1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 16.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 179| 16.2. "וְזָבַחְתָּ פֶּסַח לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ צֹאן וּבָקָר בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַר יְהוָה לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ שָׁם׃", 16.2. "צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדֹּף לְמַעַן תִּחְיֶה וְיָרַשְׁתָּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ׃", | 16.2. "And thou shalt sacrifice the passover-offering unto the LORD thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to cause His name to dwell there.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 12.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 179| 12.5. "וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כָּל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֶת־מֹשֶׁה וְאֶת־אַהֲרֹן כֵּן עָשׂוּ׃", 12.5. "שֶׂה תָמִים זָכָר בֶּן־שָׁנָה יִהְיֶה לָכֶם מִן־הַכְּבָשִׂים וּמִן־הָעִזִּים תִּקָּחוּ׃", | 12.5. "Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year; ye shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats;", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Nehemiah, 10.35 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 119| 10.35. "וְהַגּוֹרָלוֹת הִפַּלְנוּ עַל־קֻרְבַּן הָעֵצִים הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם וְהָעָם לְהָבִיא לְבֵית אֱלֹהֵינוּ לְבֵית־אֲבֹתֵינוּ לְעִתִּים מְזֻמָּנִים שָׁנָה בְשָׁנָה לְבַעֵר עַל־מִזְבַּח יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ כַּכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה׃", | 10.35. "And we cast lots, the priests, the Levites, and the people, for the wood-offering, to bring it into the house of our God, according to our fathers’houses, at times appointed, year by year, to burn upon the altar of the LORD our God, as it is written in the Law;", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, 2 Chronicles, 35.7 (5th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 179| 35.7. "וַיָּרֶם יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ לִבְנֵי הָעָם צֹאן כְּבָשִׂים וּבְנֵי־עִזִּים הַכֹּל לַפְּסָחִים לְכָל־הַנִּמְצָא לְמִסְפַּר שְׁלֹשִׁים אֶלֶף וּבָקָר שְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים אֵלֶּה מֵרְכוּשׁ הַמֶּלֶךְ׃", | 35.7. "And Josiah gave to the children of the people, of the flock, lambs and kids, all of them for the passover-offerings, unto all that were present, to the number of thirty thousand, and three thousand bullocks; these were of the king’s substance.", |
|
5. Mishnah, Shekalim, 4.6-4.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 119| 4.6. "הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן דְּבָרִים רְאוּיִין לְקָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר, יִנָּתְנוּ לָאֻמָּנִין בִּשְׂכָרָן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמַר לוֹ בֶּן עֲזַאי, אֵינָהּ הִיא הַמִּדָּה, אֶלָּא מַפְרִישִׁין מֵהֶן שְׂכַר הָאֻמָּנִין, וּמְחַלְּלִין אוֹתָן עַל מָעוֹת הָאֻמָּנִין, וְנוֹתְנִין אוֹתָן לָאֻמָּנִין בִּשְׂכָרָן, וְחוֹזְרִין וְלוֹקְחִין אוֹתָן מִתְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה: \n", 4.7. "הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו וְהָיְתָה בָּהֶן בְּהֵמָה רְאוּיָה לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, זְכָרִים יִמָּכְרוּ לְצָרְכֵי עוֹלוֹת, וּנְקֵבוֹת יִמָּכְרוּ לְצָרְכֵי זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, וּדְמֵיהֶן יִפְּלוּ עִם שְׁאָר נְכָסִים לְבֶדֶק הַבָּיִת. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, זְכָרִים עַצְמָן יִקָּרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת, וּנְקֵבוֹת יִמָּכְרוּ לְצָרְכֵי זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן עוֹלוֹת, וּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים יִפְּלוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבָּיִת. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִדִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִשְׁוָה אֶת מִדָּתוֹ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ חָלַק. אָמַר רַבִּי פַּפְּיַס, שָׁמַעְתִּי כְּדִבְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן, שֶׁהַמַּקְדִּישׁ בְּפֵרוּשׁ, כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וְהַמַּקְדִּישׁ סְתָם, כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: \n", 4.8. "הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסִים וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן דְּבָרִים רְאוּיִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, יֵינוֹת, שְׁמָנִים וְעוֹפוֹת, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, יִמָּכְרוּ לְצָרְכֵי אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן עוֹלוֹת, וּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים יִפְּלוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבָּיִת: \n", | 4.6. "If one dedicated his possessions to the Temple, and there was among them things which was fit for public offerings, they should be given to the craftsmen as their wages; the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai said to him: this method is not correct. Rather, they separate from them the wages of the craftsmen, and then they exchange them for the money due to the craftsmen, and then they give them to the craftsmen as their wages, and then they buy them back again out of a new appropriation.", 4.7. "One who dedicated his possessions to the Temple and there was among them an animal fit for the altar, males or females,Rabbi Eliezer says: males should be sold for the use of burnt-offerings and females should be sold for the use of offerings of wellbeing, and the proceeds should be lumped together with the rest of the possessions for the repair of the temple. Rabbi Joshua says: the males themselves should be offered as burnt-offerings and the females should be sold for the use of offerings of wellbeing, and with the proceeds burnt offerings should be brought, and the other possessions should go to the repair of the temple. Rabbi Akiva says: I prefer the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer over the opinion of Rabbi Joshua, for Rabbi Eliezer applied a uniform rule, but Rabbi Joshua differentiated. Rabbi Papias said: I have heard [a tradition in accordance] with both of their opinions: that one who dedicates to the Temple with explicitness, it is according to the words of Rabbi Eliezer, but one who dedicates to the Temple without specifying it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Joshua.", 4.8. "One who dedicated his possessions to the Temple and there were among them things fit for the altar, [such as] wines, oils, and birds: Rabbi Elazar says: they should be sold for the use of [offerings of] each particular kind, and they should bring with the proceeds burnt offerings, and the other possessions should go to the repair of the Temple.", |
