Tamid VI

2:
Meanwhile, two other priests had already resumed and completed the tasks that they had started before the offering of the Tamid. In 3:9 we learned that the priest whose task it was to remove the ashes from the inner altar had a basket into which he had swept all the debris from the inner altar – the dead embers from the previous incense offering. When he had completed this task he had left the basket there next to the golden altar and had gone to join his colleagues in offering the sacrificial lamb. Now, according to our present mishnah, he completes his task by retrieving the basket and removing it from the sanctuary. Before leaving the sanctuary, however, he prostrates himself. Rambam [Tefillah 5:13] says that we must distinguish between kneeling and prostration: the former is on the knees, while 'prostration is completely extending both hands and feet so that one is lying prostrate on one’s face'.

3:
The other priest was the one who had trimmed the candelabrum. He too had left the pitcher used for trimming and preparing the candelabrum on the second step of the pedestal on which the candelabrum rested. In order to understand what our present mishnah is saying let us recapitulate what we said in our explanation of the 9th mishnah of chapter 3.

4:
Before completing our study of this mishnah I would like to point out that a very careful reading of its contents will probably afford us an answer to a question asked previously and left unanswered. Gregory Ashe had said: What about the afternoon Tamid or the musaf sacrifice (on Shabbos and Festivals) – were there lotteries for those as well? At that time I had not given an answer. It seems to me that our present mishnah affords the answer to Greg’s main question: did the same priests who had tasks for the morning Tamid perform those tasks also for the afternoon Tamid, or was a new set of lotteries undertaken? The answer would appear to be the former. The wording of our present mishnah suggests that the priest who is now trimming the lights will use the one lamp left burning during the day (the second from the left) and 'from it he will light the candelabrum towards dusk' – 'he' will light it towards the end of the day. After retrieving the pitcher he too prostrates himself and exits.

Just for the sake of accuracy, only three of the four 'gospels' are called synoptic. Synoptic means: 'seen from the same point of view'. Even the gospel of John also records some aspects of the life of Jesus, but it sees him in a very different way as the 'Logos' known from Greek philosophy. The gospels were written about 50 years after the death of Jesus. They represent the view of him that had developed during this period of time. Luke is acting as a redactor. He was not an eyewitness. He starts his 'Gospel' by stating, that he has chosen his material from various sources available to him. Most of this material has been lost. One of the lost gospels were probably quite extensive and very early and was written in Hebrew. David Flusser, a former professor at the Hebrew University, has written several books about this subject. But is worthwhile noting that there might be a great difference between how a person – Jew or non-Jew – relates to the sayings of Jesus and his interpretation of Torah, and to what Christianity later teaches about Jesus. All the basic doctrines of Christianity were probably unknown to Jesus. They stem from Paul, and he was not a disciple of Jesus. It might sound strange, but Abraham was not a Jew and Jesus was not a Christian.

Marc Auslander has written concerning the Magrefah which recently made a return appearance:

Regarding the Magrefah – in our previous shiur we learned that the priest scooped embers, and after transferring them 'swept' the remaining embers into a channel. Either or both of these procedures could require the help of a 'rake like instrument'. So maybe the magrefah was a rake used for this purpose. When finished, it became the custom to drop it with enough force to make a loud noise, to provide the signal that the next part of the ritual was starting. A problem with this theory is the description 'pick up and throw down'. In the Hebrew, is the alternative 'raise up and throw down' possible?

I respond:

The Hebrew (actually an Aramaism) verb in question is Natal which can be variously translated. It usually means to pick up, to take up. In our present mishnah I translated this very same verb as to retrieve. We also recognize it from the term Netilat Yadayim, washing the hands – probably referring to the taking up of the vessel from which water will be poured over the hands. However, would the sound made by throwing down a rake down on the pavement, however forcefully – make such a noise as would serve the purpose described? Let us not forget that 3:8 claimed that the sound of the Magrefah could be heard even in Jericho!

2:
The second of these two mishnayot is less easy to understand. But this is only because some of the situations which must have been obvious to whoever composed this mishnah need explanation for us. It becomes obvious from this mishnah that the priest who is now about to offer the incense does not enter the sanctuary alone, but is accompanied by a friend or relative – presumably of his choice. The sole task of this other priest is to take the ladle from the the main protagonist when he no longer needs it and it would only hamper him in his task. It is also quite clear from our mishnah that the superintendent was also present – and he was presumably present throughout all the proceedings inside the sanctuary, and not just this one item of the agenda. (We have mentioned this superintendent many times so far in this tractate.)

3:
The two friends would go into the sanctuary and approach the golden altar on which now were burning the embers taken from the main altar. We recall that our priest is carrying a large ladle with a lid and the scoop containing the incense is inside this ladle. He takes out the scoop and hands the ladle to his friend. In all probability some of the incense had spilled out of the scoop into the ladle during the procession up the steps from the courtyard to the vestibule. This spilled incense was now put back into the scoop, but it is not clear how this was done. One way of interpreting our mishnah is as I have rendered it in my translation: the friend would pour the spilled incense into the hand of the priest who would put it into the scoop. (This is the explanation given by Rambam in his commentary on our mishnah.) Another possibility is that the friend poured it by hand into the scoop which his colleague was holding. There has been no mention that the priest put down the scoop so his hands would not be free to receive the incense.

4:
We can imagine that our priest was very nervous or excited. Each priest who gained this privilege would perform this task for this one day only, so he had never done it before and could never do it again. What he had to do now was to sprinkle the contents of the scoop onto the embers. The moment the incense made contact with the embers it would flare up and start to burn. Therefore, before he started, it was necessary to warn our priest that when he poured the incense onto the altar he should start from the side furthest away from him, because if he starts from the side nearest to him he will get scorched when he tries to pour the incense further back. This warning was presumably given by the supervisor.

5:
The next sentence in our mishnah is very unclear.

When he had spread them out and left the person offering the incense would not do so until he was instructed by the supervisor, 'Do it now!'

When who had spread what out? When who had left? The following are the possibilities:

1. When the friend or relative had spread out the spilled incense out into the hands of our priest he would leave and not remain present while the incense was burned.
2. When the priest who had poured the embers onto the altar had spread them out and left, only then would our priest begin his task.
3. When our priest had spread out the incense on the embers he would not wait but immediately leave.

6:
Possibly it was because of this 'orchestration' that it was the supervisor who gave the signal to begin sprinkling the incense over the altar. On Yom Kippur it was the High Priest who performed this task and concerning the incense offering then the Torah says [Leviticus 16:17] that no person shall be with him when he performs his task. Tradition taught that this was required not only on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, but whenever incense was offered. Thus the superintendent would check that everyone else had left the sanctuary and would then give the priest the instruction to offer the incense (and, presumably, also leaving the sanctuary himself). The only difference between the instruction given to an ordinary priest and the instruction given to the High Priest was one of deference.

7:
The moment the incense caught fire it would start to smoke. The smoke would gradually fill the sanctuary. The priest would prostrate himself and leave.

8:
When all the priests in the courtyard saw the superintendent hurrying out of the building they too withdrew from the whole area 'between the [main] altar and the Vestibule', in order to fulfill the instruction that no person should be present at this moment.

This concludes our study of the sixth chapter of this tractate.