within it. And lest you say: Just as the opening of Gehenna is narrow, so too, all of Gehenna is narrow, the verse states: “For Gehenna has been arranged of old, it has been prepared even for the king, deep and large, its pile is fire and much wood, the breath of the Lord kindles it like a stream of brimstone” (Isaiah 30:33).

And lest you say that Gehenna is prepared only for ordinary people, but it is not prepared for important individuals such as a king, the verse states: “It has been prepared even for the king.” And lest you say there is no wood in Gehenna, the verse states: “Its pile is fire and much wood.” And lest you say that this, i.e., escaping Gehenna, is the only reward for Torah study, the verse states: “And that which is set on your table is full of fatness” (Job 36:16). This indicates that one who obeys God and turns from the paths of death to the paths of life is not only saved from Gehenna, he also attains tranquility and prosperity.

§ The mishna states: If Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat, the loaves are distributed on Saturday night. If Yom Kippur occurs on Friday, the goat sin offering of Yom Kippur is eaten Friday night, on Shabbat. Since there was no possibility of cooking the meat, the Babylonian priests would eat it raw. The Gemara notes: Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: These priests are not actually Babylonians. Rather, they are Alexandrians, i.e., priests who came from Egypt. But since the Jews of Eretz Yisrael hate the Jewish Babylonians, they would call the gluttonous Alexandrians by the name Babylonians.

This interpretation of the mishna is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: These priests are not actually Babylonians. Rather, they are Alexandrians. But since the Jews of Eretz Yisrael hate the Babylonians, they would call the gluttonous Alexandrians by the name Babylonians. Rabbi Yehuda, whose family originated from Babylonia, said to Rabbi Yosei, after hearing this explanation: May your mind be at ease, because you have put my mind at ease.

MISHNA: If one arranged the bread on the Table on Shabbat but arranged the bowls of frankincense only after Shabbat, then if he subsequently burned the frankincense placed in the bowls on the following Shabbat, the loaves are unfit for consumption, since the frankincense had not been on the Table for the entire week. Since the burning of the frankincense did not render the loaves permitted for consumption, one is not ever liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul or notar, or for partaking of the shewbread when one is ritually impure. One violates these prohibitions only if the frankincense is burned in a manner that permits consumption of the shewbread.

If one arranged the bread and the bowls of frankincense on Shabbat but then burned the frankincense that was in the bowls after the following Shabbat, that burning of the frankincense is not valid and the shewbread is unfit for consumption. And since the frankincense was not burned in a manner that permits consumption of the shewbread, one is not ever liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul or notar, or for partaking of the shewbread when one is ritually impure.

If one arranged the bread and the bowls of frankincense after Shabbat and burned the frankincense that was in the bowls on the subsequent Shabbat, the burning of the frankincense is not valid and the shewbread is unfit for consumption. How should one act to prevent the shewbread from being rendered unfit? One should not remove the shewbread and frankincense from the Table on the subsequent Shabbat. Rather, he should leave it on the Table until the following Shabbat, so that it remains on the Table for a full week from Shabbat to Shabbat. It is permitted to leave the bread and frankincense on the Table beyond seven days, as even if it is on the Table for many days there is nothing wrong with that, i.e., it is not rendered unfit.

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there (Yoma 28a) with regard to the Yom Kippur service in the Temple: The appointed priest said to the other priests: Go out and stand on a high point in the Temple and see if it is day and the time for slaughtering the daily offering has arrived, as one may not slaughter offerings at night. If the time has arrived, the observer says: There is light [barkai]. Mattitya ben Shmuel maintained that one should wait until greater light is observed. Therefore, when he was the appointed priest, he would say: Is the entire eastern sky illuminated, even to Hebron? And the observer would say: Yes.

