cohen

One sends letters through a Gentile neither on Friday nor on Thursday. The House of Shammai forbid even on Wednesday but the House of Hillel permit. They said about Rebbi Jose the Cohen that his handwriting never was found in the hand of a Gentile.

A woman after her period who was immersed by accident, Shammai in the name of Rav: she is pure for her house but impure for purities. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, she is impure both for her house and purities. What is the reason? It should be washed a second time and will be pure. Since the first time it was intentionally, also the second time it must be intentionally. And from where that the first time it was intentionally? The Cohen has to order that they should wash. Intentionally.

“If cattle of a Cohen was passing at an Israel’s, or the garment of a Cohen being woven at an Israel’s, he lights for this oil to burn without hesitation. If an Israel and a Cohen were partners in a store, the Israel may fill the lamp with oil to burn and go to the upper floor or down into the store in the business of the Cohen, but not the Israel’s. If a Cohen came to an Israel to help him with his accounts and he lit oil to burn for him, even after the Cohen left one does not require him to extinguish it before it burns out by itself.” Rebbi Ḥanania from Akhbar worked at R. Ḥiyya’s from Sepphoris. When he left, the latter filled him a lamp full of oil to burn. Were we not of the opinion to say, “to work for a Cohen, but not for an Israel”? They said, if he had not done this for him, he would not have come. They thought, when he arrived at his house, he had to extinguish it. Rebbi Ḥinena said, by this he awoke, by this he got up early.

“If cattle of a Cohen was passing at an Israel’s, or the garment of a Cohen being woven at an Israel’s, he lights for this oil to burn without hesitation. If an Israel and a Cohen were partners in a store, the Israel may fill the lamp with oil to burn and go to the upper floor or down into the store in the business of the Cohen, but not the Israel’s. If a Cohen came to an Israel to help him with his accounts and he lit oil to burn for him, even after the Cohen left one does not require him to extinguish it before it burns out by itself.” Rebbi Ḥanania from Akhbar worked at R. Ḥiyya’s from Sepphoris. When he left, the latter filled him a lamp full of oil to burn. Were we not of the opinion to say, “to work for a Cohen, but not for an Israel”? They said, if he had not done this for him, he would not have come. They thought, when he arrived at his house, he had to extinguish it. Rebbi Ḥinena said, by this he awoke, by this he got up early.

“If cattle of a Cohen was passing at an Israel’s, or the garment of a Cohen being woven at an Israel’s, he lights for this oil to burn without hesitation. If an Israel and a Cohen were partners in a store, the Israel may fill the lamp with oil to burn and go to the upper floor or down into the store in the business of the Cohen, but not the Israel’s. If a Cohen came to an Israel to help him with his accounts and he lit oil to burn for him, even after the Cohen left one does not require him to extinguish it before it burns out by itself.” Rebbi Ḥanania from Akhbar worked at R. Ḥiyya’s from Sepphoris. When he left, the latter filled him a lamp full of oil to burn. Were we not of the opinion to say, “to work for a Cohen, but not for an Israel”? They said, if he had not done this for him, he would not have come. They thought, when he arrived at his house, he had to extinguish it. Rebbi Ḥinena said, by this he awoke, by this he got up early.

“If cattle of a Cohen was passing at an Israel’s, or the garment of a Cohen being woven at an Israel’s, he lights for this oil to burn without hesitation. If an Israel and a Cohen were partners in a store, the Israel may fill the lamp with oil to burn and go to the upper floor or down into the store in the business of the Cohen, but not the Israel’s. If a Cohen came to an Israel to help him with his accounts and he lit oil to burn for him, even after the Cohen left one does not require him to extinguish it before it burns out by itself.” Rebbi Ḥanania from Akhbar worked at R. Ḥiyya’s from Sepphoris. When he left, the latter filled him a lamp full of oil to burn. Were we not of the opinion to say, “to work for a Cohen, but not for an Israel”? They said, if he had not done this for him, he would not have come. They thought, when he arrived at his house, he had to extinguish it. Rebbi Ḥinena said, by this he awoke, by this he got up early.

“If cattle of a Cohen was passing at an Israel’s, or the garment of a Cohen being woven at an Israel’s, he lights for this oil to burn without hesitation. If an Israel and a Cohen were partners in a store, the Israel may fill the lamp with oil to burn and go to the upper floor or down into the store in the business of the Cohen, but not the Israel’s. If a Cohen came to an Israel to help him with his accounts and he lit oil to burn for him, even after the Cohen left one does not require him to extinguish it before it burns out by itself.” Rebbi Ḥanania from Akhbar worked at R. Ḥiyya’s from Sepphoris. When he left, the latter filled him a lamp full of oil to burn. Were we not of the opinion to say, “to work for a Cohen, but not for an Israel”? They said, if he had not done this for him, he would not have come. They thought, when he arrived at his house, he had to extinguish it. Rebbi Ḥinena said, by this he awoke, by this he got up early.

“If cattle of a Cohen was passing at an Israel’s, or the garment of a Cohen being woven at an Israel’s, he lights for this oil to burn without hesitation. If an Israel and a Cohen were partners in a store, the Israel may fill the lamp with oil to burn and go to the upper floor or down into the store in the business of the Cohen, but not the Israel’s. If a Cohen came to an Israel to help him with his accounts and he lit oil to burn for him, even after the Cohen left one does not require him to extinguish it before it burns out by itself.” Rebbi Ḥanania from Akhbar worked at R. Ḥiyya’s from Sepphoris. When he left, the latter filled him a lamp full of oil to burn. Were we not of the opinion to say, “to work for a Cohen, but not for an Israel”? They said, if he had not done this for him, he would not have come. They thought, when he arrived at his house, he had to extinguish it. Rebbi Ḥinena said, by this he awoke, by this he got up early.

