Rujukan Talmud untuk Imamat 6:5: Jerusalem Talmud Nazir, Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim, Jerusalem Talmud Yoma & Berakhot

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.]”

HALAKHAH: ⁹“For what was the disbursement used,” etc. For what reason were the times of wood by the priests and the people to be counted¹⁰This paragraph is Halakhah Ta`aniot4:6 (ת), also in Megillah1:2 (70c l. 1 ff.; מ). In fact, ג simply notes: “one repeats from Ta`aniot up to ‘and were fasting but not completing.’ ”? Only that at the time when Israel returned from the Diaspora and did not find wood in the chamber, those came forward and volunteered wood from their own, donated it to the public, and used it to offer public sacrifices. The prophets among them stipulated that even if the chamber was full of wood and those came and offered and volunteered wood from their own, that the sacrifice should only be brought first from theirs¹¹Babli Ta`anit28a.. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yose<sup>12</sup>This is R. Yose the fifth generation Amora. The reading of B (and M), R. Assi (= Yasa), is impossible since R. Ila was a student, not a teacher, of R. Yasa. in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering<sup>13</sup>While holding that the firewood is ancillary, not intrinsic, to the sacrifice, they still would have to require that the two daily logs required before any sacrifices are brought to the altar (Lev. 6:5)to be paid for from the public purse.. It was stated, a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public<sup>14</sup>Since the prescribed garments of a priest are part of the establishment of the Tabernacle (Ex. 28:40–43), they must be public property. Babli Yoma35b.. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose<sup>15</sup>The Amora, speaking in the name of R. Ila.: <sup>16</sup>Tosephta Ta`aniot3:6.“Those days are observed at the time of sacrifices and not at the time of sacrifices; Rebbi Yose says, they are observed only at the time of sacrifices.¹⁷The days enumerated on which certain families celebrated their offerings of firewood according to the Tanna R. Yose are treated as days of sacrificing. Therefore at least for him, firewood is part of the sacrifice, not ancillary, and may be given from private property as public sacrifice.” Also from the following¹⁶Tosephta Ta`aniot3:6.: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq said, we were of the descendants of Senaah ben Benjamin. When the Ninth of Av fell on a Sabbath, we postponed it to the end of the Sabbath and were fasting but not completing.¹⁸Their holiday was on the 10th of Av. Since the 9th of Av is the day of remembering the destruction of the Temple, his story must be dated after the destruction, when there were no longer any sacrifices. If the family holiday is so important that one pushes aside the fasting for the 9th of Av, it must be that even for the majority the offering of firewood was the equivalent of a sacrifice, not an ancillary act. Therefore R. Aḥa is justified.”

A non-Cohen who removed¹¹The formal removal of ashes from the altar.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? Service of bringing¹²Num. 18:7.. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar¹²Num. 18:7.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside¹³Outside a divinely approved place of worship; after the building of the Temple, outside of the Temple district. Worship outside the Temple is sinful only if it imitates Temple ceremonies. Babli 24a., the non-Cohen is liable for inside. What are these? Burning incense, and pouring blood, and making libations of water and wine. This follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Levi said, even removal of the ashes;¹⁴Babli 24a. this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he¹⁵The non-Cohen. stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he¹⁵The non-Cohen. removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others¹⁶Lev. 6:4. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(6)., of lesser value than these. But for him¹⁷According to Sifra, R. Eleazar (the Tanna.) who said others, to include people with bodily defects, there is no difference between a Cohen with a bodily defect and a non-Cohen. Everybody agreed that the non-Cohen who arranged the woods¹⁸The logs of firewood on the altar. is liable. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but only for the two logs on which the verse insists that they are Cohen’s service: Aaron’s the priest’s sons shall put fire on the altar and arrange woods¹⁹Lev. 1:7. Since a simple plural always means 2 (Note 138); this establishes a formal requirement that two new logs be brought to the altar at the start of the morning service; Lev. 6:5. Babli 24b..