|
6. Mishnah, Yoma, 3.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 119| 3.7. "בַּשַּׁחַר הָיָה לוֹבֵשׁ פִּלּוּסִין שֶׁל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מָנֶה, וּבֵין הָעַרְבַּיִם הִנְדְּוִין שֶׁל שְׁמֹנֶה מֵאוֹת זוּז, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בַּשַּׁחַר הָיָה לוֹבֵשׁ שֶׁל שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר מָנֶה, וּבֵין הָעַרְבַּיִם שֶׁל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מָנֶה, הַכֹּל שְׁלשִׁים מָנֶה. אֵלּוּ מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר. וְאִם רָצָה לְהוֹסִיף, מוֹסִיף מִשֶּׁלּוֹ: \n", | 3.7. "In the morning he would wear Pelusian linen worth twelve minas (1200 dinar/zuz); at dusk Indian linen worth eight hundred zuz, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: in the morning he would wear [garments] worth eighteen minas and at dusk [garments] worth twelve minas, altogether thirty minas. These [costs] were at the charge of the community and if he wanted to add, he adds more out of his own pocket.", |
|
7. Mishnah, Pesahim, 8.2, 9.9, 38.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 168, 169| 8.2. "הָאוֹמֵר לְעַבְדּוֹ, צֵא וּשְׁחֹט עָלַי אֶת הַפֶּסַח, שָׁחַט גְּדִי, יֹאכַל. שָׁחַט טָלֶה, יֹאכַל. שָׁחַט גְּדִי וְטָלֶה, יֹאכַל מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן. שָׁכַח מָה אָמַר לוֹ רַבּוֹ, כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה, יִשְׁחַט טָלֶה וּגְדִי וְיֹאמַר, אִם גְּדִי אָמַר לִי רַבִּי, גְּדִי שֶׁלּוֹ וְטָלֶה שֶׁלִּי. וְאִם טָלֶה אָמַר לִי רַבִּי, הַטָּלֶה שֶׁלּוֹ וּגְדִי שֶׁלִּי. שָׁכַח רַבּוֹ מָה אָמַר לוֹ, שְׁנֵיהֶם יֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה, וּפְטוּרִין מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי: \n", 9.9. "חֲבוּרָה שֶׁאָבַד פִּסְחָהּ, וְאָמְרָה לְאֶחָד, צֵא וּבַקֵּשׁ וּשְׁחֹט עָלֵינוּ, וְהָלַךְ וּמָצָא וְשָׁחַט, וְהֵם לָקְחוּ וְשָׁחֲטוּ, אִם שֶׁלּוֹ נִשְׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן, הוּא אוֹכֵל מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְהֵם אוֹכְלִים עִמּוֹ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְאִם שֶׁלָּהֶן נִשְׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן, הֵם אוֹכְלִין מִשֶּׁלָּהֶן, וְהוּא אוֹכֵל מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן נִשְׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאֶחָד, הוּא אוֹכֵל מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְהֵם אֵינָם אוֹכְלִים עִמּוֹ, וְשֶׁלָּהֶן יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה, וּפְטוּרִין מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי. אָמַר לָהֶן, אִם אֵחַרְתִּי, צְאוּ וְשַׁחֲטוּ עָלָי. הָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ, וְשָׁחַט, וְהֵן לָקְחוּ וְשָׁחֲטוּ, אִם שֶׁלָּהֶן נִשְׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן, הֵן אוֹכְלִין מִשֶּׁלָּהֶן, וְהוּא אוֹכֵל עִמָּהֶן. וְאִם שֶׁלּוֹ נִשְׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן, הוּא אוֹכֵל מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְהֵן אוֹכְלִין מִשֶּׁלָּהֶן. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶם נִשְׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּאֶחָד, הֵן אוֹכְלִין מִשֶּׁלָּהֶן, וְהוּא אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל עִמָּהֶן, וְשֶׁלּוֹ יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה, וּפָטוּר מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי. אָמַר לָהֶן וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ, אוֹכְלִין כֻּלָּם מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן. וְאִם אֵין יָדוּעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן נִשְׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן, שְׁנֵיהֶם יוֹצְאִין לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה. לֹא אָמַר לָהֶן וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵינָן אַחֲרָאִין זֶה לָזֶה: \n", | 8.2. "One who says to his slave, “Go out and slaughter the pesah on my behalf”, if he slaughtered a kid, he may eat it; if he slaughtered a lamb, he may eat it; if he slaughtered a kid and a lamb, he eats the first. If he forgot what his master told him, how should he act? He should slaughter a lamb and a kid and declare, “If my master told me [to slaughter] a kid, the kid is his and the lamb is mine; and if my master told me [to slaughter] a lamb, the lamb is his and the kid is mine.” If his master [also] forgot what he told him, both animals go to the place of burning, but they [the master and the slave] are exempt from sacrificing the second pesah.", 9.9. "A company lost their pesah and they said to one [who was registered with them], “Go and seek it, and slaughter it on our behalf”; and he went, found, and slaughtered it, and they [also] took an animal and slaughtered [it]: If his was slaughtered first, he eats of his and they eat with him. And if theirs was first slaughtered, they eat of theirs, while he eats of his. And if it is unknown which of them was first slaughtered, or if they slaughtered both of them at the same time, he eats of his, but they may not eat with him; while theirs goes forth to the place of burning, and they are exempt from keeping the second Pesah. He said to them, “If I delay, go forth and slaughter on my behalf,’, [and] then he went and found it and slaughtered [it], while they took [another] and slaughtered [it]: If theirs was slaughtered first, they eat of theirs while he eats with them; And if his was slaughtered first, he eats of his and they eat of theirs. And if it is unknown which of them was slaughtered first, or if they slaughtered both of them at the same time, they eat of theirs, but he may not eat with them, while his goes forth to the place of burning, and he is exempt from keeping the second Pesah. He said to them, and they said to him: they all eat of the first [to be slaughtered], and if it is unknown which of them was slaughtered first, both go forth to the place of burning. If he did not say to them and they did not say to him, they are not responsible for each other.", |
|
| 8. Tosefta, Menachot, 6.17 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 119 |
