MISHNAH: Originally, anybody who wanted to remove the ashes¹6:3), followed by the less formal removal of the remainder of the ashes, Lev. 6:4. from the altar could remove them. If they were many of them, they ran up the ramp²20:23).; he who was first within four cubits³ got the right to do it. If two were at equal times, the overseer used to say to them, show fingers⁴. What do they hold up? One or two⁵; but one does not show a thumb in the Temple⁶. It happened that two were equally running up the ramp when one pushed the other who broke his leg. When the court saw that they might come into danger they enacted that they should remove the ashes from the altar only by lottery⁴. There were four lotteries, and this was the first of them.

footnotes: ¹ The ritual removal of some ashes from the altar by a priest in special attire (Lev. ² The ramp on the South side of the altar, leading to the top without stairs (Ex. ³ 4 cubits from the top of the altar. ⁴ Since people may not be counted, one counts fingers instead. The overseer calls out a large number and then counts down finger by finger repeatedly and the person whose finger is then number 1 is selected. (In modern Hebrew, מצביע no longer means to show a finger, or to point with a finger, but “to vote”; a misinterpretation of this Mishnah..) ⁵ If a Cohen has arthritic fingers and cannot lift a single finger, he may show two which, being close to one another, will be counted as one. ⁶ Since the thumb is far from the other fingers, the thumb and one other finger might erroneously be counted as two persons. ⁴ Since people may not be counted, one counts fingers instead. The overseer calls out a large number and then counts down finger by finger repeatedly and the person whose finger is then number 1 is selected. (In modern Hebrew, מצביע no longer means to show a finger, or to point with a finger, but “to vote”; a misinterpretation of this Mishnah..)

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 lottery⁷. 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 doubt⁸. What did you see to say this? All the night⁹ 6:2., he shall remove¹⁰ 6:3.. From here that the removal of ashes is valid during the entire night.

footnotes: ⁷ Mishnah 2:2. ⁸ If the chances are slim that he will be able to serve, no Cohen will show up for the night duty. Babli 22a. ⁹ Lev. ¹⁰ Lev.

A non-Cohen who removed¹¹. 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 bringing¹² 18:7.. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar¹² 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 outside¹³, 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;¹⁴ this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he¹⁵ stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he¹⁵ removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others¹⁶ 6:4. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(6)., of lesser value than these. But for him¹⁷ 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 woods¹⁸ 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 woods¹⁹ 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..

footnotes: ¹¹ The formal removal of ashes from the altar. ¹² Num. ¹² Num. ¹³ Outside 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. ¹⁴ Babli 24a. ¹⁵ The non-Cohen. ¹⁵ The non-Cohen. ¹⁶ Lev. ¹⁷ According to Sifra, ¹⁸ The logs of firewood on the altar. ¹⁹ Lev.

It was stated²⁰ 2(7).; Babli 24b,45a. “Rebbi Jehudah said, from where that kindling fire wood²¹ may only be done by a qualified Cohen and with a vessel of service²²? 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 out²³ 6:5., from here that kindling the fire may only be done on top of the altar, the words of Rebbi Jehudah²⁴”? 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-Cohen²⁵?

footnotes: ²⁰ Sifra Ṣaw Pereq ²¹ Rashi’s explanation. ²² The firewood had to be transported in a dedicated vessel. ²³ Lev. ²⁴ Babli 45a. ²⁵ Since it already was stated that no non-Cohen could be present at the altar, a mention of “Cohen” was superfluous in the second case.

If he removed and the wind blew it away²⁶, the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Ḥanina, since Rebbi Ḥanina said, if a fistful²⁷ The priest has to take a fistful of the flour mixed with oil, bring it to the top of the altar in a dedicated vessel, and empty the vessel into the fire. At that moment, the owners have fulfilled their vow, and the remainders of the offering are released to the priests as their property, to be eaten in the sacred precinct. was put in the fire when the wind blew it away, by the last blowing the owner was atoned for and the remainders freed from larceny. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if²⁸ Babli Menaḥot26b. the fire engulfed most of it. What means “most of it”? Most of the fistful, or had it been said about most of each separate lump? There came Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It had been said about most of each separate lump.

footnotes: ²⁶ Does one have to lift a second time? ²⁷ A flour offering after dedication is most holy, all use is forbidden as larceny of sancta. ²⁸ Meaning; only if.