“If cattle of a Cohen was passing at an Israel’s, or the garment of a Cohen being woven at an Israel’s, he lights for this oil to burn without hesitation. If an Israel and a Cohen were partners in a store, the Israel may fill the lamp with oil to burn and go to the upper floor or down into the store in the business of the Cohen, but not the Israel’s. If a Cohen came to an Israel to help him with his accounts and he lit oil to burn for him, even after the Cohen left one does not require him to extinguish it before it burns out by itself.” Rebbi Ḥanania from Akhbar worked at R. Ḥiyya’s from Sepphoris. When he left, the latter filled him a lamp full of oil to burn. Were we not of the opinion to say, “to work for a Cohen, but not for an Israel”? They said, if he had not done this for him, he would not have come. They thought, when he arrived at his house, he had to extinguish it. Rebbi Ḥinena said, by this he awoke, by this he got up early.

Rebbi Abbahu said, Jonathan ben Akhmai did teach me: The daughter of a Cohen standing on Sabbath eve with a light filled with oil to burn, adds some profane oil and lights. Rebbi Zeˋira said, what is the nature of this? He said to him, he was a great personality, well versed in the Mishnah. Rebbi Ḥiyya from Kefar Teḥumin explained this to Rabbi and he appointed him rabbi.

An outsider who officiated in the Temple on the Sabbath, or a deformed person who officiated in impurity, 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 Cohen? He objected and he answered it. Is there not the handful; 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 food. Is there not the breaking of the neck; 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 ṭevel; 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 slaughter. But slaughter by an outsider is valid! But because bringing, sprinkling, and receiving. These are only because of Sabbath rest. 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 Jehudah who said because of setting fire it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said because of cooking, what cooking is here? Since he wants their being consumed it is like cooking.

Rebbi Levi said, at three places the Satan usually accuses: one who is on the road alone, one who sleeps in a dark house alone, and one who sets sail on the ocean. Rebbi Isaac bar Marion said, if it had not been written, so says the Eternal Who makes a path in the Sea, if a person would set out on it he would die. But the rabbis say, Who makes a path in the Sea, from Pentecost to Tabernacles, and in great waters a trail, from Tabernacles to Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Tanḥum from Kefar Agin (a case) was in Essia. He wanted to set sail between Tabernacles and Ḥanukkah. A matron saw him and said to him, now one sets sail? His father appeared to him, but he had no burial; he listened to neither and travelled by sea. Rebbi Cohen the brother of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was a sailor. He came to sail between Tabernacles and Ḥanukkah. He said to his brother, pray for me. He answered him yes, I prayed for you, but if you see the public praying for rain do not trust my prayer. Since you bound your lulav, bind your feet.

Rebbi Iniani bar Sosai said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she did go out she is obligated for a purification sacrifice she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice she is permitted to go out with it to the courtyard. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Sheshet, a Mishnah said so: “with an under-cap and another’s braid into the courtyard.” Rebbi Lia in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ḥiyya: Even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Is a man permitted because he is not vain? Let us hear from the following: Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi went walking in his courtyard on the Sabbath with a golden key in his hand. His colleagues scolded him because of jewelry. This implies that if something is made as jewelry it is forbidden. This implies also if it has a dual purpose. This implies both man and woman. This implies that even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard.

“Who bleaches it.” He who impregnates wood for vessels and ropes for a windlass. This woman who painted her face red and painted her spindle red. This tailor who took a thread into his mouth. Rav Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Asbestos is liable because of bleaching.

“Glass to scrape the head of the weaver’s beam.” There it was stated, “of glass to pour oil into it.” And here, you are saying so? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha, Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Here if it is thick, there if it is sharp. Some want to say, here about moving, there about bringing out.

“A spade or a pitchfork to feed a child, a spindle or a spinning top to stick into something.” Rebbi Simon said, Rebbi Abbahu permitted me to apply eye salve on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Sheshet: The Mishnah implies this, “a sewing needle to remove a thorn,” since what would be the difference between this and a thorn? Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Mana, may one compound it on a holiday? He told him, it is not food.

HALAKHAH: “Glass to scrape the head of the weaver’s beam.” And here, you are saying so? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha, Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Here if it is thick, there if it is sharp. Some want to say, here about moving, there about bringing out.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “and a stone contained in it.” In the House of Rebbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph as our Mishnah, Rebbi Joḥanan as stated by the House of Rebbi. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If the stone in a gourd-bottle does not fall out when used to fill, one may fill with it.” Since it is squeezed in it it is like its body. The final clause disagrees with Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: “otherwise one may not fill with it.” Rebbi Yudan said, since it is used as ballast, one carries the gourd on the stone. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He carries the gourd itself. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A person may carry his son with a stone in his hand, a basket and a stone in it,” and in the House of Rebbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis there: they treated a baby like food. There they are saying: they made the stone in the hand of the baby like an expert amulet in the hand of the baby.

The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. Since there, where he qualifies it as an implement, you say that it is permitted, here, where he does not qualify it as an implement, not so much more? Rebbi Ḥinena said, Rebbi Eliezer parallels Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Also they permitted preparations for making food. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: Following him who permits, only from above. As the following: In the days of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi there was a festive meal in the House of Study. They spread a canopy the day before over four cubits; the next day they were extending it over everything. They were of the opinion that this followed the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi. They investigated and found that it was not according to Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi’s opinion unless it was spread over most of it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who sets up tents on the Sabbath is liable because of building. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he only is spreading and folding it on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose, what is the rule for a spread over a chest? He told him, since it was spread the day before he is like one who unlocks and locks on the Sabbath.

