וְכִי עָיֵיל לַהֵיכָל – בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ פָּגַע בְּרֵישָׁא. דְּתַנְיָא: שֻׁלְחָן בַּצָּפוֹן, מָשׁוּךְ מִן הַכּוֹתֶל שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה, וּמְנוֹרָה בַּדָּרוֹם מְשׁוּכָה מִן הַכּוֹתֶל שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה, מִזְבֵּחַ מְמוּצָּע וְעוֹמֵד בָּאֶמְצַע וּמָשׁוּךְ כְּלַפֵּי חוּץ קִימְעָא. וְנוֹקְמֵיהּ לַהֲדַיְיהוּ! כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת הַמְּנוֹרָה נֹכַח הַשֻּׁלְחָן״ בָּעֵינַן דְּחָזוּ אַהֲדָדֵי.

And when he enters the Sanctuary it is the altar that he encounters first, before reaching the candelabrum; therefore, he performs the service of the altar before removing the ashes from the lamps, as it was taught in a baraita : The table stood in the north of the Sanctuary, removed two and a half cubits from the wall. And the candelabrum stood in the south of the Sanctuary, removed two and a half cubits from the wall. The altar was centered and standing in the middle of the Sanctuary, removed a bit outward. Therefore, one encounters the altar first. The Gemara questions the essence of the matter: And let us stand the altar alongside the table and the candelabrum; why was it removed outward? The Gemara answers: It is because it is written: “And the candelabrum opposite the table” (Exodus 26:35); we require that they are visible to each other. Were the altar aligned with the table and the candelabrum, it would interpose between them.

אָמַר רָבָא, שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ מִדְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עֲבוֹרֵי דְּרָעָא אַטּוֹטֶפְתָּא – אָסוּר. הֵיכִי עָבֵיד – מִדְּרָעָא לְטוֹטֶפְתָּא.

Rava said: Conclude from the statement of Reish Lakish that one may not forego performance of any of the mitzvot, that it is prohibited to forego donning the phylacteries of the arm in order to don the phylacteries of the head, How does he conduct himself? He proceeds from the phylacteries of the arm to the phylacteries of the head.

״וַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת קוֹדֵם לְדַם הַתָּמִיד, וְדַם הַתָּמִיד קוֹדֵם לַהֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת״. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר אַבַּיֵי: הַהוּא ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״ דִּשְׁנֵי גְּזִירֵי עֵצִים דְּלָא צְרִיכִי – שְׁדֵינְהוּ לְהָכָא, חַד שַׁדְּיֵיהּ לַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת דְּלִיקַדְמֵי לְדַם הַתָּמִיד, וְחַד שַׁדְּיֵיהּ לְדַם הַתָּמִיד דִּנְקַדְּמֵיהּ לַהֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת,

§ Abaye continued: And removal of ashes from five lamps precedes the slaughter and the receiving and sprinkling of the blood of the daily morning offering. The sprinkling of the blood of the daily offering precedes the removal of ashes from the two remaining lamps of the candelabrum. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Abaye said: Take that phrase: In the morning, in the morning, written with regard to the two logs, which is unnecessary to establish the time for performance of that service, as its precedence was explained due to its association with the arrangement of wood. And cast that extraneous phrase to here, and apply it to other elements of the morning service. If the phrase is superfluous in its context, apply it elsewhere where a halakha can be derived. Cast one term: In the morning, and apply it to removal of ashes from five lamps so that it will precede the blood of the daily offering. And cast one term: In the morning, and apply it to the blood of the daily offering, so that it will precede the removal of ashes from the two additional lamps.

חַד שַׁדְּיֵיהּ לַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת דְּלִיקַדְמֵי לְדַם הַתָּמִיד, דְּהָכָא תְּלָתָא וְהָכָא תְּרֵי.

The Gemara elaborates: Cast one term: In the morning, and apply it to removal of ashes from five lamps so that it will precede the blood of the daily offering, as here, there are three instances of: In the morning; two instances are written explicitly with regard to removal of ashes from the lamps (see Exodus 30:7) and one is written with regard to the two logs. And here, with regard to the blood of the daily offering, there are two instances of the phrase; one explicit mention in the text (see Exodus 29:39) and one written with regard to the two logs.

וְחַד שַׁדְּיֵיהּ לְדַם הַתָּמִיד דִּנְקַדְּמֵיהּ לַהֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת. אַף עַל גַּב דְּהָכָא תְּרֵי וְהָכָא תְּרֵי – מְכַפֵּר עָדִיף.

And cast one term: In the morning, to the blood of the daily offering so that it will precede the removal of ashes from the two additional lamps. Although here, with regard to removal of ashes from the lamps, there are two instances of the phrase: In the morning, and here, with regard to the blood of the daily offering, there are two instances of the phrase: In the morning, one written and one cast from the portion of two logs, the blood of the daily offering takes precedence because an act that effects atonement, the sprinkling of blood, takes precedence.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פַּפָּא לְאַבַּיֵי, וְאֵימָא: חַד שַׁדְּיֵיהּ לְדִישּׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי דִּנְקַדְּמֵיהּ לְדַם הַתָּמִיד, דְּהָכָא תְּלָתָא וְהָכָא תְּרֵי, וְחַד שַׁדְּיֵיהּ לְדַם הַתָּמִיד דְּנִקְדוֹם לַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּהָכָא תְּרֵי וְהָכָא תְּרֵי, מְכַפֵּר עָדִיף! אִם כֵּן אַפְסוֹקֵי בְּמַאי מַפְסַקַתְּ לְהוּ?

