“To that within the veil; and you shall serve; I give you the priesthood as a service of gift” (Numbers 18:7), indicating that it is only with regard to services that are performed within the veil, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, that there is a distinction between services, and a non-priest who performs services of giving there, such as sprinkling the blood inside the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, is subject to the death penalty, but not one who performs services of removing there, such as the removal of the censer from the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. This leads to the conclusion that when it comes to services performed outside of the Holy of Holies, a non-priest would be liable if he performed any service, even a service of removal, such as the removal of ashes from the altar.

The Gemara asks: If it is so that the limitations of the verse apply only to those services performed in the Holy of Holies, one should say that the phrase: “And you shall serve [va’avadtem],” from which it is derived that one is liable only for a service that is complete [avoda tamma] on its own and not incomplete, should also be similarly limited to services performed to what is within the veil. In that case, the liability of the non-priest, which is limited to cases where he performs a complete service and does not apply if he performs a service that is only preparatory and has another service after it that completes its purpose, should apply only to services performed in the Holy of Holies. But for services performed outside the Holy of Holies, a non-priest should be liable even if it is a service that is incomplete and has a service after it.

The Gemara answers: The phrase: “And you shall serve [va’avadtem],” which begins with the conjunction vav, meaning: And, indicates that the verse goes back and combines the service performed within the veil to services performed outside of it. This teaches that with regard to this halakha there is no difference between a service performed outside and a service performed inside.

According to Levi, if a non-priest performs a service involving removal within the veil, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, he does not incur the death penalty, but if he performs a service involving removal outside, such as the removal of the ashes from the external altar, he is liable to the death penalty. Rava raised a dilemma relating to Levi’s approach: What would be the halakha with regard to a service of removal performed in the Sanctuary chamber that is before the Holy of Holies, such as removing the burnt incense from the inner altar, or removing burnt wicks and leftover oil from the candelabrum? Do we compare such an act to a service performed inside the Holy of Holies, so that he would be exempt from the death penalty, or do we compare it to the outer service?

Rava himself went back and resolved the dilemma: Had the Torah said only: Within the veil, it would have been understood that it is referring only to actions performed in the Holy of Holies. But since the Torah says: And to what is within the veil, the added conjunction: And, teaches that it is referring to something else besides the Holy of Holies, i.e., the Sanctuary.

The Gemara asks: However, if it is so that a non-priest is liable for performing a service that is complete on its own that takes place in the Sanctuary, one should say that a non-priest who arranges the loaves on the shewbread table should be liable. The Gemara answers: After arranging the bread there is still the arranging of the vessels of frankincense on the table that remains to be done, so the arrangement of the bread is not a service that is complete on its own. The Gemara asks: If so, a non-priest who arranges the vessels of frankincense on the table should be liable. The Gemara rejects this: After arranging the vessels, there is still the removal of these vessels and the burning of their frankincense on the altar that remain to be done; therefore, arranging the vessels is not considered a service that is complete on its own.

The Gemara asks further with regard to the notion that a non-priest is liable for performing a service that is complete on its own that takes place in the Sanctuary: If so, a non-priest who arranges the lamps of the candelabrum should be liable. The Gemara rejects this: There is still the placing of the wicks in the lamps that remains to be done, so arranging the lamps is not considered a service that is complete on its own. The Gemara asks: If so, a non-priest who placed a wick in the candelabrum’s lamps should be liable. The Gemara answers: That too is not a service that is complete on its own, as there is still the necessity of placing the oil.

The Gemara asks: If so, a non-priest who placed the oil should be liable. The Gemara answers: That too is not a service that is complete on its own, as there is still the service of lighting that needs to be done. The Gemara asks: If so, if a non-priest who lit the lamps should be liable. The Gemara answers: Lighting the lamps is not considered a bona fide Temple service, since in doing so nothing is done to the candelabrum itself.

The Gemara asks: And is kindling a fire really not considered a Temple service? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that it is written: “And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar and lay out wood in order upon the fire” (Leviticus 1:7), which teaches that the kindling of chips [alita] added to keep the altar’s fire going must be performed only by a proper priest and that he must be wearing the priestly garments? This shows that kindling is considered a service. The Gemara answers: Kindling the chips is a bona fide service, but lighting the candelabrum is not a bona fide service.

