Midrasch zu Wajikra 6:6

Alternatively, "These days were formed, but not one from them" [Psalms 139:16] is refering to Yom Kippur for (the nation of) Israel. {continuing}

Variantly: "You may not light a fire in all of your dwellings": From (Leviticus 6:6) "A perpetual fire shall burn on the altar," I might think, both on the weekdays and on the Sabbath. And how would I understand (Exodus 31:14) "Those who profane it shall be put to death"? As referring to other labors, other than that of (lighting) the woodpile. (But perhaps, even the woodpile.) And how would I understand (Leviticus 6:4) "It (the woodpile fire) shall not go out"? As referring to weekdays, and not the Sabbath. It is, therefore, written "You may not light a fire in all of your dwellings." For your dwellings you do not light it, but you do light it for the Temple (woodpile). One of the disciples of R. Yishmael asked: What is the intent of "You shall not light a fire"? __ From (Devarim 21:21) "And if there be in a man a sin whose judgment is death, then he shall be put to death," I would understand, both on a weekday or on the Sabbath. And how would I understand "Those who profane it shall be put to death"? As referring to other deaths, other than judicial death penalties. __ But perhaps, even judicial death penalties, and how would I understand "then he shall be put to death"? As referring to weekdays, and not on the Sabbath. __ Or perhaps even on the Sabbath … It is, therefore, written "You may not light a fire in all of your dwellings." Burning was in the general category (of all the forbidden labors), and it left that category (for specific mention) to teach, viz.: Just as burning, one of the judicial death penalties, does not override the Sabbath, so, all of the judicial death penalties do not override the Sabbath.

(Lev. 16:1:) AFTER THE DEATH OF < AARON'S TWO SONS >. {R. Eliezer cited a baraita:} [According to a baraita in the name of R. Eliezer,]⁴⁰In y‘Eruv. 6:1 (31c); yGit. 1:2 (39c); ‘Eruv. 63b. Nadab and Abihu died only because they had taught halakhah in the presence of their master, Moses.⁴¹Tanh., Lev. 6:6; Lev. R. 20:7; PRK 26(27):6/7; yShevi. 6:1 (36c); yGit. 1:2 (43c). There is a story about Rabbi Eliezer, that his disciple taught halakhah before him. So he said to his wife, Mamma Shalom: This man will not live out the year; and indeed he did not live out the year. His disciples said to him: O Our Master, are you a prophet? He said to them (in the words of Amos 7:14): I AM NEITHER A PROPHET NOR THE SON OF A PROPHET. Rather this was handed down to me from my masters: Whoever teaches halakhah in the presence of his master is under sentence of death.

In four places where < Scripture > mentions the death of Aaron's sons,⁴⁴In Lev. 10:2–3; 16:1; Numb. 3:4; 26:61. [it also mentions their transgression. And why all this?⁴⁵Tanh., Lev. 6:6; PRK 26(27):8; Lev. R. 20:8; Numb. R. 2:24. To inform you that they had only this sin on their hands. R. Eleazar of Modim said: Go out and see how grievous the death of Aaron's sons was for the Holy One, for in every place that < Scripture > mentions their death, it mentions their transgression. And why all this? So as not to give those who come into the world a pretext for saying: Disgraceful acts were secretly < reckoned > to their < account >, because of which they died.

10) Whence is it derived that nothing is to take precedence to the morning tamid? From "upon it the burnt-offering," (implying that nothing is to take precedence to it). Whence is it to be derived that nothing is offered up later than the afternoon tamid? From "upon it (the afternoon tamid, the shelamim, lit., the "completers," i.e., complete all of the offerings with it). (Vayikra 6:6) ("A continuous fire shall burn upon the altar; it shall not be extinguished.") "continuous" — (The wood pile is to be made for the temidim and the mussafim) even on the Sabbath; "continuous" — even (if the Cohanim are) in a state of tumah. "it shall not be extinguished" — even during their journeyings. What did they do (to keep the fire from going out)? They inverted a psachter (a large vessel) over it. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: In their journeyings they would remove the fire from the altar (and place it in a vessel until they camped), as it is written (Bamidbar 4:13): "And they shall remove the fire from the altar and spread upon it (the vessel) a purple cloth."