If he lifted half of it, the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the fistful had been sanctified in a vessel, he did his duty if he burned even a sesame grain’s size of it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, the Mishnah²⁹3:4, Babli Menaḥot26a. does not say so, only if he burned his fistful in two parts it is qualified. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A fistful is not less than the volume of two olives, no burning is less than the volume of (a fistful) [an olive]³⁰26b. The corrector’s change is suspect as adaptation to the Babli.. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar asked, then a Cohen whose hand could not hold the volume of two olives would be disqualified from the service³¹?

footnotes: ²⁹ Menaḥot ³⁰ Menaḥot ³¹ Since this disability does not appear in a list of defects which disqualify a Cohen, practice cannot follow R. Joshua ben Levi.

If he removed with his left hand, the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Jehudah ben Rebbi, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if a fistful³² 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 hand³³ 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 hand³⁴ 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, it³⁵ does not need sanctification in a cup. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his father Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated there³⁶3:4., “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 hand³⁷26b.; 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 lifting³⁸.

footnotes: ³² Of the flour offering. ³³ In Lev. ³⁴ Mishnah Zevaḥim ³⁵ The fistful taken from a flour offering. ³⁶ Mishnah Menaḥot ³⁷ Menaḥot ³⁸ Since everybody agrees that at all places where the verse requires that the action be done by a Cohen he must use his right hand; therefore the lifting of the fistful must be with the Cohen’s right hand.

And he shall lift³⁹ 6:3.. There is no lifting unless he left a remainder⁴⁰. Which ate. there is no eating less than the volume of an olive. If all of it⁴¹ 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 sacrifice⁴². If elevation sacrifice, I could think limbs of an elevation sacrifice⁴³; the verse says, what the fire ate. How is this? He scoops up from what has been consumed in the middle⁴⁴ 2(4). and descends. It is an obligation to bring wood before fire, as it is said⁴⁵ 1:7., they shall arrange on the**fire, He mentioned wood before fire. If one arranged before he removed, he throws down and removes, disassembles and removes⁴⁶ I Pereq 5(11)..

footnotes: ³⁹ Lev. ⁴⁰ Otherwise the verse would have said, “he takes away”. ⁴¹ The ashes on the altar. ⁴² The verse reads: He shall lift the ashes from where the fire ate the elevation sacrifice on the altar. ⁴³ Parts of the daily sacrifice which still are recognizable as such. ⁴⁴ Where it is most likely from the sacrifice, not the fire wood. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq ⁴⁵ Lev. ⁴⁶ Since 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