The Gemara further asks: However, if it is so that a non-priest is liable for performing any service involving placing, as established above, a non-priest who set up the arrangement of wood on the altar should be liable, since that is a service involving placing. The Gemara answers: There is still the mitzva of the arrangement of two logs on the altar that remains to be done, so that setting up the arrangement of wood is not a service that is complete on its own. The Gemara asks: If so, a non-priest who arranged the two logs should be liable. The Gemara answers: There is still the arrangement of limbs of offerings on the fire that remains to be done, so placing the two logs is also not considered a service that is complete on its own.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav Asi say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A non-priest who arranged the two pieces of wood is liable? This shows that placing the two logs is a complete service and contradicts Rav’s statement that a non-priest is liable only if he performs the four services that he mentioned above. The Gemara answers: Indeed, Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree on this point. One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that the placement of the two logs is a service that is complete on its own, as the arrangement of limbs that follows is not considered a continuation of the setting up of the wood; and one Sage, Rav, holds that the placement of the two logs is not considered a service that is complete on its own, since it is followed by the arrangement of the limbs on the wood.

The Gemara returns to the disagreement between Rav and Levi and notes: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it was taught in a second baraita in accordance with the opinion of Levi. It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: These are the services for which a non-priest who performs them is liable to receive the penalty of death by God’s hand: One who performs the sprinkling of blood, whether inside the Sanctuary; on the golden altar or at the veil; or inside the innermost chamber, the Holy of Holies, on Yom Kippur; or outside on the main altar; and one who sprinkles blood in the case of a bird sin-offering; and one who squeezes the blood of a bird burnt-offering on the wall of the altar or burns the bird on the altar; and one who pours out three log of water on the altar for the Sukkot water libation or three log of wine on the altar for an ordinary libation. The removal of ashes from the altar is not listed here.

It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Levi: These are the services for which a non-priest who performs them is liable to receive the penalty of death by God’s hand: One who removes the ashes from the altar; one who performs the seven sprinklings that are performed inside the Sanctuary or the sprinklings of the leper; and one who raises up an offering onto the altar, whether it is a proper offering or a disqualified one. In this baraita, the removal of ashes is listed.

§ The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the mishna. The mishna states that there were four lotteries held in the Temple every day. One of the Sages asked: Why did the Temple authorities hold lotteries? Before answering the question, the Gemara expresses astonishment at the question itself: Why did they hold lotteries? The reason is as we said clearly in the mishna: To prevent quarrels among the priests. The Gemara explains: Rather, this is the meaning of the question: Why did they assemble all the priests together and hold a lottery, and once again gather them together to hold another lottery, four times, when the priests could be gathered one time and all the necessary lotteries held at that time?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It was done this way in order to create a commotion throughout the Temple courtyard, as the priests would converge from all over to assemble there, as it is stated: “We took sweet counsel together, in the House of God we walked with the throng” (Psalms 55:15). This verse teaches that it is proper to stir up a commotion and to cause public excitement in the course of the Temple services and the preliminary steps leading up to them, such as the assignment of tasks to the priests.

The Gemara asks: With what garments were the priests clothed when they held the lottery? Rav Naḥman said: The priests were clothed in their own non-sacred garments. And Rav Sheshet said: The priests were dressed in the priestly sacred garments.

The Gemara explains the two approaches. Rav Naḥman said: The priests were dressed in non-sacred garments, because if you say the lottery was to be held when they were dressed in their sacred garments, there are strong-armed men who might act with force and perform the service even if they did not win the lottery. Since they were already wearing the sacred garments, they would simply force their way into performing the service. Rav Sheshet said: They were wearing the sacred garments, as, if you say they wore their non-sacred garments, due to the fact that the service was so beloved to them, in their excitement over having been granted the privilege to perform the service, it may happen that they would perform the service immediately, forgetting to don their sacred garments, thereby disqualifying the service.

Rav Naḥman said: From where do I state my opinion? As we learned in a mishna: After the lottery they gave the priests over to the attendants, and they would take their clothes off them and they would leave only their trousers on them.