And thou shalt overlay it with brass (Exod. 27:2). R. Judah the son of Shalum stated: Moses had said to the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the Universe, You told me to make an altar of acacia-wood and to overlay it with brass, and You said also: A fire should burn perpetually unto Me on the altar (Lev. 6:6). But will not the fire penetrate the overlay and burn the wood? The Holy One, blessed be He, replied: Moses, normally this does happen, but think of the angels of glowing fire who are near Me, and of the treasures of snow and hail that I possess, as it is said: Hast thou entered the treasuries of the snow, or hast thou seen the treasuries of the hail? (Job 38:22), and it says also: Who layest the beams of thine upper chambers in the waters (Ps. 104:3). The water, however, does not extinguish the fire, nor does the fire consume the water. The creatures of fire, likewise, are unaffected by the waters of the firmament above their heads, as is said: As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like the coals of fire, burning like the appearance of torches; it flashed up and down among the living creatures (Ezek. 1:13). It is also written there: And over the heads of the living creatures there was the likeness of a firmament, like the color of the terrible ice, stretched forth over their heads above (ibid., v. 22). They bore the entire body of water which was the thickness of the firmament, a distance of five hundred years’ journey, and they also supported the great bodies of fire, which stood between the firmaments, that were a distance of five hundred years’ journey.

R. Berechiah stated in the name of R. Helbo and in the name of R. Abba: The hoofs of the beasts are also a distance of four hundred years’ journey, and all of them bear fire through the firmament which is filled with water, and the fire does not consume the water, and the water does not extinguish the fire. Why was that? He makes peace in His heavens. Yet because I told you to burn a perpetual light on the altar, you are fearful that it might burn the wood!

The lifeless brought before Me depart alive, yet you fear that the wood in the altar erected in My honor will burn! Who commanded the fire to burn? Learn from your own experience! When you entered into the midst of the wall of fire and walked among the bands (of angels in heaven), you should have been consumed, yet you came unto Me, as it is said: But Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was (Exod. 20:18). I am a consuming fire, as is said: For the Lord thy God is a devouring fire (Deut. 4:24), and it would have been normal for you to have been consumed. Why were you not (consumed)? Because you ascended for My glory. Likewise, in the case of the altar of the burnt offering, concerning which it is written: Fire shall be kept burning upon the altar continually, neither the brass will be affected, nor will the wood be burned.

If you should be of the opinion that the brass was not affected because it was thick, R. Nehemiah declared that the overlay was but the thickness of a dinar. R. Phinehas the son of Hama said: If you should believe that the fire descended from on high only for a short time, and that is why the altar was not damaged, the fact is that this altar was so important that the fire was not removed from it either by day or by night, as it is said: The fire shall be kept burning on the altar continually. Why was the overlay made of brass? In order to atone for the brazen brow (i.e., Israel’s stubbornness),¹⁹See Kiddushin 70b. as it is said: And thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass (Isa. 48:4).

Rabbi Yitzḥak began: “Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and with gladness of heart, due to abundance of everything, you will serve your enemies…” (Deuteronomy 28:47–48) – had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “You will bring them and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance” (Exodus 15:17), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “Let all their evil come before You [and do to them as You did to me]” (Lamentations 1:22).³³The term “You will bring them” in the verse in Exodus and the word “come” in the verse in Lamentations have the same root: tav, bet, alef.
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “Peoples heard, they were agitated” (Exodus 15:14), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “They heard that I am sighing” (Lamentations 1:21).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “I have seen the affliction of My people that is in Egypt” (Exodus 3:7), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “See, Lord, for I am in distress, my innards burn” (Lamentations 1:20).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “You shall proclaim on this very day” (Leviticus 23:21), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “I called my lovers; [they deceived me]” (Lamentations 1:19).³⁴The word “proclaim” in Leviticus and the word “called” in Lamentations have the same root: kuf, resh, alef.