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Hilfai asked: What is the status of a fistful given on the setting of the night⁴⁷? Rebbi Jeremiah said, Hilfai asked: What is the status of the public parts on the setting of the night⁴⁸26b.? Is that not a baratta? Nothing precedes the daily sacrifice but incense⁴⁹ 29:39) but the incense בבוקר בבוקר “in the early morning (Ex. 30:7); cf. Halakhah 3:5. Babli Pesaḥim59a.. The baratta as commandment, what he is asking is as impediment⁵⁰. Does the diadem cover up for impurity of the hands⁵¹ 30:20,40:31–32) the rules of impurity of hands are purely rabbinical, and hands are purified by immersion in a miqweh, not by sanctification from the basin. The (unanswered) question is whether the diadem covers also non-biblical infractions of the rules.? Do hands become disqualified by leaving⁵²? Is that not a barattai If he sanctified⁵¹ 30:20,40:31–32) the rules of impurity of hands are purely rabbinical, and hands are purified by immersion in a miqweh, not by sanctification from the basin. The (unanswered) question is whether the diadem covers also non-biblical infractions of the rules. his hands and feet and they became impure, he immerses them and they are pure; if he left they did not become disqualified because of leaving. This comes following the one who said, an overnight stay does not disqualify hands. What is his problem? [But here] it is following him who said, an overnight stay disqualifies hands. Do hands become impure for missing time? Is that not a baraita? If he sanctified his hands and feet today for tomorrow’s service⁵³.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ It is a biblical commandment that all leftovers from the service of a certain day have to be burned on the altar during the following night. Therefore the question has to be, what is the status of the next morning’s flour offering which was brought to the altar at dawn before the required new wood was formally brought to the altar after the removal of the previous day’s ashes. ⁴⁸ The same question as before, only referring to the parts of the sacrificial animals brought before the ritual setting of new logs in the morning. The questions remain unanswered also in the Babli. Menaḥot ⁴⁹ Since the daily sacrifice is scheduled בבוקר “in the morning (Ex. ⁵⁰ Is the service invalid if the precedences indicated by the verses are not followed? ⁵¹ Since except for the biblically ordained washing (“sanctification”) of hands and feet at the start of a priest’s period of service (Ex. ⁵² It is obvious that if a Cohen leaves the sacred precinct because he has finished his tour of duty, for the next tour he has to sanctify his hands and feet again. The question is whether his hands become rabbinically impure if he leaves the sacred precinct for a prescribed ritual act, such as depositing excess ashes outside the sacred domain. ⁵¹ Since except for the biblically ordained washing (“sanctification”) of hands and feet at the start of a priest’s period of service (Ex. ⁵³ It seems that one has to complete the sentence: the sanctification is valid.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the removal of ashes is the start of the service of the next day and one had to sanctify his hands and feet from the basin which was immersed in water⁵⁴20a.. Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Joseph said, it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night⁵⁵. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , after he lifted it he put it⁵⁶ back down. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph. ⁵⁷1:13. In that text, Rebbi agrees with R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon. Babli Zevaḥim 20b.“If he sanctified his hands and feet during the day, he does not have to sanctify them for the night; during the night, he has to sanctify them for the day⁵⁸, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, even if he is occupied with service for all of three days, he does not have to sanctify his hands and feet, since staying overnight does not disqualify hands during ancillary services. But to start services it is necessary.”

footnotes: ⁵⁴ Chapter 1, Note 241, Babli Zevaḥim ⁵⁵ Chapter 1, Note 82. ⁵⁶ The basin has to stay in the cistern any time it is not used during the night. According to R. Ḥiyya ben Joseph this should be necessary only at dusk and dawn. According to R. Joḥanan , the new day starts in the preceding night, with the preparation for lifting ashes. ⁵⁷ Tosephta 1:9, differently Tosephta Menaḥot ⁵⁸ The night is used to burn the remainder of the previous day’s service; it is an appendix to the day and, since no service is initiated during the night, does not need new preparation.

[Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph explains the baraita: If he sanctified his hands and feet during the day, he does not have to sanctify them for the night; for ancillary services. But to start service he has to sanctify them for the day, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, even if he is occupied with service for all of three days, he does not have to sanctify his hands and feet, since staying overnight does not disqualify hands during ancillary services⁵⁹. But to start services it is necessary.]

footnotes: ⁵⁹ But if he were unoccupied during the entire night, the next day’s service is a new beginning and needs sanctification of hands.

Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: If he sanctified his hands and feet during the day, he does (not)⁶⁰ have to sanctify them for the night; whether to start service or for ancillary services; during the night, he has to sanctify them for the day, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, even if he is occupied with service for all of three days, he does not have to sanctify his hands and feet, since staying overnight does not disqualify hands whether to start service or for ancillary services.

footnotes: ⁶⁰ A word correctly written by the scribe and incorrectly deleted.

Hilfai said, just as staying overnight does not disqualify hands, so it does not disqualify the basin⁶¹. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hilfai. “If he sanctified his hands and feet during the day, he does not have to sanctify them for the night; during the night, he has to sanctify them for the day, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, even if he is occupied with service for all of three days, he does not have to sanctify his hands and feet, since staying overnight does not disqualify hands.” Therefore it disqualifies the basin⁶² 20a.. The students of Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Hilfai. So it is: If he sanctified his hands and feet, etc., since staying overnight does not disqualify hands. Therefore it disqualifies the basin, only from day to night⁶³.

footnotes: ⁶¹ He disagrees with R. Joḥanan and holds that the water remaining in the basin does not become disqualified at the next dawn. ⁶² Since the basin was not mentioned in the statement. Babli Zevaḥim ⁶³ Not from night to day since the next day’s service starts with the removal of ashes following R. Joḥanan , and not if the basin was in continuous use during dusk, following R. Ḥiyya bar Joseph.

