Talmud su Levitico 6:78

HALAKHAH: “Originally, anybody who wanted to remove the ashes from the altar,” etc. Rebbi Mana asked, why did they not establish a lottery for the removal of ashes? Come and see, slaughter is valid by a non-Cohen, but you are saying that there is a lottery⁷Mishnah 2:2.. Removal of ashes is forbidden to a non-Cohen, and you are saying, there is no lottery? Rebbi Mana turned around and said, slaughter is valid only during daytime, but the removal of ashes is valid during the entire night. If you are saying that there is a lottery, he will not get up early for the doubt⁸If the chances are slim that he will be able to serve, no Cohen will show up for the night duty. Babli 22a.. What did you see to say this? All the night⁹Lev. 6:2., he shall remove¹⁰Lev. 6:3.. From here that the removal of ashes is valid during the entire night.

HALAKHAH: “Originally, anybody who wanted to remove the ashes from the altar,” etc. Rebbi Mana asked, why did they not establish a lottery for the removal of ashes? Come and see, slaughter is valid by a non-Cohen, but you are saying that there is a lottery⁷Mishnah 2:2.. Removal of ashes is forbidden to a non-Cohen, and you are saying, there is no lottery? Rebbi Mana turned around and said, slaughter is valid only during daytime, but the removal of ashes is valid during the entire night. If you are saying that there is a lottery, he will not get up early for the doubt⁸If the chances are slim that he will be able to serve, no Cohen will show up for the night duty. Babli 22a.. What did you see to say this? All the night⁹Lev. 6:2., he shall remove¹⁰Lev. 6:3.. From here that the removal of ashes is valid during the entire night.

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: “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: “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: “Fifteen [categories of] women free their co-wives”, etc. ¹³Sifra Ṣaw Parashah 2(9–10); another version of 2(10) in Babli Yebamot 39b. The basis of the argument is the 12th exegetical rule of R. Ismael [Introduction to Sifra (2)]: If anything was in some set and was removed from it for another purpose, you cannot return it to that set unless the verse returns it explicitly. See Midraš Gen.rabba 85(6) for a formulation of 2(10) referring more directly to the rule. (For an introduction to these rules, see H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth, ed., London 1966, pp. 171–196; Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, pp. 150–161.) What exactly was permitted, became forbidden, and is now commanded is a matter of interpretation in the next paragraphs. It is written¹⁴Lev. 6:9, speaking of the leftovers of cereal offerings in the Tabernacle. These leftovers must be eaten by priests, in the holy precinct, and unleavened, after the prescribed rites were performed. “unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted¹⁵Before dedication as offering, the flour was profane and permitted to everybody. It is in the set of unrestricted permitted food. and then forbidden¹⁶After dedication and before the prescribed rites were performed, the flour is forbidden to everybody, including priests. It is no longer in any set of permitted food., when it became permitted again¹⁷After the prescribed rites were performed, it cannot return to the set of unrestricted permitted food. should one think it returned to its prior permission? The verse states “unleavened it should be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her levir shall come upon her” as a commandment. Since she was permitted and then forbidden, when she became permitted again should one think she returned to her prior permission¹⁸A rhetorical question; this is impossible by rule 12.? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment.

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..

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.?

From where that weaves precede presentations¹⁶Mishnah Menaḥot 5:6 states that weave always precedes presentation. One has to wonder about Rashi’s Yerushalmi text since in his commentary to that Mishnah he follows R. Jeremiah.? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: They learned that from the case of the suspected wife¹⁷Since Num. 5:25 clearly prescribes first weave and then presentation.. Rebbi Yose said, the suspected wife is different because of its novelty and one cannot infer from anything that is different because of its novelty¹⁸While not in the tannaïtic rules, this is a generally recognized hermeneutical principle in both Talmudim; cf. Babli Ketubot 45a, Sanhedrin 27a. The novelty status of the suspected wife’s offering is explained in Mishnah 2:1; therefore, procedural instructions for this offering cannot imply similar instructions for the other flour offerings.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya understood it from the following¹⁹Lev. 6:7. This paragraph deals with technicalities of all flour offerings, whether they need weaving or not. Any special ceremony for certain offerings must precede the ceremonies common to all offerings.: “This is the teaching about the flour offering, present.” Where is the weave? It already preceded. Rebbi Yose said, explain it about flour offerings that do not need weaves; you cannot infer anything. Which [verse] says anything? “You shall bring,²⁰Lev. 2:8: “You shall bring the offering made from these to the Eternal; the Cohen shall bring it and present it to the altar.” “These” are flour and olive oil.
The baraita is also quoted in the Babli, Menaḥot 60b.” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that²¹Lev. 2:9.: “He shall lift a fist full”; where is the weave²²Which is prescribed for the offering of the suspected wife in Num.5:25..? It already preceded.

³¹Babli 47a, Menaḥot11a, Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata 9(6).“His full handful³²Lev. 2:2.. I could assume an overstuffed handful, the verse says, with his handful³³Lev. 6:8.. If with his handful, I could assume that he picks it up with his finger tips, the verse says, his full handful. How is this? He sinks his hand into the baking pan³⁴Lev. 2:5. or frying pan³⁵Lev. 2:7. and wipes clean with his finger from top to bottom.”

If he removed with his left hand, the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Jehudah ben Rebbi, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if a fistful³²Of the flour offering. had been sanctified in a dedicated vessel and he burned it whether out of his hand or out of a vessel, whether by his right hand or by the left. Jehudah ben Rebbi said, either like a purification offering from the hand, or like a reparation offering from a vessel, but only with the right hand³³In Lev. 6:10 it is stated that the flour offering is “most holy, like purification offering and like reparation offering.” For purification offerings it is stated (Lev.4:25, 30, 34) that the Cohen has to apply the blood of the sacrifice with his finger to the corners of the altar. This requirement is missing for the reparation sacrifice (Lev.7:1–7.). They objected: Was it not stated, if he received with his right hand and then put it into his left hand, he must return it to the right hand³⁴Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:1, Zevaḥim 32a, speaking of the blood received in a vessel and brought to the altar to be poured at the wall.? If from the left hand he returns it for the altar, not so much more to the cup? Rebbi La said, if somebody stated this, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon stated it. As it was stated, it³⁵The fistful taken from a flour offering. does not need sanctification in a cup. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his father Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated there³⁶Mishnah Menaḥot3:4., “not in a dedicated vessel it is disqualified, but Rebbi Simeon qualifies it.” How is it? The rabbis who require a dedicated vessel need the right hand³⁷Menaḥot26b.; Rebbi Simeon [who] does not require a dedicated vessel does not need the right hand. Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how the rabbis could compare the removal of ashes to burning, but it can be compared only to the lifting of the fistful, since both are by lifting³⁸Since everybody agrees that at all places where the verse requires that the action be done by a Cohen he must use his right hand; therefor the lifting of the fistful must be with the Cohen’s right hand..

The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating if it is written do not eat, do not eat. It may not be eaten (f.). it may not be eaten (m.), you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating⁴⁶In contrast to the statement of R. Eleazar (Note 17) it is asserted that if the prohibition of food is in the active voice it does not imply prohibition of usufruct. Still the passive voice does imply prohibition of usufruct.. The paradigm for all cases is⁴⁷Lev. 6:23.: Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned⁴⁸It is shown that the passive voice implies prohibition of usufruct, since it is the only such case where the inference is valid according to everybody. The verse is understood (Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 8(5), quoted in Babli Zebaḥim 82a, Yerushalmi Pesaḥim7:9, fol. 35a] following a punctuation which differs from the masoretic one: Any purification offering, some of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify, in the Sanctuary it shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. This is a possible reading since purification offerings may be eaten only in the Sanctuary. Then “Sanctuary” is taken also to refer to the last clause, (in the sanctuary) in fire it shall be burned. This excludes all sacred and profane usufruct after purification.. Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said⁴⁹Lev. 7:23.: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat, why has it been said: but fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work? Even for the work of Heaven²⁴Lev. 7:23. In the opinion of the Babli 23a, the verse is needed to permit any use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the Sifra Ṣaw (Parasha 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food nor subject to the impurity of food.
In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 49), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.. If one understands what has been said⁵⁰Deut. 12:16.: But the blood you shall not eat, why has it been said,you shall pour it on the ground like water? As water prepares⁵¹Preparation for impurity is explained in Demay 2:3, Notes 136–141., so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said⁵²Deut. 14:21.: Do not eat any carcass; why has it been said, to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it? It serves to tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat⁵³The resident sojourner, in order to receive the full protection of the law, only has to follow the “precepts of the descendants of Noe”, to abstain from idolatry, murder, incest and adultery, eating limbs tom from a living animal, blasphemy, robbery, and anarchy.. If one understands what has been said⁵⁴Ex. 22:30.: Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat, why does the verse say, throw it to the dog? This you throw to the dog but you do not throw profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct⁵⁵In the Babli 22a this is quoted as the opinion of R. Meïr. It is forbidden to slaughter anything but sacrifices in the Temple precinct, Lev.17:4..

And he shall lift³⁹Lev. 6:3.. There is no lifting unless he left a remainder⁴⁰Otherwise the verse would have said, “he takes away”.. Which ate. there is no eating less than the volume of an olive. If all of it⁴¹The ashes on the altar. was the volume of an olive? You may not take part of it since there would not be the volume of an olive; you may not take all of it since there would not be a remainder. And he lifts … what the fire ate. I could think wood, the verse says, the elevation sacrifice⁴²The verse reads: He shall lift the ashes from where the fire ate the elevation sacrifice on the altar.. If elevation sacrifice, I could think limbs of an elevation sacrifice⁴³Parts of the daily sacrifice which still are recognizable as such.; the verse says, what the fire ate. How is this? He scoops up from what has been consumed in the middle⁴⁴Where it is most likely from the sacrifice, not the fire wood. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(4). and descends. It is an obligation to bring wood before fire, as it is said⁴⁵Lev. 1:7., they shall arrange on thefire, He mentioned wood before fire. If one arranged before he removed, he throws down and removes, disassembles and removes⁴⁶Since it has been stated that the removal of ashes is first in the service of a new day, and arranging new logs precedes the morning daily sacrifice, any arrangement preceding the removal of ashes is simply addition to the preceding day’s service and may be undone for the new day. Sifra Wayyiqra I Pereq 5(11)..