9. Tosefta, Shekalim, 2.7, 2.10 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 119| 2.7. "הסירות והיעים והמזמרות והמזרקות וכלים שהכהנים נאותון בהן באין מתרומת הלשכה מזבח הזהב וכלי שרת בגדי כהנים ובגדי כהן גדול ועץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת באין [משירי] הלשכה כבש פרה אבא שאול אומר כהנים גדולים עושין אותו משל עצמן בנאו הראשון ולא שמש עליו ומת אע\"פ שלא שמש עליו אין חבירו משמש עליו אלא סותרו ובונה אחר תחתיו ויותר מששים ככרות של זהב יוצאים עליו. פר הבא על כל המצות ושעירי עבודת כוכבים בתחלה היו מגבין להם דברי רבי יהודה רבי שמעון אומר מתרומת הלשכה היו קריבין.", | |
|
| 10. Tosefta, Kippurim, 1.23 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 119 |
11. Tosefta, Taanit, 3.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 119| 3.5. "מה ראו זמן עצי כהנים והעם לימנות [שכשעלו] בני הגולה לא מצאו עצים בלשכה [עמדו אלו והתנדבו עצים משל עצמן ומסרו לצבור וכן התנדבו עמהן הנביאים שאפילו לשכה מלאה עצים ואפילו עצים משל צבור ועמדו אלו והתנדבו עצים משל עצמן לא יהא קרבן מתקרב אלא משלהם תחלה] שנאמר (נחמיה י׳:ל״ה) והגורלות הפלנו על קרבן עצים [ואומר (עזרא ו) כי עזרא הכין לבבו וגו'].", | |
|
12. Tosefta, Pesahim, 7.5-7.6, 7.11, 7.13 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 168, 169| 7.5. "בני חבורה שנמנו על הפסח אם יש כזית לכל אחד ואחד יאכלו ואם לאו לא יאכלו נמנו עליו זה אחר זה הראשונים שיש להם יאכלו והאחרונים לא יאכלו וצריכין לעשות פסח שני דברי רבי רבי נתן אומר אין צריכין לעשות פסח שני שכבר נזרק עליהן הדם בני חבורה שרצו [להמנות] אחרים על [פסחן] הרשות בידן רצו [להמשך ולהמנות אחרים על פסחן הרשות בידם רצה] להמשך ולהמנות אחרים על חלקו הרשות בידו לעולם נמשכין והולכין ובלבד שנשתייר אחד מחבורה ראשונה דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר בין מחבורה ראשונה בין מחבורה אחרונה ובלבד שלא יניחו את פסחו כמות שהוא בני חבורה [רצו] להמנות אחרים על חלקן הרשות בידם [המעות] חולין רצו להמשך להמנות אחרים על חלקן הרשות בידם [המעות] חולין.", 7.6. "[הממנה אחרים על חלקו הרשות בידו המעות חולין רצה להמשך להמנות אחרים על חלקו הרשות בידו המעות חולין] הממנה אחרים על חגיגתו המעות חולין רצה להמשך ולמנות אחרים על חגיגתו המעות חולין.", | |
|
| 13. Palestinian Talmud, Yoma, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 119 |
| 14. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 179 |
| 15. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 119 |
| 16. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 129 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 179 |
| 17. Palestinian Talmud, Sheqalim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 119 |
18. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 119| 28a. דאית ליה רווחא:,פרשה גדולה קורין אותה בשנים בשחרית ובמוסף ובמנחה קורין על פיהן כו': איבעיא להו היכי קאמר בשחרית ובמוסף קורין אותה בספר ובמנחה קורין אותה על פה כקורין את שמע או דלמא הכי קתני בשחרית קורין אותה בספר ובמוסף ובמנחה קורין אותה על פה כקורין את שמע,תא שמע דתניא בשחרית ובמוסף נכנסין לבית הכנסת וקורין כדרך שקורין כל השנה ובמנחה יחיד קורא אותה על פה אמר ר' יוסי וכי יחיד יכול לקרות דברי תורה על פה בצבור אלא כולן נכנסין וקורין אותה על פה כקורין את שמע:,כל יום שיש בו הלל אין בו מעמד כו': מה הפרש בין זה לזה הללו דברי תורה והללו דברי סופרים:,זמן עצי כהנים והעם כו' ת"ר למה הוצרכו לומר זמן עצי כהנים והעם אמרו כשעלו בני הגולה לא מצאו עצים בלשכה ועמדו אלו והתנדבו משלהם,וכך התנו נביאים שביניהן שאפי' לשכה מלאה עצים יהיו אלו מתנדבין משלהן שנאמר (נחמיה י, לה) והגורלות הפלנו על קרבן העצים הכהנים הלוים והעם להביא לבית אלהינו לבית אבותינו לעתים מזומנים שנה בשנה לבער על מזבח ה' אלהינו ככתוב בתורה:,ועמהם כהנים ולוים וכל מי כו': תנו רבנן מה היו בני גונבי עלי ובני קוצעי קציעות,אמרו פעם אחת גזרה המלכות גזירה על ישראל שלא יביאו עצים למערכה ושלא יביאו בכורים לירושלים והושיבו פרוזדאות על הדרכים כדרך שהושיב ירבעם בן נבט שלא יעלו ישראל לרגל,מה עשו כשרין (שבאותו הדור ויראי חטא) הביאו סלי בכורים וחיפום בקציעות ונטלום ועלי על כתפיהן וכיון שהגיעו אצל פרוזדאות אמרו להם להיכן אתם הולכין אומרין להם לעשות שני עיגולי דבילה במכתשת שלפנינו ובעלי שעל כתפינו כיון שעברו מהן עיטרום בסלים והביאום לירושלים,תנא הן הן בני סלמאי הנתופתי ת"ר מה הן בני סלמאי הנתופתי אמרו פעם אחת גזרה המלכות גזירה על ישראל שלא יביאו עצים למערכה והושיבו פרוזדאות על הדרכים כדרך שהושיב ירבעם בן נבט על הדרכים שלא יעלו ישראל לרגל,מה עשו יראי חטא שבאותו הדור הביאו גזיריהן ועשו סולמות והניחו על כתפיהם והלכו להם כיון שהגיעו אצלן אמרו להם להיכן אתם הולכין אמרו להם להביא גוזלות משובך שלפנינו ובסולמות שעל כתפינו כיון שעברו מהן פירקום והביאום והעלום לירושלים,ועליהם ועל כיוצא בהם הוא אומר (משלי י, ז) זכר צדיק לברכה ועל ירבעם בן נבט וחבריו נאמר ושם רשעים ירקב:,בעשרים בו בני פחת מואב בן יהודה: תנא בני פחת מואב בן יהודה הן הן בני דוד בן יהודה דברי ר' מאיר רבי יוסי אומר הן הן בני יואב בן צרויה:,בעשרים באלול בני עדין בן יהודה וכו' תנו רבנן בני עדין בן יהודה הן הן בני דוד בן יהודה דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר הן הן בני יואב בן צרויה:,באחד בטבת שבו בני פרעוש שניה כו': מני מתני' לא ר' מאיר ולא רבי יהודה ולא רבי יוסי אי ר"מ ליתני שבו בני דוד בן יהודה שניה,אי רבי יהודה ליתני שבו בני דוד בן יהודה שניה אי רבי יוסי ליתני שבו בני יואב בן צרויה שניה,לעולם ר' יוסי ותרי תנאי אליבא דר' יוסי:,באחד בטבת לא היה בו מעמד כו': אמר ליה מר קשישא בריה דרב חסדא לרב אשי | 28a. b as /b the second reader b has space, /b i.e., he has the option to read from the ensuing paragraph.,§ The mishna taught: b A long passage is read by two /b people, and they read from the Torah b in the morning prayer and in the additional prayer. And in the afternoon prayer they read /b the daily portion b by heart, /b just as one recites i Shema /i . b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: With regard to b what /b case b is /b the i tanna /i b speaking? /b Does he mean that b in the morning prayer and in the additional prayer they read /b the portion b from /b a Torah b scroll, but in the afternoon prayer /b each individual b reads by heart, just as one recites i Shema /i ? Or perhaps this is what is taught: In the morning prayer they read it from /b a Torah b scroll, but in the additional prayer and in the afternoon prayer /b they read it b by heart, just as one recites i Shema /i . /b ,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b In the morning prayer and in the additional prayer they /b would b enter the synagogue and read /b from the Torah b in the manner that they read all year. But in the afternoon prayer, /b a single b individual /b would b read /b the portion for that day b by heart. Rabbi Yosei said: But can an individual read matters of Torah by heart in /b the presence of b the community? Rather, they all enter and read /b that day’s portion together, b just as one recites i Shema /i . /b This i baraita /i clearly indicates that they would read by