The mishna asks: And why did they need to institute this, to send someone to observe the first light from a high place? The mishna explains that this was deemed necessary because once, the light of the moon rose and the priests imagined that the eastern sky was illuminated with sunlight. They then slaughtered the daily offering, and when they realized that it had been slaughtered too early they had to take it out to the place designated for burning and burn it. In order to prevent similar errors in the future, the Sages instituted that they should carefully assess the situation and ensure that day has begun before slaughtering the daily offering.

The mishna continues: Once the daylight was observed on Yom Kippur, the priests led the High Priest down to the Hall of Immersion. The mishna comments: This was the principle in the Temple: Anyone who covers his legs, a euphemism for defecating, requires immersion afterward; and anyone who urinates requires sanctification of hands and feet with water from the Basin afterward.

The father of Rabbi Avin teaches a baraita: Not only in this case, with regard to slaughtering the daily offering, did the Sages say that if it is performed at night it is disqualified, but even in the case of a bird burnt offering whose nape was pinched at night, and in the case of a meal offering from which a handful was removed at night, the offering is disqualified and must be taken out to the place designated for burning.

The Gemara asks: Granted, a bird burnt offering is disqualified if pinched at night, as it cannot be restored to its former state. But in the case of a meal offering whose handful was removed at night, why is it burned? It is possible to remedy the situation, as the priest can restore the handful to its original place and then remove a handful from the meal offering once again during the day.

The Gemara replies that the father of Rabbi Avin teaches the baraita and he says its explanation: Service vessels sanctify their contents even when those contents are not placed in the vessel at the appointed time for that service. Once the handful is placed in the service vessel it acquires the sanctity inherent to the handful and the situation can no longer be remedied.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Any offering that is sacrificed during the day is consecrated by a service vessel only during the day, and any offering that is sacrificed at night is consecrated by a service vessel only at night, and any offering that is sacrificed both during the day and at night is consecrated both during the day and at night.

The baraita teaches that any offering that is sacrificed during the day is consecrated during the day, from which one can infer that during the day, yes, it is consecrated, but it is not consecrated at night. This indicates that the handful of the meal offering is not consecrated at night, contrary to the explanation of Rabbi Avin’s father. The Gemara answers: When an offering is placed in a service vessel not at the appointed time, the contents are not sufficiently consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar, but they are sufficiently consecrated to be disqualified.

Rabbi Zeira raises an objection from the mishna: If one arranged the bread and the bowls of frankincense after Shabbat and burned the frankincense that was in the bowls on the subsequent Shabbat, the burning of the frankincense is not valid and the shewbread is unfit for consumption. How should one act to prevent the shewbread from being rendered unfit? One should not remove the shewbread on the subsequent Shabbat. Rather, he should leave it on the Table until the following Shabbat, so that it remains on the Table for a full week from Shabbat to Shabbat. It is permitted to leave the bread and frankincense on the Table beyond seven days, as even if it is on the Table for many days there is nothing wrong with that, i.e., it is not rendered unfit.

Rabbi Zeira explains: And if it enters your mind to say that service vessels sanctify their contents to the extent that those contents are disqualified even when they are not placed in the vessel at the appointed time, then even if the shewbread is arranged after Shabbat it should be sanctified by the Table and subsequently disqualified by being left overnight.

Rabba said: The one who raises the objection, Rabbi Zeira, raises the objection well. Nevertheless, the father of Rabbi Avin is also stating a baraita, and the difficulty must therefore be resolved. Rabba explains: The tanna of the baraita cited by Rabbi Avin’s father maintains that in the case of a rite that should be performed during the day, if it is performed during the preceding night it is not considered a rite whose time has not yet arrived, as the night and day are considered a single unit. Therefore, if one places the handful in a service vessel at night the service vessel sanctifies the handful, and since the rite is not valid the offering is disqualified. But if a rite is performed several days earlier it is considered a rite whose time has not yet arrived. Therefore, the Table does not sanctify shewbread that is placed on it on any day except Shabbat.

The Gemara asks: Ultimately,