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “Justice [tzedek], justice you shall pursue” (Deuteronomy 16:20), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “The Lord is righteous [tzadik], for I have defied His word” (Lamentations 1:18).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “You shall open your hand [to your brother]” (Deuteronomy 15:11), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “Zion spread its hands, [there is no comforter for it]” (Lamentations 1:17).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “These are the appointed times of the Lord” (Leviticus 23:4), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “For these I weep” (Lamentations 1:16).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “We will ascend on the highway [bamsila]” (Numbers 20:19), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “The Lord trampled [sila] all my mighty” (Lamentations 1:15).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “I broke the bars of your yoke” (Leviticus 26:13), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “The yoke of my transgressions is preserved in His hand” (Lamentations 1:14).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “A perpetual fire shall burn upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:6), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “From on high He sent fire into my bones” (Lamentations 1:13).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “[The Lord your God who goes before you, He shall fight for you according to all that He did for you.…] in the entire path [derekh] that you went” (Deuteronomy 1:30–31), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “May it not befall you, all passersby [ovrei derekh]” (Lamentations 1:12).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “You will eat your bread to satiation” (Leviticus 26:5), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “All its people are sighing, seeking bread” (Lamentations 1:11).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “No man will covet your land” (Exodus 34:24), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “The besieger spread his hand over all its delights” (Lamentations 1:10).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “For on this day he shall atone for you [to purify you]” (Leviticus 16:30), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “Its impurity is on its skirts” (Lamentations 1:9).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “From all your sins you shall be purified before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:30), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “Jerusalem has sinned” (Lamentations 1:8).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “You shall be remembered before the Lord your God” (Numbers 10:9), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “Jerusalem remembered in the days of its affliction” (Lamentations 1:7).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “I will walk in your midst” (Leviticus 26:12), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “All the glory of the daughter of Zion has gone” (Lamentations 1:6).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “The Lord will place you as a head [lerosh]” (Deuteronomy 28:13), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “Its foes are ascendant [lerosh], its enemies are tranquil” (Lamentations 1:5).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “Three times a year [shall all your males appear before the Lord your God…on the festival]” (Deuteronomy 16:16), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “The ways of Zion mourn [without festival pilgrims]” (Lamentations 1:4).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “You will dwell securely” (Leviticus 26:5), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “Judah has been exiled in affliction” (Lamentations 1:3).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “It is a night of watching of the Lord” (Exodus 12:42), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “It weeps at night” (Lamentations 1:2).
Had you been worthy, you would have read in the Torah: “How [eikha] can I bear alone” (Deuteronomy 1:12), but now that you are not worthy, you read: “How [eikha] does…sit solitary?” (Lamentations 1:1).

(I Kings 5:12 [4:32]:) MOREOVER HE COMPOSED THREE THOUSAND PROVERBS. R. Samuel bar Nahmani said: We have gone over all of the Scriptures and have found that Solomon only uttered prophetically approximately eight hundred verses.⁸⁴See Cant. R. 1:1:11. Then what is meant by THREE THOUSAND? <This number> teaches that each and every verse that he spoke contains two <or> three interpretations, just as it says (in Prov. 25:12): LIKE AN EARRING OF GOLD, A NECKLACE OF FINE GOLD, <SO IS A WISE REPROVER TO A LISTENING EAR>.⁸⁵The midrash understands the WISE REPROVER TO BE Solomon himself, who is likened to both a golden earring and a golden necklace. In addition the Rabbis say: Every verse has three thousand proverbs, while each and every proverb has a thousand and five interpretations. (I Kings 5:12 [4:32], cont.:) AND HIS ShYRW NUMBERED A THOUSAND AND FIVE. ShYRH ("song") is not written here, but ShYRW, <which can be read as> sheyaro ("its remainder"): THE REMAINDER (i.e., the thousand and five interpretations) of a proverb.⁸⁶Cf. the parallels in Tanh., Lev. 6:6; Numb. R. 19:3; et al, which argue somewhat differently from the fact that SONG is, not plural, but singular. Cf. also PRK 4:3; PR 14:9.