heart only in the afternoon service.,The mishna taught: On b any day that has /b the recitation of b i hallel /i , /b but on which the additional offering was not sacrificed, b it has no /b reading of the Torah by the b non-priestly watch /b in the morning service. On days that have both i hallel /i and an additional offering, there was no reading in the afternoon prayer. When a wood offering was brought, there was no reading in the closing prayer. The Gemara asks: b What is /b the b difference between this and that, /b a day on which an additional offering is sacrificed and a day on which a wood offering is brought? The Gemara explains: b These /b days, on which an additional offering is brought, apply b by Torah law, but these /b days, on which a wood offering is brought, apply b by rabbinic law, /b and therefore it overrides only the closing prayer.,The mishna continues with a list of the b times /b for the b wood offering of priests and the people. The Sages taught: Why was it necessary to state /b the b times /b for the b wood offering of priests and the people? They said /b in response that this is what happened: b When the people of the exile ascended /b to Jerusalem in the beginning of the Second Temple period, b they did not find /b enough wood b in /b the Temple b chamber /b for the needs of the altar. b And these /b families b arose and donated from their own /b wood to the Temple., b And the prophets among them stipulated as follows, that even /b if the entire b chamber /b were b full of wood, /b the descendants of b these /b families b would donate wood from their own /b property on these specific days, b as it is stated: “And we cast lots, the priests, the Levites and the people, for the wood offering, to bring it into the house of our God, according to our fathers’ houses, at appointed times year by year, to burn upon the altar of the Lord our God, as it is written in the Torah” /b (Nehemiah 10:35). Although these donations were not always necessary, it was established that all generations would observe these days.,The mishna further taught that on the fifteenth of Av, wood was brought by the descendants of Zattu ben Yehuda, b and with /b this group b were /b other b priests and Levites, and anyone /b who erred with regard to his tribe, i.e., Israelites who did not know which tribe they were from, and the descendants of those who deceived the authorities with a pestle, and the descendants of those who packed dried figs. b The Sages taught: Who were the descendants of those who deceived /b the authorities b with a pestle and the descendants of those who packed dried figs? /b , b They said /b in explanation: b Once, the evil kingdom /b of Greece b issued /b a decree b of apostasy against the Jews, that they may not bring wood for the arrangement /b of the altar b and that they /b may b not bring first fruits to Jerusalem. And they placed guards [ i prozda’ot /i ] on the roads, in the manner that Jeroboam, son of Nevat, placed /b guards, so b that the Jews /b could b not ascend for the /b pilgrim b Festival. /b , b What did the worthy and sin-fearing /b individuals b of that generation do? They brought baskets of first fruits, and covered them with dried figs, and took them with a pestle on their shoulders. And when they reached the guards, /b the guards b said to them: Where are you going? They said to them: /b We are going b to prepare two round cakes of pressed figs with the mortar that is /b down the road b before us and with the pestle that /b we are carrying on b our shoulders. As soon as they passed /b the guards, b they decorated the baskets /b of first fruits b and brought them to Jerusalem. /b ,A Sage b taught: This /b was something that was performed in a similar manner by b the descendants of Salmai of Netophat. /b The Gemara explains this comment by quoting a i baraita /i . b The Sages taught: Who are the descendants of Salmai of Netophat? /b They said in explanation: b Once, the evil kingdom /b of Greece b issued /b a decree b of apostasy against the Jews, that they may not bring wood for the arrangement /b of the altar. And they placed guards on the roads, in the manner that Jeroboam, son of Nevat, placed guards, so b that the Jews /b could b not ascend for the /b pilgrim b Festival. /b , b What did the sin-fearing /b individuals b of that generation do? They brought their pieces of wood and prepared ladders [ i sulamot /i ], and they placed /b the ladders b on their shoulders and went off /b to Jerusalem. b When they reached /b the guards, the guards b said to them: Where are you going? They said to them: /b We are going b to bring /b down b doves from the dovecote that is /b located down the road b before us and with these ladders that are on our shoulders. As soon as they had passed /b the guards, b they dismantled /b the ladders b and took them up to Jerusalem. /b The name Salmai alludes to the Hebrew word for ladder, i sulam /i ., b And about these /b families who provided these donations b and /b others b like them, /b the verse b says: “The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing” /b (Proverbs 10:7), as they are remembered for the good throughout the generations. b And about Jeroboam, son of Nevat, and his ilk, it is stated: “But the name of the wicked shall rot” /b (Proverbs 10:7).,§ The mishna taught: b On the twentieth of /b Av, the wood offering was brought by b the descendants of Pahath Moab ben Yehuda. /b A i tanna /i b taught: The descendants of Pahath Moab ben Yehuda are the descendants of David ben Yehuda. /b He is called Moab because Ruth the Moabite was the grandmother of David’s father, Yishai. This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: These are the descendants of Joab, son of Zeruiah, /b whose mother was the daughter of Yishai and therefore also descended from Ruth.,The mishna further taught: b On the twentieth of Elul, the descendants of Adin ben Yehuda /b brought their wood offering. b The Sages taught: The descendants of Adin ben Yehuda are the descendants of David ben Yehuda, /b who was called Adin. This is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: These are the descendants of Joab, son of Zeruiah. /b ,The mishna taught: b On the first of Tevet, the descendants of Parosh returned /b to bring wood for b a second /b time. The Gemara asks: b Who is /b the author of this opinion of b the mishna? /b It is b not /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, nor /b that of b Rabbi Yehuda, nor /b that