QUESTION: Abaye teaches the Seder ha'Ma'arachah, the order of the daily Avodah, according to Aba Shaul. He lists fourteen steps of the Avodah, starting with the Ma'arachah Gedolah and concluding with the afternoon Tamid. The Gemara goes on to justify each step in his order. The Gemara concludes that according to the Rabanan, the order of the daily Avodah is not the order that Abaye teaches.

Although the Gemara does not clearly state what the Halachah is, the RAMBAM (Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin 6:3) rules like the Rabanan who say that the Ketores separates between the Hatavah of the first five Neros and the Hatavah of the last two Neros, which is not like Abaye's order according to Aba Shaul, who puts the Zerikas ha'Dam between the two Hatavos.

In the daily prayers, Abaye's Seder ha'Ma'arachah, as recorded in the Gemara here, is recited before Shacharis to conclude the description of the daily Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Why is Abaye's Seder ha'Ma'arachah recited if the Halachah does not follow his opinion?

(a) The BEIS YOSEF (OC 48) answers that perhaps the Chachamim who arranged the prayers in the Sidur understood that the Halachah follows Abaye, since Abaye provides a clear description of the order of the Ma'arachah. The Beis Yosef may intend to say that the Rambam's ruling is not accepted as the Halachah, but rather the Halachah follows Abaye who taught the order "mi'Shmei d'Gemara" --"according to the tradition." RASHI explains that these words refer to "the entire Yeshivah of the Rabanan."

Why, then, does the Rambam not rule like Abaye? The PERISHAH writes that perhaps the Rambam understands the words "mi'Shmei d'Gemara" like the ARUCH, who explains that they mean that Abaye related his teaching anonymously, without quoting any source. It is interesting to note that in the Rambam's own description of the prayer service (printed in the end of Sefer Ahavah), he makes no mention of the Seder ha'Ma'arachah of Abaye.

(b) Perhaps there are grounds to recite Abaye's Seder ha'Ma'arachah even according to the Rambam. The TUR explains that the reason why the Seder ha'Ma'arachah is included in the daily prayers is because of Hash-m's assurance that "whenever they recite the Seder ha'Korbanos, I consider it as if they offered Korbanos before Me, and I forgive them for their sins" (Ta'anis 27b). Accordingly, it suffices to "recite" and learn the order of the Korbanos, and it is not necessary to recite the exact order of every Avodah to earn the merit of having offered Korbanos.

Therefore, even if the Halachah does not follow Abaye, his Seder ha'Ma'arachah certainly qualifies as a valid recitation of the order of the Avodah. (Since Abaye arranged a clear, organized list of all of the Avodos in their proper order, it is preferable to recite his words than to list the Avodos by citing one statement from one place and another statement from a different place.)

The MISHNAH BERURAH (beginning of OC 48) writes that the point of reciting the Seder ha'Korbanos in the daily prayers is to understand it and to delve into it, and not merely to recite it by rote. It has the status of "Talmud Torah," and thus it must be learned and understood. (M. KORNFELD)

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the order of the Avodos on Yom Kippur according to the opinion of Aba Shaul as presented by Abaye. According to Aba Shaul, the Kohen Gadol prepares the first five Neros of the Menorah for lighting (Hatavas ha'Neros), after which he does the Shechitah of the Korban Tamid and the Zerikah of its blood, and then he prepares the last two Neros for lighting.

The Gemara explains that the source for this order is the repetition of the word "ba'Boker" in the verse that discusses the Hatavas ha'Neros. This repetition teaches that the acts of Hatavah (the Hatavah of the first five Neros and the Hatavah of the last two Neros) are performed "very early" (signified by the two words, "ba'Boker"). In contrast, in the verse of Zerikas ha'Dam only one word "ba'Boker" is written, which implies that the Zerikas ha'Dam is performed "early" but not "very early." This teaches that the Zerikas ha'Dam is performed after the Neros have been prepared.

However, the Gemara points out that in the earlier verse that discusses the Shnei Gezirei Etzim, the word "ba'Boker" appears twice. Since that word is not appropriate in the context of the Shnei Gezirei Etzim, one "ba'Boker" is allotted to the Zerikas ha'Dam, and the other "ba'Boker" is allotted to the Hatavah of the five Neros. As a result, the Hatavah of the five Neros has three words "ba'Boker," and thus it is performed first. Zerikah has two words "ba'Boker," which puts it on an equal standing with the Hatavah of the last two Neros. Since the Zerikah has the additional advantage of being a "Mechaper" (it attains atonement), it deserves precedence and is performed before the Hatavah of the last two Neros (that is, it is performed between the Hatavos of the first five Neros and the last two Neros).

