Yoma 50

תא שמע רבי יהודה אומר לא היה פייס למחתה אלא כהן שזכה בקטרת אומר לזה שעמו זכה עמי במחתה

Come and hear: R'Judah said: There was no count for the coal-pan, but the priest who had obtained the task of [smoking] the incense said to his assistant: Obtain with me the privilege of serving the coal-pan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The incense required two priests: one who carried the incense into the Temple and smoked it, the other who took out the coals from the outer altar, brought them into the Temple, and put them on the inner altar to smoke the incense upon them. V. infra 26a. From here it appears that not every task required a count.');">¹</span> - It is different with incense and coal-pan, because they form together one service.

שאני מחתה וקטרת דחדא עבודה היא

Some argue thus: This is the case only with coal-pan and incense, because they form one service, but all other tasks require individual count!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that every task requires a count.');">²</span> - [No.] With regard to the coal-pan it is necessary to inform us [that no separate count is required] for the thought could have arisen that because it takes place rarely and enriches,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 26a.');">³</span>

איכא דאמרי דוקא מחתה וקטרת דחדא עבודה היא אבל שאר עבודות בעי פייס

therefore a special count should be arranged for it, hence we are taught [that it is not so]. Come and hear: R'Hiyya taught: There was no count for each individual task, the priest who secured the task of [the killing of] the daily burnt-offering drew twelve priests to himself [for the tasks involved].

מחתה אצטריכא ליה סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ולא שכיחא ומעתרא נתקין לה פייס בפני עצמה קמ"ל

This proves it. THE SECOND COUNT: The question was asked: Who receives the blood?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a basin for sprinkling purposes.');">⁴</span>

ת"ש דתני ר' חייא לא לכל עבודה ועבודה מפייסין אלא כהן שזכה בתמיד שנים עשר אחיו הכהנים נמשכין עמו שמע מינה

[Do we say that] he who killed? For if you were to say that the one who sprinkles the blood receives it, perhaps in his enthusiasm<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his love (for the service) '.');">⁵</span>

פייס השני וכו' איבעיא להו מי מקבל שוחט מקבל דאי אמרת זורק מקבל אגב חביבותיה לא מקבל ליה לכוליה דם

he may not receive the whole blood; or does the sprinkler receive it, for if you were to say that he who kills the animal receives the blood, occasionally a non-priest kills [the animal]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As deduced from Lev. I, 5; a non-priest may kill the animal, as the priestly functions in connection with an animal-sacrifice begin with the receiving of the blood.');">⁶</span> - Come and hear: Ben Katin made twelve spigots for the laver so that his twelve brethren, the priests, who are occupied with the daily regular sacrifice, may simultaneously wash their hands and feet.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 37a.');">⁷</span>

או דילמא זורק מקבל דאי אמרת שוחט מקבל זימנין דשחיט זר

Now, if you were to think that he who kills [the animal] also receives its blood there would be thirteen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There were thirteen tasks according to the MISHNAH: The slaughtering, however, since even a commoner might perform it, did not require washing of hands and feet even if performed by a priest. But if he who slaughtered it should also receive its blood, he would have to wash his hands too because of the subsequent receiving of the blood.');">⁸</span> Must we not therefore infer therefrom that he who sprinkles receives the blood?

ת"ש בן קטין עשה י"ב דד לכיור כדי שיהיו י"ב אחיו הכהנים העסוקין בתמיד מקדשין ידיהן ורגליהן בבת אחת

This proves it. R'Aha, the son of Raba said to R'Ashi: We have also learnt thus: He whose lot it was to slaughter it, slaughtered it; he whose lot it was to receive the blood, received it - and then he came to sprinkle it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tamid IV, 1.');">⁹</span>

ואי סלקא דעתך שוחט מקבל תליסר הוי אלא לאו ש"מ זורק מקבל שמע מינה

This proves it. BEN 'AZZAI SAID BEFORE R'AKIBA, etc. : Our Rabbis taught: What is 'THE WAY OF ITS WALKING'?