MISHNAH: With anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt. Anything may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe except water and salt. One who vows not to eat food is permitted water and salt. One may make an eruv for a nazir with wine and for an Israel with heave. Symmachos says, also with profane food for a Cohen in a bet happeras. Rebbi Jehudah says among the graves since he could be shielded and eat.

“One may make an eruv for a nazir with wine” for another person may drink it. “And for an Israel with heave,” for a Cohen may eat it. For a Cohen in a bet happeras? The Mishnah follows the House of Shammai, for the House of Shammai say that one may not make an eruv for a person unless his personal vessels may be there. Symmachos follows the House of Shammai as we have stated: “Symmachos says, also with profane food for a Cohen in a bet happeras.” Then also between the graves? He might transgress a rabbinic prohibition and eat there. For he could enter on a bench, in a box or a chest, make a hole less than a hand-breadth [wide], stick a spindle or a splinter into it, and eat it.

“One may make an eruv for a nazir with wine” for another person may drink it. “And for an Israel with heave,” for a Cohen may eat it. For a Cohen in a bet happeras? The Mishnah follows the House of Shammai, for the House of Shammai say that one may not make an eruv for a person unless his personal vessels may be there. Symmachos follows the House of Shammai as we have stated: “Symmachos says, also with profane food for a Cohen in a bet happeras.” Then also between the graves? He might transgress a rabbinic prohibition and eat there. For he could enter on a bench, in a box or a chest, make a hole less than a hand-breadth [wide], stick a spindle or a splinter into it, and eat it.

“One may make an eruv for a nazir with wine” for another person may drink it. “And for an Israel with heave,” for a Cohen may eat it. For a Cohen in a bet happeras? The Mishnah follows the House of Shammai, for the House of Shammai say that one may not make an eruv for a person unless his personal vessels may be there. Symmachos follows the House of Shammai as we have stated: “Symmachos says, also with profane food for a Cohen in a bet happeras.” Then also between the graves? He might transgress a rabbinic prohibition and eat there. For he could enter on a bench, in a box or a chest, make a hole less than a hand-breadth [wide], stick a spindle or a splinter into it, and eat it.

MISHNAH: A Cohen who has a wound on his finger binds bast on it in the Temple but not in the countryside; it there is no blood it is forbidden here and there. One sprinkles salt on the ramp so it should not be slippery and one fills from the cistern of the Diaspora with a wheel on the Sabbath, from the large cistern and from the cold well on a holiday.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Jehudah the important said, they only stated “bast” but bingion is prohibited because of excess clothing. They wanted to say excess of clothing is like deficiency in clothing. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Rebbi Ḥanina’s, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, only it should not separate between him and a garment or between garment and garment. In Rebbi Ḥanina’s opinion, what is excess clothing? Two shirts, two turbans, two pants, two belts. If a Cohen was injured on his finger and wound a belt around it; is anything called “belt” inadmissible or only clothing?

MISHNAH: If a crawling animal was found in the Temple, a Cohen carries it outside in his belt in order not to continue the impurity, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi Jehudah says, with wooden tongs in order not to increase impurity. From where does one remove it? From the Temple Hall, and the vestibule, and from between the vestibule and the altar, the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Nannas. Rebbi Aqiba says, from a place where one is liable for extirpation in case of criminal intent and a purification offering if in error one removes it; at all other places one places a wine cooler over it. Rebbi Simeon said, at a place where the Sages permitted it to you they gave it from your own since they only permitted because of rabbinic Sabbath restrictions.

“And what he leaves he should deposit at a guarded place so that he would not be obligated to repeat checking.” What does he do? He covers it with a vessel. If he covered it with a vessel but did not find it. I am saying that a hand took it. If he did not cover it with a vessel and did not find it, this house needs checking. Or the other houses would not need checking? Let us hear from the following: “If the volume of an olive from a cadaver was lost in a house; it was searched but not found. The house is pure; if it will be found, the house is retroactively impure.” This can teach about that and that can teach about this. This can teach about that, there is no difference between “was lost” and “what he leaves”. And that can teach about this, only this house needs to be checked. Following Rebbi Jehudah even this house should not need to be checked, as we may hear from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the slave girl of a discharged veteran at Rimmon threw a still birth into a cistern. A Cohen came and looked to know what she had thrown down. The case came before the Sages and they declared him pure for moles and martens usually drag it away.” It runs after flesh, it does not run after bread. And even if you are saying that it runs after flesh and bread, it drags away flesh and eats it; it drags away bread and stores it. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: One does not suspect that a mole dragged it, but following Rebbi Jehudah one suspects it.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: He who eats leavened heave on Passover, to whom does he pay? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since the disagreed: One who robbed heave from his mother’s father who was a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: It is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about the fifth that he has to pay it to the tribe. He told him, I also do agree with this, since impure heave is forbidden to the tribe. There came Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Even in this case they disagree.

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about pure heave that it is forbidden to burn it, and about impure heave that one is permitted to burn it; about what did they disagree? About the suspended one, about which the House of Shammai say, one may not burn it, but the House of Hillel say, one burns it. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel: Do you not say that the pure one may not be burned because I am saying that maybe a Cohen was keeping the Sabbath within the domain and he might come and eat in on the Sabbath, so also the suspended one may not be burned because I am saying that maybe Elijah was keeping the Sabbath on Mount Carmel and he might come and testify on the Sabbath that it is pure. The House of Hillel told them, we are sure that Elijah will come neither on a Sabbath nor on a holiday.”

If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to an Aramean. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Jehudah and says more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal.

If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to an Aramean. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Jehudah and says more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal.