This reasoning seems to contradict the reasoning of the Gemara earlier. The Gemara (33a) implies that a logical advantage alone, such as "Mechaper," is sufficient to give precedence to one Avodah over another. When the Gemara discusses which is performed first -- the Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi or the Shnei Gezirei Etzim, the Gemara concludes that the Shnei Gezirei Etzim is done first because that Avodah is a "Machshir" for the Ketores. Even though the word "ba'Boker" appears twice in the verse of Shnei Gezirei Etzim, the Gemara says that those words are not used to establish the precedence of the Shnei Gezirei Etzim (but instead are given to the Hatavas ha'Neros and the Zerikas ha'Dam, as mentioned above), since it already has the advantage of being a Machshir. That advantage overrides the two appearances of the word "ba'Boker" in the verse of Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach.

Similarly, why does the advantage of being a Mechaper not override the repetition of the words "ba'Boker" and give the Zerikas ha'Dam precedence over the Hatavas ha'Neros, just as the advantage of being a Machshir gives the Shnei Gezirei Etzim precedence? If the Zerikas ha'Dam has the advantage of being a Mechaper, then it should be performed first even without an extra "ba'Boker." Why is it necessary to manipulate the number of instances of the word "ba'Boker" in the verse, when Zerikas ha'Dam already has an advantage that should place it before the Hatavas ha'Neros? In fact, Zerikas ha'Dam should come before all of the Neros because of its advantage as a Mechaper.

(a) The RITVA and TOSFOS HA'ROSH answer that the advantage of Machshir is stronger than that of Mechaper. An Avodah which is a Machshir has precedence over other Avodos. In contrast, an Avodah which is a Mechaper does not have precedence over other Avodos unless it first has an equal standing with the other Avodos. It obtains an equal standing with the word "ba'Boker."

(The logic behind this distinction may be that when an Avodah is a Machshir, it is part of a logical progression from one act to another. The advantage of being a Mechaper, though, is unrelated to the logical progression of acts. See TOSFOS YESHANIM DH Afilu.)

(b) The TOSFOS YESHANIM and TOSFOS HA'ROSH (in his second answer) explain that a logical advantage (such as Machshir or Mechaper) has the ability to put one Avodah before another only in one of two circumstances: either when both Avodos are already of equal standing (with the same number of words "ba'Boker"), or when the Avodah with the logical advantage has no "ba'Boker" at all. In the case of Zerikas ha'Dam, the Torah writes one "ba'Boker." By writing one "ba'Boker" with regard to this Avodah, the Torah intends to teach that this Avodah is supposed to come after an Avodah which has more words "ba'Boker." Therefore, the advantage of being a Mechaper does not give Zerikas ha'Dam precedence.

In the case of the Shnei Gezirei Etzim, for which two words "ba'Boker" are written, the Gemara seeks to determine whether or not it has precedence over Dishun Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi which also has two words "ba'Boker." The advantage of being a Machshir would work whether Shnei Gezirei Etzim has two words "ba'Boker" or no words "ba'Boker." (The only circumstance in which the advantage of being a Machshir would not work is if the Torah had written a single "ba'Boker" for Shnei Gezirei Etzim. By writing just one "ba'Boker," the Torah would have taught that it must come after the Avodah of Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach which has two words "ba'Boker.") Therefore, the two words "ba'Boker" of Shnei Gezirei Etzim are unnecessary and are allotted to other Avodos.

QUESTIONS: The Gemara suggests that instead of one of the extra words "ba'Boker" being attributed to the Zerikas ha'Dam and one to the Hatavah of the first five Neros, one "ba'Boker" should be attributed to the Zerikas ha'Dam and the other "ba'Boker" to the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach. The Zerikas ha'Dam should then be performed before the Hatavah of all of the Neros. (Zerikas ha'Dam has two words "ba'Boker" and is on equal standing with the Hatavah of the five Neros, and it has the advantage of being a Mechaper.)

The Gemara rejects this suggestion because the Torah writes "ba'Boker ba'Boker" with regard to the Hatavas ha'Neros. These words teach that the Hatavah must be split into two parts, and that there must be another Avodah between them to separate them. The only Avodah that is available to be placed between the Hatavah of the first five and last two Neros is the Zerikas ha'Dam.

(a) If it is clear from the verse that the Zerikas ha'Dam must be done between the two Hatavos, then why does the Gemara need to give an additional "ba'Boker" (from the Shnei Gezirei Etzim) to the Zerikas ha'Dam in order to give it precedence over the Hatavah of the last two Neros? Even without the extra "ba'Boker," the Zerikas ha'Dam should come between the Hatavos because the verse requires that there be a separation between the Hatavos.

(b) Why does the Gemara assume that the only Avodah which is available to separate the Hatavos is Zerikas ha'Dam? The Avodah of bringing the Evarim of the Tamid to the Mizbe'ach is also available to separate between the Hatavos.