Another interpretation: "Command Aharon [...]" (Leviticus 6:2) This is what is written (Psalms 51:20), "With Your will, do good to Zion," and afterwards (Psalms 51:21), "Then You will desire sacrifices of righteousness, a burnt-offering and a whole-offering." That is to say, if Israel does not offer a burnt-offering before the Holy One, blessed be He, Zion and Jerusalem will not be built. As they are only built through the merit of the burnt-offering which Israel would offer before the Holy One, blessed be He. And why is the burnt-offering different, [so that it is] better than all of the other offerings? Because it is called "sacrifices of righteousness," as it is stated, "Then You will desire sacrifices of righteousness, a burnt-offering and a whole-offering." The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moshe, "On account of this, the burnt-offering is so beloved to Me. Hence, 'Command Aharon and his sons,' that they be careful with it, to offer it before Me." Why does it state, "This is the law (Torah) of the burnt-offering?" It means to say, the reading of the Torah. See how beloved the reading of the Torah is in front of the Holy One, blessed be He. As there is an obligation upon a man to give all of his money to teach Torah to himself and his sons, as it is stated, "Command Aharon and his sons, saying" - meaning, that they should say it to the Children of Israel, such that they occupy themselves with the reading of the burnt-offering. As even though they [actually] offer a burnt-offering, they would [also] be occupied with its reading, so that they would get merit in the sacrifice and in its reading. And so did Rav Shmuel bar Abba say, "The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, 'Even though the Temple is destined to be destroyed in the future and the sacrifices to be nullified, do not [allow] yourselves to forget the order of the sacrifices; but rather be careful to read about them and review them. And if you occupy yourselves with them, I will count it for you as if you were occupied with the sacrifices [themselves].'" And if you want to know [that this is so], come and see that when the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Yechezkel the form of the [Temple], what did He say? "Describe the [Temple] to the House of Israel; let them be ashamed of their iniquities, and measure the plan" (Ezekiel 43:10). Yehezkel [responded] to the Holy One, blessed be He, "Until now, we are put into exile in the land of our enemies; and You say to me to go and inform Israel [about] the form of the [Temple], and 'write [it] in their eyes, and they should preserve its form and all of its statutes [and do them]' (Ezekiel 43:11). And are they able to do [them]? Leave them until they emerge from the exile, and afterwards, I will go and tell them." [So] the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Yechezkel, "And because My children are in exile, the building of My [Temple] should be idle?" The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Its reading in the Torah is as great as its building. Go and say it to them, and they will occupy themselves to read the form of the [Temple] in the Torah. And in reward for its reading, that they occupy themselves to read about it, I count it for them as if they were occupied with the building of the [Temple]." And fortunate is the man who involves himself in Torah and gives his money to teach Torah to his son. As on account of the money that he gives to teach, he merits life in the world to come, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 30:20), "as it is your life and the length of your days" - your life, in the world to come; and length of your days, in the world that is long. And know that it is so. Rabbi Assia said, "Why do the infants of the master's schoolhouse begin by studying the book of Leviticus? Rather it is because all the sacrifices are written in it; and because [the infants] are pure until now and do not know what is the taste of sin and iniquity. Hence, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'Let them begin first with the order of the sacrifices - let the pure ones come and occupy themselves with the acts of purification. Hence I count it for them as if they were standing and offering sacrifices in front of Me.' And He is informing you that even though the Temple is destroyed and sacrifices are not practiced, were it not for the infants that read the order of the sacrifices, the world would not stand." Hence, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, "My children, even thought the Temple is destroyed and the sacrifices are annulled and the sacrifice of the burnt-offering is not practiced, if you occupy yourselves and read the section of the burnt-offering and study the section about sacrifices, I count it for you as if you are offering a sacrifice of a burnt-offering in front of Me, as it is stated, 'This is the Torah of a burnt-offering'" - meaning to say, one who occupies himself with the Torah of the burnt-offering merits life in the world to come. What is written above? "A soul that sins and violates a violation of the Lord, and denies against his kinsman, etc." (Leviticus 5:21); and afterwards, "This is the law of the burnt-offering." Isaiah said (Isaiah 61:8), "Since I the Lord love justice, hate theft in a burnt-offering." The Holy One, blessed be He, said, "Do not say, 'I will steal and extort, and [then I will] bring a burnt-offering and it will atone for me.' As I hate theft, even with a burnt-offering made for the theft. And if the world wants that I should accept a burnt-offering, return the theft to its master; and afterwards, if he bring up a burnt-offering for it, I will accept it, as it is stated, 'Since I the Lord [...] hate theft in a burnt-offering' - hate the burnt-offering when the theft is still in his hand." And one who reads the Torah of the burnt-offering is as if he brings up and offers a burnt-offering in front of the Holy One, blessed be He. And therefore, fortunate is the one teaches himself Torah and gives his money to teach himself and his sons, as it is stated (Leviticus 7:11), "This is the law of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings" (here read as "This is the Torah of the sacrifice of payments"). Israel said in front of the Holy One, blessed be He, "Master of the world, behold You command us that we bring all of these sacrifices. When the Temple was still in existence, a man that sins brings a sacrifice and it is atoned for him. And so [too], he brings a meal-offering and it is accepted for him. But now that the Temple was destroyed, what can we do about our sins and about our guilt?" [So] the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, "If you want that they should be atoned for you, keep My laws, and I will count it for you as if you did a sacrifice in front of Me." And from where [do we know this]? "This is the law (Torah) for the burnt-offering, for the meal-offering, for the sin-offering, for the