Hebräische Bibel
Hebräische Bibel

Talmud zu Wajikra 6:5

וְהָאֵ֨שׁ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֤חַ תּֽוּקַד־בּוֹ֙ לֹ֣א תִכְבֶּ֔ה וּבִעֵ֨ר עָלֶ֧יהָ הַכֹּהֵ֛ן עֵצִ֖ים בַּבֹּ֣קֶר בַּבֹּ֑קֶר וְעָרַ֤ךְ עָלֶ֙יהָ֙ הָֽעֹלָ֔ה וְהִקְטִ֥יר עָלֶ֖יהָ חֶלְבֵ֥י הַשְּׁלָמִֽים׃

Und das Feuer auf dem Altar werde stets in Brand erhalten, dass es nicht erlösche, und der Priester soll darauf Holz anzünden Morgen für Morgen, und darauf legen das Ganzopfer, und darauf lasse er in Dampf aufgehen das Unschlitt der Mahlopfer.

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir

HALAKHAH: “Three kinds are forbidden for the nazir,” etc. Impurity, as it is written4Lev. 6:6.: “During all the days he vowed to the Eternal he shall not come close to a human corpse.” Shaving, as it is written5Lev. 6:5.: “During all the days of his nazir vow, a shaving knife shall not come onto his head.” Anything from the vine, as it is written6Lev. 6:4.: “During all the days of his vow, of anything coming from the wine-vine [he shall not eat.]”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Yoma

It was stated20Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(7).=; Babli 24b,45a. “Rebbi Jehudah said, from where that kindling fire wood21Rashi’s explanation. may only be done by a qualified Cohen and with a vessel of service22The firewood had to be transported in a dedicated vessel.? The verse says, Aaron’s the priest’s sons shall put fire on the altar. Rebbi Simeon said, could anybody think that a non-Cohen might approach the top of the altar? Then why is it said, Aaron’s the priest’s sons shall put fire on the altar? This teaches that kindling the fire may only be done on top of the altar” They objected, is it not written “and the fire on the altar shall burn there, it shall not go out23Lev. 6:5., from here that kindling the fire may only be done on top of the altar, the words of Rebbi Jehudah24Babli 45a.”? The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted. There it needs a qualified Cohen, but here it does not need a qualified Cohen. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Yudan said, what do you understand from here? Could we say on top of the altar and a non-Cohen25Since it already was stated that no non-Cohen could be present at the altar, a mention of “Cohen” was superfluous in the second case.?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Vorheriger VersGanzes KapitelNächster Vers