Talmud sobre Levítico 1:7

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..

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)..

HALAKHAH: They shall arrange¹³⁷Lev. 1:7. The theme of the Halakhah is to find a biblical source for the number of Cohanim used to bring the parts of the daily sacrifices to the altar.. I could think, a hundred; I could think, a thousand. ¹³⁸The remainder of the Paragraph also is Sifra MesoraˋParashah 5(5–9). Its topic is the interpretation of prescriptive biblical verses in the absence of numerical data. The theory expounded here is what the author has called the axiom of definiteness: Biblical language in legal contexts is definite (H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth ed., London 1966., pp. 171–196, in particular pp. 174–175.) In the situation considered here it is noted that the set of numbers >1 has a smallest element, 2, but no largest one. Therefore an indefinite plural used in a biblical law must mean 2, otherwise the meaning would not be definite. This is applied to the laws of zava, a woman impure by non-menstrual blood flow for many days. By the principle of definiteness this means that days are 2, the number of many days is the smallest number >2, or 3. Rebbi Aqiba said, anywhere you could understand many or you could understand few, if you took the many you took nothing, if you took few you took¹³⁹Babli Megillah 17a, Sanhedrin 5a.. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, two measures; one finite, the other infinite. Everybody measures with the finite measure, but nobody measures with the infinite measure. Rebbi Nehemiah said, does the verse come to open or to lock in? It does not come to lock in but to open¹⁴⁰In Babylonian sources, this statement is credited to R. Yose; Seder Olam Chapter 1 (in the author’s edition, Northvale 1998, p. 3, Note 5, pp. 5–8.). If you are saying days¹⁴¹Lev. 15:25. are ten, they could be 100 or 200 or 1’000 or 10’000. But if you say days are two, you did unlock. Rebbi Muna¹⁴²The Tanna. said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah. Days are two. I could think that days are many. If they are many, why is it said, many? Therefore the verse only spoke of few days. How much are they? It means two; many are three. I could think that many (days) means ten. It says days and it says many. Since the minimum of days are two, so for many, the minimum of many are three. I could think that two and three make five. But is it said, days [and many]? It only is said, many days. How is this? These many should be more than two. How many are they? It implies three.

¹⁴³This paragraph is Sifra Wayyiqra I Pereq 6(1).The sons of Aaron shall arrange¹³⁷Lev. 1:7. The theme of the Halakhah is to find a biblical source for the number of Cohanim used to bring the parts of the daily sacrifices to the altar.. I could think, a hundred; the verse says, the Cohen shall arrange¹⁴⁴Lev. 1:12.. [If the Cohen shall arrange,] I could think that a single Cohen should arrange all the limbs; the verse says, they shall arrange. How is this? One Cohen arranges two limbs. How many limbs are there? Ten, and one for the intestines. It turns out that the lamb comes up by six (priests}, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, they shall arrange, two; the sons of Aaron, two; the priests, two¹⁴⁵Babli 27a.. This teaches that the lamb comes up by six {priests}. [The priest, to include the bald-headed, the words of Rebbi Jehudah.]¹⁴⁶The sentence in brackets was added by the corrector, probably from Sifra. It has no connection with the topic under discussion. Babli Bekhorot 43b.

But does the verse not speak of cattle¹⁴⁶The sentence in brackets was added by the corrector, probably from Sifra. It has no connection with the topic under discussion. Babli Bekhorot 43b.? Where does the verse imply that it is written about the daily morning sacrifice? Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: It is written here¹⁴⁷Lev. 1:7 is written in the paragraph about elevation offerings of cattle; only Lev.1:12 is about elevation offerings of sheep, including the daily sacrifice. The argument of the preceding paragraph seems pointless. arranging, and it is written there, the Cohen shall arrange them. Since concerning the arrangement mentioned there, the verse speaks about the daily morning sacrifice, so also concerning the arrangement mentioned here, the verse speaks about the daily morning sacrifice. Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, this is unnecessary. From the meaning of they shall arrange, do we not understand that they are two? And you explain, they shall arrange, two; the sons of Aaron, two; the priests, two; and it was stated so: Nothing precedes the daily sacrifice but incense^49,Since the daily sacrifice is scheduled בבוקר “in the morning (Ex. 29:39) but the incense בבוקר בבוקר “in the early morning (Ex. 30:7); cf. Halakhah 3:5. Babli Pesaḥim59a.¹⁴⁸Ulla's argument goes as follows. Since arranging the wood on the altar belongs to the preparations of the morning service, and no cattle can be offered as elevation offering (or any other) before the daily morning sacrifice, necessarily Lev. 1:7 is written for the preparation of all offerings for the new day, including the daily sacrifice..