¹²³From here on there is a parallel in Horaiot 3:3, Notes 146–188 and Megillah1:12.“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Haggai said, by Moses⁸Since the Chapter starts with God’s commandment to inaugurate the Tabernacle, the mention here of God’s commandment is redundant and may be interpreted as a new commandment for future generations.! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him¹²⁴Lev. 6:12; the offering of the High Priest starting with the day he is anointed for his office. Sifra Ṣaw Parašah 3(3). The singular indicates that only one High Priest can be appointed at one time. This implies that the reserve appointee for the day of Atonement cannot have the status of High Priest unless he actually is needed.. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry¹²⁵He disagrees and holds that while the two could not have been anointed on the same day, they could have been anointed on different days. The rule that the back-up Cohen has lower status is practical, not biblical, as is the entire institution of the back-up..

HALAKHAH: From where the cleaning of the interior altar⁹⁰Since in contrast to the exterior altar, removing ashes from the interior incense altar is never mentioned in the Torah.? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He shall throw it next to the altar, to the East, on the place of ashes⁹¹Lev. 1:16, referring to the crop of a pigeon brought as elevation offering. Cf. Sifra Wayyiqra1Pereq 9(3).. It is unnecessary⁹²The mention on the place of ashes is not needed to fix the place; it instructs the Cohen where to put the ashes. Babli Meˋilah 12a.. If to designate [the place], it already is written, next to the altar. If to teach you that it should be put to the East of the ramp, it already is written, to the East. Also he explained, next to the altar, next to the altar⁹³The first quote is from Lev. 1:16, the second Lev. 6:3, about the ashes from the exterior altar formally deposited next to the altar. Since this case is explicit the exterior altar, the other is taken implicitly to refer to the interior altar.. Since in one case it is to the East of the ramp, so in the other case it is to the East of the ramp. From where that it is forbidden for usufruct⁹⁴Mishnah Meˋilah 3:4 states that from the ashes from the interior altar and the candelabrum one may not have usufruct but taking them is not larceny.? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to a pure place⁹⁵Lev. 6:4. The quote is inappropriate since the verse speaks of the remainder of the ashes on the exterior altar which are transported to a pure place outside the sacred precinct., that its place shall be pure⁹⁶It seems that here “pure” is taken in the sense of “untouched”.. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, from where that the cleaning of the exterior altar is forbidden for usufruct? The verse says, to the place of ashes, that it be its place forever. From where the cleaning of the interior altar? He shall sprinkle on it⁹¹Lev. 1:16, referring to the crop of a pigeon brought as elevation offering. Cf. Sifra Wayyiqra1Pereq 9(3)., he shall burn incense⁹⁸Ex. 30:7. The quote is incomplete since the argument is a comparison of he shall sprinkle on it, and he shall burn incense on it.. Since sprinkling is on its body⁹⁹As explained in Halakhah 5:7, the High Priest on the Day of Atonement is commanded to sprinkle blood on the interior altar on it, on the cleaned metal surface directly, not on ashes or unburned incense. The rule is then transferred to everyday’s burning of incense since the same expression is used., also burning incense on its body. From where that the interior altar is forbidden for usufruct? An argument de minore ad majus. If from the exterior altar it is forbidden, so much more from the interior¹⁰⁰Since the external altar is accessible to all Cohanim at all times, the internal only to a selected Cohen twice a day..

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Incense which was extinguished becomes defective even in carats¹⁰¹Even if entire grains of incense are not touched by the fire, they become disqualified. Babli Menaḥot24b.; for consumption is written only for the external altar¹⁰²Lev.6:3. A wick which was extinguished needs replacement¹⁰³Babli Menaḥot88b.. Immediately? The students of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus say, first it needs to be cooled. Does the oil have to be replaced? The word of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac implies that oil has to be replaced. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, now on the winter solstice half a log for each light, on the summer solstice half a log for each light¹⁰⁴Since the candelabrum has to be lit “from evening to morning’ (Ex.27:21), one would assume that filling the same volume of oil in winter and summer means that in the summer the remnants of the previous night’s oil have to be discarded. Cf. Babli 15a.? Rebbi Yose said, from this you cannot conclude anything, as we have stated there¹⁰⁵Mishnah Šeqalim 5:1., “Ben Bevay for the skeins”, he was threading the wicks¹⁰⁶If larger wicks are used in summer than in winter, the same amount of oil can be burned in all seasons. The Babli presumes without discussion that the oil has to be replaced, Menaḥot88b..

From where that a Pesaḥ must be in the name of its owner? Is it not a logical argument⁵⁷דִּין usually introduces an informal argument de minore ad majus.? Since a purification sacrifice, where intent for the uncircumcised or impure⁵⁸Sacrifices of the uncircumcised (e. g., a hemophiliac who may not be circumcised) or an impure person (e. g., a resident outside the Land) sent through third persons are accepted in the Temple. But any uncircumcised is excluded from the Pesaḥ(Ex.12:48) and the person who will not be pure by nightfall is excluded by the requirement that the Pesaḥ be slaughtered for the group of subscribers (Ex. 12:3–4); adding the name of a person prohibited from eating sacred food will invalidate the slaughter. This argument is somewhat circular; since the argument is rejected for other reasons, this does not have to be pointed out. does not invalidate it, needs to be in the name of the owner, Pesaḥ, where intent for the uncircumcised or impure does invalidate it, is it not logical that it needs to be in the name of its owner? No. If you are saying about purification sacrifice which is most holy⁵⁹It may be eaten only by male Cohanim in the Temple precinct., would you say that about Pesaḥ which is a simple sanctum⁶⁰It may be eaten by every pure person within the walls of the city of the Temple.? Rebbi Yose said, did you not argue about intent? The Torah insisted about intent for Pesaḥ more than for purification sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: Do we infer this from the purification sacrifice of the sufferer from skin disease? But is not the purification sacrifice of the sufferer from skin disease separate for something new⁶¹As stated in Mishnah Menaḥot 9:6, no purification offering other than that of the sufferer from skin disease needs accompanying offerings of flour and wine. The offering of flour is explicit in Lev. 14:10; that of wine is inferred in Sifra Mesoraˋ Pereq 2(10).? And one cannot infer from anything which is separate for something new⁶²This is R. Ismael’s 12th hermeneutical principle: Anything which was in a group, but is taken from the group to be under a separate rule, cannot be returned to its original group unless the verse returns it explicitly. An example is the reparation sacrifice of the sufferer from skin disease, whose blood is not for the altar but for the right thumb and right great toe of the owner, but which Lev. 14:13 declares to follow the rules of reparation sacrifices in all respects. Such a note is missing for the purification sacrifice. The Babli, Zevaḥim 8a, accepts the argument as valid.. He told him, from where do you infer that it be invalid if not for its purpose? Not from the following verse, he shall slaughter it as purification sacrifice⁶³Lev. 4:33. Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah)
Pereq 11(3)., and it is written: this is the doctrine of the purification sacrifice⁶⁴Lev. 6:18. Babli Zevaḥim 9a. Interpreted differently in Sifra Ṣaw Parašah 3(1).. There is one doctrine for all purification sacrifices. But from the place where it is being inferred, there it permits inferences⁶⁵Since the flour offering does not accompany the purification offering of the sufferer from skin disease but his elevation offering (14:20), the attribution of the wine offering to the purification offering is an inference of the oral tradition which cannot override Lev. 6:18..

He shall bring it¹²²Lev. 6:7, on the presentation of the High-Priest’s pan-baked breads. Cf.i 34a, before the additional sacrifices, but when he repeats you shall sacrifice even after the libations¹²³The libations of wine belonging to the daily sacrifice, preceding the additional sacrifices of special days.. There are Tannaim who state, before the libations. He who says before the libations, before the wine libations. He who says after the libations, after the libations of fine flour. ¹²⁴Babli 34a. The fine flour precedes the pan-baked breads; even though this is for the fire and that is for the fire, this is a private sacrifice¹²⁵The High Priest’s private offering, although part of the public ceremony. and the other a public sacrifice. The pan-baked bread precede the cups¹²⁶On the Sabbath, containing the incense which accompanied the shew-bread on the table in the Sanctuary.; even though this is a private sacrifice and the other a public sacrifice, this is frequent but the other is not frequent¹²⁷The wine libations accompanying the sacrifices were poured into bowls with small holes on the bottom through which the wine flowed onto the altar in sufficiently small amounts so that the wine evaporated and did not extinguish the flame.. The pan-baked breads precede the wine since this is for the fire but that is for the bowls¹²⁷The wine libations accompanying the sacrifices were poured into bowls with small holes on the bottom through which the wine flowed onto the altar in sufficiently small amounts so that the wine evaporated and did not extinguish the flame.. Cups and wine, which one has precedence? Is that not the Mishnah, incense before the wine¹²⁸Since in Mishnah 3 wine is mentioned last, and on the Sabbath one mentions the two cups containing incense with the daily sacrifice, it should be clear that incense precedes the wine.? Here for a private offering¹²⁹The only open question is how to handle incense and wine brought with a private offering., there for public offering.