⁶⁴ How, either within four cubits of the ramp or four cubits of the altar? Since we have stated, “It happened that two were equally running up the ramp,” this implies within four cubits of the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explicitly did Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he who is first within four cubits of the altar got the right to do it.”

footnotes: ⁶⁴ One starts with discussing the remainder of Mishnah 1, starting with the meaning of “within 4 cubits”.

What means הצביעו? Show a finger⁶⁵. If one put up one, he is counted; two, he is counted⁵; three he is not counted. What means., “is not counted”? Not at all? One does not count the additional. Four, the overseer hits him with a whip and cancels the lottery.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ Since verbs from the root צבע usually meant “to color, to dye”. Cf. Babli 23a. ⁵ If a Cohen has arthritic fingers and cannot lift a single finger, he may show two which, being close to one another, will be counted as one.

“One does not show a thumb in the Temple,” because of the tricksters⁶. One does not say from whom⁶⁶ in the Temple, but the overseer lifts the cap of one of them and they know that the lottery (proceeds) [starts] from there. Should we not worry, maybe for a friend or a relative⁶⁷? They formed a snail⁶⁸. How was the lottery proceeding, to the right or to the left? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since we did state, the one winning the incense says to the one on his right side, you are with me with the pan⁶⁹, this implies that it proceeded to the right. The students of Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Hilfai: It is as follows. The lottery proceeds to the left, the winner adds to the right. It is preferable that one should win over whom the lottery passed twice, rather than one over whom the lottery passed only once⁷⁰.

footnotes: ⁶ Since the thumb is far from the other fingers, the thumb and one other finger might erroneously be counted as two persons. ⁶⁶ The people were not identified by name. ⁶⁷ That the overseer could predetermine the outcome and therefore the lottery was unfair. ⁶⁸ Greek κοχλίας “snail with a spiral shell”. Since the row of Cohanim was “snailing”, the overseer could not determine the exact number of those present. Babli 25a. ⁶⁹ On all days other than the Day of Atonement, presenting the incense on the interior altar needed two Cohanim, one carrying the incense and the other carrying hot coals on a pan. ⁷⁰ The previous argument did not prove anything.

⁷¹ 1:4, Sifry Num. 161. It happened that one preceded another to within four cubits of the altar. The other took the knife and stuck it into his heart. Rebbi Sadoq⁷² stood on the steps of the Hall and said to them, listen to me, my brethren, the House of Israel. It is written, if a corpse be found⁷³ 21:1.. etc. Your elders and your judges shall go out⁷⁴ 21:2.. From where do we have to measure, from the Temple or from the courtyards? All the people started to cry. While they still were crying, the father of the child⁷⁵ came and told them, I am atoning for you. The child is still fluttering, so the knife did not become impure⁷⁶. This teaches that impurity was worse for them than spilling blood, a shame.

footnotes: ⁷¹ Babli 23a, Tosephta 1:12, Tosephta Ševuot ⁷² Since Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai asked Vespasian for medical treatment for R. Sadoq, the introduction of the lottery must be dated to the times of direct Roman rule in Judea. ⁷³ Deut. ⁷⁴ Deut. ⁷⁵ In the impurity of the dead. ⁷⁶ The sheep of the daily morning sacrifice. He is the Cohen with whom the counting of the lottery stops; the following 12 are those lined up to his right.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, to make a procession⁸⁵ Greek πομπή “solemn procession”. One tries to have as many Cohanim as possible involved in order to increase the solemnity. Babli 24b, bottom. on the occasion. Rebbi said, could not the Cohen who was removing the ashes from the interior altar himself clean the candelabra? But to make a procession on the occasion. There, we have stated: “He deposits the flask on the second step and leaves;⁸⁶ 3:9, speaking of the Cohen who cleans 5 lights of the candelabrum and refills them with oil.” “he takes the flask from the second step and leaves.⁸⁷ 6:1; the same Cohen returns, cleans the remaining two lights on the candelabrum, refills, and lights them, when he enters the Sanctuary a second time.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, why does he enter twice for incense? Only to make a procession on the occasion. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is a biblical command: in the morning, in the morning, when he cleans the lights he shall burn the incense⁸⁸ 30:7.. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He could enter to clean and to burn incense⁸⁹ as meaning “early in the morning, cf. Note 49.).