of b Rabbi Yosei. /b The Gemara elaborates: b If it /b represents the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, let him teach, /b with regard to the twentieth of Av, that b the descendants of David ben Yehuda returned /b for b a second /b time. According to Rabbi Meir, the descendants of Pahath Moab are the descendants of David, and consequently they would return for a second time on that date.,The Gemara continues: b If it /b represents the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, let him teach /b that b the descendants of David ben Yehuda returned /b for b a second /b time on a different date, the twentieth of Elul, as he contends that the descendants of Adin ben Yehuda are the descendants of David. b And if /b the mishna represents the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei, let him teach /b that the b descendants of Joab, son of Zeruiah, returned /b for b a second /b time, as he maintains that the descendants of Pahath Moab and the descendants of Adin ben Yehuda are both the descendants of Joab.,The Gemara answers: b Actually, /b the mishna represents the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei, and /b there are b two i tanna’im /i /b whose opinion is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei. /b One i tanna /i maintains that only the descendants of Pahath Moab are the descendants of Joab, while the other claims that only the descendants of Adin ben Yehuda are the descendants of Joab. According to both opinions, neither group was repeated a second time, and therefore the mishna does not pose a difficulty to either of them.,§ The mishna taught that b on the first of Tevet there was no non-priestly watch /b at all, as there was an additional offering, i hallel /i , and a wood offering. b Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: /b |
|
19. Babylonian Talmud, Keritot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 119| 6a. בבואה לבבואה דבבואה נידע דאתי לביתיה ולאו מילתא היא דילמא חלשא דעתיה ומתרע מזליה,אמר אביי השתא דאמרת סימנא מילתא היא יהא רגיל איניש למיכל ריש שתא קרא ורוביא כרתי סילקא ותמרי,א"ל רב משרשיא לבניה כי בעיתו למיזל למגמר קמיה רבכון גרוסו מעיקרא מתני' והדר עולו קמי רבכון וכי יתביתו קמי רבכון חזו לפומיה דרבכון שנאמר (ישעיהו ל, כ) והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך וכי גריסיתו שמעתא גרוסו על מיא דכי היכי דמשכי מיא תמשוך שמעתכון,אקילקי דמתא מחסיא ולא אפדני דפומבדיתא טב גילדנא סריא למיכל מכותחא דרמי כיפי,(שמואל א ב, א) ותתפלל חנה ותאמר עלץ לבי בה' רמה קרני רמה קרני ולא רמה פכי דוד ושלמה שנמשחו בקרן נמשכה מלכותם שאול ויהוא שנמשחו מן הפך לא נמשכה מלכותם:,המפטם את הקטרת: ת"ר המפטם את הקטרת ללמד בה או למוסרה לציבור פטור להריח בה חייב והמריח בה פטור אלא שמעל,ומי איכא מעילה והאמר ר"ש בן פזי א"ר יהושע ב"ל משום בר קפרא קול ומראה וריח אין בהן משום מעילה,ריח אחר שתעלה תמרתו אין בו משום מעילה [שהרי] אין לך דבר אחר שנעשה מצותו ומועלין בו,אלמה לא והרי תרומת הדשן דנעשית מצותה ומועלין בה,משום דהוי תרומת הדשן ובגדי כהונה שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדים,הניחא לרבנן אלא לר' דוסא מאי איכא למימר דתניא (ויקרא טז, כג) והניחם שם מלמד שטעונין גניזה,רבי דוסא אומר כשירין הן לכהן הדיוט ומה תלמוד לומר והניחם שם שלא ישתמש בהן ביום הכפורים אחר,משום דהוי תרומת הדשן ועגלה ערופה שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין תרומת הדשן מאי היא דתניא (ויקרא ו, ג) ושמו אצל המזבח מלמד שטעונין גניזה עגלה ערופה מאי היא דתניא (דברים כא, ד) וערפו שם את העגלה בנחל מלמד שטעונין גניזה,ולמ"ד שני כתובין הבאים כאחד מלמדין הכא ודאי אין מלמדין משום דהוי תרי מיעוטי בתרומת הדשן כתיב ושמו הדין אין מידי אחרינא לא גבי עגלה ערופה כתיב הערופה ערופה אין מידי אחרינא לא,ת"ר פיטום הקטרת הצרי והציפורן והחלבנה והלבונה משקל שבעי' של שבעים מנה מור וקציעה שיבולת נרד וכרכום משקל ששה עשר של ששה עשר מנה הקושט שנים עשר קילופה שלשה וקנמון תשעה בורית כרשינה תשעה קבין יין קפריסין סאין תלתא קבין תלתא אם אין לו יין קפריסין מביא חמר חיוריין עתיק מלח סדומית רובע מעלה עשן כל שהוא ר' נתן אומר אף כיפת הירדן כל שהוא,ואם נתן בה דבש פסלה חיסר אחת מכל סממניה חייב מיתה רש"א הצרי אינו אלא שרף [הנוטף] מעצי הקטף בורית כרשינה ששפין בה את הציפורן כדי שתהא נאה יין קפריסין ששורין בו את הציפורן כדי שתהא עזה והלא מי רגלים יפין לה אלא שאין מכניסין מי רגלים למקדש,מסייע ליה לר' יוסי בר"ח דאמר (שמות ל, לב) קדש היא קדש תהיה לכם כל מעשיה לא יהו אלא בקדש,מיתיבי המקדיש נכסיו והיו בה דברים הראויין לקרבנות הציבור ינתנו לאומנין בשכרן,הני דברים הראויין מאי נינהו אי בהמה וחיה תנא ליה אי יינות שמנים וסלתות תנא ליה אלא לאו קטרת,א"ר אושעיא באותה הניתנת לאומנים בשכרן דתניא מותר הקטרת מה היו עושין בה היו מפרישין (ממנה) שכר האומנין ומחללין אותה על מעות האומנין ונותנין אותן לאומנין בשכרן וחוזרים ולוקחין אותה מתרומה חדשה,מתקיף לה רב יוסף הא בכולהו מותרות תני חוזרין ולוקחין אותה מתרומה חדשה והכא לא תני,אלא אמר רב יוסף באחד מסממני הקטרת,ת"ר קטרת היתה נעשית שס"ח מנה שס"ה כנגד ימות החמה שלשה מנין יתירין שמהן מכניס כהן גדול מלא חפניו ביום הכיפורים והשאר ניתנת לאומנין בשכרן,כדתניא מותר הקטרת מה היו עושין בה מפרישין (ממנה) שכר האומנין ומחללין אותה על מעות האומנין ונותנין אותן לאומנין בשכרן וחוזרין ולוקחין אותה מתרומת הלשכה | 6a. b the reflection [ i bavua /i ] of a reflection of /b his b reflection he shall know that he will /b return and b come to his home. /b The Sages say about this: b And this is nothing, /b i.e., one should not practice these divinations, as b perhaps he will become despondent /b if he does not see the positive sign b and his fortune will turn bad, /b and this itself will result in his failure., b Abaye said: Now that you have said /b that b a sign is /b a substantial b matter, a person should be accustomed to eat, at the start of the year, gourd, fenugreek, leeks, beets, and dates, /b as each of these grow and multiply quickly, which is a good omen for the deeds of the upcoming year.,With regard to positive omens, b Rav Mesharshiyya said to his sons: When you want to go to study in the presence of your teacher, initially study the i mishnayot /i and then ascend before your teacher. And when you sit before your teacher, see your teacher’s mouth, as it is stated: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” /b (Isaiah 30:20). b And when you learn a i halakha /i , learn near /b a source of flowing b water, as just as the water /b flow b continues, /b so too, b your learning should continue. /b ,Rav Mesharshiyya gave his sons additional advice: It is better for you to dwell b on the garbage piles [ i akilkei /i ] of /b the city b Mata Meḥasya and not /b to dwell b in the palaces [ i apadnei /i ] of /b the city b Pumbedita. /b It is b better