למאי אתא לכדתניא כיצד היה עושה נותן את הפדר אבית השחיטה ומעלהו וזה הוא דרך כבוד של מעלה
what does that come to teach us? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita: In what manner would the priest placing the pieces on the altar do so? He would place the fat right over the place of slaughter, that is, on the cut neck, and bring it up that way, and that is the most respectful way toward the Most High, that the bloody point of slaughter not be exposed.
מתני׳ הפייס השלישי חדשים לקטרת באו והפיסו והרביעי חדשים עם ישנים מי מעלה אברים מן הכבש למזבח
MISHNA: Before the third lottery, the appointee declared: Let only those priests who are new to offering the incense come and participate in the lottery for the incense. The fourth lottery was open to those new to the service along with those old hands who had already performed it,to determine who would take the limbs up from the ramp, where they had been placed earlier, to the altar.
גמ׳ תנא מעולם לא שנה אדם בה מ"ט א"ר חנינא מפני שמעשרת
GEMARA: A Sage taught in the Tosefta: No person ever performed the service of the incense twice, as a new priest was always found for this service. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they were insistent that no priest should be assigned this task more than once in his life? Rabbi Ḥanina said: It is because it brings wealth to the one who performs it. Since bringing the incense was a blessing for wealth, it was decided that as many different priests as possible should have an opportunity to do this service.
א"ל רב פפא לאביי מ"ט אילימא משום דכתיב (דברים לג, י) ישימו קטורה באפך וכתיב בתריה (דברים לג, יא) ברך ה' חילו אי הכי עולה נמי הכתיב (דברים לג, י) וכליל על מזבחך
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: What is the reason for this assertion that the one who burns the incense becomes wealthy? If we say it is because it is written: “They shall put incense before You and whole burnt-offerings on Your altar” (Deuteronomy 33:10), and it is written immediately after that: “Bless, O Lord, his substance” (Deuteronomy 33:11), if so, we should also make the same assertion concerning those who perform the sacrifice of a burnt-offering, since it is written in that same verse: “And whole burnt-offerings on Your altar.”
א"ל הא שכיחא והא לא שכיחא
Abaye said to him: There is a difference between the two: This, the sacrifice of a burnt-offering, is frequent, and that, the burning of incense, is infrequent. There were many burnt-offerings, both obligatory and voluntary, brought during the course of a day, whereas the incense was burned only twice a day. It is logical to assume that the blessing of riches was not extended to the many priests who participated in the burnt-offerings, but to the few priests who performed the burning of the incense.
אמר רבא לא משכחת צורבא מרבנן דמורי אלא דאתי משבט לוי או משבט יששכר לוי דכתיב (דברים לג, י) יורו משפטיך ליעקב יששכר דכתב (דברי הימים א יב, לג) (ובני) יששכר יודעי בינה לעתים לדעת מה יעשה ישראל ואימא יהודה נמי דכתיב (תהלים ס, ט) יהודה מחוקקי אסוקי שמעתא אליבא דהילכתא קאמינא
Apropos this passage in Deuteronomy, Rava said: You do not find a young Torah scholar who gives halakhic instruction unless he comes from the tribe of Levi or from the tribe of Issachar. The assertion with regard to the tribe of Levi is as it is written: “They shall teach Jacob Your ordinances and Israel Your law” (Deuteronomy 33:10). And the assertion with regard to the tribe of Issachar is as it is written: “And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel should do” (I Chronicles 12:33). The Gemara asks: And say that scholars come from the tribe of Judah also, as it is written: “Judah is my lawgiver” (Psalms 60:9). Rava answers: While it is true that the tribe of Judah also taught Torah, in my statement I was speaking only of those who can draw conclusions according to the halakha. Although Judah produces great scholars, men capable of translating abstract analysis of the Torah into legal principles come from the two tribes mentioned.
א"ר יוחנן אין מפייסין על תמיד של בין הערבים אלא כהן שזכה בו בשחרית זוכה בו ערבית מיתיבי כשם שמפייסין שחרית כך מפייסין בין הערבים כי תניא ההיא בקטורת
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They did not hold a separate lottery for the slaughtering and sacrifice of the daily afternoon offering. Rather, the same priest who won a particular privilege for the morning offering wins the privilege for the corresponding task in the evening, i.e., for the afternoon service. In this way, the morning lottery covered both services. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Just as they hold a lottery in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery in the afternoon. This shows that there was a separate lottery for the daily afternoon offering. The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught, it referred only to the incense, which, as stated above, was given to a different priest each time it was offered.