From where that a purification sacrifice must be for the name of its owner? Rebbi Jeremiah said, the Cohen shall make the purification offering and expiate for the one who purifies himself from his impurity. Rebbi Yose said to him, but then also the burning of its parts? The verse says, and expiate. Since pouring is particular in that it invalidates expiation, this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation.

MISHNAH: The Israel slaughters and the Cohen receives; he hands it to his colleague and the colleague to his colleague; he accepts the full [cup] and returns the empty one. The Cohen standing next to the altar pours it in one pouring in the direction of the foundations.

MISHNAH: The Israel slaughters and the Cohen receives; he hands it to his colleague and the colleague to his colleague; he accepts the full [cup] and returns the empty one. The Cohen standing next to the altar pours it in one pouring in the direction of the foundations.

Because of three questions Hillel immigrated from Babylonia. He is pure. I could think that he was rid of it and may take leave, the verse says, the Cohen shall declare him pure. If the Cohen shall declare him pure then I could think that if the Cohen declared him pure while he was impure that he was pure, the verse says, he is pure and the Cohen shall declare him pure. For this Hillel immigrated from Babylonia.

Because of three questions Hillel immigrated from Babylonia. He is pure. I could think that he was rid of it and may take leave, the verse says, the Cohen shall declare him pure. If the Cohen shall declare him pure then I could think that if the Cohen declared him pure while he was impure that he was pure, the verse says, he is pure and the Cohen shall declare him pure. For this Hillel immigrated from Babylonia.

Because of three questions Hillel immigrated from Babylonia. He is pure. I could think that he was rid of it and may take leave, the verse says, the Cohen shall declare him pure. If the Cohen shall declare him pure then I could think that if the Cohen declared him pure while he was impure that he was pure, the verse says, he is pure and the Cohen shall declare him pure. For this Hillel immigrated from Babylonia.

Because of three questions Hillel immigrated from Babylonia. He is pure. I could think that he was rid of it and may take leave, the verse says, the Cohen shall declare him pure. If the Cohen shall declare him pure then I could think that if the Cohen declared him pure while he was impure that he was pure, the verse says, he is pure and the Cohen shall declare him pure. For this Hillel immigrated from Babylonia.

Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joshua: One verse says, but a firstling of cattle, or a firstling of sheep, or a firstling of goats, etc. And another verse says the Cohen shall pour the blood on the Eternal’s altar at the door of the Tent of Meeting, and burn the fat for a pleasant smell before the Eternal. Only if there be there either meat be be eaten or parts to be burned. There we have stated: “If the remainders became impure, the remainders were burned, the remainders were lost. In the rules of Rebbi Eliezer it is qualified, in the rules of Rebbi Joshua it is disqualified. [Not in a vessel of service it is disqualified; Rebbi Ismael qualifies. If he burned the fistful in two parts it is qualified.”] In Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion, if there is no blood there is no meat; even though if there is no meat there is blood. If there is no fistful there are no remainders, even though if there are no remainders there is a fistful. In Rebbi Joshua’s opinion, if there is no blood there is no meat; if there is no meat there is no blood. If there is no fistful there are no remainders, if there are no remainders there is no fistful. Rebbi Mana said, explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, even though there are no remainders there is a fistful. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, Rebbi Joshua agrees that if he transgressed and poured the blood that it was made acceptable.

There, we have stated: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner, one immersed on this day, missing garments, missing atonement, with unwashed hands or feet, uncircumcised, impure, sitting, standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person, disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ, for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year, it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes acceptable.” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner. But did we not state “a nazir”? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: One sprinkles on an uncircumcised Jew, for we find that our forefathers in the desert received sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rav Ḥisda said, following him who said that they circumcised on the eleventh. But for him who said that they circumcised on the tenth, they did not count sprinkling when uncircumcised. Rebbi Abun said, did they not have to count for sprinkling when uncircumcised in any case? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: It happened that an uncircumcised Cohen sprinkled and the sprinklings were declared valid. It was stated so: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, there were soldiers and gate keepers in Jerusalem who immersed themselves and ate their Pesaḥ in the evening.

MISHNAH: Seven days before the Day of Atonement one isolates the High Priest from his house to the Parhedrin lodge and one prepares another Cohen because he might become disqualified. Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, since maybe his wife would die, for it is said, he shall atone for himself and his house, his house means his wife. The Sages said to him, in this case the procedure never ends.

What is the difference between the Cohen who burns the Cow and the High Priest on the Day of Atonement? The separation of the first is for purity and his brothers the priests refrain from touching him. The separation of the other is for holiness and his brothers the priests touch him. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers from that verse, [it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow, one understands it. In the opinion of Bar Qappara who does not infer it from this verse], why does one touch here but not touch there? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that his brothers the priests should not make him impure. [But will he not be impure because of his sprinkling?] Rebbi Abun said, even Bar Qappara holds that it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow.

“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 Moses! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry.

“From where that just as one prepares another Cohen in his stead for maybe a disability will happen to him, so one preliminarily marries to him another wife in case something happen to his wife, as it is said, and he atone for himself and for his house; his house is his wife, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, in that case there is no end to it, maybe not only this wife but also the other wife would die.” Rebbi Mana said, before you question Rebbi Jehudah, question Rebbi Jehudah, question the rabbis! Maybe an emission would happen both to this Cohen and to the other Cohen. Emissions are frequent, death is not frequent. They decided about what is frequent, but did not decide about what is infrequent. We find that Rebbi Jehudah said, death is frequent; that is what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, maybe his wife would die.” There we have stated: “One who brings a bill of divorce and left him old or sick, delivers to her under the presumption that the man be alive.” There you are saying, death is infrequent, and here you are saying, death is frequent. There it is a private matter, here a public act. Is one more restrictive in public acts, as we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mixing, maybe one of them would die and it would turn out that money of purification sacrifices that must be left to die is mixed up in the offering.” Could he not preliminarily marry her yesterday? And he atone for himself and for his house; but not for two houses. Rebbi Gamliel bar Inyani asked before Rebbi Mana: Is he not like one who acquires something on the Sabbath? He answered him, it is because they permitted Sabbath restriction in the Sanctuary. Rebbi Mana said, this implies that those who marry a widow must take her in when it is still daytime, lest he be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.