to eat rotten fish [ i gildana /i ] than /b high-quality b i kutḥa /i , which /b uproots and b tosses rocks /b from their places, i.e., it is a very spicy, powerful flavoring.,The Gemara further discusses the issue of anointing and good omens. Hannah said in her prayer after her son Samuel was born: b “And Hannah prayed and said: My heart exults in the Lord, my horn is exalted /b in the Lord” (I Samuel 2:1). The Gemara notes that Hannah said: b “My horn is exalted,” and /b she did b not /b say: b My jug is exalted. /b With regard to b David and Solomon, who were anointed with /b oil from b a horn, /b this was a good omen for them, and b their kingships lasted. /b But with regard to b Saul and Jehu, who were anointed /b with oil b from a jug, their kingships did not last. /b ,§ The mishna included in its list of those liable to receive i karet /i : b One who blends the incense /b according to the specifications of the incense used in the Temple service, for purposes other than use in the Temple. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who blends the incense /b in order b to teach /b himself how to prepare b it or /b in order b to transfer it to the community is exempt /b from liability. But if he prepares it in order b to smell it /b he is b liable /b to receive i karet /i , as it is stated: “He who prepares it in order to smell it shall be cut off from his people” (Exodus 30:38). b And one who /b actually b smells /b the incense mixture is b exempt /b from the punishment of i karet /i and from bringing a sin offering; b but he has misused /b consecrated property, and is therefore liable to bring a guilt offering if he acted unwittingly.,The Gemara asks: b And is there /b the prohibition of b misuse /b of consecrated property with regard to smell? b But doesn’t Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi say /b that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in the name of bar Kappara: /b With regard to exposure to the b sound, or /b to the b sight, or /b to the b smell /b of consecrated items, including incense, these b are not subject to /b the prohibition of b misuse /b of consecrated property?,The Gemara answers: With regard to exposure to the b smell /b of the incense, the following distinction applies: The smell of the incense that is emitted when the spices are placed on the coals on the altar is subject to the prohibition, since this is the manner in which the mitzva is performed. By contrast, the smell emitted b after /b the flame catches and b the column of smoke rises is not subject to /b the prohibition of b misuse /b of consecrated property. The reason is that its mitzva has already been performed, and b you have no /b case in which an b item /b is at the stage b after its mitzva has /b already b been performed and /b yet one is liable for b its misuse. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And why not /b say that misuse of consecrated property applies to an item whose mitzva has been already performed? b But there is /b the case of b the /b daily b removal of the ashes /b of the offerings from the altar, b whose mitzva has been performed, /b as the offerings have been burnt, b and /b yet one who uses the ashes is liable for b misusing /b the ashes, as derived from the verse: “And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the ashes of what the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar” (Leviticus 6:3).,The Gemara answers: This case does not disprove the principle, b since the /b i halakhot /i of b the removal of the ashes and the priestly vestments /b of white linen worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are b two verses that come as one, /b i.e., to teach the same matter, b and /b there is a principle that b any two verses that come as one do not teach /b their common aspect to apply to other cases. In other words, if a i halakha /i is stated twice with regard to two separate cases, this i halakha /i applies only to those cases. Had the Torah wanted to teach that this i halakha /i applies to all other relevant cases as well, it would have mentioned it only once, and other cases would be derived from there. The fact that two cases are mentioned indicates they are exceptions.,The Gemara comments: The fact that the Torah mentions this i halakha /i twice b works out well according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who maintain that the priestly vestments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur require interment. b But according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Dosa, what can be said? As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: “And Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting, and shall take off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the sacred place, b and he shall leave them there” /b (Leviticus 16:23). This phrase b teaches that /b his vestments b require interment. /b Although their use for the mitzva has been completed, it is prohibited to derive benefit from these garments. This is the opinion of the Rabbis., b Rabbi Dosa says: /b These priestly vestments may no longer be used by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, b but they are fit for /b use by b an ordinary priest, /b as they are similar to those worn by ordinary priests on a daily basis. Rabbi Dosa adds: b And what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: “And he shall leave them there”? /b This teaches b that /b the High Priest b may not use them on another Yom Kippur. /b According to the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, only one verse teaches there is misuse of consecrated property with regard to an item that has already been used for performing its mitzva. Therefore, one should derive a principle from the verse discussing the removal of the ashes.,The Gemara answers: One cannot derive a general principle from this case, b because the removal of the ashes and /b the i halakha /i of b the heifer whose neck is broken, /b from which one may not derive benefit after that rite has been performed, are b two verses that come as one, and any two verses that come as one do not teach /b their common aspect to apply to other cases. The Gemara elaborates: b What is /b the case of b the removal of the ashes? As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And he shall put them beside the altar” /b (Leviticus 6:3). This b teaches that they require interment. What is /b the case of b the heifer whose neck is