Talmud & Mishnah Reference:

1) (Leviticus 8:31) Yoma 5b:2

2) (Leviticus 8:31) Zevachim 56a:12

3) (Leviticus 8:33) Mishnah Yoma 1:1

4) (Leviticus 8:34) Yoma 2b:11

5) (Leviticus 8:35) Yoma 5b:2

Talmud & Mishnah Reference:

1) (Leviticus 8:22) Shevuot 12b:7

2) (Leviticus 8:23) Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 1:2:32

3) (Leviticus 8:23) Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 1:1:12

4) (Leviticus 8:25-27) Menachot 62a:2

5) (Leviticus 8:26) Menachot 78a:5-7

Talmud & Mishnah Reference:

1. (Leviticus 7:11) Menachot 19a:13

2. (Leviticus 7:11) Zevachim 50a:8

3. (Leviticus 7:12) Mishnah Temurah 3:2

4. (Leviticus 7:12) Temurah 18a:14

5. (Leviticus 7:13) Yevamot 7b:1

Talmud & Mishnah Reference:

1. (Leviticus 6:13) Mishnah Menachot 4:5; 52a:17

2. (Leviticus 6:12-15) Menachot 12b:2

3. (Leviticus 6:14) Menachot 78a:9

4. (Leviticus 6:14) Mishnah Menachot 6:4

5. (Leviticus 6:15) Mishnah Menachot 3:2

Talmud & Mishnah References:

1. (Leviticus 6:1) Menachot 26b:14

2. (Leviticus 6:1) Menachot 49a:1

3. (Leviticus 6.3) Mishnah Tamid 1:4

4. (Leviticus 6:4) Sanhedrin 42b:8

5. (Leviticus 6:5) Berakhot 2a:5

17a

חֲרִיפֵי דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא: הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי אֵין מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר – הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּחַשֵּׁב בֵּיהּ בְּשִׁירַיִם וּלְבוֹנָה בְּמִילְּתָא קָיְימָא, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּחַשֵּׁב לַהּ בִּלְבוֹנָה – כְּמָה דְּחַשֵּׁב בֵּיהּ בְּכוּלֵּיהּ מַתִּיר דָּמֵי.

the sharp people in the city of Pumbedita: Burning renders burning piggul, e.g., burning the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day renders the meal offering piggul. And this is the halakha even according to the Rabbis, who say that one does not render an offering piggul with intent occurring during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, e.g., when sacrificing the handful alone with intent of piggul. The reason is that this statement applies only where he had intent during the sacrifice of the handful to consume the remainder the next day, and the frankincense stands intact, i.e., he had no intent with regard to it. But here, when he had intent with regard to the frankincense while burning the handful, it is considered…

16a

מַתְנִי׳ פִּיגֵּל בַּקּוֹמֶץ וְלֹא בַּלְּבוֹנָה, בַּלְּבוֹנָה וְלֹא בַּקּוֹמֶץ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת עַד שֶׁיְּפַגֵּל בְּכׇל הַמַּתִּיר.

MISHNA: With regard to the burning of the handful of a meal offering and the frankincense, both of which render the meal offering permitted for consumption: If the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul during the burning of the handful but not during the burning of the frankincense, or during the burning of the frankincense but not during the burning of the handful, i.e., he burned one of them with the intention to eat the remainder of the offering beyond its designated time, Rabbi Meir says: The offering is piggul and one who eats it is liable to receive karet for its consumption. And the Rabbis say: There is no liability to receive karet in this case unless he renders the offering piggul during the sacrifice of the entire permitting factor, i.e., the burning of both the handful and the frankincense.

וּמוֹדִים…

15a

רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת.

The Rabbis hold that the frontplate effects acceptance for items that are normally consumed by the priests but have become ritually impure. Consequently, the sprinkling of the blood in this case is an entirely valid act that is capable of rendering the remaining pure loaf permitted for consumption. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the frontplate does not effect acceptance for items that are consumed by the priests and have become impure. Accordingly, the sprinkling of the blood is ineffective in rendering the remaining pure loaf permitted for consumption.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן לְרַב פָּפָּא: וְהָא עוֹלִין, דְּהַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹלִין, וּפְלִיגִי!

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: Can this be the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis? But what about items that normally ascend upon the altar? Even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the frontplate effects acceptance…

14a

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ תְּרֵי גּוּפֵי נִינְהוּ – מִי מִיצְטָרְפִי?

But if you say that Rabbi Yosei holds that the right and left thighs of an offering are considered two distinct bodies, and therefore piggul intent with regard to one does not render the other piggul, then in the case of the two loaves, would the intentions concerning both loaves combine to render them both piggul?

הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַכֶּבֶשׂ לֶאֱכוֹל חֲצִי זַיִת מֵחַלָּה זוֹ, וְכֵן חֲבֵירוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל חֲצִי זַיִת מֵחַלָּה זוֹ, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אוֹמֵר אֲנִי שֶׁזֶּה כָּשֵׁר.

Rav Huna responds: One cannot infer anything from this baraita with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in another baraita: With regard to one who slaughters one of the lambs brought as peace offerings on Shavuot with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from this loaf  the next day,…

13a

הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? אִי לֶאֱכוֹל וְלֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר (שאין) [שֶׁ]דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּמִצְטָרֵף, מֵרֵישָׁא דְּסֵיפָא שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ, דְּקָתָנֵי: כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר פָּסוּל, הָא כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר – פִּיגּוּל.