guilt-offering, for the induction-offerings and for the sacrifice of the peace-offerings" (Leviticus 7:37) - do not read it so, but rather, "This is the Torah; not for the burnt-offering, not for the meal-offering, not for the sin-offering, not for the guilt-offering, not for the induction-offerings and not for the sacrifice of the peace-offerings." Rather, occupy yourselves with Torah, and it will be considered in front of Me, as if you offered all of the sacrifices in front of Me. Hence, David stated (Psalms 119:97), "How much have I loved Your Torah, it is my speech all of the day." Since I know that occupation with Your Torah atones for iniquities - therefore I have loved Your Torah. What is [the understanding of] "upon its burning on the altar all of the night" (Leviticus 6:2)? This is that they would burn the fats and the limbs the whole entire night, and the prayers were instituted corresponding to the sacrifices. Now that we do not have burnt-offerings, nor sacrifices, nor meal-offerings, nor guilt offerings, they instituted them as prayers. And the evening prayer can be brought the whole night, just as we bring limbs and fats the whole entire night. But the forefathers instituted the prayers, and this means to say, its burning is on the altar all of the night. And why was the burning on the altar and not in another place? Rather the verse states (Exodus 20:21), "Make an altar of earth (adamah) for Me" - why of earth? Because man (Adam) was created from the earth, and his name was called Adam, because he was taken from the adamah. And we bring up burnt-offerings and sacrifices on that altar which is made of earth to atone for the body that is taken from the earth. And from where [do we know] that it atones for the soul? As it is written (Leviticus 17:14), "As the soul of all flesh, its blood is in its soul." And it also states (Leviticus 17:11), "as the blood atones for the soul." "And they shall throw the blood on the altar" (Leviticus 1:5) - meaning to say, they shall throw the blood - which is the soul - upon the altar - which is from earth like the body - and it shall atone for the soul. "A permanent fire shall burn upon the altar; you shall not extinguish" (Leviticus 6:6); but it [also] states (Isaiah 66:24), "They shall go out and gaze on the corpses of the men who rebelled against Me, their worms shall not die, nor their fire be extinguished, etc." [That is referring to] those that deny the Omnipresent. But the fire that is permanently burning on the altar atones for the sins of Israel. And what is [the understanding of] "altar" (mizbeach)? [It is an acronym:] Mem is mechilah (pardon), as it pardons their sins; zayin is zechut (merit), as it gives them merit for the world to come; bet is berakha (blessing), as the Holy One, blessed be He, gives them blessing [through it] in the deeds of their hands; chet is chaim (life), as they merit [through it] to life in the world to come. One who leaves all of these - pardon, merit, blessing and life - and goes and worships idolatry, is burned by His great fire, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 4:24), "As the Lord, your God, is a consuming fire, He is a jealous God." How is He jealous? As it is stated (Hosea 2:22), "And I will betroth you in faith." [Hence,] just as a husband is jealous about his wife, so too is the Holy One, blessed be He, jealous, as it is stated (Isaiah 62:5), "and the joy of the groom towards the bride, etc." One who leaves all these will be burnt by His great fire, as it is stated (Isaiah 66:24), "as their worms shall not die, nor their fire be extinguished, and they will be a disgrace for all flesh." But if he repents, the fire burning on the altar atones for him and expiates the fire of Geihinnom. Moreover, every one of Israel that is circumcised enters the Garden of Eden, since the Holy One, blessed be He, places His name on the Israelite so that he can enter the Garden of Eden. And what is the name and the seal that He places upon them? It is Shaddai (the Omnipotent): The shin He placed in the nose; the dalet in the hand; and the yod in the circumcision. And therefore at the time that an Israelite goes to his final home, there is an appointed angel in the Garden of Eden who takes every son of Israel that is circumcised and brings him to the Garden of Eden. But those that are not circumcised; even though they have two letters of the name of Shaddai - as they have the shin of the nose and the dalet of the hand - they do not have the yod of Shaddai, [and so, the letters they have form] the expression, sheid (demon), meaning to say that a demon brings him to Geihinnom. And an Israelite who is circumcised but worships idolatry [also] goes to enter the Garden of Eden, but the Holy One, blessed be He, commands the angel, such that he pulls his foreskin and makes his foreskin appear as it it were never circumcised, such that he not enter the Garden of Eden but rather Geihinnom. And circumcision is a great thing and beloved in front of the Holy One, blessed be He. And all the creatures of the world - whether people, beasts, animals or crawling things, all of them - fear an Israelite when he is circumcised. And so do you find with Yonah. As he fled from his God on the fifth day. And why did he flee? Rather the first time, [God] sent him to restore the border of Israel. The second time, He sent him to Jerusalem to destroy it; but the Holy One, blessed be He, worked up His great mercies and relented from the bad. And [so] they called him a false prophet. The third time, He sent him to Nineveh to destroy it. Yonah judged the case between him and himself - Yonah said, "I know that the [other] nations are close to repentance. Now they will repent and the Holy One, blessed be He, will [resultantly] send His rage towards Israel. Moreover, Israel will will call me a false prophet" (etc. in Midrash Tanchuma, Vayikra 8). "And the men feared a great fear" (Jonah 1:8) - [this] teaches that fear is greater than wisdom and understanding. As one who has wisdom and understanding, but does not have fear is not anything. As so did King Shlomo, peace be upon him, state (Ecclesiastes 12:13), "At the end of the matter when all is heard; fear God and observe His commandments, as this is all of man."