broken? As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And they shall break the heifer’s neck in the valley” /b (Deuteronomy 21:4). This b teaches that /b such heifers b require interment. /b ,The Gemara adds: b And /b even b according to the one who says /b that b two verses that come as one /b do b teach /b their common aspect to apply to other cases, b here they certainly do not teach /b that misuse of consecrated property applies to items whose mitzva has been performed. This is b due to /b the fact that b there are two /b terms indicating b exclusions /b with regard to these i halakhot /i , limiting this i halakha /i to those cases. b With regard to the removal of the ashes it is written: “And he shall put it.” /b The word “it” teaches that in b this /b particular case, b yes, /b there is misuse of consecrated property, but with regard to any b other matter /b this prohibition does b not /b apply. b With regard to the heifer whose neck is broken it is written: “The /b heifer b that had its neck broken” /b (Deuteronomy 21:6). The word “the” indicates that with regard to the heifer that b had its neck broken, yes, /b but with regard to any b other matter /b the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property does b not /b apply.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : How is b the blending of the incense /b performed? b Balm, and onycha, and galbanum, and frankincense, each /b of these by b a weight of seventy i maneh /i , /b i.e., seventy units of one hundred dinars. b Myrrh, and cassia, /b and b spikenard, and saffron, each /b of these by b a weight of sixteen i maneh /i . Costus /b by b a weight of twelve /b i maneh /i ; b three /b i maneh /i of aromatic b bark; and nine /b i maneh /i of b cinnamon. Kersannah lye /b of the volume of b nine i kav /i ; Cyprus wine /b of the volume of b three i se’a /i /b and b three /b more b i kav /i , /b a half- i se’a /i . b If one does not have Cyprus wine he brings old white wine. Sodomite salt /b is brought by the volume of b a quarter- /b i kav /i . Lastly, b a minimal /b amount of b the smoke raiser, /b a plant that causes the smoke of the incense to rise properly. b Rabbi Natan says: Also a minimal /b amount b of Jordan amber. /b , b And if one placed honey in /b the incense he has b disqualified it, /b as it is stated: “For you shall make no leaven, nor any honey, smoke as an offering made by fire unto the Lord” (Leviticus 2:11). If he b omitted any one of its spices /b he is b liable /b to receive b death /b at the hand of Heaven. b Rabbi Shimon says: The balm /b mentioned here b is nothing other than a resin /b exuded b from the balsam tree, /b not the bark of the tree itself. The b Kersannah lye /b mentioned is not part of the ingredients of the incense itself, but it is necessary b as one rubs the onycha in it so that /b the onycha b should be pleasant. /b Likewise, the b Cyprus wine /b is required b as one soaks the onycha in it so that it should be strong. And urine is good for /b this purpose, b but one does not bring urine into the Temple /b because it is inappropriate.,The Gemara comments: This final ruling b supports /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who says /b with regard to a verse that discusses the incense: b It is sacred, it shall be sacred to you /b (see Exodus 30:36–37), that this teaches that b all of its actions should be /b performed b only in the sacred /b area of the Temple.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a mishna ( i Shekalim /i 4:6): With regard to b one who consecrates /b all b his possessions /b without specifying for what purpose, they are consecrated for Temple maintece. b And /b if b among them there were items suitable for /b use as b communal offerings, /b which may not be used for the maintece of the Temple but only for sacrificial purposes, what is done with those items to remove their consecration for Temple maintece so that they can be properly consecrated for sacrificial use? b They are given to /b Temple b artisans as their wages, /b and they are thereby desacralized. They can then be consecrated again for their proper purpose.,The Gemara analyzes the mishna: b These items /b that are b suitable /b for use as communal offerings, b what are they? If /b they are b domesticated animals and undomesticated animals, /b the i tanna /i b taught /b the i halakha /i with regard to b them /b later in that same mishna. Likewise, b if /b they are b wines, oils, and flours, /b the i tanna /i b taught them /b in that mishna as well. b Rather, /b is it b not /b referring to b incense /b consecrated by a private individual? If so, this would mean that one can prepare and consecrate incense outside the Temple., b Rabbi Oshaya said: /b The mishna is referring b to that /b incense b which is given to the /b Temple b artisans as their wages, /b i.e., the incense was prepared in the sacred place and was desacralized when it was given to the artisans, who subsequently consecrated it. b As it is taught /b in a mishna ( i Shekalim /i 4:5): b The leftover incense /b from one year could not be used the following year, as it had been purchased with the shekels collected for the previous year. b What would they do with it /b in order to render it usable? The Temple treasurers b would remove /b an amount b of it /b equal to the value of b the wages of the artisans /b who worked in the Temple. b And they /b would then b desacralize /b that incense by transferring its sanctity b to the money /b owed b the artisans. They /b would then b give /b the incense b to the artisans as their wages. And /b finally, b they /b would b return and purchase /b the incense from the artisans with funds b from the new collection /b of shekels., b Rav Yosef objects to this /b explanation: How can the mishna in i Shekalim /i 4:6 be interpreted as referring to artisans who consecrated leftover incense? b With regard to all leftovers /b the i tanna /i b teaches: They /b would b return and purchase /b the incense from the artisans with funds b from the new collection /b of shekels, as stated in the mishna earlier. b And /b yet b here, /b in tractate i Shekalim /i , the i tanna /i b does not teach /b this clause, indicating that it is not speaking of incense paid to the artisans and repurchased from them., b Rather, Rav Yosef says: /b The mishna is referring b to one of the ingredients of the incense, /b which an individual consecrated when it is not in the Temple. It is not speaking of incense