It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. Why does the verse say, priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb. Here you say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. But there you say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said, this refers to the king. If you would say by a bull, preceding the paragraph about the king, assuming that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.¹³³The text and the following paragraphs up to the quote from Idiut 5:6 is from Megillah 1:12. The secondary character of the text here is shown by the thorough corruption of the present paragraph compared to the parallel text in Megillah and partially Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra 2) Paršeta 2(6). One might conjecture that the editor of B neither did want to rearrange the text nor print it in disorder. The text of Megillah is readily understandable; it also explains the mutilated text here. The additional text is given in a different typeface.
תַּנִּי. כֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא פָר. אֵין הַמְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים מֵבִיא פָּר. וּדְלֹא כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. הַמְרוּבָּה בְגָדִים מֵבִיא פָר. מַה טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מָשִׁים. וּמַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר כֹּהֵן, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנָן. מָשִׁים. יָכוֹל זֶה הַמֶּלֶךְ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר כּהֵן. אי כהן יָכוֹל אַף מַרוּבָּה בגָדִים. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מָשִׁיחַ. אוֹ יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מַרְבֶּה אַף מְשוּחַ מִלְחָמָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מָשִׁיחַ, שֶׁאֵין עַל גַבָּיו מָשִׁיחַ, מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטתּוֹן דְרַבָּנָן, הָכָא כְתִיב מָשִׁיחַ וְהָכָא כְתִיב מָשִׁיחַ, הָכָא אִינוּן אֶמְרִין. לְרַבּוֹת מְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים. וְהָכָא אִינוּן אָמְרִין. לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַמְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים, אָמַר רַבִּי אִילָא. כָּל־מִדְרַשׁ וּמִדְרַשׁ בְּעִנְיָנוֹ. תַּמָּן כָּל־הַפָּרָשָׁה אֲמוּרָה בְאַהֲרן. לְאֵי־זֶה דָבָר נֶאֱמַר כֹּהֵן, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים. בְּרָם הָכָא אֵין הַפָּרָשָׁה אֲמוּרָה בְאַהֲרן. אִילוּ נֶאֱמַר מָשִׁיחַ וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר כֹּהֵן. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם עַל הֶעֶלֶם דָּבָר מֵבִיא פָר וְעַל שְׁנְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה מֵבִיא טָעִיר. הַוֵי צוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר כֹּהֵן. או אִלוּ נֶאֱמַר כֹּהֵן וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר מָשִׁיחַ, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. זֶה הַמֶּלֶךְ. אִין תּאמַר, כְּבָר קָדְמָה פָרָשַׁת הַמֶּלֶךְ. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. עַל הֶעֶלֶם דָּבָר מֵבִיא פָר וְעַל שִׁנְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר. הַנִי צוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר מָשִׁיחַ וְצוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר כֹּהֵן.
It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meir, for Rebbi Mei"r said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull¹³⁴The definite article used in Lev. 4:3, the priest, would alone have sufficed to characterize the High Priest, biblically distinguished from all others.. What is Rebbi Meir's reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb¹³⁵Tosephta 2:3.. What is the rabbis' reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed¹³⁶The double restriction, the priest (the High Priest), anointed, makes it clear that only an anointed high priest is meant. The rabbinic disagreement implies that no High Priest of Second Temple times ever brought a purification sacrifice for himself.. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war¹³⁷The one mentioned in Deut. 20:3 charged with addressing the army. He also is called the priest (Sotah Chapter 8) and bound by all restrictions imposed on the High Priest in Lev. 21: 10-15 (Tosephta 2:1).. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here¹³⁸Lev. 6: 15, on the daily flour sacrifice of the High Priest. is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb¹³⁹Mishnah 4 mentions the daily offering of a tenth of a ephah as duty of the High Priest clothed in multiple garb [Sifra Saw Pereq 5(1)].. But here¹⁴⁰In the Chapter on purification sacrifices. they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb¹⁴¹Aaron and his successors are mentioned in v. 13. In v. 15, the mention of "the priest, anointed from his descendants in his stead" does not seem to require a mention of anointing as a definition.. But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat¹⁴²As explained in Chapter 2:3, The High Priest may offer a bull only for his forgetting a topic in religious law. One could argue that for simple acting in error, he should bring a commoner's sacrifice (or, since a male is mentioned, the goat characterized earlier as sacrifice for inadvertent idolatry.) The specific mention of priest bars him from a commoner's sacrifice.. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said, this refers to the king¹⁴³Since Cohen may simply mean "public servant" (2S. 8: 18).. If you would say already this¹⁴⁴The unintelligible בפר in the text here is a plausible misreading for כבר. precedes the paragraph about the king¹⁴⁵Which is only the third In the Chapter. The argument is parallel to that mentioned in Note 131., I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.

¹⁴⁶From here on there is a parallel in Yoma 1:1 (38c l. 72 ff.).“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.¹⁴⁷Mishnah Yoma 1:1. Since the entire service of the Day of Atonement is valid only if conducted by the High Priest, a replacement must be available in case the High Priest becomes impure or otherwise incapacitated. The High Priest undergoes a week of preparation for the service, to train for a very crowded program. The question then arises whether the designated backup also has to undergo the same training, possibly at the same place.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses¹⁴⁸In Yoma “because of”, a scribal error. “By Moses” was a preferred expression of R. Ḥaggai’s.! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him¹⁴⁹Lev. 6:12; the offering of the High Priest starting with the day he is anointed for his office. Sifra Saw Parašah 3(3). The singular indicates that only one High Priest can be appointed at one time. This implies that the reserve appointee for the day of Atonement cannot have the status of High Priest unless he actually is needed.. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry¹⁵⁰He disagrees and holds that while the two could not have been anointed on the same day, they could have been anointed on different days. The rule that the back-up Cohen has lower status is practical, not biblical, as is the entire institution of the back-up..

I could think that the one anointed for war¹³⁷The one mentioned in Deut. 20:3 charged with addressing the army. He also is called the priest (Soṭah Chapter 8) and bound by all restrictions imposed on the High Priest in Lev. 21:10–15 (Tosephta 2:1). should (not)¹⁶²Text of L, missing in the two parallels and contradicted by the following text. bring his tenth of an ephah¹³⁹Mishnah 4 mentions the daily offering of a tenth of a ephah as duty of the High Priest clothed in multiple garb [Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 5(1)].. The verse says¹³⁸Lev. 6:15, on the daily flour sacrifice of the High Priest., in his stead, of his sons. One whose son will stand in his stead brings a tenth of an ephah. But one whose sons will not stand in his stead does not bring a tenth of an ephah. From where the anointed’s for war son will not stand in his stead? The verse says¹⁶³Ex. 29:30. As often, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted: Seven days the priest shall wear them who of his sons will stand in his stead to officiate in the Sanctuary. The only hereditary office in Divine Service is that of the High Priest. Babli Yoma 72b/73a., seven days shall the priest wear them, etc. If one officiates in the Tent of Meeting, his son will stand in his stead. But one who does not officiate in the Tent of Meeting, his son will not stand in his stead. From where that he can be appointed as High Priest¹⁶⁴Since the Anointed for War is under the restrictions valid for the High Priest one has to ascertain that his office be subordinate, not coordinate, to the High Priesthood and that an appointment to High Priesthood does not violate the rule that one may not reduce the holiness of one’s position (Note 151).? [As is written,] ¹⁶⁵1Chr. 9:20. The leader of the priests is the High Priest. Phineas was appointed Anointed for War by Moses, Num. 31:6.Phineas the son of Eleazar was leader over them;in earlier times the Eternal was with him. When Rebbi Yose wanted to needle¹⁶⁶Hebrew verb built on a Greek root; cf. Berakhot 3, Note 96. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose¹⁶⁷R. Yose seems to have complained about a lack of leadership on the part of his son., he said to him, “before, he was with him.” In the days of Zimri¹⁶⁸Num. 27:1–15., he protested. In the days of the concubine at Gibea¹⁶⁹Jud. 19–21. In the opinion of Seder Olam, based on the teachings of R. Yose the Tanna (who is meant here), the affair at Gibea happened at the start of the period of the Judges, when Phineas was High Priest. Cf. the author’s edition of Seder Olam (Northvale NJ 1998), pp. 122–123., he did not protest.

MISHNAH: On the Fifteenth⁹⁹Of Adar, in an intercalary year the Second Adar., money changers¹⁰⁰To exchange coins into silver half-sheqels, half a Roman tetradrachma, which are collected for the Temple. were sitting in the country side; on the Twenty Fifth they were sitting in the Temple¹⁰¹Since nobody is permitted to sit in the sacred domain (except possibly kings of the Davidic dynasty), these money changers had to sit on the Temple Mount, outside the sacred domain.. From the date they were sitting in the Temple one started to take pledges¹⁰²To foreclose on people who did not pay their Temple tax.. From whom does one take pledges? From Levites, Israel, proselytes, and freed slaves¹⁰³All these are adult male Jews subject to all commandments., but not from women, slaves¹⁰⁴Who are obligated only in cases women are obligated. Since women do not pay, the sheqel being a positive commandment due at a fixed time, slaves cannot be obligated., and minors. Any minor for whom his father started to give the sheqel does not stop any more. However one does not take pledges from Cohanim because of communal peace¹⁰⁵As explained in the Halakhah and Mishnah 4..
Rebbi Jehudah said: “Ben Kukhri testified at Jabneh that any Cohen who pays the sheqel¹⁰⁸Voluntarily, even if they cannot be forced to pay. does not sin. Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai told him, on the contrary, any Cohen who does not pay the sheqel does sin¹⁰⁹Since he reads the commandment Ex. 30:11–16 as not stating any exemption for Cohanim., only the Cohanim explain the following verse for their benefit: Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totalled, it may not be eatenl¹¹⁰Lev. 6:16.. If the `omer, the two breads, and the shew bread are ours, how may they be eaten?l¹¹¹If they would pay the sheqel, they would be part owners of these offerings, but the consumption of all these offerings is explicitly commanded.”

MISHNAH: On the Fifteenth⁹⁹Of Adar, in an intercalary year the Second Adar., money changers¹⁰⁰To exchange coins into silver half-sheqels, half a Roman tetradrachma, which are collected for the Temple. were sitting in the country side; on the Twenty Fifth they were sitting in the Temple¹⁰¹Since nobody is permitted to sit in the sacred domain (except possibly kings of the Davidic dynasty), these money changers had to sit on the Temple Mount, outside the sacred domain.. From the date they were sitting in the Temple one started to take pledges¹⁰²To foreclose on people who did not pay their Temple tax.. From whom does one take pledges? From Levites, Israel, proselytes, and freed slaves¹⁰³All these are adult male Jews subject to all commandments., but not from women, slaves¹⁰⁴Who are obligated only in cases women are obligated. Since women do not pay, the sheqel being a positive commandment due at a fixed time, slaves cannot be obligated., and minors. Any minor for whom his father started to give the sheqel does not stop any more. However one does not take pledges from Cohanim because of communal peace¹⁰⁵As explained in the Halakhah and Mishnah 4..
Rebbi Jehudah said: “Ben Kukhri testified at Jabneh that any Cohen who pays the sheqel¹⁰⁸Voluntarily, even if they cannot be forced to pay. does not sin. Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai told him, on the contrary, any Cohen who does not pay the sheqel does sin¹⁰⁹Since he reads the commandment Ex. 30:11–16 as not stating any exemption for Cohanim., only the Cohanim explain the following verse for their benefit: Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totalled, it may not be eatenl¹¹⁰Lev. 6:16.. If the `omer, the two breads, and the shew bread are ours, how may they be eaten?l¹¹¹If they would pay the sheqel, they would be part owners of these offerings, but the consumption of all these offerings is explicitly commanded.”