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי אף אנן נמי תנינא שחט השוחט וקבל המקבל ובא לו לזרוק שמע מינה

The head, right hind-leg, breast and neck, the two fore-legs, the two flanks, the tail and the left hind-leg. R'Jose says: It was offered up in the order in which it is flayed.

אמר בן עזאי לפני רבי עקיבא וכו' ת"ר כיצד דרך הלוכו הראש והרגל החזה והגרה ושתי ידים ושתי דפנות העוקץ והרגל ר' יוסי אומר דרך הפשטו היה קרב כיצד דרך הפשטו הראש והרגל העוקץ והרגל ושתי דפנות ושתי הידים החזה והגרה

Which is the order of its being flayed? The head, the right hind-leg, the tail, the left hind-leg, the two flanks, the two fore-legs, the breast, and the ne R'Akiba says: It was offered up in the order in which it was dissected.

ר"ע אומר דרך ניתוחו היה קרב כיצד דרך ניתוחו הראש והרגל ושתי ידים החזה והגרה ושתי דפנות והעוקץ והרגל רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר דרך עילויו היה קרב כיצד דרך עילויו הראש והרגל החזה והגרה ושתי הדפנות והעוקץ והרגל ושתי הידים

Which is the order of the dissection? The head, the right hind-leg, the two forelegs, the breast and the neck, the two flanks, the tail and the left hind-leg.

והכתיב (יחזקאל כד, ד) כל נתח טוב ירך וכתף ההיא בכחושה

R'Jose the Galilean says: It was offered up in the order of its best parts. Which is the order of its best parts?

אמר רבא בין תנא דידן ובין ר' יוסי בתר עילויא דבשרא אזלינן מר אזיל בתר איברא דבישרא ומר אזיל בתר שמנא דבישרא

The head, the [right] hind-leg, the breast and neck, the two flanks, the tail and the [left] hind-le and the two fore-legs. But is it not written: Even every good piece, the thigh and the shoulder?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XXIV, 4. [This shows that the thigh (the hind-leg) and the shoulder (the foreleg) are among the best pieces whereas here they are ohbah 'xu, mentioned last () ; v. however p. 119, n. 2.]');">¹⁰</span>

מ"ט סלקא רגל בהדי רישא משום דרישא נפישי ביה עצמות קרבא רגל בהדיה

- That refers to a lean animal:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The verse speaks of the wicked in Israel who plunder the poor and consume the good pieces of their animals which at best could only be lean, whereas the daily sacrifices were offered from the best, Ibid.]');">¹¹</span> Raba said: Both our Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Tanna of our MISHNAH:');">¹²</span>

דכולי עלמא מיהת ראש קרב ברישא מנא לן דתניא מניין לראש ופדר שקודמין לכל האברים ת"ל (ויקרא א, יב) את ראשו ואת פדרו וערך ואידך פדר אחרינא

and R'Jose the Galilean follow the order of quality of the meat, but one takes into consideration the size [of the limbs], the other the fatness. Why does the head go together with the [right] hind-leg?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Var. lec. transfer here both the question from Ezek. XXIV, 4 and the answer that follows. In this reading these refer to 'our Tanna' who mentions 'the fore-legs' before the hind-legs whereas in Ezekiel the thigh (hind-leg) is given preference, v. Bah.]');">¹³</span> Because the head has many bones; one attaches the [meaty] hindleg to it. All<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ben 'Azzai, R Jose, R. Akiba, R. Jose the Galilean, whilst basing their order on different considerations, all have the head offered up first.');">¹⁴</span> agree at any rate that the head is offered up first. Whence do we derive this rule? Because it has been taught: Whence do we know that the head and the suet come before all other parts [of the animal]? To teach us that, it says: He shall lay it in order with its head and its suet.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 12. Infra 26a.');">¹⁵</span> And as to the other 'suet',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. I, 8: The pieces, and the head, and the suet. It was included in the other pieces.');">¹⁶</span>