footnotes: ⁸⁵ Latin pompa, ⁸⁶ Mishnah Tamid ⁸⁷ Mishnah Tamid ⁸⁸ Ex. ⁸⁹ The verse does not require different persons for the different jobs (also we already had interpreted in the morning, in the morning

MISHNAH: The second lottery: Who slaughters⁷⁶, who pours⁷⁷, who removes the ashes from the interior altar, who cleans the candelabrum, and who brings the parts to the ramp⁷⁸ 8:8); then the Cohanim took a prayer break to recite the Šemaˋ(Mishnah Tamid 4:3, end) and only afterwards were the parts brought to the fire on top of the altar. The way the sheep was cut up is detailed in Tamid 4:2–3.: head and leg⁷⁹, the two front legs, spine and leg⁸⁰, breast and fat⁸¹, two side pieces⁸², and the intestines,⁸³ and the fine flour⁸⁴, and the pan-baked breads⁸⁵ Greek πομπή “solemn procession”. One tries to have as many Cohanim as possible involved in order to increase the solemnity. Babli 24b, bottom., and the wine⁸⁶ 3:9, speaking of the Cohen who cleans 5 lights of the candelabrum and refills them with oil.. Thirteen Cohanim won here. Ben Azzai said before Rebbi Aqiba in the name of Rebbi Joshua, it was brought in the way of its walking⁸⁷ 6:1; the same Cohen returns, cleans the remaining two lights on the candelabrum, refills, and lights them, when he enters the Sanctuary a second time..

footnotes: ⁷⁶ The sheep of the daily morning sacrifice. He is the Cohen with whom the counting of the lottery stops; the following 12 are those lined up to his right. ⁷⁷ The blood of the daily morning sacrifice. ⁷⁸ The parts were first transported to the Western side of lower part of the ramp (Mishnah Šeqalim ⁷⁹ The head and the right hind leg are carried by the fifth Cohen in line. ⁸⁰ The left hind leg with tail and kidneys, by the 7th Cohen. ⁸¹ The breast with the neck and two ribs on each side connected to lung and heart. ⁸² With spine, liver, and spleen, by the 9th Cohen. ⁸³ Brought in a vessel, with the feet lying on top. ⁸⁴ The order of carrying, and of distribution to the Cohanim, was not that indicated by the Mishnah but head, breast, front legs, two side pieces, spine and back leg (Note 130). The order of the first and the last four is not in dispute. ⁸⁵ Latin pompa, ⁸⁶ Mishnah Tamid ⁸⁷ Mishnah Tamid

HALAKHAH: From where the cleaning of the interior altar⁹⁰? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He shall throw it next to the altar, to the East, on the place of ashes⁹¹ 1:16, referring to the crop of a pigeon brought as elevation offering. Cf. Sifra Wayyiqra1Pereq 9(3).. It is unnecessary⁹² 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 altar⁹³ 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 usufruct⁹⁴ 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 place⁹⁵ 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 pure⁹⁶. 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 it⁹¹ 1:16, referring to the crop of a pigeon brought as elevation offering. Cf. Sifra Wayyiqra1Pereq 9(3)., he shall burn incense⁹⁸ 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 body⁹⁹ 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 interior¹⁰⁰.

footnotes: ⁹⁰ Since in contrast to the exterior altar, removing ashes from the interior incense altar is never mentioned in the Torah. ⁹¹ Lev. ⁹² The mention on the place of ashes ⁹³ The first quote is from Lev. ⁹⁴ Mishnah Meˋilah ⁹⁵ Lev. ⁹⁶ It seems that here “pure” is taken in the sense of “untouched”. ⁹¹ Lev. ⁹⁸ Ex. ⁹⁹ As explained in Halakhah 5:7, the High Priest on the Day of Atonement is commanded to sprinkle blood on the interior altar on it, ¹⁰⁰ Since 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 carats¹⁰¹24b.; for consumption is written only for the external altar¹⁰²6:3. A wick which was extinguished needs replacement¹⁰³88b.. 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 light¹⁰⁴27:21), 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 there¹⁰⁵ 5:1., “Ben Bevay for the skeins”, he was threading the wicks¹⁰⁶88b..

