레위기 6:2 관련 구절

צַ֤ו אֶֽת־אַהֲרֹן֙ וְאֶת־בָּנָ֣יו לֵאמֹ֔ר זֹ֥את תּוֹרַ֖ת הָעֹלָ֑ה הִ֣וא הָעֹלָ֡ה עַל֩ מוֹקְדָ֨ה עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֤חַ כָּל־הַלַּ֙יְלָה֙ עַד־הַבֹּ֔קֶר וְאֵ֥שׁ הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ תּ֥וּקַד בּֽוֹ׃

누구든지 여호와께 신실치 못하여 범죄하되 곧 남의 물건을 맡거나 전당 잡거나 강도질 하거나 늑봉하고도 사실을 부인하거나

Jerusalem Talmud Yoma

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