If you say that he was unimportant, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is written³⁹Num. 3:32.: The prince of the princes of the Levites, Eleazar, Aaron’s son. A duke⁴⁰Latin dux, ducis, m. As in English, the Hebrew form is derived from the root, not the nominative. of dukes he was. The great Rebbi Jehudah said, he was the executive officer. “And why was his title Markol? Because he had the say about everything.⁴¹“Having a say about everything.” Tosephta Šeqalim 2:15.” Only there is no greatness in the king’s palace. Rebbi Levi said, it is written⁴²Lev. 6:3., the priest shall dress in linen garment … and remove the ashes, only there is no greatness in the king’s palace.

The tenth of an ephah from the High Priest⁷¹Lev. 6:12–16.. [Rebbi Joḥanan said,]⁷²Correct addition by the corrector. he splits it and then dedicates⁷³The requirement is a tenth of an ephah daily, half in the morning and half in the evening. Since the volume of the flour is prescribed, it must be measured. R. Joḥanan must hold that the measuring vessel is not a Temple vessel which automatically dedicates anything poured into it; otherwise there would be no possibility of dedicating the two parts separately.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he dedicates and afterwards splits it. A Mishnah⁷⁴Mishnah Menaḥot4:5. disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “He brings half of it; the other half is lost.⁷⁵If a High Priest died after he had brought his morning offering and another was appointed before the evening, the second part of the first’s offering cannot be used anymore, but has to be kept to the next day and then burned outside the sacred compound as disqualified sacrifice. The second one must bring a tenth of an ephah, but only the second half may be used.” He explains it, because even the money has to be brought to the Dead Sea⁷⁶Since R. Joḥanan holds that even money set aside for the Tenth but not used has to be destroyed (Note 70), he will agree that the second half cannot be used even if not dedicated.. A Mishnah⁷⁴Mishnah Menaḥot4:5. disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “It turns out that two halves are brought and two halves are lost.” And it was stated on this⁷⁷Tosephta Menaḥot7:10.: “If the first one’s, the second half should lose its shape and be brought to the place of burning.⁷⁸This text is difficult for R. Joḥanan (reading of B) and R. Simeon ben Laqish. For R. Joḥanan, why should the flour become unusable if it was not yet dedicated? The answer is given in Note 76. For R. Simeon ben Laqish, the entire flour is dedicated as sacrifice from the start; if it becomes disqualified in any way, it should be burned immediately and not need waiting for the next day.” He explains it following Rebbi Ismael, for Rebbi Ismael said, the issaron⁷⁹Since the dedication is automatic, not by his conscious act, it does not have the status of a directly dedicated animal and needs waiting for the next day. dedicates. “If a Cohen comes first to serve, he brings his Tenth and officiates himself.⁸⁰Sifra Ṣaw Parashah3(3). He has to bring the tenth of an ephah once in his lifetime, when he officiates in the Temple the first time. Lev. 6:13.” The officiating of both a High Priest and a common priest who officiated before they brought their tenth of an ephah is valid. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, if on that very day⁸¹A Cohen was appointed as High Priest on the day he first came to officiate in the Temple. Confirmed Babli Menaḥot78a. he was appointed High Priest he brings two, one for his initiation and one as daily obligation.

⁶⁴Babli Keritut 5a. The preparation of the anointing oil. “Take for yourself select spices: Flowing myrrh 500, etc., and casia 500 in Temple sheqel, altogether 1500 parts⁶⁵Ex. 30:23–24. The amounts given there are myrrh 500, cinnamon half the weight, 250, spice sticks 250, casia 500 in the holy šeqel weight, together 1500 (šeqel). The Babli notes that the verse could be translated: “myrrh 500, the half of the cinnamon weight 250, spice sticks 250; casia 500 in the holy šeqel weight,” for a total of either 2000 or 1750. The baraita shows that the traditional interpretation is as given first. A similar argument must be understood in the Yerushalmi.
It is impossible to translate מנה as “mina” since the holy šeqel by archeological evidence was between 13.77 and 14.28 g (Y. Meshorer, Ancient Means of Exchange, Weights and Coins, Haifa 1998), practically equal to the official weight of a tetradrachma. In the tradition of the Babli, the holy šeqel was twice the weight of the common šeqel; in Babylonian weight this would make it about 18 g. (In any case, spices in the weight of at least 21 kg are a large quantity for only 6.4 liters of oil.) But a mina is defined in the Talmudim as 100 tetradrachmas. This is out of line with the small amount of oil used. It may be that the word “mina”, which is missing in the parallel Babli text, is an intrusion from the baraita on the preparation of the holy incense of which 365 portions were prepared for an entire year at once and where all weights, missing in the biblical text, are indicated in minas [Yoma 4:5 (41d line 27), Babli Keritut6a].. “And olive oil one hin,” that is twelve log⁶⁶The log is the Roman sextarius, cf. Berakhot 3:4, Note 164. 12 log are three quarters of a modius or about 6.4 liter., in which the roots were cooked, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, they cooked in water, then poured the oil on them, and when it had absorbed the fragrance one removed it, just as the perfumers do. That is what is written: “Make it into holy anointing oil.⁶⁷Ex. 30:25.” “That will be for Me for your generations.⁶⁸Ex. 30:31.” It was stated, ⁶⁹Babli Keritut 5a/b. Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilaï says: The anointing oil made by Moses in the desert was from the start to the end a work of wonders, since there were only twelve log to start with, as it was said, “and olive oil one hin⁷⁰Ex. 30:24.”. It would not have been enough to rub the wooden planks with it; so much more since the fire swallows, wood absorbs, and the kettle absorbs! From it the Tabernacles and all its vessels were anointed, the table and its vessels, the candelabra and all its vessels. From it Aaron and his sons were anointed all of the seven days of induction, from it all high priests and kings were anointed. A king who is first needs anointing, a king who is a king’s son does not need anointing, for it is said⁷¹1Sam. 16:12.: “Do anoint him, for this one is it,” this one needs anointing but his son does not need anointing. But a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest needs anointing, even for ten generations⁷²Lev. 6:13, 21:10. The same statement in Babli Keritut 5a, Horaiot 11b.. Nevertheless, it is all there for the future, as it was said, “a holy anointing oil will this⁷³In the Babli, an amoraic gloss in this baraita of R. Jehudah notes that the numerical value of ז̇ה̇ “this” is 12, implying that all 12 log remain for the Lord. be for Me, for all your generations.⁶⁸Ex. 30:31.”

תּוּפִינֵי⁸²Lev. 6:14, a word of unknown etymology.. It has to be תּוּפִינֵי when it is brought, it does not have to be תּוּפִינֵי early in the morning⁸⁸A Second Temple source.. But did we not state⁸⁸A Second Temple source., “they place those who bake the baked goods to make the baked goods”? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, to make the hot water to soften them. תּוּפִינֵי, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, he fries them and after that bakes them. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, he bakes them and after that fries them. תּוּפִינֵי, they shall be baked cooked⁸⁵An attempt to explain the word תפיני as contraction of תאפה נא. The following two statements have to be explained in a similar way. Babli Menaḥot50b.. Rebbi said, they shall be baked softly; Rebbi Dosa said, they shall be baked beautifully. This disagreement is parallel to the other disagreement. He who says, they shall be baked beautifully, is like him who says, he fries them and after that bakes them⁶⁸The daily offering of the High Priest should not stop between the death of one High Priest and the investiture of the next; the only question is whether it is paid for by the heirs of the deceased or by the public.. He who says, they shall be baked softly is like him who says, he bakes them and after that fries them.

תּוּפִינֵי⁸²Lev. 6:14, a word of unknown etymology.. It has to be תּוּפִינֵי when it is brought, it does not have to be תּוּפִינֵי early in the morning⁸⁸A Second Temple source.. But did we not state⁸⁸A Second Temple source., “they place those who bake the baked goods to make the baked goods”? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, to make the hot water to soften them. תּוּפִינֵי, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, he fries them and after that bakes them. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, he bakes them and after that fries them. תּוּפִינֵי, they shall be baked cooked⁸⁵An attempt to explain the word תפיני as contraction of תאפה נא. The following two statements have to be explained in a similar way. Babli Menaḥot50b.. Rebbi said, they shall be baked softly; Rebbi Dosa said, they shall be baked beautifully. This disagreement is parallel to the other disagreement. He who says, they shall be baked beautifully, is like him who says, he fries them and after that bakes them⁶⁸The daily offering of the High Priest should not stop between the death of one High Priest and the investiture of the next; the only question is whether it is paid for by the heirs of the deceased or by the public.. He who says, they shall be baked softly is like him who says, he bakes them and after that fries them.

Not only if he died, but even if he became impure; and even if he became disabled by a defect⁸⁷Since Lev. 6:13 reads: this is the offering of Aaron and his sons which they have to offer to the Eternal, the daily flour sacrifice should be offered by the High Priest himself. While the service can be delegated to a common priest, the High Priest must be able to do it himself. If somehow he is disabled, it is as if there were no High Priest.. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated from Bar Delaia⁸⁸A Second Temple source.: Even if he became disabled by a defect. ⁸⁹Babli Menaḥot51b; Sifra Ṣaw Pereq5(3).“From where that if a High Priest dies and no other was appointed in his stead that his flour offering is brought from the heirs? The verse says⁹⁰Lev. 6:15., from his sons he shall make. I could think that he should bring it in halves, the verse says, it, entire I said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, it only comes from the public, for it says, an eternal law, (to whom the creatures belong.)⁹¹This text does not make any sense. It seems necessary to adopt the reading of Sifra, בְּרִית “covenant”, instead of “creatures”. Then, Ravad explains, the expression חָק־עוֹלָ֕ם is compared to the same expression used for the shew-bread (Lev. 24:9) where in v. 8 בְּרִ֥ית עוֹלָֽם is used. The translation then is: “who are in the covenant.” The Babli (loc. cit.) simply reads עוֹלָם as in rabbinic Hebrew “public”. Totally it shall be burned, all is for burning.

