Le Lévitique 9:2 Références du Talmud : Jerusalem Talmud Yoma

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁹Babli 3b.: But since the he-goat of initiation obstructs, does the he-goat of the Day of Atonement also obstruct²⁰In the ceremonies for the eighth day of initiation, the commandment to Aaron to take a bull and a he-goat (Lev. 9:2) is one unit; there could be no bull without a he-goat. But in Mishnah Menaḥot 4:2 it is stated that for all holiday sacrifices bulls and he-goats are independent of one another. If the rules of the Day of Atonement are derived from the rules of the initiation rites, the Mishnah would have to state an exception for the Day of Atonement.? And he accepted it from him²¹The rules of the Day of Atonement cannot be derived from the rules of the initiation rites.. [On that Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish ask before Rebbi Joḥanan and he accepted it from him?] Should he not have objected to him that we do not find that anything obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, nor can anything not obstructing be inferred from anything obstructing? “He breaks the neck”, “to burn in smoke”²²In the rules of the elevation offering of a bird (Lev. 1:15), in the same verse it is required that the Cohen break the neck of the bird and burn it in smoke on the altar.. Since (breaking the neck)²³This must read: “burning in smoke”. is done on top of the altar, so (breaking the neck) [burning in smoke]²⁴The text in parentheses was first written by the scribe, the text in brackets is the correction. The original text in parentheses is the correct one. Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata 7(4). is done on the top of the altar. Breaking the neck obstructs, burning in smoke does not obstruct²⁵If the sacrifice would become impure and disqualified after the breaking of the neck but before the burning, the offerer has fulfilled his vow and it is not necessary to bring a second sacrifice.. “Permanently,” [“permanently].” “Permanently” is mentioned for the pan-baked breads²⁶Therefore one part of R. Mana’s objection has been shown to be invalid.
The daily offering of the High Priest (Lev. 6:12–16), a tenth of an epha of fine flour baked into “breads” (v. 14) without a specified number. “Permanent” is stated in v. 13. and “permanently” is mentioned for the shew-bread²⁷The shew-bread is specified as 12 loaves, Lev. 24:5. The arrangement is called “permanent” in v. 24:8..] The shew-breads are obstructive, the pan-baked breads are not obstructive. Since [“permanently” mentioned for the pan-baked breads refers to twelve,] so “permanently” mentioned [for the shew-bread refers to twelve²⁸It is obvious that here also one has to switch the places of “shew-bread” and “panbaked breads”. The number of breads of the High Priest is fixed as 12 in Mishnah Menaḥot 6:5, but a deviation from this number invalidates only shew-bread, not the High Priest’s offering.. “Taking”, “taking”. “Taking” mentioned in Egypt²⁹Ex. 12:22, the commandment to take “a bundle of hyssop”., “taking” is mentioned for lulav³⁰Lev. 23;40, the commandment to take 4 kinds of plants; it is not mentioned that they must be tied as a bundle.. [Since “taking” mentioned in Egypt implies a bundle³¹In the Babli Sukkah 11b, and Sifra Emor Pereq 16(1), this is rejected as R. Jehudah’s minority opinion., so also “taking” mentioned for lulav implies a bundle³²Both of R. Mana’s objections were disregarded by Tannaim; R. Simeon ben Laqish is justified..] For the lulav it obstructs, in Egypt it did not obstruct. Therefore we found things obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, and things not obstructing can be inferred from anything obstructing³⁴Babli 4a..