According to Abaye, why do I also need this mishna here? If you will suggest that this mishna is necessary, as one can infer from it that if one intended to partake of half an olive-bulk the next day and then intended to partake of another half an olive-bulk the next day, both from an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, the mishna teaches us that they join together in order to render the offering piggul, this suggestion can be rejected: But you already learn the halakha in this case from the first clause of the latter clause of the previous mishna, as it teaches: Half an olive-bulk outside and half an olive-bulk the next day, the offering is unfit. One can infer from this…

45b

שֶׁסּוֹדְרָן עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְאִם אֵין מַחֲזִיקָן, שֶׁסּוֹדְרָן עַל הַכֶּבֶשׁ אוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי סוֹבֵב, עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מַעֲרָכָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְסוֹדְרָן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל הָאֵשׁ אֶת הָעוֹלָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.

that they are arranged upon the altar, and if the space on the altar cannot hold them, that they are arranged upon the ramp or upon the ledge that protrudes from the altar, until the large arrangement is made the following day and then they are arranged upon it? The verse states: “That which the fire will consume of the burnt-offering, on the altar” (Leviticus 6:3). This is taken to mean that those items that the fire already consumed are once again placed upon the altar.

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: עִיכּוּלֵי עוֹלָה אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר, וְאִי אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר עִיכּוּלֵי קְטוֹרֶת. דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי בִּדְבֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: ״אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל הָאֵשׁ אֶת הָעוֹלָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ — עִיכּוּלֵי עוֹלָה אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר, וְאִי אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר עִיכּוּלֵי קְטוֹרֶת.

And how does Rabbi…

25a

מַאי לָאו, בְּאוֹתָן שֶׁזָּכוּ לַפַּיִיס. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לָא, בְּאוֹתָן שֶׁלֹּא זָכוּ לַפַּיִיס.

What, is this not talking about those priests who won the lottery, describing how their non-sacred garments were removed from them before they were dressed in the priestly garments? Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rav Sheshet said, rejecting that interpretation: No, it is possible to explain that all the priests at the lottery were wearing sacred garments and that, on the contrary, the mishna speaks about those priests who did not win the lottery. The text describes how the sacred garments they wore during the lottery were removed from them.

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בְּאוֹתָן שֶׁזָּכוּ לַפַּיִיס, ״לֹא הָיוּ מַנִּיחִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא מִכְנָסַיִם בִּלְבַד״? וְהָתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא דָּבָר קוֹדֶם לַמִּכְנָסַיִם — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּמִכְנְסֵי בַד יִהְיוּ עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ״!

The Gemara supports this latter interpretation: So too, it is reasonable to follow Rav Sheshet’s interpretation of the mishna.…

24a

לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשְּׁחָקִים.

The phrase comes to include worn out garments, teaching that as long as they have not become tattered they may be used for Temple services.

״וְהִנִּיחָם שָׁם״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנִין גְּנִיזָה. רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר: רְאוּיִן הֵן לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִנִּיחָם שָׁם״ — שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אַחֵר.

The Gemara continues with another baraita connected to this debate. With regard to the garments of the High Priest, the Torah states: “And Aaron shall go into the tent of meeting, and he shall take off the linen garments that he had put on when he went into the Sanctuary, and shall leave them there” (Leviticus 16:23). This verse teaches that the linen garments worn by the High Priest during the Yom Kippur service require storing away, i.e., they may not be used again. Rabbi Dosa says: They do not have to be stored away, because although they may not be used again…

23a

שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹקֵם וְנוֹטֵר כְּנָחָשׁ — אֵינוֹ תַּלְמִיד חָכָם. וְהָכְתִיב: ״לֹא תִקּוֹם וְלֹא תִטּוֹר״? הָהוּא, בְּמָמוֹן הוּא דִּכְתִיב, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵיזוֹ הִיא נְקִימָה וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא נְטִירָה? נְקִימָה — אָמַר לוֹ: הַשְׁאִילֵנִי מַגָּלְךָ, אָמַר לוֹ: לָאו. לְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ הוּא: הַשְׁאִילֵנִי קַרְדּוּמְּךָ, אָמַר לוֹ: אֵינִי מַשְׁאִילְךָ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁלֹּא הִשְׁאַלְתַּנִי — זוֹ הִיא נְקִימָה.

who does not avenge himself and bear a grudge like a snake when insulted is not considered a Torah scholar at all, as it is important to uphold the honor of Torah and its students by reacting harshly to insults. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written explicitly in the Torah: “You shall not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the children of your people” (Leviticus 19:18)? The Gemara responds: That prohibition is written with regard to monetary matters and not personal insults, as it was taught in a baraita: What is revenge and what is bearing a grudge? Revenge is illustrated by the following example: One said…

22a

בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה כׇּל מִי שֶׁרוֹצֶה לִתְרוֹם אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ — תּוֹרֵם. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְרוּבִּין רָצִין וְעוֹלִין בַּכֶּבֶשׁ, כׇּל הַקּוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת — זָכָה. וְאִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין, הַמְמוּנֶּה אוֹמֵר לָהֶן: הַצְבִּיעוּ.

MISHNA: Initially, the practice among the priests was that whoever wishes to remove the ashes from the altar removes them. And when there are many priests who wish to perform that task, the privilege to do so is determined by a race: The priests run and ascend on the ramp leading to the top of the altar. Any priest who precedes another and reaches within four cubits of the top of the altar first is privileged to remove the ashes. And if both of them were equal and neither preceded the other, the appointed priest says to all the priests: Extend your fingers, and a lottery was performed, as will be explained.

וּמָה הֵן מוֹצִיאִין — אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם, וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין אֲגוּדָל בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.

And what fingers do they extend for the lottery? They may…