Not only if he died, but even if he became impure; and even if he became disabled by a defect⁸⁷Since Lev. 6:13 reads: this is the offering of Aaron and his sons which they have to offer to the Eternal, the daily flour sacrifice should be offered by the High Priest himself. While the service can be delegated to a common priest, the High Priest must be able to do it himself. If somehow he is disabled, it is as if there were no High Priest.. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated from Bar Delaia⁸⁸A Second Temple source.: Even if he became disabled by a defect. ⁸⁹Babli Menaḥot51b; Sifra Ṣaw Pereq5(3).“From where that if a High Priest dies and no other was appointed in his stead that his flour offering is brought from the heirs? The verse says⁹⁰Lev. 6:15., from his sons he shall make. I could think that he should bring it in halves, the verse says, it, entire I said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, it only comes from the public, for it says, an eternal law, (to whom the creatures belong.)⁹¹This text does not make any sense. It seems necessary to adopt the reading of Sifra, בְּרִית “covenant”, instead of “creatures”. Then, Ravad explains, the expression חָק־עוֹלָ֕ם is compared to the same expression used for the shew-bread (Lev. 24:9) where in v. 8 בְּרִ֥ית עוֹלָֽם is used. The translation then is: “who are in the covenant.” The Babli (loc. cit.) simply reads עוֹלָם as in rabbinic Hebrew “public”. Totally it shall be burned, all is for burning.

Rebbi Yose⁹⁴With B read: Yasa (Assi). said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Entire in the morning and entire in the evening, or half in the morning and half in the evening, [or entire in the morning and nothing in the evening]⁹⁵The High Priest has to bring a fIour offering mornings and evenings (Lev. 6:13). If the High Priest is dead or disabled and according to the Mishnah his flour offering has to be brought entire, does that mean two offerings per day, or only one in the morning? It is clear that the sentence about bringing two halves has to be deleted and the corrector’s addition from B accepted.? Then it should be obvious to him, what about three log⁹⁶The text about the High Priest’s offering only mentions oil but does not specify its quantity. It is deduced either from the libations required in general for a sheep (Num. 15:4) or from the specifics indicated for the daily sacrifice (Num. 28:5) that a tenth of an ephah of flour requires a quarter of a hin, 3 log, of olive oil. This therefore is the quantity of oil required here, even though it is used for frying, not for mixing as in the cases where the quantities are specified. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq4:1–5; cf. Babli Menaḥot52b.? Three log in the morning and three log in the afternoon, or a log and a half in the morning and a log and a half in the afternoon? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, also the following was a problem for him: Two handful⁹⁷In the Babli, Menaḥot52a, R. Joḥanan reports that the Tenth of the High Priest also requires addition of a handful of incense like other flour offerings. He also reports that there is a dispute whether the living High Priest has to bring one handful, which is split into two, or two separate handfuls for morning and evening services. But since here the question is about the Tenth for the absent or incapacitated High Priest, one infers that the Yerushalmi holds that the living High Priest only brings one handful. in the morning and two handful in the evening or one handful in the morning and one handful in the evening? Rebbi Yose said, did they not the two handful infer from the sinner’s flour offering⁹⁸This reading is impossible since the sinner’s flour offering (Lev. 5:11) is brought without oil and incense. The commentators conjecture an emendation “from the shew bread” which is put onto the table in two rows, each one with a cup of incense.? Just as there two handful, also here two handful. Just as there it was problematic for him, so here it is problematic for him⁹⁹Missing in B and M, probably correctly.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, did one not infer the three log from the daily afternoon sacrifice⁹⁶The text about the High Priest’s offering only mentions oil but does not specify its quantity. It is deduced either from the libations required in general for a sheep (Num. 15:4) or from the specifics indicated for the daily sacrifice (Num. 28:5) that a tenth of an ephah of flour requires a quarter of a hin, 3 log, of olive oil. This therefore is the quantity of oil required here, even though it is used for frying, not for mixing as in the cases where the quantities are specified. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq4:1–5; cf. Babli Menaḥot52b.? Since there {are} three log, so also here three log. [Just as] there it was problematic for him, [so] here it is (obvious) [problematic] for him1⁰⁰.

They asked Rebbi Eliezer, what is the status of the eleventh generation of a bastard? He said to them, bring to me a third generation and I shall declare him pure¹⁹⁶The same statement is in the Babli, 78b.. What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason since he does not seem to follow Rebbi Ḥanina? As Rebbi Ḥanina said, once every sixty to seventy years the Holy One, praise to Him, brings a plague into the world to finish off the bastards and he takes the qualified ones with them in order not to publicize the sinners¹⁹⁷This describes the situation in the later Roman Empire where the plague had become endemic during the reign of the emperor Hadrian.. This parallels what Rebbi Levi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In the place where the ascent offering has its throat cut before the Eternal, the purification sacrifice has its throat cut,¹⁹⁸Lev. 6:18; the purification sacrifice atones for inadvertent sins. In the Babli, Soṭah 32b, the statement is by R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Simeon bar Ioḥai.” in order not to publicize the sinners. What is the reason? “¹⁹⁹Is. 31:2. Also He is wise and brings evil;” should it not rather be “brings good”? But to teach you that even the evil that the Holy One, praise to Him, brings to the world, He brings in wisdom. “His word He did not remove,” why all this? “He overcomes the house of evildoers and accomplices of workers of iniquity.” That parallels what Rebbi Levi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In the place where the ascent offering has its throat cut before the Eternal, the purification sacrifice has its throat cut,” in order not to publicize the sinners. Rav Huna said, no bastard lives more than thirty days²⁰⁰A convenient legal fiction which allows every male to marry every female without investigating his or her background. The same statement in the Babli, 78b.. When Rebbi Ze‘ira immigrated here, he heard voices call “he-bastard, she-bastard”. He said, what is this? There goes that of Rav Huna, since Rav Huna said, no bastard lives more than thirty days. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, I was with you when Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: No bastard lives more than thirty days, when? If it is unknown. Therefore, if it is known, he lives²⁰¹In the parallel, Qiddushin 3:13, the argument is by Rebbi Uqba bar Aḥa. In the Babli, 78b, the entire argument is R. Ze‘ira’s, based on a statement of his teacher Rav Jehudah..

May one put spices at the bottom and pour¹⁶⁷Boiling water. Is this cooking on the Sabbath and cooking in the sense of Mishnah 7 here? The question arises because of Mishnah Šabbat 3:6: “One may not put spices into a hot pan or a pot taken from the fire, but one may put them on a plate or a bowl.” This is similar to using oil as described in Mishnah 7 here. on them from above? Rebbi Jonah said, it is forbidden and pouring acts as first vessel. The force of Rebbi Jonah comes from this¹⁶⁸Mishnah Zebaḥim 11:7. Lev. 6:21 precribes that pottery vessels after being used to cook a ḥaṭṭat sacrifice must be broken and metal vessels cleansed and washed. The Mishnah explicitly includes pouring hot water in the biblical definition of “cooking”.: “Both vessels used for cooking or into which it was poured boiling.” (And here, you say so?)¹⁶⁹This sentence is missing in the Šabbat text and is out of place here. Rebbi Yose said, there a pottery vessel absorbs; spices are not cooked¹⁷⁰It is generally agreed that pottery must be broken because it absorbs particles from the sacrifice which on the following day become forbidden. Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, pp. 404–407, New York 1991.. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun objected: Did we not state¹⁷¹Sifra Ẓaw, Pereq 7(1). The argument is that Lev. 6:21 reads a passive “a pottery vessel in which something has been cooked”, not “in which one cooked”. This is taken to mean that one cooks in, not by the vessel. In that case, the vessel is really “second vessel” (cf. Note 163) since its walls do not transfer heat to the meat being cooked. The only case one can think of is pouring boiling water into the vessel. Since the argument of R. Yose does not work for metal pots, R. Jonah is justified., “the same holds for brass vessels.” Can one say that brass vessels absorb?

¹⁴⁶Tosephta Ḥallah 2:7–9, Babli Baba Qama 110b, Ḥulin 132b, Sifry Qoraḥ #119 (“12 in the Temple, 12 in the countryside”), Midrash Tanḥuma Bemidbar 24, Num. rabba 5(1).24 gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten in the countryside. These are the ten in the Temple: Purification offering¹⁴⁷Lev. 6:19., reparation offering¹⁴⁸Lev. 7:7., public well-being offerings¹⁴⁹Lev. 23:19. Even though this sacrifice is labelled “well-being offering”, being a public offering it is treated as most holy and must be eaten by Cohanim in the Temple precinct., purification offering of a bird¹⁵⁰While there is no separate verse commanding that the purification offering of a bird must be eaten, since the burnt offering of a bird is consumed on the altar it follows that the purification offering must be eaten., the reparation offering for suspected guilt¹⁵¹Lev5:17–18., the log of oil of the skin-diseased¹⁵²Lev 14:10,21. The unused part of the oil becomes property of the Cohen., the two breads¹⁵³Lev. 23:17., the shew-bread¹⁵⁴Lev. 24:9., the remainders of cereal offerings¹⁵⁵Lev. 2:3, 6:9–11., and the ‘omer¹⁵⁶Lev. 23:10–11.. These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings¹⁵⁷While these are sacrifices, after the blood was sprinkled on the altar wall the animal was eaten by the Cohen and his family anywhere in the city., First Fruits¹⁵⁸Cf. Mishnah Bikkurim 3:10., what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the nazir’s ram¹⁵⁹In fact, any part lifted for the Cohen from any well-being sacrifice is for the Cohen and his entire family, to be eaten outside the Temple precinct. Cf. Lev. 7:34, Num. 18:11., and the skins of sacrifices¹⁶⁰Only of most holy sacrifices (burnt, purification, and reparation offerings); Lev. 7:8.. These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, ḥallah, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach¹²⁷Deut. 18:3., the first shearing¹⁶¹Deut. 18:4., robbery of the proselyte¹⁶²Num. 5:8. It is assumed that the only person without legal heirs is the proselyte who had no children after his conversion., redemption of the firstborn¹⁶³Ex. 13., redemption of the firstborn donkey¹⁶³Ex. 13., ḥērem-dedications, and fields of inheritance¹⁶⁴Dedicated and not redeemed; Lev. 27:16–21..

