל דְּבַר״. וְרַב — ״דְּבַר״ וְ״כׇל דְּבַר״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.”


###### Yoma 24a:10
[Yoma 24a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/24a:10)

וְאֵימָא: ״לְכׇל דְּבַר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ — כָּלַל, ״עֲבוֹדַת מַתָּנָה״ — פָּרַט, כְּלָל וּפְרָט. אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט: עֲבוֹדַת מַתָּנָה — אִין, עֲבוֹדַת סִילּוּק — לָא! אָמַר קְרָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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:**