“From where that just as one prepares another Cohen in his stead for maybe a disability will happen to him, so one preliminarily marries to him another wife in case something happen to his wife, as it is said, and he atone for himself and for his house; his house is his wife, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, in that case there is no end to it, maybe not only this wife but also the other wife would die.” Rebbi Mana said, before you question Rebbi Jehudah, question Rebbi Jehudah, question the rabbis! Maybe an emission would happen both to this Cohen and to the other Cohen. Emissions are frequent, death is not frequent. They decided about what is frequent, but did not decide about what is infrequent. We find that Rebbi Jehudah said, death is frequent; that is what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, maybe his wife would die.” There we have stated: “One who brings a bill of divorce and left him old or sick, delivers to her under the presumption that the man be alive.” There you are saying, death is infrequent, and here you are saying, death is frequent. There it is a private matter, here a public act. Is one more restrictive in public acts, as we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mixing, maybe one of them would die and it would turn out that money of purification sacrifices that must be left to die is mixed up in the offering.” Could he not preliminarily marry her yesterday? And he atone for himself and for his house; but not for two houses. Rebbi Gamliel bar Inyani asked before Rebbi Mana: Is he not like one who acquires something on the Sabbath? He answered him, it is because they permitted Sabbath restriction in the Sanctuary. Rebbi Mana said, this implies that those who marry a widow must take her in when it is still daytime, lest he be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.

“From where that just as one prepares another Cohen in his stead for maybe a disability will happen to him, so one preliminarily marries to him another wife in case something happen to his wife, as it is said, and he atone for himself and for his house; his house is his wife, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, in that case there is no end to it, maybe not only this wife but also the other wife would die.” Rebbi Mana said, before you question Rebbi Jehudah, question Rebbi Jehudah, question the rabbis! Maybe an emission would happen both to this Cohen and to the other Cohen. Emissions are frequent, death is not frequent. They decided about what is frequent, but did not decide about what is infrequent. We find that Rebbi Jehudah said, death is frequent; that is what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, maybe his wife would die.” There we have stated: “One who brings a bill of divorce and left him old or sick, delivers to her under the presumption that the man be alive.” There you are saying, death is infrequent, and here you are saying, death is frequent. There it is a private matter, here a public act. Is one more restrictive in public acts, as we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mixing, maybe one of them would die and it would turn out that money of purification sacrifices that must be left to die is mixed up in the offering.” Could he not preliminarily marry her yesterday? And he atone for himself and for his house; but not for two houses. Rebbi Gamliel bar Inyani asked before Rebbi Mana: Is he not like one who acquires something on the Sabbath? He answered him, it is because they permitted Sabbath restriction in the Sanctuary. Rebbi Mana said, this implies that those who marry a widow must take her in when it is still daytime, lest he be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.

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 lottery. 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 doubt. What did you see to say this? All the night, he shall remove. 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 lottery. 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 doubt. What did you see to say this? All the night, he shall remove. From here that the removal of ashes is valid during the entire night.

A non-Cohen who removed. 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 bringing. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside, 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; this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others, of lesser value than these. But for him 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 woods 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 woods.

A non-Cohen who removed. 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 bringing. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside, 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; this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others, of lesser value than these. But for him 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 woods 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 woods.

A non-Cohen who removed. 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 bringing. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside, 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; this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others, of lesser value than these. But for him 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 woods 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 woods.

A non-Cohen who removed. 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 bringing. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside, 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; this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others, of lesser value than these. But for him 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 woods 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 woods.

A non-Cohen who removed. 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 bringing. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside, 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; this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others, of lesser value than these. But for him 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 woods 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 woods.

A non-Cohen who removed. 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 bringing. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside, 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; this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others, of lesser value than these. But for him 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 woods 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 woods.

A non-Cohen who removed. 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 bringing. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside, 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; this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others, of lesser value than these. But for him 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 woods 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 woods.

It was stated “Rebbi Jehudah said, from where that kindling fire wood may only be done by a qualified Cohen and with a vessel of service? 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 out, from here that kindling the fire may only be done on top of the altar, the words of Rebbi Jehudah”? 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-Cohen?

It was stated “Rebbi Jehudah said, from where that kindling fire wood may only be done by a qualified Cohen and with a vessel of service? 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 out, from here that kindling the fire may only be done on top of the altar, the words of Rebbi Jehudah”? 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-Cohen?

It was stated “Rebbi Jehudah said, from where that kindling fire wood may only be done by a qualified Cohen and with a vessel of service? 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 out, from here that kindling the fire may only be done on top of the altar, the words of Rebbi Jehudah”? 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-Cohen?

It was stated “Rebbi Jehudah said, from where that kindling fire wood may only be done by a qualified Cohen and with a vessel of service? 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 out, from here that kindling the fire may only be done on top of the altar, the words of Rebbi Jehudah”? 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-Cohen?

It was stated “Rebbi Jehudah said, from where that kindling fire wood may only be done by a qualified Cohen and with a vessel of service? 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 out, from here that kindling the fire may only be done on top of the altar, the words of Rebbi Jehudah”? 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-Cohen?