¹⁴⁶Tosephta Ḥallah 2:7–9, Babli Baba Qama 110b, Ḥulin 132b, Sifry Qoraḥ #119 (“12 in the Temple, 12 in the countryside”), Midrash Tanḥuma Bemidbar 24, Num. rabba 5(1).24 gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten in the countryside. These are the ten in the Temple: Purification offering¹⁴⁷Lev. 6:19., reparation offering¹⁴⁸Lev. 7:7., public well-being offerings¹⁴⁹Lev. 23:19. Even though this sacrifice is labelled “well-being offering”, being a public offering it is treated as most holy and must be eaten by Cohanim in the Temple precinct., purification offering of a bird¹⁵⁰While there is no separate verse commanding that the purification offering of a bird must be eaten, since the burnt offering of a bird is consumed on the altar it follows that the purification offering must be eaten., the reparation offering for suspected guilt¹⁵¹Lev5:17–18., the log of oil of the skin-diseased¹⁵²Lev 14:10,21. The unused part of the oil becomes property of the Cohen., the two breads¹⁵³Lev. 23:17., the shew-bread¹⁵⁴Lev. 24:9., the remainders of cereal offerings¹⁵⁵Lev. 2:3, 6:9–11., and the ‘omer¹⁵⁶Lev. 23:10–11.. These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings¹⁵⁷While these are sacrifices, after the blood was sprinkled on the altar wall the animal was eaten by the Cohen and his family anywhere in the city., First Fruits¹⁵⁸Cf. Mishnah Bikkurim 3:10., what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the nazir’s ram¹⁵⁹In fact, any part lifted for the Cohen from any well-being sacrifice is for the Cohen and his entire family, to be eaten outside the Temple precinct. Cf. Lev. 7:34, Num. 18:11., and the skins of sacrifices¹⁶⁰Only of most holy sacrifices (burnt, purification, and reparation offerings); Lev. 7:8.. These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, ḥallah, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach¹²⁷Deut. 18:3., the first shearing¹⁶¹Deut. 18:4., robbery of the proselyte¹⁶²Num. 5:8. It is assumed that the only person without legal heirs is the proselyte who had no children after his conversion., redemption of the firstborn¹⁶³Ex. 13., redemption of the firstborn donkey¹⁶³Ex. 13., ḥērem-dedications, and fields of inheritance¹⁶⁴Dedicated and not redeemed; Lev. 27:16–21..

HALAKHAH: May one put spices at the bottom and pour on them from above¹⁵⁵Since the Mishnah forbids putting spices in a pot not on a fire but still boiling hot.? Rebbi Jonah said, it is forbidden and pouring confers the status of primary vessel. The force of Rebbi Jonah comes from this¹⁵⁶Mishnah Zevaḥim 11:7. Lev. 6:21 precribes that pottery vessels after being used to cook a ḥaṭṭat sacrifice must be broken and metal vessels cleansed and washed. The Mishnah explicitly includes pouring hot water in the biblical definition of “cooking”.: “Both vessels used for cooking or into which it was poured boiling.” Rebbi Yose said, there a pottery vessel absorbs; spices are not cooked¹⁵⁷It is generally agreed that pottery must be broken because it absorbs particles from the sacrifice which on the following day become forbidden. Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, pp. 404–407, New York 1991.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun objected: Did we not state¹⁵⁸Sifra Ṣaw, Pereq 7(1). The argument is that Lev. 6:21 reads a passive “a pottery vessel in which something has been cooked”, not “in which one cooked”. This is taken to mean that one cooks in, not by the vessel. In that case, the vessel is really “secondary vessel” since its walls do not transfer heat to the meat being cooked. The only case one can think of is pouring boiling water into the vessel. Since the argument of R. Yose does not work for metal pots, R. Jonah is justified., “the same holds for brass vessels.” Can one say that brass vessels absorb?

HALAKHAH: “They are not liable for hearing the sound of an imprecation,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Yose the Galilean is, if he is poor and cannot afford it⁸³Lev. 14:21. This is a wrong quote since it refers to the sacrifice of the healed sufferer from skin disease. The expression used in Lev. 5 is וְאִם־לֹ֨א תַגִּ֣יעַ יָדוֹ֮ “if it is out of his reach” for the poor person and וְאִם־לֹא֩ תַשִּׂ֨יג יָד֜וֹ “if he cannot afford” for the poorest.. Somebody who is apt to fall into poverty; this excludes the Anointed⁸⁴He is not mentioned in our Mishnah text, but Mishnah 8 states that the High Priest is exempt according to everybody; only for the king does R. Aqiba disagree; Babli 9a. According to Tosephta 1:10, the king is exempted only for disregarding a request for testimony and the High Priest for violations of impurity (since his diadem is a permanent atonement for imperfect sacrifices, Ex. 28:38.)
The High Priest is required (Lev.21:10) to be the richest priest; if he is not, the other priests have to make him so. R. Joseph David Sinzheim (Yad David on Horaiot) notes that the High Priest had the choice always to officiate at the burning of incense. Any other priest was given only a once in a lifetime occasion for this (Mishnah Yoma 2:4) since presenting the incense made the presenter rich (explicit in the Babli, implicit in the Yerushalmi, Yoma Halakhah 2:4, 40a 12). The king naturally has taxing powers.
Since king and High Priest are never able to bring a sacrifice according to the rules of the poor (Lev. 5:7–10) or the very poor (vv. 11–13), they are prohibited from ever bringing a sacrifice depending on the offerer’s wealth. who is not apt to fall into poverty. [⁸⁵Text of B. It seems that this text presupposes a Mishnah mentioning only the Anointed; no such Mishnah is known. They objected: There is the prince who is not apt to fall into poverty.] Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it shall be if he becomes guilty of any of these⁸⁶Lev. 5:5.. He who can be liable for all of them is liable for part of them; but one who cannot be liable for all of them is not liable for part of them⁸⁷Since the king is exempt from testimony and the High Priest for violations of impurity (Note 84), neither of them is qualified to bring a sacrifice for all cases enumerated in vv. 1–4; they are not under the rules of vv. 6–7.. Rebbi Isaac asked: Then he should not become impure by skin disease since he is not apt (easily and then) [to fall]⁸⁸The text in brackets, from B, is the only one making sense; the text of the ms., in parentheses, seems to be a scribal error. into poverty or the deepest of poverty⁸⁹Since the verse quoted at the start of the Halakhah refers to the poor sufferer healed from skin disease. But there is no verse requiring that the sufferer from skin disease be able to bring all possible sacrifices; the question does not deserve an answer.. Rav Hoshaia asked: Then a woman should not be liable for entering the Temple. Does the woman not bring⁹⁰Since a woman cannot be a formal witness in court, she cannot be the subject of an imprecation forcing here to testify. But the question is moot since women after childbirth are ordered in Lev. 12:6–8 to bring a sacrifice after being impure.? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Aqiba, this is the offering of Aaron and his sons⁹¹Lev. 6:13, the daily flour offering of the High Priest, identical in quantity to the variable sacrifice of the very poor. Babli 9a.. This one he brings; he does not bring another tenth of an ephah. Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Yasa⁹²This is the correct attribution, against the text of B. may he not bring a voluntary offering? He told him, yes. He does not bring an obligatory one; he may bring a voluntary one.

HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? ¹⁴⁸He holds that any Sanctuary fire can be made only on top of the outer altar, including the one used to light the candelabrum. Babli 45b.And the fire on the altar shall be lit there, you shall not extinguish, that is the arrangement which keeps the fire. And the Cohen shall burn on it, that is the arrangement for disposal of limbs and fat. And arrange on it the elevation sacrifice, this is the main arrangement. And burn as incense on it the fats of the well-being sacrifices, this is the incense. Rebbi Yose does not have the arrangement for disposal of limbs. Rebbi Jehudah does not have the arrangement which keeps the fire. How does Rebbi Jehudah explain a permanent fire¹⁴⁷Lev. 6:6.? The fire which I told you that it be permanent only shall be on the outer altar¹⁴⁸He holds that any Sanctuary fire can be made only on top of the outer altar, including the one used to light the candelabrum. Babli 45b..