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ Even if entire grains of incense are not touched by the fire, they become disqualified. Babli Menaḥot ¹⁰² Lev. ¹⁰³ Babli Menaḥot ¹⁰⁴ Since the candelabrum has to be lit “from evening to morning’ (Ex. ¹⁰⁵ Mishnah Šeqalim ¹⁰⁶ If 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, Menaḥot

Here, you are saying, he cleans and then he burns the incense; but there, you are saying, he burns the incense and then he cleans¹⁰⁷ 5:2). The Mishnaiot are inconsistent with another.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Tamid of Rebbi Simeon from Mitzpeh¹⁰⁸, which follows the teachings of Rebbi Simeon from Mitzpeh. Tosephta 1:13.. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, but not all of it; there are sayings questioned by the rabbis¹⁰⁹ is mostly but not totally, based on the teachings of Rebbi Simeon from Mitzpeh.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is Middot of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob¹¹⁰ inconsistent with the teachings of Rebbi Simeon from Mitzpeh are attributed to R. Eliezer ben Jacob I who is the source of most of Mishnah Middot (Babli 16a).. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, but not all of it; there are sayings questioned by the rabbis. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon from Mitzpeh? In the morning, in the morning, when he cleans the lights he shall burn the incense on it¹¹¹ 30:7 clearly mentions cleaning the lights before burning the incense.. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi: The reason of the rabbis, outside the curtain of the testimonial in the Tent of Meeting, Aaron and his sons shall arrange it from evening to morning¹¹² 27:21 (badly misquoted). If the burning of incense in the evening were after lighting the candelabrum, the lighting would not be the last action in the Sanctuary before the next morning.; that there shall be only the cleaning of the lights¹¹³.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ In Mishnah 1:2 it is stated that the High Priest first burns the incense and then cleans the lights; it is presumed that this was the order during the entire year when ordinary priests were serving. But in Mishnah 2:3 the cleaning of the candelabrum is part of the first lottery, while buring the incense is mentioned only in Mishnah 2:4 (confirmed by Mishnah Tamid ¹⁰⁸ Chapter 2 follows the Mishnah in Tamid ¹⁰⁹ Tractate Tamid ¹¹⁰ The parts in Tamid ¹¹¹ . Ex. ¹¹² Ex. ¹¹³ Babli 26a.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not institute a lottery for the evening but said, he who won in the morning shall have won in the evening¹¹³. But was it not stated: Just as the lottery is in the morning, so it is in the evening? The winner won for himself. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: Explain it that it was on the Sabbath; one for the entering watch, the other for the leaving watch¹¹⁴.

footnotes: ¹¹³ Babli 26a. ¹¹⁴ Since a new watch, another family of Cohanim, took over the service after the morning sacrifices, it is obvious that the Cohen who won in the morning is no longer present at the Temple in the afternoon.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not decide about the two logs in the morning¹¹⁵. Rebbi Yose said, a baratta says so, every day (a he-goat)¹¹⁶ is brought by eleven, and it does not mention anything in the morning. Rebbi Shammai asked, why did they not decide about the two logs in the morning? Rebbi Mana said, did Rebbi Shammai not hear that Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not decide about the two logs in the morning; and Rebbi Yose said, a baraita says so? He turned around and said, yes, he had heard. But he is a person who heard a statement and questions it: Why did they decide about two logs in the evening and did not decide about two logs in the morning¹¹⁷89b–90a, s. v. תמיד point out that the bringing of logs to the altar in the morning belongs to the preparation, covered by the first lottery. Only in the afternoon was the bringing of two logs part of the service of the daily sacrifice. Since the early morning preparation was in the night, there was no need to increase the number of participants for pompa.?

footnotes: ¹¹⁵ There was no lottery to determine who brought the obligatory two logs to the altar in the morning, but the Cohen chosen to remove the ashes had to bring the new logs and set up an orderly fireplace on the altar. ¹¹⁶ This word is a misquote from Mishnah 6 which is not quoted here since one refers to Mishnah 5 about the daily sacrifice, which was a sheep. ¹¹⁷ Tosaphot Menaḥot