16 "and the fire of the altar shall be kindled thereby": Whence is it derived that the fire of the inner (incense) altar is to be kindled only from that of the outer altar? From: "the fire of the altar shall be kindled thereby." Whence is it derived that the same applies to the fire (i.e., the coals) of the coal pan (which were brought into the holy of holies for the burning of the incense of Yom Kippur) and to the (fire of) the menorah? It follows, viz.: "Burning" is stated in respect to the inner altar, viz. (Shemoth 30:7): "shall he burn it" (the incense, on the inner altar), and "burning" is stated in respect to the coal pan and the menorah. Just as the fire for the inner altar comes from the outer altar, so the fire for the coal pan and the menorah comes from the outer altar. — But why not go in this direction: "Burning" is stated in respect to the inner altar and "burning" is stated in respect to the coal pan and to the menorah — Just as the fire for the inner altar comes from the altar outside of it, so the fire for the coal pan and the menorah should come from the altar (directly) outside of them (i.e., the inner altar)! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (in respect to the outer altar, Vayikra 6:6): "A continuous fire shall burn upon the altar; it shall not be extinguished" — The continuous fire, too, that I told you of (in respect to the menorah, Shemoth 27:20) should be only from the outer altar. This suffices for the fire of the menorah. Whence do I derive the same for (that of) the coal pan? It follows, viz.: "Fire" is written in respect to the menorah, and "fire" is written in respect to the coal pan. Just as there (the menorah, the fire is taken from that) on the outer altar; here, too, (in respect to the coal pan, the fire is taken from that) on the outer altar. — But why not go in this direction: "Fire" is stated in respect to the incense, and "fire" is stated in respect to the coal pan. Just as there (in respect to the incense (altar), the fire is taken from that) nearest it (i.e., the outer altar); here, too, (in respect to the coal pan, the fire should be taken from that altar) nearest it (i.e., the inner altar)! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written(Vayikra 16:12): "And he shall take a full coal pan of coals of fire from off the altar before the L–rd." Which is the altar, part of which, but not all of which, is "before the L–rd"? The outer altar, (which faces the sanctuary, as opposed to the inner altar, which is entirely in the sanctuary).

(Bamidbar 15:3) "to present a sweet savor to the L-rd, of the herd or of the flock": What is the intent of this? Because it is written "and you shall offer a fire-offering to the L-rd, a burnt-offering or a sacrifice," I might think that a burnt-offering of fowl (also) requires libations; it is, therefore, written "of the herd or of the flock" — to exclude a burnt-offering of fowl as not requiring libations. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yochanan says: This is not needed, for it is already written "or a sacrifice." Just as "a sacrifice" is a beast, so, a burnt-offering. What is the intent, then, of "to present a sweet savor to the L-rd, of the herd or of the flock"? Because it is written (Vayikra 1:2) "A man if he offers of you an offering to the L-rd … from the herd and from the flock," I might think that if he said: I take it upon myself to bring a burnt-offering he must bring one of each; it is, therefore, written (here) "of the herd or of the flock," that he brings either one by itself. It is written in respect to the Pesach offering (Shemot 12:5) "from the sheep and from the goats shall you take it." Either one by itself? Or, one of each? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:10) "And if of the flock is his offering, of the sheep or of the goats for a beast-offering." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If a burnt-offering, the "graver" may be brought from one kind, then Pesach, the "lighter," how much more so may it be brought from one kind! What, then, is the intent of "from the sheep and from the goats shall you take it"? Either one by itself. Issi b. Akiva says: "to present a sweet savor to the L-rd (of the herd or of the flock"): either one by itself. You say either one by itself, but perhaps (the intent is that he brings) one of each. Would you say that? It follows a fortiori (otherwise), viz.: If the atzereth (Shavuoth) lambs, of which two must be brought (viz. Vayikra 23:19), may come of one kind, then a burnt-offering, two of which need not be brought, how much more so may it come of one kind! — No, this may be true of the two atzereth lambs, Scripture limiting their bringing (to atzereth), for which reason they may come of one kind, as opposed to a burnt-offering, Scripture "expanding" its bringing — wherefore it must be brought from two kinds! — This is refuted by the he-goats of Yom Kippur, Scripture "expanding" their bringing (to two) and yet being brought from one kind. (And they will refute "burnt-offering" — that even though Scripture "expands" its bringing, it may be brought of one kind.) — No, this may be true of the Yom Kippur he-goats, Scripture limiting their bringing, for they are not brought the whole year, wherefore they may be brought of one kind, as opposed to a burnt-offering, Scripture "expanding" its bringing in that it may be brought the entire year — wherefore it should be permitted only of two kinds. This is refuted by a sin-offering, which, even though Scripture "expands" its bringing to all the days of the year, may be brought of one kind — so that a burnt-offering, too, should be able to come from one kind. — No, this may be true of a sin-offering, Scripture limiting its