We have stated there¹⁸²Mishnah Menaḥot 6:1. In that Mishnah, the anonymous rabbis hold that the entire offering is burned on the altar in one piece.: “Rebbi Simeon says, a fistful is taken from the sinner’s flour offering¹⁸³The flour offering of the very poor person who either refused to testify, was unmindful of his impurity in dealing with the Temple and its appurtenances, or had forgotten an oath he had imposed on himself, Lev.5:11–13. of a Cohen. The fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest is sacrificed separately.” Both of them explained the same verse: “It shall be the Cohen’s as a flour offering¹⁸⁴Lev. 5:13. Since one speaks of a flour offering, it is diffult to understand why “it should be like a flour offering”..” The rabbis say, it is like his voluntary flour offering. Since his voluntary flour offering is brought entire, that one also is brought entire¹⁸⁵Voluntary flour offerings are described in Lev. 2:1–11. It is stipulated in Lev. 6:16 that no part of a priest’s flour offering may be eaten. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 8(5) disagrees with the Yerushalmi; it interprets Lev. 6:16 to deal mainly with the Cohen’s obligatory offerings and only in a derivative fashion with voluntary offerings.. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha¹⁸⁶The amount of flour required for the purification sacrifice, Lev. 5:11. An epha was 3 seah. of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten¹⁸⁷This shows that the offering of a Cohen cannot simply be compared to that of an Israel since the result would contradict biblical precepts.? The verse¹⁸⁸Lev. 6:16. says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” The rest, under which category is it brought, under the rules of a fistful or under the rules of remainders¹⁸⁹This question is about the opinion of R. Simeon. For the rabbis, the offering is brought to the altar in one piece and burned as a sacrifice. But for R. Simeon, since the fistful is brought to the altar as a sacrifice, it makes sense to inquire whether the rest is burned under the same rules or not. If the same rules were to apply, it is difficult to see why there should be two distinct offerings.? If you want to say, under the rules of a fistful, one cannot bring them during the night, one cannot bring them after death, and he is forbidden to think about them¹⁹⁰Sacrifices can be offered in the Temple only between the morning and evening daily sacrifices. Remainders of sacrifices for which blood and fat were offered during daytime can be brought to the altar during the night.
A sacrifice can be brought only during one’s lifetime.
In talmudic theory (Mishnah Zebaḥim 2:2), a sacrifice is either valid or invalid from the start. Therefore, the biblical prohibitions of פִּגּוּל and נוֹתָר (Lev. 19:5–7) are interpreted to mean that the sacrifice becomes permanently prohibited if any of the prescribed actions in the Temple were executed with the idea that the meat should be eaten out of its allotted time or place. This means that the Cohen, by thinking to eat from the rest of the offering the next day or outside the Temple courtyard while dealing with the fistful taken for the altar, will invalidate the offering. This danger is restricted to the fistful, whose correct treatment will permit the rest to be eaten by the Cohanim. What these think while eating the rest is irrelevant; the only actions which are invalidated by wrong thoughts are those on which something else depends, either that part of the sacrifice becomes permitted as food, or that people are purified or otherwise enabled by it.. If you want to say, under the rules of a remainder, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death. Is he forbidden to think about them? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon¹⁹¹While both mss. read here “R. Simeon ben Eleazar”, the continuation of the paragraph shows that the author must be R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon. The Babli, 23a/b, and the Tosephta, 2:6, read: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, the fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest is dispersed. says, the fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest dispersed over the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, where are we holding? If the upper ashes¹⁹²The ashes on the top of the altar are hot and spreading the offering out means burning it on the altar. If that were the meaning, R. Eleazar’s position is that of his father and does not have to be mentioned., Rebbi Simeon already said it. If it cannot refer to the upper ashes, let it refer to the lower ashes¹⁹³The ashes removed from the altar to the floor of the courtyard (Lev.6:2).. That means, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death, and he can think about them¹⁹⁴Anything not destined for the altar cannot permit anything else. Therefore, any wrong intention the Cohen may have while depositing the rest on the ashes is irrelevant; he may think what he wishes. Similarly, since the burning of the fistful permits the consumption (or dispersion) of the remainder by the Cohanim, if the owner of the offering dies after the burning of the fistful it cannot have any influence on the status of the rest.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he is forbidden to think about them since they are not qualified as food either for humans or for the altar¹⁹⁵The argument of the previous Note is valid only for the offering of an Israel, for whom the fistful really permits the remainder to the Cohanim. But for the offering of a Cohen, the offering of the fistful according to R. Eleazar ben R. Simon does not permit anything, not even to bring the rest onto the altar. Therefore, the sacrificing of the fistful cannot lift the rules of פִּגּוּל and נוֹתָר for the Cohen’s offering.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: Does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follow the rules of his father or the rules of the rabbis? According to the rules of his father, it should be brought on top [of the altar]. According to the rules of the rabbis, why should he take a fistful¹⁹⁶They require that the entire offering be burned, cf. Note 182.? He follows his father’s rules. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” Then it should be burned totally! You bound it to “it shall not be eaten”; you did not bind it to “it has to be sacrificed in its entirety.¹⁹⁷R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon accepts the comparison of the obligatory to the voluntary offering of a Cohen, called “binding (הֶקֵּשׁ) of one verse to the other”; it is only to modify the rule of Lev. 6:16, which deals with voluntary offerings, not that of Lev.6:15, which deals with an obligatory offering of another kind.”

Rebbi Shammai said, a baraita implies that the remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: ²⁰⁰Babli Zevaḥim 52b, Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 3(4).“The lower ones, if given on the upper did not placate since nothing of them is brought on the upper, should you not say about the upper ones, if given on the lower they placate since something of them is brought below²⁰¹Blood of elevation and well-being sacrifices which has to be given on the walls of the altar below the walkway at half-height certainly cannot validly be given on the upper part of the walls, but blood of purification sacrifices which must be given on the horns of the altar (by a Cohen standing on the walkway) should be valid if given on the lower walls since at the end the remainder of the blood is poured on the base which is below the lower walls.? The inner ones²⁰²Blood used inside the Sanctuary, of the day of Atonement, and of the bulls of the Anointed and the community. shall prove, since some of them is given outside, but if he gave them outside²⁰³If none of the blood was brought inside, the ceremony certainly is invalid. it did not placate, since the altar did not cleanse them²⁰⁴Since the altar is the place of only the third and fourths stops in the use of the blood inside the Sanctuary., what should you say about the upper ones, if given on the lower they should placate since the horns cleanse them²⁰⁵After blood of purification sacrifices was given on the horns, what is left becomes remainder.. Since the horns cleanse them, if he gave them below it should be qualified. The verse says it²⁰⁶Lev. 6:19. The purification sacrifice except for the parts destined for the altar is eaten by the Cohanim, but only if the priest purified it, i. e., followed all the prescribed rules., that he give the blood on the upper, but not that he give in the lower.” What does it mean, “the altar did not cleanse them”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not cleanse them to turn them into remainders; only through the beams and the gobelins²⁰⁷Blood on the altar is invalid if from it was not previously given between the beams and on the gobelins. they become remainders.

HALAKHAH: “The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen,” etc. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? “The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a Cohen shall be total, it should not be eaten²⁰⁷Lev. 6:16.;” not the Cohen’s daugher’s. Rebbi Abbahu asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is it not written: “If a Cohen acquire a person with his money²⁰⁸Lev. 22:11. The verse states that slaves of a Cohen may eat of his sanctified food and we hold (cf. Yebamot 7:1) that the slaves of a Cohen’s daughter may eat if and only if she can eat. Should the mention of the masculine form “Cohen” not exclude the daughter of a Cohen. Accepted without discussion in Babli 23b; Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 8(4).,” should that apply to a Cohen but not ro a Cohen’s daughter? How is that? “The Cohen anointed in his stead, one of his sons;²⁰⁹Lev. 6:15. Verse 16 is an appendix to a paragraph speaking only of the (male) High Priest. The son of a Cohen’s daughter belongs to his father’s clan, not hers.” one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.

HALAKHAH: “The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen,” etc. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? “The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a Cohen shall be total, it should not be eaten²⁰⁷Lev. 6:16.;” not the Cohen’s daugher’s. Rebbi Abbahu asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is it not written: “If a Cohen acquire a person with his money²⁰⁸Lev. 22:11. The verse states that slaves of a Cohen may eat of his sanctified food and we hold (cf. Yebamot 7:1) that the slaves of a Cohen’s daughter may eat if and only if she can eat. Should the mention of the masculine form “Cohen” not exclude the daughter of a Cohen. Accepted without discussion in Babli 23b; Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 8(4).,” should that apply to a Cohen but not ro a Cohen’s daughter? How is that? “The Cohen anointed in his stead, one of his sons;²⁰⁹Lev. 6:15. Verse 16 is an appendix to a paragraph speaking only of the (male) High Priest. The son of a Cohen’s daughter belongs to his father’s clan, not hers.” one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.

Also, it was stated²¹⁸Sifry Deut. 192.: They all have to bring proof except from this one whose witnesses are with him²¹⁹The military instructors realize that they are better off without the coward. But all others have to prove their case.. This follows him who said that he cannot stand in military engagements and see a drawn sword. But following him who says that he is one who is fearful because of his sins, he has to bring proof. Therefore the Torah appended him to all of these²⁰⁷The person betrothed or who had built, etc. that he should return because of them²⁰⁸That only his officer but not the public would know that he returns as a coward but not as one of the legitimate cases.
In Sifry Deut. 197, R. Yose is quoted to exclude anyone over 40 years old. But in Tosephta 7:22, and Midrash Tannaïm Deut. 20:8, the reading is similar to the Mishnah., not to publicize the sinners. This comes as Rebbi Levi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish²²⁰In the Babli, 32b, a similar statement by R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Simeon ben Ioḥai. Cf. Yebamot 8:3, Note 198.: ²²¹Lev. 6:18.“At the place where the elevation offering is being slaughtered, the purification offering is being slaughtered before the Eternal,” not to publicize the sinners²²²Even though elevation offerings are male and purification offerings female, the difference can be seen only by close inspection, so also the sinner could be detected only by inquiry..

MISHNAH: The only difference between a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil and one invested⁴⁰⁹The making of the anointing oil is described in Ex. 30:22–33 as a personal obligation of Moses. It cannot be duplicated by any other person. Therefore only the High Priests of the Tabernacle, of Siloh, and the First Temple could be anointed for their duties. The High Priests of the Second Temple were invested with the vestments of their office but could not be anointed. The special purification offering of the High Priest of a bull described in Lev. 4:3–12 is restricted to the “anointed priest”. The purification offering of a High Priest of the Second Temple period was that of common people, a female goat or sheep; Lev. 4:27–35. is the bull which comes for all commandments. The only difference between an acting High Priest and a deactivated High Priest⁴¹⁰Removed by a king of the Herodian dynasty or a Roman procurator. is the bull of the Day of Atonement and the Tenth of an Epha⁴¹⁶Lev. 6:15, on the daily flour sacrifice of the High Priest..

HALAKHAH: ⁴¹¹The entire Halakhah is also in Horaiot3:3 (Notes 132–188). The copy of the first paragraph in Horaiot is incomplete; the later paragraphs are also in Yoma1:1 (Notes 123–149). It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull⁴¹²The definite article used in Lev. 4:3, the priest, would alone have sufficed to characterize the High Priest, biblically distinguished from all others.. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb⁴¹³Tosephta Horaiot 2:3.. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed⁴¹⁴The double restriction, the priest (the High Priest), anointed, makes it clear that only an anointed high priest is meant. The rabbinic disagreement implies that no High Priest of Second Temple times ever brought a purification sacrifice for himself.. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war⁴¹⁵The one mentioned in Deut. 20:3 charged with addressing the army. He also is called the priest (Soṭah Chapter 8) and bound by all restrictions imposed on the High Priest in Lev. 21:10–15 (Tosephta 2:1).. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here⁴¹⁶Lev. 6:15, on the daily flour sacrifice of the High Priest. is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb⁴¹⁷Mishnah Horaiot 3:4 mentions the daily offering of a tenth of an ephah as duty of the High Priest clothed in multiple garb [Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 5(1)].. But here⁴¹⁸In the Chapter on purification sacrifices. they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb⁴¹⁹Aaron and his successors are mentioned in v. 13. In v. 15, the mention of “the priest, anointed from his descendants in his stead” does not seem to require a mention of anointing as a definition.. But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, [he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said,]⁴²⁰Unnecessary corrector’s addition. this refers to the king⁴²¹Since Cohen may simply mean “public servant” (2S. 8:18).. If you would say already this precedes the paragraph about the king⁴²²Which is only the third in the Chapter., I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat⁴²³As explained in Horaiot2:3, The High Priest may offer a bull only for his forgetting a topic in religious law. One could argue that for simple acting in error, he should bring a commoner’s sacrifice (or, since a male animal is mentioned, the goat characterized earlier as sacrifice for inadvertent idolatry). The specific mention of priest bars him from a commoner’s sacrifice.. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.