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And say instead, cast one of the extraneous phrases: In the morning, and apply it to the removal of ashes from the inner altar, so that it will precede the blood of the daily offering, as here there are three instances of the phrase and there there are two. And cast one of the extraneous phrases: In the morning, and apply it to the blood of the daily offering so that it will precede the removal of ashes from five lamps, and say that although here there are two instances of the phrase: In the morning, and here there are two instances of the phrase: In the morning, still an act that effects atonement, the sprinkling of blood, takes precedence. Abaye dismisses this question by saying: If the blood of the daily offering precedes the removal of ashes from five lamps, with what will you demarcate between the removal of ashes from five lamps and the removal of ashes from two lamps?

הָנִיחָא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמַר: לָמָּה מְטִיבִין וְחוֹזְרִים וּמְטִיבִין – כְּדֵי לְהַרְגִּישׁ כָּל הָעֲזָרָה כּוּלָּהּ, שַׁפִּיר.

That works out well according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, who said: Why does the priest remove the ashes from five lamps of the candelabrum and then return and remove the ashes from two lamps of the candelabrum rather than arrange all seven lamps at once? It is in order to enliven those present in the entire Temple courtyard, since people are coming and going to fulfill this mitzva with great ceremony. It works out well according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, because he says there is no need for any other service to demarcate between removal of ashes from five lamps and removal of ashes from two.

אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר: ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״ חַלְּקֵהוּ לִשְׁנֵי בְּקָרִים, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר!

However, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said the following based on the verse: “And Aaron shall burn upon it incense of sweet spices; in the morning, in the morning, when he removes the ashes from the lamps” (Exodus 30:7); take the term in the morning, in the morning, and divide the service of removal of ashes from the lamps into two mornings, i.e., into two parts, by performing a service in between, what can be said? According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, since the result would be that there is no service demarcating between the five lamps and the two lamps, there is no alternative to interpreting the matter in accordance with the explanation of Abaye.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אַשִׁי: הַאי ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״ דְּעֵצִים מִי מִיַּיתַּר? הָא מִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ, דְּקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: נִקְדְּמוּ לְמַעֲרָכָה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁל קְטוֹרֶת! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלָאו מִי אוֹקִימְנָא ״עָלֶיהָ״ – וְלֹא עַל חֲבֶרְתָּהּ, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיתָה לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi with regard to the basis for Abaye’s argument: Is this term: In the morning, in the morning, written with regard to the two logs actually superfluous and therefore available to have other matters derived from it? Isn’t it necessary to teach its own basic halakha , as the Merciful One states in the Torah: Have it precede the second arrangement of wood, from which coals are taken for the incense? Rav Ashi said to him: And did we not establish that it is written: Upon it, underscoring the fact that wood is placed only on the large arrangement and not on the other arrangement from which coals are taken for the incense? From the fact that this exclusionary term is necessary, it can be derived by inference that there is another pile on the altar, meaning that when the new logs are placed on the altar, the two arrangements are already there.

מַאי שְׁנָא דְּעָבֵיד הֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת בְּרֵישָׁא? נַעֲבֵיד הֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת בְּרֵישָׁא! כֵּיוָן דְּאַתְחִיל בְּהוּ – עָבֵיד רוּבָּא. וְנַעֲבִיד שִׁית! אָמַר קְרָא: ״בְּהֵיטִיבוֹ אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת יַקְטִירֶנָּה״ וְאֵין נֵרוֹת פְּחוּתוֹת מִשְּׁתַּיִם.

The Gemara asks with regard to the sequence in which the priest removes the ashes from the lamps: What is different that he performs the removal of ashes from five lamps first? Let us perform the removal of ashes from two lamps first. The Gemara answers: Since he begins the service with them, he performs the service on a majority of the lamps. The Gemara asks: If so, let him perform the service on six lamps. The Gemara responds that the verse states: “When he removes the ashes from the lamps, he shall burn it” (Exodus 30:7), and lamps is plural, meaning no fewer than two. Apparently, removal of ashes from lamps must be performed on a minimum of two lamps.

״וַהֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת קוֹדֶמֶת לִקְטוֹרֶת״, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״בְּהֵיטִיבוֹ אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת״ וַהֲדַר ״יַקְטִירֶנָּה״.

Abaye continued: And the removal of ashes from two lamps precedes the burning of the incense, as the verse first states: “When he removes the ashes from the lamps,” and then states: “He shall burn it.” The removal of the ashes precedes the burning of the incense.

״וּקְטוֹרֶת לְאֵבָרִים״, דְּתַנְיָא: יוּקְדַּם דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר״ לְדָבָר שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ אֶלָּא ״בֹּקֶר״ אֶחָד בִּלְבַד.

Abaye continued: And the burning of the incense on the inner altar precedes the burning of the limbs of the daily offering on the outer altar, as it was taught in a baraita : Let the matter with regard to which it is stated: In the morning, in the morning, i.e., the burning of the incense, precede the matter with regard to which only one: In the morning, is stated, i.e., the daily morning offering, in the verse: “You shall offer one lamb in the morning” (Exodus 29:39).

״וְאֵבָרִים לְמִנְחָה״, דְּתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא דָּבָר קוֹדֵם לְתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר,

Abaye continued: The burning of the limbs precedes the sacrifice of the meal-offering that accompanies the daily offering, as it was taught in a baraita : From where is it derived that there may be no item placed on the arrangement of wood prior to the daily morning offering?