Yoma 47

לרבות את השחקים

It includes worn-out garments.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They may be worn for any service as long as they are wearable, i.e., whole.');">¹</span> And he shall leave them there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 23. With reference to the garments worn by the high priest on the Day of Atonement.');">²</span> that teaches that they must be hidden away. R'Dosa says: They are fit for use by a common priest.

(ויקרא טז, כג) והניחם שם מלמד שטעונין גניזה ר' דוסא אומר ראוין הן לכהן הדיוט ומה תלמוד לומר והניחם שם שלא ישתמש בהן יום הכפורים אחר

What does 'And he shall leave them there' intimate? That he [the high priest] must not use them on another Day of Atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the end of the Baraitha, 46a.');">³</span> Now would you not say that this is the subject of their dispute: that one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah.');">⁴</span> holds it [the removal of the ashes] to be a service<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore it requires for it all the four garments.');">⁵</span>

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

and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Dosa.');">⁶</span> does not consider it such?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore holds that the linen tunic and breeches are sufficient without the mitre and girdle.');">⁷</span> - No. Everybody agrees it is a service; the point of dispute here is this: One says another scriptural passage is necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lest one assume that the verse is to be taken literally, that only two garments are required, hence that this is no service proper.');">⁸</span>

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

to include also for this service [the four garments]; the other: no such passage is necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Scripture insists on the tunic and breeches it is evidently considered a service, requiring all the four garments.');">⁹</span> R'Abin asked: How much of the ashes of the altar is to be removed? Shall we infer [the quantity] from the taking off of the tithe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 25, where about one per cent is taken off.');">¹⁰</span> or from what was taken off from the [spoil of] Midian?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXXI, 28-40, where it is but one-fifth of one per cent.');">¹¹</span>

בעי ר' אבין תרומת הדשן בכמה מתרומת מעשר ילפינן לה או מתרומת מדין ילפינן לה תא שמע דתני ר' חייא נאמר כאן (ויקרא ו, ג) והרים ונאמר להלן (ויקרא ו, ג) והרים מה להלן בקומצו אף כאן בקומצו

- Come and hear: For R'Hiyya taught: Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 3.');">¹²</span> the word 'herim' ['he shall take up'] is used and there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 8.');">¹³</span> the expression 'we-herim' ['and he shall take up'] is used. Just as in the latter case it means taking a handful, so in the former case it means taking a handful.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [It is not inferred either from tithe or from the spoil of Midian, but from the handful taken by the priest. This however applies only to the minimum, which may however be exceeded at will (Rashi) .]');">¹⁴</span>

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

Rab said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. ');">¹⁵</span> There are four services for the performance of which a non-priest [stranger] incurs penalty of death:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the common man is forbidden to perform any service in the sanctuary, he does not incur the penalty of death in any but the following cases.');">¹⁶</span> sprinkling, smoking [the fat],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'the handful of the meal-offering'.');">¹⁷</span> the water libation, and the libation of wine.

מאי טעמא דרב דכתיב (במדבר יח, ז) 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

Levi says: also the removal of the ashes. Thus did Levi also teach us in his Baraitha: Also the removal of the ashes. What is the reason for Rab's view? It is written: And thou and thy sons with thee shall keep the priesthood in everything that pertaineth to the altar, and to that within the veil; and ye shall serve; I give you the priesthood as a service of gift; and the common man that draweth nigh shall be put to death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 7.');">¹⁸</span>

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

'A service of gift', but not service of removal;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the removal of the ashes. o,scg vn, ,sucg');">¹⁹</span> 'and you shall serve, i.e., a complete service, not a service followed by another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Hebrew word is divided into so as to read: perfect service, i.e., one complete, without additional functions such as the four services mentioned by Rab. This excludes a service such as slaughtering which is not complete without the rites connected with the sprinkling of the blood that follow it.');">²⁰</span> And Levi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's inferences excluding the removal of the ashes seem to be right?');">²¹</span> - The Divine Law included it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The removal of the ashes for the performance of which a non-priest incurs penalty of death.');">²²</span>

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

in saying: 'In every thing that pertaineth to the altar.' And Rab?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Everything that pertaineth obviously includes something else. Unless some other service is intended, Levi proves his case.');">²³</span> - That is meant to include the seven sprinklings within,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 6: And sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord; ibid. 17. also ibid. XVI, 14.');">²⁴</span> and those concerning the leper.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 51: And he shall take the cedar-wood . . and sprinkle the house seven times, which may not be considered as part of 'the altar' service; the same applies to the functions referred to in the preceding note.');">²⁵</span>

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

And Levi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whence does he infer these?');">²⁶</span> - He infers [these] from [the fact that instead of] 'the thing', [is written] 'every thing', [t pertaineth]. And Rab?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What does 'everything' suggest to him.');">²⁷</span> - He does not infer aught from 'every thing'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he does not expound the thing" as="" everything".'');"="">²⁸</span> But say this: 'In everything that pertaineth to the altar' is a general proposition; 'service of gift' is a specification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Already comprehended in the general proposition.');">²⁹</span> Now: if a general proposition is followed by a specification, the scope of the proposition is limited by the specification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is one of the principles of hermeneutics (kelal u-ferat) according to R. Ishmael, v. Shebu., Sonc. ed., p. 12, n. 9.');">³⁰</span> hence the 'service of gift' would be included, but a service of removal would be excluded? - The scriptural text reads: