Midrasch zu Wajikra 1:7

The Master said above: "The smoke arose from the wood-pile on the altar." Was then any smoke on the altar? Behold we have been taught in a Baraitha: "Five things have been said concerning the fire on the altar: It had the form of a lion, it was clear as the sun, it was palpable, it consumed moist things as it did dry ones and never emitted any smoke." The smoke was that of fire kindled by men, as we are taught in a Baraitha: (Lev. 1, 7) And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, i.e., although the fire descended from heaven, it was meritorious to bring fire from outside the sanctuary also. "It had the form of a lion." Behold, we are taught in a Baraitha, R. Chanina, the Segan (Chief) of the priests, said: "I have seen it, and it had the form of a dog." No difficulty is presented; during the time of the first Temple it was like a lion, during the second, like a dog. Was there then any fire in the second Temple? Has not R. Samuel b. Inia said in the name of R. Acha: "What is the meaning of the passage (Hag. 1, 8) Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; that I may take pleasure in it, and be glorified; it is written V'ekabed (and I shall be glorified) although we read it V'ekabdah. Why is the letter Hay missing? This is to suggest that five [the numerical value of Hay] things were missing in the second Temple. They are: The ark, the Kaporeth, the Cherubim, the divine fire, the Shechina, the Holy Spirit, and the Urim and Tumim. [Hence we see there was no heavenly fire in the second Temple at all.] I will tell thee: It was there, only it did not assist in consuming.

(Lev. 1:7:) “And the sons of Aaron the Priest shall put fire upon the altar, and they shall lay wood in order upon the fire.” (Tamid 2:3:) All of the trees are proper for [altar] firewood except the vine and the olive.¹⁸TMen. 9:14; Sifra to Lev. 1:7, Wayyiqra, Pereq 6.Why? Because they produce excellent fruit.¹⁹Cf. Tamid 29b. See, you have learned that by virtue of sons, fathers are honored. (Lev. 2:5:) “And if [your offering] is a meal offering on a griddle.” [But] it is also written (in Exod. 2:7), “And if [your offering] is a meal offering in a pan.” (Men. 5:8:) What is the difference between a griddle and a pan?²⁰Sifra to Lev. 2:5, Wayyiqra, Pereq 12. A pan has a cover, and a griddle does not have a cover. A pan (rt.: rhsh) is deep, and its products tremble (rt.: rhsh).²¹Lev. R. 3:7. A griddle is flat and its products are solid. (Men. 11:3:) The cakes of the high priest had their kneading and their rolling out within [the Temple court], and [doing so] overrides the Sabbath. Their grinding and sifting do not override the Sabbath. (Men. 5:1:)²²See Tanh. (Buber), Numb. 8:11. All meal offerings were offered unleavened except the leavened [cakes] in the thank offering and the two loaves (of Pentecost) which were offered leavened. (Men. 5:2:) All meal offerings were kneaded in lukewarm water and one watched them lest they become leavened; and if the rest of it became leavened, one transgressed a negative commandment, as stated (in Lev. 2:11), “No meal offering which you offer to the Lord [shall be made with leaven].”

(Fol. 63a) Rabina, while sitting before R. Ashi observed a man tying an ass to a tree on the Sabbath. Rabina admonished the man but the latter paid no attention to him, whereupon Rabina said: "Thou art under ban for this." Rabina then said to R. Ashi: "Can this action of mine be regarded as disgraceful?" [Because I have done it in the presence of you, my teacher.] R. Ashi answered: "There us no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord (Pr. 21, 30), i.e., whenever the desecration of the name of the Lord is threatened, no regard must be paid to a teacher." Raba said: "In the presence of his teacher, it is prohibited [for a disciple to decide a legal question] and it involves capital punishment; but in the absence of his teacher [if a disciple does so] it is, of course, prohibited but no capital punishment is involved." And in the absence of his teacher, you say, it does not involve capital punishment. Behold! It is taught that R. Elazar says: "The sons of Aaron did not die for any other sin than that they decided questions of law in the presence of their teacher, Moses. What verse did they interpret? [without asking Moses their teacher:] And the sons of Aaron the priest, shall put fire upon the latter (Lev. 1, 7). Thus they said to themselves: 'Although fire is to descend from heaven [upon the altar], it is nevertheless, a virtuous act to bring common fire.'" There was a disciple of R. Elazar. who decided legal questions in the presence of the latter. Whereupon R. Elazar said unto Ema Salmon, his wife: "I wonder if this disciple will live through this year." And the disciple died within that year. So his wife said to R. Elazar: "Art thou a prophet?" "Neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet," was his answer, "but I have a tradition that whoever decides a legal question in the presence of his teacher is guilty of capital punishment." And Rabba b. Chana said that this disciple was Juda b. Guriah and he was three miles away from his teacher, R. Elazar. [Hence it shows that even in the absence of his teacher, deciding legal questions involves capital punishment.'] It was in his teacher's presence. But R. Jachanan said he was three miles away from his teacher! And according to your own opinion [is there not an objection to be raised]? Wherefore was it necessary to state the disciple's name and his father's name? We must say (that these names are given) that we should not construe the above story as a mere parable. [Therefore it stated all the facts and it was indeed decided in the presence of R. Elazar.] R. Chiya b. Abba, in the name of R. Jochanan, said: "Whoever decides a legal question in the presence of his teacher, deserves to be bitten by a serpent, for it is said (Job 32, 6.) And Elihu, the son of Barachel, the Buzite, commenced, and said: 'Young am I in days, and ye are very old; therefore I hesitated and feared to show you what I Icnoiv.' It is written here vachalei (I feared). and it is written there (Deu. 32. 24.) With the power of serpents (Zochalei) that crawl in the dust." R. Zera said in the name of R. Chanina: "He is to be called sinner, as it is said (Ps. 119, 11.) In my heart have I treasured up thy saying, in order that I may not sin against thee." R. Humnuna raised the following contradictory point: "It is written (Ib.) In my heart, have I treasured up thy saying, and it is written (Ib. 40, 10.) I announce Thy righteousness in the great assembly"; and he himself explained it: "The former was said when Ira, the Yairite [his teacher], was living, [therefore David did not teach others]; and the latter refers to the time when Ira, the Yairite, was dead." R. Abba b. Zabda said: "He who sends his [priestly] gifts unto one priest will bring a famine into the world, for it is said (II Sam. 20, 26.) and Ira, the Yairite, was a priest unto David, etc. Was he a priest unto David only? Behold he was a priest unto all Israel also! We must therefore say that it means 'All the priestly gifts were given unto him by David, and immediately following this it is written (Ib. 21, 1.) And there was a famine for three years in the days of David." R. Elazar said: "He [who decides a legal question in the presence of his teacher] will be deposed from his honorable position, as it is said (Num. 31, 21.) And Elazar, the priest, said unto the men of the army," etc. And although he said that the law was taught to his uncle and not to him, still he was deposed from his honorable position, as it is written (Ib. 27, 28.) And before Elazar, the priest, shall he (Joshua) stand and he shall ask of him after the Judgment of the Urim before the Lord, etc. We, however, do not find an instance where Joshua ever availed himself of Elazar's help."