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 Mishnah 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]. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar asked, then a Cohen whose hand could not hold the volume of two olives would be disqualified from the service?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, to make a procession 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;” “he takes the flask from the second step and leaves.” 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 incense. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He could enter to clean and to burn incense.

The sons of Aaron shall arrange. I could think, a hundred; the verse says, the Cohen shall arrange. [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, two. This teaches that the lamb comes up by six {priests}. [The priest, to include the bald-headed, the words of Rebbi Jehudah.]

The sons of Aaron shall arrange. I could think, a hundred; the verse says, the Cohen shall arrange. [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, two. This teaches that the lamb comes up by six {priests}. [The priest, to include the bald-headed, the words of Rebbi Jehudah.]

The sons of Aaron shall arrange. I could think, a hundred; the verse says, the Cohen shall arrange. [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, two. This teaches that the lamb comes up by six {priests}. [The priest, to include the bald-headed, the words of Rebbi Jehudah.]

The sons of Aaron shall arrange. I could think, a hundred; the verse says, the Cohen shall arrange. [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, two. This teaches that the lamb comes up by six {priests}. [The priest, to include the bald-headed, the words of Rebbi Jehudah.]

But does the verse not speak of cattle? 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 here 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.

MISHNAH: Why did they need this? Because once the moon shone and they thought that it dawned to the East; they slaughtered the daily sacrifice and had to bring it outside to the place of burning. Then they brought the Cohen to the place of immersion. This was the rule in the Temple: Everybody who spread his legs needed immersion; and everybody who urinated needed sanctification of hands and feet.

It was stated: “A Cohen who left to speak with another person, if to go a distance, he needs immersion; if for a short time he needs sanctification of hands and legs. But is defecation not for a short time? There is a difference for defecation since they treat it as if going a distance.

MISHNAH: He comes to his bull; his bull was standing between the Temple Hall and the altar, its head to the South and its face to the West, and the Cohen standing in the East with his face to the West. He leans his hands on it and confesses, and thus he was saying: “Please Hashem, I acted criminally, I offended, I sinned before You, I and my house. Please Hashem, please atone the criminal acts, and the offenses, and the sins, by which I offended, acted criminally, and sinned before You, I and my house, as is written in the Torah of Your servant Moses, because on that day He will atone for you, etc.” They answer him: “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever” He comes to the Eastern part of the courtyard, North of the altar; the executive officer to his right and the head of the serving family to his left. There were two he-goats, and an um was there with two lots in it. They were of boxwood but Ben Gamia made them from gold; he was remembered for praise.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified] by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man, also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman. He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written. For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified] by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man, also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman. He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written. For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified] by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man, also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman. He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written. For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified] by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man, also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman. He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written. For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified] by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man, also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman. He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written. For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified] by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man, also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman. He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written. For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman.

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull of the Day of Atonement requires a Cohen. But why does he not say, “and the he-goat”? That is the verse, and he slaughters, and he brings. Since bringing is by a Cohen, also the slaughter is by a Cohen. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement require a Cohen.

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull of the Day of Atonement requires a Cohen. But why does he not say, “and the he-goat”? That is the verse, and he slaughters, and he brings. Since bringing is by a Cohen, also the slaughter is by a Cohen. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement require a Cohen.

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull of the Day of Atonement requires a Cohen. But why does he not say, “and the he-goat”? That is the verse, and he slaughters, and he brings. Since bringing is by a Cohen, also the slaughter is by a Cohen. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement require a Cohen.

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull of the Day of Atonement requires a Cohen. But why does he not say, “and the he-goat”? That is the verse, and he slaughters, and he brings. Since bringing is by a Cohen, also the slaughter is by a Cohen. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement require a Cohen.

Aaron shall put, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Similarly, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. An argument de minore ad majus. If putting, where Aaron’s sons are mentioned, is qualified if a non-Cohen puts it, drawing, where Aaron’s sons are not mentioned, not so much more? No, it is not necessarily so. Putting on, which is obstructive, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Drawing, which is not obstructive, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. And Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, drawing from the urn is obstructive, putting on is not obstructive. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why does it say, lots? As meritorious deed. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan : The lot makes it a purification sacrifice, giving it the name does not make it a purification sacrifice. He explains it, if the drawing succeeds. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: If he did not draw lots and did not confess it is qualified, only he missed a meritorious deed.

Aaron shall put, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Similarly, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. An argument de minore ad majus. If putting, where Aaron’s sons are mentioned, is qualified if a non-Cohen puts it, drawing, where Aaron’s sons are not mentioned, not so much more? No, it is not necessarily so. Putting on, which is obstructive, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Drawing, which is not obstructive, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. And Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, drawing from the urn is obstructive, putting on is not obstructive. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why does it say, lots? As meritorious deed. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan : The lot makes it a purification sacrifice, giving it the name does not make it a purification sacrifice. He explains it, if the drawing succeeds. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: If he did not draw lots and did not confess it is qualified, only he missed a meritorious deed.

Aaron shall put, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Similarly, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. An argument de minore ad majus. If putting, where Aaron’s sons are mentioned, is qualified if a non-Cohen puts it, drawing, where Aaron’s sons are not mentioned, not so much more? No, it is not necessarily so. Putting on, which is obstructive, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Drawing, which is not obstructive, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. And Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, drawing from the urn is obstructive, putting on is not obstructive. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why does it say, lots? As meritorious deed. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan : The lot makes it a purification sacrifice, giving it the name does not make it a purification sacrifice. He explains it, if the drawing succeeds. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: If he did not draw lots and did not confess it is qualified, only he missed a meritorious deed.

