Talmud do Joma 2:1

MISHNAH: On the first holiday of Tabernacles there were thirteen bulls, and two rams, and one goat. There remained there fourteen sheep for eight watches¹²⁵The families of Cohanim were divided into 24 “watches” enumerated in 1Chr. 24:7–18. As stated in Halakhah 8, in principle each watch was serving for one week in the Temple, the succession being determined by the order fixed in Chronicles; after watch 24 a new cycle is started with watch 1. But on holidays, all watches are equal, since all their members are obligated to appear in the Temple with the rest of Israel. On the first day there were 16 animals other than sheep; if each animal was given to a separate watch, there remained 14 sheep for the remaining 8 watches..
On the first day, six were sacrificing two each, and the remaining, one each. On the second day, five were sacrificing two each, and the remaining, one each. On the third day, four were sacrificing two each, and the remaining, one each. On the fourth day, three were sacrificing two each, and the remaining, one each. On the fifth day, two were sacrificing two each, and the remaining, one each. On the sixth day, one was sacrificing two, and the remaining, one each¹²⁶The number of bulls decreased by one every day (Num. 29:12–31); therefore the number of watches available for the sheep increased by one every day, the number of watches getting two sheep decreased by one every day.. On the seventh day, all were equal. On the eighth day they returned to the lottery as on holidays¹²⁷The lottery, to determine which Cohen received which office in the service, as described in Yoma Chapter 2, open to all Cohanim irrespective of their watches.. They said, he who sacrificed today may not sacrifice bulls the next day, but they were taking turns¹²⁸There were 70 bulls in all during the week of Tabernacles. Therefore 22 watches had the occasion to work on 3 bulls each, but 2 watches received only two..

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Nehemiah and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa both said the same²³¹That under certain circumstances a disqualified sacrifice must be burned immediately, without waiting that it lose its shape, even if the disqualification is not in the victim’s body., as it was stated²³²Sifra Šeminy Pereq 2(8–10).: “it was burned because of deep mourning²³³This is R. Nehemiah’s statement. The discussion refers to Lev. 10:16–17. Since tradition fixes the inauguration of Tabernacle and Priesthood on a First of Nisan (Seder Olam Chapter 7, in the author’s edition p. 82; cf. Rashi ad 9:1), there were three goats as purification offering: the one required for every New Moon (Num. 28:15), the people’s initiation sacrifice (Lev. 10:3), and the one offered by the chief of the tribe of Judah (Num. 7:16). Only the first of these was presented pursuant a permanent law; the other two were one time affairs from which no conclusions could be drawn for generally valid principles. R. Nehemiah holds that since a deep mourner on the day of burial is biblically excluded from all sacral rites, the order given in 18:12–15 to Aaron and his sons to eat sancta even though Aaron’s sons Nadav and Avihu had been buried on that day necessarily was restricted to the one time offerings of that day, to the exclusion of offerings presented following a permanent prescription. But the mourning of the priests is a condition of the enablers, not of the victim, and nevertheless Moses agreed that the purification offering correctly had been burned and not eaten.? Was it not burned only because of impurity? But it was not burned because of impurity, since if it had been burned because of mourning, all three of them²³⁴Since in Moses’s order to eat the sancta purification offerings are not mentioned. should have been burned. Another opinion, was not Phineas with them²³⁵Phineas was born in Egypt (Ex. 6:25). As a nephew of Nadav and Avihu he had no biblical obligation to mourn and could legally have eaten all sacrifices. Since there was one eater, R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa would agree that the sacrifice cannot be burned.? Another opinion, would it not have been permitted to be eaten in the evening²³⁶Since the talmudic rule is that only the day of burial is biblically forbidden. While his sons would have to observe seven days of mourning, the High Priest is forbidden mourning where it is not prescribed; in the following night he could have joined Phineas. Purification offerings are eaten by the priests during the day of offering and the following night.?” In the opinion of Rebbi Nehemiah it should be burned but be counted²³⁷There is no doubt that the obligation for which the sacrifice was brought had been fulfilled.. Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that all three of them were burned. Should not Phineas have eaten? He was not yet appointed {High} Priest²³⁸In the initiation rites (Lev. Chapter 8), only Aaron and his sons are mentioned, not his grandson Phineas. This is the basis of the opinion that Phineas was not originally included in the priesthood; priesthood was conferred on him only after the incident with Zimry (Num. 25:13); Babli Zevaḥim 101b.. Should not Aaron have eaten in the evening? Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that deeo mourning in the night is from the Torah. Rebbi Jeremiah said, also Rebbi Yose the Galilean is with them²³⁹In the same Chapter of Sifra (Halakhah 5), he deduces from Lev. 10:18 that any purification sacrifice whose blood was brought into the sanctuary is disqualified and must be burned immediately. This proves that he agrees with R. Nehemiah that the verses have to be interpreted referring to the ordinary Temple service, and that disqualification of the enabler may trigger an obligation of immediate burning.. ²⁴⁰This paragraph has no direct connection with the preceding; the connection being that R. Yose the Galilean interprets Lev.10:18. And we have stated there:²⁴¹Mishnah Zevaḥim 8:12. “A purification sacrifice whose blood was received in two cups, of which one was brought outside²⁴²Since purification sacrifice has to be eaten by the priests in the Temple courtyard (Lev. 6:19), if any part leaves the sacred domain it becomes disqualified. Since pouring the blood on the walls of the altar enables the meat to be eaten, if blood is brought outside before it was poured the sacrifice is disqualified.; the one inside is qualified. If one of them was brought to the interior²⁴³As noted later, this is required/permitted only in extraordinary cases. The Mishnah here refers to ordinary sacrifices. Since then the blood is not in the courtyard, it is outside its prescribed domain and disqualified., Rebbi Yose the Galilean declares qualified but the Sages declare disqualified. [Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, since in a case where intent disqualifies outside²⁴⁴Slaughtering a victim with the intent of pouring the blood outside the sacred precinct disqualifies the sacrifice; Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:2.
The text in brackets was added by a corrector from a different source; it is neither in the scribe’s text nor in K. the remainder was not made equal to what was brought outside, in a case where intent does not disqualify in the interior²⁴⁵The intent to pour the blood in the Temple itself does not disqualify; Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:6. is it not logical that we not make the remainder to what was brought inside? If it was brought into the interior to atone, even if it did not atone it is disqualified, the words of Rebbi Eliezer²⁴⁶The fact that the blood was inside when it should not have been makes it “outside its place” and disqualifies.. Rebbi Simeon says, only if it atones²⁴⁷Only if something was done against the rules with the blood; the interior of the Temple still is sacred domain.. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was brought into the interior in error, it remains qualified. Of all disqualified blood which one gave on the altar, the diadem only makes the impure acceptable; for the diadem makes the impure acceptable but not what was brought outside.”] Rebbi Eleazar said, you have to know that for Rebbi Yose the Galilean it is disqualification of the enabler since the other part is outside²⁴⁸In the case that one cup was brought to the interior. and it is qualified. You have to know that for the rabbis it is disqualification of the body since it is within its enclosure²⁴⁹Since one cup remained outside, it could be poured on the walls of the altar even if the cup inside became unusable. and it is disqualified. The rabbis explain, since nothing of the blood was brought to the interior, you shall certainly eat it²⁵⁰Lev. 10:18.. Therefore if some of the blood had been brought to the interior, you²⁵¹Aaron’s sons, addressed by Moses. [would have done well] in burning it. Rebbi Yose the Galilean explains, since not all of the blood was brought to the interior, [you shall certainly eat it. Therefore if all of the blood had been brought inside,] you would have done well in burning it. What is the rabbis’ reason? Any purification offering of whose blood was brought; even part of the blood²⁵²Lev. 6:33. As usual, a prefixed mem is interpreted to mean “some, not all”.. What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary^250,Lev. 10:18.²⁵³If Lev. 10:18 is read to refer to rules of the purification sacrifices applicable at all times then it seems to contradict Lev. 6:33 since the prefixed mem is missing.. [This fits with] what was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, the entire matter only speaks of bulls to be burned and goats to be burned²⁵⁴The purification offering of the High Priest (Lev. 4:1–12), of the people (Lev.4:13–21), and of the day of Atonement (Lev.1627). Babli 83a top, Zevaḥim 82a., to prohibit eating them and to teach that if they are disqualified they are burned inside the citadel²⁵⁵Whereas all the other disqualified sacrifices have to be burned outside like the impure Pesaḥ.. They asked him, from where that a purification sacrifice becomes disqualified if some of its blood is brought inside? Not from this verse, behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary? There it does not say of whose blood but all of its blood²⁵⁶Since this is the formulation in the actual case decided by Moses, it is the operative version.. An answer to Rebbi Aqiba who was saying, of whose blood, not all of its blood²⁵⁷Whose opinion is that of the “Sages” opposing R. Yose the Galilean..