“Thirteen won here.” And it was stated on this¹¹⁸: “Sometimes fourteen, sometimes fifteen, sometimes sixteen, no less and no more.” Normally by nine¹¹⁹, and on Tabernacles in the hand of one a vial of water, these are ten¹²⁰. In the evening by eleven; in the hands of two, two wooden logs. On the Sabbath by eleven, itself by nine, two, in their hands two cups of incense of the shew-bread; this makes (fifteen) [fourteen]¹²¹. On the Sabbath of Tabernacles, in the hand of one a vial of water, this makes sixteen.

footnotes: ¹¹⁸ Tosephta 1:13. ¹¹⁹ Plus the four who precede the presentation of the daily sacrifice makes 13. ¹²⁰ Together 14. ¹²¹ Both in the evening of every day and in the morning of the Sabbath. The corrector’s text clearly is in error.

He shall bring it¹²² 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 libations¹²³. 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. ¹²⁴ 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 sacrifice¹²⁵ and the other a public sacrifice. The pan-baked bread precede the cups¹²⁶; even though this is a private sacrifice and the other a public sacrifice, this is frequent but the other is not frequent¹²⁷. The pan-baked breads precede the wine since this is for the fire but that is for the bowls¹²⁷. Cups and wine, which one has precedence? Is that not the Mishnah, incense before the wine¹²⁸? Here for a private offering¹²⁹, there for public offering.

footnotes: ¹²² Lev. ¹²³ The libations of wine belonging to the daily sacrifice, preceding the additional sacrifices of special days. ¹²⁴ Babli 34a. ¹²⁵ The High Priest’s private offering, although part of the public ceremony. ¹²⁶ On the Sabbath, containing the incense which accompanied the shew-bread on the table in the Sanctuary. ¹²⁷ The 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. ¹²⁷ The 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. ¹²⁸ Since 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. ¹²⁹ The only open question is how to handle incense and wine brought with a private offering.

So is the Mishnah¹³⁰: head and leg⁷⁹, breast and fat⁸¹, the front legs, two side pieces⁸², spine and leg⁸⁰. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Ben Azzai: you shall burn the entire he-goat on the altar¹³¹ 29:18. walking., it should look as if it went walking onto the altar. Head and leg, and you are saying so? Rebbi Mana said, if it stretches out its head¹³² it lifts the foot.

footnotes: ¹³⁰ The missing part of the Mishnah, the list according to Ben Azzai. Babli 25b. ⁷⁹ The head and the right hind leg are carried by the fifth Cohen in line. ⁸¹ The breast with the neck and two ribs on each side connected to lung and heart. ⁸² With spine, liver, and spleen, by the 9th Cohen. ⁸⁰ The left hind leg with tail and kidneys, by the 7th Cohen. ¹³¹ Ex. ¹³² In order to start walking.

MISHNAH: The third lottery, newcomers for incense come and participate in the lottery. The fourth, newcomers and old-timers, who brings the limbs from the ramp to the altar?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥanina said, nobody ever participated in the lottery and repeated¹³³. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “newcomers for incense come and participate in the lottery.” Rebbi Ḥanina said, the same is true for the pan⁶⁹. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita says so, “the one winning the incense says to the one on his right side, you are with me with the pan,” You have to say that two Cohanim are blessed every time¹³⁴. Rav said, May the Eternal bless his might and may You desire the action of his hands¹³⁵ 33:11, the blessing of Moses. The Babli interprets חַיִל as “riches”, whereas the Yerushalmi reads it as “physical power”.. It happened that a man whose arm atrophied¹³⁶ but he did not refrain from it, to uphold what had been said, may the Eternal bless his might and may You desire the action of his hands.

footnotes: ¹³³ It means that nobody ever won in that lottery and repeated. Babli 26a, where R. Ḥanina says that bringing the incense makes people rich. ⁶⁹ On all days other than the Day of Atonement, presenting the incense on the interior altar needed two Cohanim, one carrying the incense and the other carrying hot coals on a pan. ¹³⁴ Since obviously the man standing next to the winner also never won before. ¹³⁵ Deut. ¹³⁶ The arm could not really have atrophied since that would have disqualified the Cohen from serving; it must have been a case of weakness in the arm which was healed by his serving with the incense.