Aaron shall put, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Similarly, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. An argument de minore ad majus. If putting, where Aaron’s sons are mentioned, is qualified if a non-Cohen puts it, drawing, where Aaron’s sons are not mentioned, not so much more? No, it is not necessarily so. Putting on, which is obstructive, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Drawing, which is not obstructive, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. And Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, drawing from the urn is obstructive, putting on is not obstructive. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why does it say, lots? As meritorious deed. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan : The lot makes it a purification sacrifice, giving it the name does not make it a purification sacrifice. He explains it, if the drawing succeeds. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: If he did not draw lots and did not confess it is qualified, only he missed a meritorious deed.

Aaron shall put, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Similarly, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. An argument de minore ad majus. If putting, where Aaron’s sons are mentioned, is qualified if a non-Cohen puts it, drawing, where Aaron’s sons are not mentioned, not so much more? No, it is not necessarily so. Putting on, which is obstructive, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Drawing, which is not obstructive, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. And Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, drawing from the urn is obstructive, putting on is not obstructive. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why does it say, lots? As meritorious deed. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan : The lot makes it a purification sacrifice, giving it the name does not make it a purification sacrifice. He explains it, if the drawing succeeds. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: If he did not draw lots and did not confess it is qualified, only he missed a meritorious deed.

HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? 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 fire? The fire which I told you that it be permanent only shall be on the outer altar.

What is the status of motion by an Non-Cohen? Ḥizqiah said, motion by a Non-Cohen is qualified. Rebbi Yannai said, motion by a Non-Cohen is disqualified. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If he received with his right hand and put it in his left hand, he shall return it to his right hand.” Is his left hand not like a Non-Cohen? Explain it if his left hand was towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying, towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not consider a movement of his hand as motion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If from the vessel something was spilled on the floor and he collected it, it is qualified.” Rebbi Bevai said, explain it if it was rolling towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did consider a movement of his hand as motion. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “He took the fire-pan into his right hand and the cup in his left.” There is a difference because he cannot do it otherwise. Should he hang it on his arm? It is not respectful. May he switch? They wanted to say, if he switched it was disqualified. Should he lower it? If he lowered it from his right hand to his left hand it is qualified. Could we say that also there, let him lower it? There if he lowered it it is disqualified. [If he switched it is disqualified.] But here if he lowered it it is qualified; if he switched it is disqualified.

What is the status of motion by an Non-Cohen? Ḥizqiah said, motion by a Non-Cohen is qualified. Rebbi Yannai said, motion by a Non-Cohen is disqualified. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If he received with his right hand and put it in his left hand, he shall return it to his right hand.” Is his left hand not like a Non-Cohen? Explain it if his left hand was towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying, towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not consider a movement of his hand as motion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If from the vessel something was spilled on the floor and he collected it, it is qualified.” Rebbi Bevai said, explain it if it was rolling towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did consider a movement of his hand as motion. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “He took the fire-pan into his right hand and the cup in his left.” There is a difference because he cannot do it otherwise. Should he hang it on his arm? It is not respectful. May he switch? They wanted to say, if he switched it was disqualified. Should he lower it? If he lowered it from his right hand to his left hand it is qualified. Could we say that also there, let him lower it? There if he lowered it it is disqualified. [If he switched it is disqualified.] But here if he lowered it it is qualified; if he switched it is disqualified.

What is the status of motion by an Non-Cohen? Ḥizqiah said, motion by a Non-Cohen is qualified. Rebbi Yannai said, motion by a Non-Cohen is disqualified. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If he received with his right hand and put it in his left hand, he shall return it to his right hand.” Is his left hand not like a Non-Cohen? Explain it if his left hand was towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying, towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not consider a movement of his hand as motion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If from the vessel something was spilled on the floor and he collected it, it is qualified.” Rebbi Bevai said, explain it if it was rolling towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did consider a movement of his hand as motion. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “He took the fire-pan into his right hand and the cup in his left.” There is a difference because he cannot do it otherwise. Should he hang it on his arm? It is not respectful. May he switch? They wanted to say, if he switched it was disqualified. Should he lower it? If he lowered it from his right hand to his left hand it is qualified. Could we say that also there, let him lower it? There if he lowered it it is disqualified. [If he switched it is disqualified.] But here if he lowered it it is qualified; if he switched it is disqualified.

What is the status of motion by an Non-Cohen? Ḥizqiah said, motion by a Non-Cohen is qualified. Rebbi Yannai said, motion by a Non-Cohen is disqualified. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If he received with his right hand and put it in his left hand, he shall return it to his right hand.” Is his left hand not like a Non-Cohen? Explain it if his left hand was towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying, towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not consider a movement of his hand as motion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If from the vessel something was spilled on the floor and he collected it, it is qualified.” Rebbi Bevai said, explain it if it was rolling towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did consider a movement of his hand as motion. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “He took the fire-pan into his right hand and the cup in his left.” There is a difference because he cannot do it otherwise. Should he hang it on his arm? It is not respectful. May he switch? They wanted to say, if he switched it was disqualified. Should he lower it? If he lowered it from his right hand to his left hand it is qualified. Could we say that also there, let him lower it? There if he lowered it it is disqualified. [If he switched it is disqualified.] But here if he lowered it it is qualified; if he switched it is disqualified.

What is the status of motion by an Non-Cohen? Ḥizqiah said, motion by a Non-Cohen is qualified. Rebbi Yannai said, motion by a Non-Cohen is disqualified. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If he received with his right hand and put it in his left hand, he shall return it to his right hand.” Is his left hand not like a Non-Cohen? Explain it if his left hand was towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying, towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not consider a movement of his hand as motion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If from the vessel something was spilled on the floor and he collected it, it is qualified.” Rebbi Bevai said, explain it if it was rolling towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did consider a movement of his hand as motion. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “He took the fire-pan into his right hand and the cup in his left.” There is a difference because he cannot do it otherwise. Should he hang it on his arm? It is not respectful. May he switch? They wanted to say, if he switched it was disqualified. Should he lower it? If he lowered it from his right hand to his left hand it is qualified. Could we say that also there, let him lower it? There if he lowered it it is disqualified. [If he switched it is disqualified.] But here if he lowered it it is qualified; if he switched it is disqualified.