ANSWER: The Gemara assumes that the Derashah ("ba'Boker ba'Boker") that teaches that another Avodah should be placed between the Hatavah of the first five and last two Neros is not sufficient reason to put the Zerikas ha'Dam there, because another Derashah teaches otherwise. The Zerikas ha'Dam has only one word "ba'Boker" while the Hatavah of the last two Neros has two words "ba'Boker." The only way to advance the Zerikas ha'Dam ahead of the last two Neros is by giving it an additional word "ba'Boker."

This explains why the two Hatavos are not separated by the Avodah of the Evarim of the Tamid. There is only one "ba'Boker" in the verse of the Evarim, and thus that Avodah cannot be placed before the Hatavah of the last two Neros, which has two words "ba'Boker."

(However, it still should be possible to take one of the extra words "ba'Boker" of the Shnei Gezirei Etzim and give it to the Avodah of the Evarim of the Tamid, so that the Hatavah of the last two Neros and the Avodah of the Evarim each have two words "ba'Boker" and thus are on an equal standing with each other. The verse that teaches that an Avodah must separate between the two Hatavos will then teach that the Avodah of the Evarim should be placed there. The remaining extra word "ba'Boker" may be given to Zerikas ha'Dam, so that it is on an equal standing with the first Hatavah, and its advantage of Mechaper will then place it before the Hatavah of all of the Neros. Why does the Gemara not use this method to place the Avodah of the Evarim between the two sets of Hatavah of the Neros, and to place the Avodah of the Zerikas ha'Dam before the Hatavas Neros?

TOSFOS (DH Yukdam) explains that this method is implausible, because if the Gemara gives one "ba'Boker" to the Avodah of the Evarim and the other "ba'Boker" to the Zerikas ha'Dam of the Tamid, it will be giving both extra words "ba'Boker" to one Avodah (that is, the general Avodah of the Korban Tamid). It is not logical to give both extra words "ba'Boker" to the same general Avodah.)

QUESTIONS: The Gemara suggests that instead of one of the extra words "ba'Boker" being attributed to the Zerikas ha'Dam and one to the Hatavah of the first five Neros, one "ba'Boker" should be attributed to the Zerikas ha'Dam and the other "ba'Boker" to the Dishun ha'Mizbe'ach. The Zerikas ha'Dam should then be performed before the Hatavah of all of the Neros. (Zerikas ha'Dam has two words "ba'Boker" and is on equal standing with the Hatavah of the five Neros, and it has the advantage of being a Mechaper.) (See previous Insight.)

The Gemara says that this is a valid question according to Reish Lakish, who maintains that there is no strict requirement to split the two Hatavos apart from each other, and the questions remains unanswered. According to Rebbi Yochanan, however, who says that the Torah requires that the two Hatavos be separated, this is not a question, because there must be an Avodah between the two sets of Hatavos. The only Avodah available to be put between the Hatavah of the first five Neros and the Hatavah of the last two Neros is the Zerikas ha'Dam.

Rebbi Yochanan derives that the two Hatavos must be separated from the words "ba'Boker ba'Boker" in the verse that discusses the Hatavas ha'Neros; one "ba'Boker" is given to each set of Hatavos.

Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation of the verse contradicts the Gemara earlier, which says that each set of Hatavos has two words "ba'Boker." Why does Rebbi Yochanan say that each of the two Hatavos -- the Hatavah of the five Neros and the Hatavah of the two Neros -- has only one "ba'Boker"?

(a) The TOSFOS YESHANIM and RABEINU CHANANEL (in the name of "the Ga'on," as cited by the Ritva) argue with Rashi's interpretation of the Gemara. They explain that the Gemara does not mean that there is no question according to Rebbi Yochanan. Rather, the Gemara means the opposite: according to Reish Lakish there is no question, but according to Rebbi Yochanan there is a question.

The Gemara's question is the very question that we asked above. Rebbi Yochanan, who maintains that the phrase "ba'Boker ba'Boker" teaches that the Hatavos must be separated, attributes only one "ba'Boker" to each set of Hatavos. The Gemara earlier, however, attributes two words "ba'Boker" to each set of Hatavos. The Gemara's conclusion, according to Rabeinu Chananel, is that Rebbi Yochanan's opinion remains difficult.

(b) The RITVA explains the Gemara like Rashi. He explains that the phrase "ba'Boker ba'Boker" teaches two things. First, the phrase teaches that the Hatavos should be divided into two sets (as Rebbi Yochanan says). Second, it teaches that each set of Hatavos should have two words "ba'Boker" (as the Gemara earlier teaches), since the simple meaning of the verse is that the phrase "ba'Boker ba'Boker" refers to both the Hatavah of the five Neros and the Hatavah of the two Neros.