MISHNAH: The daily sacrifice is brought by nine persons, by ten, by eleven, by twelve, neither less nor more. How is this? Itself by nine¹¹⁹, and on Tabernacles in the hand of one a vial of water, these are ten¹²⁰. In the evening by eleven; itself by nine and in the hands of two, two wooden logs. On the Sabbath by eleven, itself by nine, two, in their hands two cups of incense of the shew-bread;.. On the Sabbath of Tabernacles, in the hand of one a vial of water. A he-goat is brought by eleven, the meat by five, the intestines, and the fine flour, and the wine, each by two. A bull is brought by twenty-four, head and leg⁷⁹, the head by one and the leg by two; spine and leg⁸⁰, the spine by two and the leg by two; breast and fat⁸¹, the breast by one and the fat by three; the two front legs by two; the two side pieces⁸² by two; the intestines, and the fine flour¹⁴⁹ or about 3.6 liter of flour mixed with ½ hin of oil, about 3.5 liter., and the wine¹⁵⁰ by three each. When has this been said? For a public offering. But for a private offering, if one wants to sacrifice, he sacrifices¹⁵¹. Skinning and cutting into pieces is the same for these and for those¹⁵².

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ Plus the four who precede the presentation of the daily sacrifice makes 13. ¹²⁰ Together 14. ⁷⁹ The head and the right hind leg are carried by the fifth Cohen in line. ⁸⁰ The left hind leg with tail and kidneys, by the 7th Cohen. ⁸¹ The breast with the neck and two ribs on each side connected to lung and heart. ⁸² With spine, liver, and spleen, by the 9th Cohen. ¹⁴⁹ Which is 3/10 of an epha ¹⁵⁰ Also half a hin, ¹⁵¹ If a single Cohen wants to do all the carrying, he may do it. ¹⁵² It need not be done by Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: They shall arrange¹³⁷ 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. ¹³⁸ 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 took¹³⁹ 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 open¹⁴⁰ Chapter 1 (in the author’s edition, Northvale 1998, p. 3, Note 5, pp. 5–8.). If you are saying days¹⁴¹ 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 Muna¹⁴² 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.

footnotes: ¹³⁷ Lev. ¹³⁸ The remainder of the Paragraph also is Sifra MesoraˋParashah ¹³⁹ Babli Megillah ¹⁴⁰ In Babylonian sources, this statement is credited to R. Yose; Seder Olam ¹⁴¹ Lev. ¹⁴² The Tanna.

¹⁴³ 6(1).The sons of Aaron shall arrange¹³⁷ 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 arrange¹⁴⁴ 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, two¹⁴⁵. This teaches that the lamb comes up by six {priests}. [The priest, to include the bald-headed, the words of Rebbi Jehudah.]¹⁴⁶ It has no connection with the topic under discussion. Babli Bekhorot 43b.

footnotes: ¹⁴³ This paragraph is Sifra Wayyiqra I Pereq ¹³⁷ Lev. ¹⁴⁴ Lev. ¹⁴⁵ Babli 27a. ¹⁴⁶ The sentence in brackets was added by the corrector, probably from Sifra.

But does the verse not speak of cattle¹⁴⁶ 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 here¹⁴⁷ 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 incense¹ 29:39) but the incense בבוקר בבוקר “in the early morning (Ex. 30:7); cf. Halakhah 3:5. Babli Pesaḥim59a.¹⁴⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁶ The sentence in brackets was added by the corrector, probably from Sifra. ¹⁴⁷ Lev. ¹ Since the daily sacrifice is scheduled בבוקר “in the morning (Ex. ¹⁴⁸ Ulla'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.

Three could bring it up; why is a he-goat brought by eleven? Only to make a procession.

The rabbis of Caesarea say, why is a bull brought by 24? To make a procession on the occasion, under the heading, in God’s House we shall walk in excitement¹⁵³ 55:15.. Since one explains, they shall arrange, two; the sons of Aaron, two; the priests, two; from here that a private person’s bull should be brought by six¹⁵⁴ 1:7, to which this explanation refers, is written in the paragraph about private elevation offerings of cattle..

footnotes: ¹⁵³ Ps. ¹⁵⁴ Since Lev.