What is the status of motion by an Non-Cohen? Ḥizqiah said, motion by a Non-Cohen is qualified. Rebbi Yannai said, motion by a Non-Cohen is disqualified. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If he received with his right hand and put it in his left hand, he shall return it to his right hand.” Is his left hand not like a Non-Cohen? Explain it if his left hand was towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying, towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not consider a movement of his hand as motion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “If from the vessel something was spilled on the floor and he collected it, it is qualified.” Rebbi Bevai said, explain it if it was rolling towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did consider a movement of his hand as motion. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “He took the fire-pan into his right hand and the cup in his left.” There is a difference because he cannot do it otherwise. Should he hang it on his arm? It is not respectful. May he switch? They wanted to say, if he switched it was disqualified. Should he lower it? If he lowered it from his right hand to his left hand it is qualified. Could we say that also there, let him lower it? There if he lowered it it is disqualified. [If he switched it is disqualified.] But here if he lowered it it is qualified; if he switched it is disqualified.

HALAKHAH: He shall send him by a man, to qualify the non-Cohen. Timely. that he be ready; timely, that he be prepared. Timely, even on the Sabbath; timely, even in impurity. Can he be not ready but prepared? But that he should not send him by two people. If he sent him by two people, does he make clothing impure? Let us hear from the following: And the one who sends; not who was sending the one who sends. This implies that if he sent him by two people, it does not make clothing impure.

“All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime he did not fall down half the mountain before he dissolved into limbs; after Simeon the Just’s death he fled to the desert and was eaten by the Saracens. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime the lot for Hashem came up in his right hand; after Simeon the Just’s death sometimes it came up to the right, sometimes to the left. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime the Easternmost light was burning; after Simeon the Just’s death sometimes it was extinguished, sometimes burning. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime the shiny strip turned white; after Simeon the Just’s death sometimes it turned white, sometimes it turned red. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime the fire on the altar steadily increased; after they had put on two logs in the morning they did not add anything during the day. After Simeon the Just’s death the fire weakened; the had to add wood all day long. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime a blessing was in the Two Breads and the shew-bread; the part of each one came to an olive sized bite; some of them ate and were full, some of them ate and left over. After Simeon the Just’s death the blessing was taken from the Two Breads and the shew-bread; the part of each one came only to a pea-sized bit. The decent ones refrained from taking; the gluttons stretched out their hands. It happened that a Cohen from Sepphoris took his and another’s part; he was called “pea-sized one” to this day. This is what David said, My God, let me escape from the hand of the evildoer, from the palm of the criminal and oppressor.”

Rebbi Shammai asked, if the parts were lost, may one pour the blood for the meat? He had not heard what Rebbi Eleazar had said, since he neither intended as food for humans nor as food for the altar. Rebbi Zakkai stated:A non-Cohen who burned makes garments impure. One only has to ask, is it qualified during nighttime? It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since burning of the parts which is not qualified for a non-Cohen may be done in the night, for these which are qualified for a non-Cohen it is logical that it should be qualified during nighttime.

Rebbi Shammai asked, if the parts were lost, may one pour the blood for the meat? He had not heard what Rebbi Eleazar had said, since he neither intended as food for humans nor as food for the altar. Rebbi Zakkai stated:A non-Cohen who burned makes garments impure. One only has to ask, is it qualified during nighttime? It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since burning of the parts which is not qualified for a non-Cohen may be done in the night, for these which are qualified for a non-Cohen it is logical that it should be qualified during nighttime.

Rebbi Shammai asked, if the parts were lost, may one pour the blood for the meat? He had not heard what Rebbi Eleazar had said, since he neither intended as food for humans nor as food for the altar. Rebbi Zakkai stated:A non-Cohen who burned makes garments impure. One only has to ask, is it qualified during nighttime? It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since burning of the parts which is not qualified for a non-Cohen may be done in the night, for these which are qualified for a non-Cohen it is logical that it should be qualified during nighttime.

MISHNAH: On the Fifteenth, money changers were sitting in the country side; on the Twenty Fifth they were sitting in the Temple. From the date they were sitting in the Temple one started to take pledges. From whom does one take pledges? From Levites, Israel, proselytes, and freed slaves, but not from women, slaves, 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 peace. Rebbi Jehudah said: “Ben Kukhri testified at Jabneh that any Cohen who pays the sheqel does not sin. Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai told him, on the contrary, any Cohen who does not pay the sheqel does sin, only the Cohanim explain the following verse for their benefit: Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totalled, it may not be eatenl. If the `omer, the two breads, and the shew bread are ours, how may they be eaten?l”

MISHNAH: On the Fifteenth, money changers were sitting in the country side; on the Twenty Fifth they were sitting in the Temple. From the date they were sitting in the Temple one started to take pledges. From whom does one take pledges? From Levites, Israel, proselytes, and freed slaves, but not from women, slaves, 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 peace. Rebbi Jehudah said: “Ben Kukhri testified at Jabneh that any Cohen who pays the sheqel does not sin. Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai told him, on the contrary, any Cohen who does not pay the sheqel does sin, only the Cohanim explain the following verse for their benefit: Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totalled, it may not be eatenl. If the `omer, the two breads, and the shew bread are ours, how may they be eaten?l”