⁴²⁵Here starts the parallel in Yoma 1:1.“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.⁴²⁶Mishnah Yoma1:1. Since the entire service of the Day of Atonement is valid only if conducted by the High Priest, a replacement must be available in case the High Priest becomes impure or otherwise incapacitated. The High Priest undergoes a week of preparation for the service, to train for a very crowded program. The question then arises whether the designated backup also has to undergo the same training, possibly at the same place.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him⁴²⁷Lev. 6:12; the offering of the High Priest starting with the day he is anointed for his office. Sifra Ṣaw Parašah 3(3). The singular indicates that only one High Priest can be appointed at one time. This implies that the reserve appointee for the day of Atonement cannot have the status of High Priest unless he actually is needed.. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry⁴²⁸He disagrees and holds that while the two could not have been anointed on the same day, they could have been anointed on different days. The rule that the back-up Cohen has lower status is practical, not biblical, as is the entire institution of the back-up..

I could think that the one anointed for war⁴¹⁵The one mentioned in Deut. 20:3 charged with addressing the army. He also is called the priest (Soṭah Chapter 8) and bound by all restrictions imposed on the High Priest in Lev. 21:10–15 (Tosephta 2:1). should bring his tenth of an ephah⁴¹⁶Lev. 6:15, on the daily flour sacrifice of the High Priest.. [The verse says⁴⁴⁰Ex. 29:30. As often, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted: Seven days the priest shall wear them, who of his sons will stand in his stead to officiate in the Sanctuary. The only hereditary office in Divine Service is that of the High Priest. Babli Yoma72b/73a., in his stead, of his sons. One whose son will serve in his stead brings his tenth of an ephah.] This excludes the one anointed for war whose sons will not serve in his stead does not bring a tenth of an ephah. From where that the son of the anointed for war will not serve in his stead? The verse says⁴⁴⁰Ex. 29:30. As often, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted: Seven days the priest shall wear them, who of his sons will stand in his stead to officiate in the Sanctuary. The only hereditary office in Divine Service is that of the High Priest. Babli Yoma72b/73a., seven days shall the priest wear them, etc. If one officiates in the Tent of Meeting, his son will stand in his stead. This excludes the one anointed for war who does not officiate in the Tent of Meeting, [his son will not stand in his stead.] From where that he can be appointed as High Priest⁴⁴¹Since the Anointed for War is under the restrictions valid for the High Priest, one has to ascertain that his office be subordinate, not coordinate, to the High Priesthood and that an appointment to High Priesthood does not violate the rule that one may not reduce the holiness of one’s position (Note 151).? [As is written,] ⁴⁴²1Chr. 9:20. The leader of the priests is the High Priest. Phineas was appointed Anointed for War by Moses, Num. 31:6.Phineas the son of Eleazar was leader over them; in earlier times the Eternal was with him. When Rebbi Yose wanted to needle⁴⁴³Hebrew verb built on a Greek root; cf. Berakhot 3, Note 96. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose⁴⁴⁴R. Yose seems to have complained about a lack of leadership on the part of his son., he said to him, “before, he was with him.” Before, he was with him. In the days of Zimri⁴⁴⁵Num. 27:1–15., he protested. In the days of the concubine at Gibea⁴⁴⁶Jud. 19–21. In the opinion of Seder Olam, based on the teachings of R. Yose the Tanna (who is meant here), the affair at Gibea happened at the start of the period of the Judges, when Phineas was High Priest. Cf. the author’s edition of Seder Olam (Northvale NJ 1998), pp. 122–123., he did not protest.

Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Sons of Noah brought well-being offerings. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the Sons of Noah brought elevation offerings⁴⁹⁹Noah certainly sacrificed elevation sacrifices (Gen. 8:20); therefore these are certainly permitted on any private altar. Well-being sacrifices can be permitted on a private altar only if they are permitted to Gentiles, the children of Noah. In order to permit well-being sacrifices on private altars one must find examples of such sacrifices from the time preceding the epiphany on Sinai. Babli Zevaḥim 116a.. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Is it not written, and Abel also brought from the firstlings of his sheep and of their excellence⁵⁰⁰Gen. 4:4. In Torah law, firstlings are sacrificed as special well-being offerings.
In Lev. it is quite clear that “fat” in general is חֵלֶב ;פֶּדֶר is used only for fat destined to the altar and forbidden to humans. The suffixed form is חֶלְבְּהֶ֑ן. In Gen. the suffixed form is וּמֵֽחֶלְבֵהֶ֑ן; one has to explain חֵלֶב in 4:4 and 45:18 from Accadic ẖilibū “magnificence, splendor, excellence.” This interpretation is accepted here.. What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? From their luxurious ones. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Is it not written, he sent the young men of Israel and they offered elevation offerings⁵⁰¹Ex. 24:5. The argument is the part of the verse which is not quoted: they sacrificed oxen as well-being sacrifices to the Eternal., etc.? What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? Entire in their bodies, without stripping and partitioning⁵⁰²Instead of שְׁלָמִים he reads שְׁלֵמִים. Cf. Babli Ḥagigah 6b.. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: [Is it not written, Jethro, Moses’s in-law, took elevation and well-being offerings for God⁵⁰³Ex. 18:12. While the corrector’s addition seems to be a logical necessity, it probably is taken from Babli Zevaḥim116a.?] What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? Following him who said that Jethro came after the giving of the Torah⁵⁰⁴His sacrifices followed all rules of Lev.. Rebbi Ḥuna said, Jehudah the great one and Rebbi Yannai disagreed. One said, Jethro came before the giving of the Torah; but the other one said, Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. We did not know who said what. Let us hear from the following: Jethro, the priest of Midyan, Moses’s in-law, heard⁵⁰⁵Ex. 18:1.. What did he hear? Ḥizqiah said, he heard the parting of the Reed Sea. Rebbi Joshua said, he heard the parting of the Reed Sea. [Rebbi Levi said, he heard the war of Amaleq.] The Great Jehudah said, he heard the giving of the Torah. Therefore he must be the one who said, Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the following supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Awake North, and come South⁵⁰⁶Cant. 4:16.. Awake North refers to the elevation sacrifice which is slaughtered in the North. What means “awake”? What was sleeping⁵⁰⁷Old practices resurrected. and awoke. And come South refers to well-being sacrifices which are slaughtered in the South. What means “come”? Something new⁵⁰⁸This is R. Yose ben Ḥanina’s argument that well-being sacrifices were introduced only by the Torah.. What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? When the diasporas in the North awake and build the Temple in the South. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai, Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Levi: also the following verse supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is the teaching about the elevation sacrifice⁵⁰⁹Lev. 6:2.. This is the elevation sacrifice which the Sons of Noah were sacrificing. When he comes to well-being sacrifice he says, this is the teaching about the well-being sacrifice⁵¹⁰Lev. 7:11. Again the argument is from the continuation of the verse, not quoted.. It is not written “which one brought” but shall bring from now on..

Where are burned oxen and burned goats burned⁵¹¹Lev. 6:23. Any purification offering whose blood was brought inside the Sanctuary has to be burned (the purification sacrifices of the anointed High Priest, the community, and those of the Day of Atonement.)? On a grave⁵¹²The paradigm of a place of impurity. In Lev. 4:12 it is ordered that the High Priest’s bull be burned on a place of purity. It is stated here that this applies only to the functioning Sanctuary in the desert, at Shilo, and in the Temple, but not at any other public altar.. Since we have stated, the only difference between a public altar and a private altar was the Pesaḥ sacrifice⁵¹³Since purification sacrifices to be burned are public offerings they seem to be improper on private altars. Does the Mishnah authorize them on private altars?? So in the Mishnah: The only difference between a public altar and a private altar was the Pesaḥ sacrifice exclusively⁵¹⁴This means either that all purification sacrifices are permitted on private altars when such altars are permitted, or that no purification sacrifices are permitted on any altar when private altars are permitted.; not following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said, purification sacrifice and Pesaḥ for the individual on the public altar, no purification sacrifice and Pesaḥ for the individual on a private altar. It was stated⁵¹⁵Babli Zevaḥim 117a, Tosephta Zevaḥim 13:15.: “Rebbi Jehudah said, anything the community sacrifices at the Tent of Meeting in the desert it sacrifices at the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal⁵¹⁶The temporary place of the Tabernacle during the conquest of Canaan under Joshua.. What is the difference between the Tent of Meeting in the desert and the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal? At the Tent of Meeting in the desert was no permission of a private altar; at the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal was permission of a private altar. His altar may be on his roof, but he may sacrifice there only elevation and well-being sacrifices. But the Sages are saying, everything which community or private person sacrifice at the Tent of Meeting in the desert they sacrifice at the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal⁵¹⁷Everybody agrees that on a private altar one could bring only voluntary offerings. On the public altar according to R. Jehudah only public sacrifices are possible; according to the rabbis also obligatory sacrifices of individuals..” What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Do not do at Gilgal everything which we are doing here today⁵¹⁸Deut. 12:8.. What may you do there? Anything straight-forward⁵¹⁹A reformulation of the end of Deut. 12:8.. What is that? That are elevation and well-being sacrifices. What is the rabbis’ reason? At a place where any man may do what is right in his eyes. Do not do everything which we are doing here today. What may you do there? Anything straight-forward. What is that? That are elevation and well-being sacrifices. Rebbi Jehudah says, the individual was warned and the individual was permitted. He was warned, and his private altar is on his roof, and he is permitted elevation and well-being sacrifices. The rabbis are saying, also community and individuals were warned. The community was comprehensively permitted. The individual stays in his prohibition⁵²⁰A commandment in the plural is directed to individuals, in the singular it is interpreted as a collective and addressed to the community as a whole. In Deut. 12:8 the first part is in the plural, the second in the singular. R. Jehudah reads the entire verse as addressed to the individual; therefore on a public altar one may not sacrifice what one cannot do on a private altar (except the case of the Pesaḥ treated in the next paragraph which is a private well-being sacrifice required to be brought on the public altar), whereas the majority splits the verse to permit all kinds of public sacrifices on the public altar. In the tradition of the Babli Zevaḥim117a the roles are switched..