bringing, in that it may not be brought as vow or gift, wherefore it is permitted to bring it of one kind, as opposed to burnt-offering, Scripture "expanding" its bringing in that it may be brought as vow or gift — wherefore it should be permitted to bring it only of two kinds. It must, therefore, be written (15:3) "to present a sweet savor to the L-rd, of the herd or of the flock" — either one by itself. (15:4) "Then the offerer shall offer": Because it is written (Vayikra 22:18) "A man, a man … who offers, etc.", this tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman? From "Then the offerer shall offer" — in any event. "Then the offerer shall offer his offering to the L-rd, a meal-offering, an issaron of flour." R. Nathan says: This is a prototype for all who donate a meal-offering not to give less than an issaron. "mixed with a revi'ith of a hin of oil. (5) And wine for libations, a revi'ith of a hin": oil for mixing and wine for libations. "shall you present with the burnt-offering or the sacrifice": What is the intent of this? From (3) "And you shall offer a fire-offering to the L-rd," I might think that if he said "I vow to bring a burnt-offering; I vow to bring peace-offerings" that he may bring one libation for both; it is, therefore, written "the burnt-offering or the sacrifice (of peace-offerings)" — he brings one for each in itself. I might think if he said ("I vow) five lambs for a burnt-offering, five lambs for peace-offerings," that he brings one libation for all; it is, therefore, written "with the burnt-offering or the sacrifice for each lamb" — he brings for each in itself. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: What is the intent of this ("with the burnt-offering or the sacrifice")? For I would think: If where the rule for an ox burnt-offering is the same as that for a lamb burnt-offering (i.e., that they are both burned), they are not similar in libations, (an ox requiring a half hin, and a lamb, a quarter hin,) then where the rule for a lamb burnt-offering is not the same as that of a lamb of peace-offerings, (the first being burned and the second eaten,) how much more so should they not be similar in libations! It is, therefore, written "shall you present with the brunt-offering or the sacrifice" — Even though the rule (for the offering) is not the same, the libations are. R. Nathan says: "shall you present with the burnt-offering": This is the burnt-offering of a leper (i.e., even though it is mandatory and not vow or gift, it requires libations). "or the sacrifice": This is his (the leper's) sin-offering. "or the sacrifice": This is his guilt-offering. "for each lamb": to include the burnt-offering of a woman after birth as requiring libations. "for each lamb": to include (as requiring libations) the eleventh (which one erroneously designated as the first-born beast-tithe (instead of the tenth). For we nowhere find in the entire Torah that the secondary (the eleventh in this instance, which requires libations,) is severer than the primary (the tenth, which does not). "And if it is a ram, then you shall present as the meal-offering (two esronim of flour mixed with a third of a hin of oil": Scripture here comes to differentiate between the libations for a lamb and those for a ram. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: cattle require libations and sheep require libations. If Scripture did not differentiate between the libations for a calf, and those for an ox, so, it would not differentiate between those for a lamb and those for a ram. It is, therefore, written "And if it is a ram, then you shall present as a meal-offering, etc." Scripture differentiates between the libations for a lamb, ("a quarter of a hin") and those of a ram ("a third of a hin"). Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is this written? For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If where libations (in general) were increased, no differentiation was made between a calf and an ox, then where libations (in general) were decreased, how much more so should no differentiation be made between a lamb and a ram! It is, therefore, written "And if it is a ram, then you shall present as a meal-offering, etc." Scripture hereby apprises us that even though libations (in general) were decreased, a differentiation was made between a lamb and a ram. (Ibid.) "mixed with oil, a third of a hin": For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since the lamb of the omer requires two esronim (viz. Vayikra 23:13), and the ram of a burnt-offering requires two esronim, then just as I learned about the lamb of the omer that even though its esronim were doubled, its libations were not doubled (viz. Ibid.), so, the ram of the burnt-offering, even though its esronim were doubled, its libations should not be doubled; it is, therefore, written "And if it is a ram, then you shall present as the meal-offering, etc., mixed with oil, etc." Scripture hereby apprises us that just as its esronim were doubled, so, its libations were doubled (i.e., increased). "with oil a third of a hin and wine for libations": oil for mixing; wine, for libations. "shall you offer, a sweet savor to the L-rd": It gives Me pleasure that I say, and My will is done. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 8) "And if you offer a bullock as a burnt-offering or as a sacrifice for an expressed vow, etc.": "Bullock" was included in the general category and it departed from that category (for special mention) to teach about the category that just as a bullock comes for a vow or a gift and requires libations, so, all that come for a vow or a gift require libations. (Ibid. 9) "Then he shall present with the bullock a meal-offering": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 3) "And you shall offer a fire-offering to the L-rd," I might think that if he said "I vow to bring a burnt-offering; I vow to bring peace-offerings," he brings one libation for both; it is, therefore, written "or as a sacrifice (of peace-offerings)," whereby we are taught that he brings one for each in itself. Or (I might think that) even if he said "I vow to bring five oxen for a burnt-offering; five oxen for peace-offerings," I might think that he brings one libation for all; it is, therefore, written "a burnt-offering or a sacrifice," whereby we are taught he brings one for each in itself. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: What is the intent of "or a sacrifice"? For it would follow: If (even though) what transpires with a lamb burnt-offering is the same as that which transpires with an ox burnt-offering (i.e., that they are entirely burnt), still, they are not equivalent for libations, then, where what transpires with an ox burnt-offering is not the same as that which transpires with ox peace-offerings, (which are eaten), how much more so should they not be equivalent in libations; it is, therefore, written "or as a sacrifice (of peace-offerings)," to teach that even though they are not equivalent in what transpires with them, they are equivalent for libations. (Ibid. 10) "And wine shall you offer for libations": oil for mixing; wine, for libations — on bowls. You say "on bowls," but perhaps (the intent is) on the fire. If you say this, you will put out the fire, and the Torah writes (Vayikra 6:6) "A perpetual fire is to be kept burning on the altar, not to go out." How, then, am I to understand "for libations"? As meaning "on bowls." "a sweet savor to the L-rd": It gives Me pleasure that I say, and My will is done." (Ibid. 11) "Thus shall it be done for the one ox": Scripture here tells us that the Torah did not differentiate between the libations for a calf and those for an ox. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Sheep require libations and cattle require libations. If I have learned that the Torah differentiates between libations for a lamb and those for a ram, then so should it differentiate between those for a calf and those for an ox. It is, therefore, written "Thus shall it be done for the one ox," (big or small), the Torah not differentiating between the libations for a calf and those for an ox. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is this written? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: If where libations (in general) were decreased, a differentiation was made between a calf and an ox, then, where libations (in general) were increased, how much more so should a differentiation be made between a calf and an ox! It is, therefore, written "Thus shall it be done for the one ox." Scripture hereby apprises us that even though libations (in general) were increased, no differentiation was made between a calf and an ox. (Ibid.) "or for the one ram": Why is this written? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Since we find that the Torah differentiated between the libations of a one-year old ("a lamb") and the libations of a two-year old ("a ram"), so it should differentiate between the libations of a two-year old and those of a three-year old. Scripture hereby apprises us (by "the one ram") that no such differentiation was made. (Ibid.) "or for the lamb among the sheep": Why is this written? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Since we find that the Torah differentiated between the libations for a sheep and those for a ram, so it should differentiate between the libations for a ewe (female)-lamb and those for a (ewe-) sheep. We are hereby apprised (by "the [female] lamb [one year old] among the sheep [two years old]") that no such differentiation was made. (Ibid.) "or among the goats": Why is this written? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Since we find that the Torah differentiated between the libations for a lamb and those for a ram, so it should differentiate between those for a kid and those for a (full-grown) he-goat; it is, therefore, written "or among the goats." The largest of the goats is hereby equated with the youngest of the lambs. Just as the latter, three logs (i.e., a quarter of a hin), so, the former, three logs. (Ibid. 12) "Thus shall you do for (each) one": This tells me only of these (i.e., the original sacrifices). Whence do I derive (the same for) their exchanges? From "Thus shall you do for each one." (Ibid. "According to the number (of animals) that you offer": He may not decrease (the number of libations). — But perhaps if he wishes to increase (the number) he may do so. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "According (i.e., strictly according) to their number." These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonah says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Ibid. 15) "All the native-born shall do (precisely) thus, these things" — neither to decrease nor to increase. What, then, is the intent of "According to the number that you offer"? I might think that if he wishes to double (the original number as a gift) he may do so. It is, therefore, written "Thus shall you offer (libations) for (each) one, according to their number." From here they ruled: It is permitted to intermix the libations for bullocks with those of rams; the libations of lambs with the libation of (other) lambs; the libations of individuals with those of the congregation; the libations of the day with those of the preceding evening (— their numbers being the same.) But it is not permitted to intermix the libations of lambs with those of bullocks and rams (— their numbers not being the same).