והתניא כשם שמפייסין לו שחרית כך מפייסין לו ערבית אימא לה
The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Just as they hold a lottery for it [lo] in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [lo] in the afternoon. The masculine pronoun lo indicates that it is not referring to the incense, which is a feminine noun in Hebrew, but to the daily afternoon offering, which is described by a masculine noun. The Gemara answers: Change the wording of the baraita and say: Lah, using the feminine pronoun instead of the masculine lo, so that it is indeed referring to the incense.
והתניא כשם שמפייסין לו שחרית כך מפייסין לו ערבית וכשם שמפייסין לה שחרית כך מפייסין לה ערבית
The Gemara asks further: But wasn’t it taught in another baraita: Just as they hold a lottery for it [lo] the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [lo] in the afternoon; and just as they hold a lottery for it [lah] in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [lah] in the afternoon. This baraita makes the statement twice, once using the masculine pronoun and once using the feminine pronoun, which shows that there was a separate lottery in the afternoon not only for the incense but also for the daily offering.
אמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק הכא בשבת עסקינן הואיל ומשמרות מתחדשות
Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: There is no contradiction. Here, in this last baraita, we are dealing with Shabbat, when a second lottery in the afternoon was necessary, since the priestly rotations are renewed each Shabbat. On Shabbat the outgoing watch of priests performs the morning service, and the incoming watch performs the afternoon service. Therefore, the same priest could not perform the service of both the morning and afternoon offerings, necessitating a second lottery on that day to designate priests for the various afternoon tasks.
ולמאי דסליק אדעתין מעיקרא נפישי להו פייסות מייתי כולהו מצפרא אתו דזכי ביה שחרית זכי דזכי בערבית זכי
The Gemara asks: And according to what we thought initially, that there was a separate lottery each day for the daily afternoon offering, there would be too many lotteries, as the mishna states that there were just four lotteries daily. How was it conceivable even to consider such a possibility? The Gemara answers: The thought was that all the priests would come and assemble just once, in the morning, for both lotteries, and the priest who would win the lottery for sacrificing the daily morning offering would win that privilege for the morning only, and the priest who would win the lottery for sacrificing the daily afternoon offering would win the privilege for the afternoon.
הרביעי חדשים עם ישנים וכו' מתניתין דלא כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב דתנן רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר המעלה איברים לכבש הוא מעלה אותן למזבח
§ The mishna states: The fourth lottery was open to those new to the service along with those old hands who had already performed it, to determine who would take the limbs up from the ramp to the altar. The Gemara states: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. As we learned in a mishna in tractate Tamid that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: The priest who takes the limbs up to the ramp is the one who takes them up from the ramp to the altar. In contrast, according to the mishna discussed here, it is implied that a different priest won the privilege for the latter service in the lottery.
במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר (משלי יד, כח) ברב עם הדרת מלך ומר סבר מקום שכינה לאו אורח ארעא
The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, the tanna of the mishna discussed here, holds that it is proper to follow the verse: “In the multitude of people is the king’s glory” (Proverbs 14:28). It is a glorification of God for many priests to participate in the service, so different priests were assigned the task of taking the limbs to the ramp, and others were tasked with carrying them up the ramp to the altar. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, holds that it is not proper conduct in the place of the Divine Presence to have two sets of priests for these tasks, as it gives the appearance that the first set does not want to be bothered to take the limbs up to the altar.
אמר רבא לא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אית ליה דרבי יהודה ולא רבי יהודה אית ליה דרבי אליעזר בן יעקב דא"כ בצרו להו פייסות
Rava said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who holds that the same priest who brought the limbs to the ramp also brought them up to the altar, is not of the same opinion as Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is no separate lottery for the privilege of carrying the coal pan for the incense. And conversely, Rabbi Yehuda is not of the same opinion as Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. As, if it would be so that these two Sages agreed with each other, there would be too few lotteries; there would be only three lotteries rather than four. Rather, one must say that according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who maintains that there was no lottery held for taking the limbs up to the altar, there was a fourth lottery to determine who would carry the coal pan; and according to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that there was no lottery for carrying the coal pan, there must have been a lottery for carrying the limbs up to the ramp.
ואי משכחת תנא דתני חמש
And if you find a tanna in a baraita who teaches that there were five lotteries for the Temple service,