Mga Sanggunian sa Talmud para sa Mga Bilang 18:7: Jerusalem Talmud Yoma, Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat & Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin

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..

¹⁷³Here starts another Genizah fragment edited by Ginzberg (pp. 74–75) of which very little is readable for this paragraph. An outsider who officiated in the Temple on the Sabbath¹⁷⁴He commits a deadly sin by officiating (Num. 18:7). In addition, the Temple service on the Sabbath requires many acts, slaughter and burning of sacrifices, which outside the Temple are capital crimes. If the act was unintentional, how many purification sacrifices are due?, or a deformed person who officiated in impurity¹⁷⁵The deformed Cohen is barred from officiating (Lev. 21:16–24). Any impure Cohen is similarly barred (Lev. 22:3). Are the disabilities cumulative or is disqualification one and the same? The question is raised but neither discussed nor answered; it is treated in the parallel in the Babli, Yebamot 32a., the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, two; bar Qappara said, one. Bar Qappara objected to the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: is the outsider liable for any service which is permitted to a Cohen¹⁷⁶Everybody agrees that as an officiating outsider he is liable for a sacrifice. The question is about the Sabbath. Outside the Temple, the Sabbath prohibitions apply to Cohanim and to everybody else. They are lifted in the Temple precinct by biblical decree. Since there is no verse re-instituting the prohibition for laymen in the Temple precinct one should conclude that violating Sabbath prohibitions in the course of Temple service is not sanctionable irrespective of the person who officiates. This is Bar Qappara’s position.? He^176aS. Lieberman has shown that וּמוֹתִיב should be read as הוּא מוֹתִיב. objected and he answered it. Is there not the handful¹⁷⁷We find that prohibitions are to be lifted for Cohanim but not for laymen inside and outside the Temple. A cereal offering is forbidden for all consumption from the moment it was received in a sanctified vessel. The priest has to take a handful from the offering and burn it on the altar; this permits the remainder to be eaten by Cohanim (Lev. 6:7–11) but it remains forbidden for all outsiders.; before the handful was taken it was forbidden for both; after the handful was taken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food¹⁷⁸Lev. 22:10. This is a separate decree independent of Temple or Sabbath.. Is there not the breaking of the neck¹⁷⁹Of sacrifices of birds, Lev. 1:15,5:9. In case of a purification offering, the bird has to be eaten by Cohanim and is prohibited to laymen; the live bird is prohibited to everybody.; before the neck was broken it was forbidden for both; after the neck was broken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. Is there not the ṭevel¹⁸⁰Produce after the harvest of which heave and tithes were not taken. After these were taken the produce becomes profane but heave is reserved to pure Cohanim. This has no connection with Temple service.; before it was put in order it was forbidden for both; after it was put in order it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. They said, let us go outside and learn. They went outside and heard, Rebbi Yose said, two; Rebbi Simeon said, one. He who said one, because of outsider status. He who said two, one because of outsider status; why the other? Because of slaughter¹⁸¹Of the sacrifices.. But slaughter by an outsider is valid¹⁸²The office of the Cohen starts only with receiving the victim’s blood in a sacred vessel; slaughter of sacrifices, even on the Sabbath, is legitimate for outsiders, mostly Levites. This bolsters Bar Qappara’s case. Babli Yebamot 33b.! But because bringing, sprinkling, and receiving¹⁸³The offices of the Cohen after the receiving of the blood. The blood is sprinkled on the wall of the altar.. These are only because of Sabbath rest¹⁸⁴If there are Sabbath violations they are only of rabbinic prohibitions which as a matter of principle do not apply to the Temple precinct.. Therefore the reason may be only because of the consumption of limbs and fat which were consumed on the altar during the entire night. In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah¹⁸⁵As explained at the end of the preceding paragraph. This is the reason for the inclusion of this paragraph at this point. who said because of setting fire it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose¹⁸⁵As explained at the end of the preceding paragraph. This is the reason for the inclusion of this paragraph at this point. who said because of cooking, what cooking is here? Since he wants their being consumed it is like cooking.

What is Rebbi Aqiba’s reason? It says here, dying he shall be put to death⁷⁷E. g. Lev. 20:10. An unspecified death penalty is by strangling;, and it says there, anybody acceding to the Eternal’s abode will die, etc.⁷⁸Num. 17:28. While the verse speaks of the access of non-priests to the Sanctuary, it supports only the rabbis’ argument since it clearly refers to Heaven’s actions. The parallel in the Babli 84a (Sifry Deut. 116, end) makes more sense. What is the rabbis’ reason? It says here, dying he shall be put to death, but it says there, any outsider coming close shall be put to death⁷⁹Num. 18:7. This verse supports R. Aqiba.. It is better to compare shall be put to death with shall be put to death and not shall be put to death with shall die⁸⁰To transfer the interpretation of one word to another verse, the word has to be in the same grammatical form. It is clear that the positions of יומת and ימות have to be switched..