צַ֤ו אֶֽת־אַהֲרֹן֙ וְאֶת־בָּנָ֣יו לֵאמֹ֔ר זֹ֥את תּוֹרַ֖ת הָעֹלָ֑ה הִ֣וא הָעֹלָ֡ה עַל֩ מוֹקְדָ֨ה עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֤חַ כָּל־הַלַּ֙יְלָה֙ עַד־הַבֹּ֔קֶר וְאֵ֥שׁ הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ תּ֥וּקַד בּֽוֹ׃
Perintahkanlah kepada Harun dan anak-anaknya: Inilah ajaran tentang korban bakaran: korban bakaran itu harus tetap berada di atas perapiannya di atas mezbah sepanjang malam sampai pagi, dan api mezbah harus tetap dinyalakan di atasnya.
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.?