that has already been blended, as this action may be performed only in the sacred area, as claimed by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The b incense was prepared /b from ingredients amounting to the weight of b 368 i maneh /i , /b i.e., 368 units of one hundred dinars. of these, b 365 /b of them b correspond to the days of the solar year. /b The b additional three i maneh /i /b are those b from which the High Priest would bring in /b to the Sanctuary b his handful /b required b on Yom Kippur /b (see Leviticus 16:12), b and the rest, /b i.e., the incense that was not used over the course of the year, b was given to the artisans as their wages. /b ,This is b as it is taught /b in the aforementioned mishna ( i Shekalim /i 4:5): With regard to b the leftover incense, what would they do with it? /b The Temple treasurers would b remove /b an amount b of it /b equal to the value of b the wages of the artisans /b who worked in the Temple. b And they /b would then b desacralize /b that incense by transferring its sanctity b to the money /b owed to b the artisans. They /b would then b give /b the incense b to the artisans as their wages. And /b finally, b they would return and purchase /b the incense from the artisans with funds b from the collection of the /b Temple treasury b chamber. /b |
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Horayot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 179| 10b. עבדות אני נותן לכם שנאמר (מלכים א יב, ז) וידברו אליו לאמר אם היום תהיה עבד לעם הזה:,ת"ר (ויקרא ד, כב) אשר נשיא יחטא אמר ריב"ז אשרי הדור שהנשיא שלו מביא קרבן על שגגתו אם נשיא שלו מביא קרבן צריך אתה לומר מהו הדיוט ואם על שגגתו מביא קרבן צריך אתה לומר מהו זדונו,מתקיף לה רבא בריה דרבה אלא מעתה דכתי' (ויקרא ה, טז) ואת אשר חטא מן הקדש ישלם ובירבעם בן נבט דכתיב ביה (מלכים א יד, טז) אשר חטא ואשר החטיא הכי נמי דאשרי הדור הוא שאני הכא דשני קרא בדבוריה,דרש רב נחמן בר רב חסדא מאי דכתיב (קהלת ח, יד) יש הבל אשר נעשה על הארץ וגו' אשריהם לצדיקים שמגיע אליהם כמעשה הרשעים של עולם הבא בעולם הזה אוי להם לרשעים שמגיע אליהם כמעשה הצדיקים של עולם הבא בעולם הזה,אמר רבא אטו צדיקי אי אכלי תרי עלמי מי סני להו אלא אמר רבא אשריהם לצדיקים שמגיע אליהם כמעשה הרשעים של עולם הזה בעולם הזה אוי להם לרשעים שמגיע אליהם כמעשה הצדיקים של עולם הזה בעולם הזה,רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אתו לקמיה דרבא אמר להו אוקימתון מסכתא פלן ומסכתא פלן אמרו ליה אין איעתריתו פורתא אמרו ליה אין דזבנן קטינא דארעא קרי עלייהו אשריהם לצדיקים שמגיע אליהם כמעשה הרשעים שבעולם הזה בעולם הזה,אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מאי דכתיב (הושע יד, י) כי ישרים דרכי ה' וצדיקים ילכו בם ופושעים יכשלו בם משל לשני בני אדם שצלו פסחיהם אחד אכלו לשום מצוה ואחד אכלו לשום אכילה גסה זה שאכלו לשום מצוה צדיקים ילכו בם זה שאכלו לשום אכילה גסה ופושעים יכשלו בם,א"ל ריש לקיש רשע קרית ליה נהי דלא עביד מצוה מן המובחר פסח מי לא קאכיל אלא משל לשני בני אדם זה אשתו ואחותו עמו בבית וזה אשתו ואחותו עמו בבית אחד נזדמנה לו אשתו ואחד נזדמנה לו אחותו זה שנזדמנה לו אשתו צדיקים ילכו בם וזה שנזדמנה לו אחותו ופושעים יכשלו בם,מי דמי אנן קאמרינן חדא דרך והכא שני דרכים אלא משל ללוט ושתי בנותיו הן שנתכוונו לשם מצוה צדיקים ילכו בם הוא שנתכוון לשם עבירה ופושעים יכשלו בם,ודלמא הוא נמי לשם מצוה הוא מכוין א"ר יוחנן כל הפסוק הזה לשם עבירה נאמר,(בראשית יג, י) וישא לוט (בראשית לט, ז) ותשא אשת אדניו את עיניה את עיניו (בראשית לד, ד) ויאמר שמשון [וגו'] אותה קח לי כי היא ישרה בעיני וירא (בראשית לד, ב) וירא אותה שכם בן חמור את כל ככר הירדן (משלי ו, כו) כי בעד אשה זונה עד ככר לחם כי כלה משקה (הושע ב, ז) אלכה אחרי מאהבי נותני לחמי ומימי צמרי ופשתי שמני ושקויי,והא מינס אניס תנא משום רבי יוסי בר רבי חוני למה נקוד על וי"ו שבקומה של בכירה לומר לך שבשכבה לא ידע אבל בקומה ידע ומאי ה"ל למעבד מאי דהוה הוה נפקא מינה דלפניא אחרינא לא איבעי ליה למישתי,דרש רבה מאי דכתיב (משלי יח, יט) אח נפשע מקרית עוז ומדינים כבריח ארמון אח נפשע מקרית עוז זה לוט שפירש מאברהם ומדינים כבריח ארמון שהטיל מדינים בין ישראל לעמון שנאמר (דברים כג, ד) לא יבא עמוני ומואבי בקהל ה',דרש רבא ואיתימא ר' יצחק מאי דכתיב (משלי יח, א) לתאוה יבקש נפרד (ובכל) [בכל] תושיה יתגלע לתאוה יבקש נפרד זה לוט שנפרד מאברהם (ובכל) [בכל] תושיה יתגלע שנתגלה קלונו בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות דתנן עמוני ומואבי אסורין איסור עולם,ואמר עולא תמר זנתה וזימרי זינה תמר זנתה יצאו ממנה מלכים ונביאים זימרי זינה נפלו כמה רבבות מישראל אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק גדולה עבירה לשמה ממצוה שלא לשמה שנאמר (שופטים ה, כד) תבורך מנשים יעל אשת חבר הקיני מנשים באהל תבורך מאן נינהו נשים באהל שרה רבקה רחל ולאה,איני והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ובמצות אפילו שלא לשמה שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה אימא כמצוה שלא לשמה,אמר רבי יוחנן שבע בעילות בעל אותו רשע באותה שעה שנאמר (שופטים ה, כז) בין רגליה כרע נפל שכב וגו' והא קא מיתהניא מעבירה אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחאי אפילו טובתם של רשעים רעה היא אצל צדיקים,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ובמצות אפילו שלא לשמה שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה שבשכר מ"ב קרבנות שהקריב בלק הרשע זכה ויצתה ממנו רות דאמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא רות בת בנו של עגלון בן בנו של בלק מלך מואב,א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן מנין שאין הקב"ה מקפח אפילו שכר שיחה נאה מהכא דאילו בכירה דקרייה מואב אמר ליה רחמנא למשה (דברים ב, ט) אל תצר את מואב ואל תתגר בם מלחמה מלחמה | 10b. b I am granting you servitude, as it is stated: “And they spoke to him saying: If you will be a servant to this people today” /b (I Kings 12:7). This explains the phrase “in an independent house.”,§ b The Sages taught: /b The verse states concerning a king: b “When [ i asher /i ] a king sins” /b (Leviticus 4:22). b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Zakkai said: Happy [ i ashrei /i ] is the generation whose king /b feels the need to b bring an offering for his unwitting /b transgression. b If /b the generation’s b king brings an offering, you must say /b all the more so b what a commoner /b will do to atone for his sin, i.e., he will certainly bring an offering. b And if /b the king b brings an offering for his unwitting /b transgression, b you must say /b all the more so b what /b he will do to atone for b his intentional /b transgression, i.e., he will certainly repent., b Rava, son of Rabba, objects to this: If that is so, /b and the term i asher /i is interpreted in that manner, then concerning that b which is written: “And he shall pay for that which [ i asher /i ] he has sinned from the sacred item” /b (Leviticus 5:16), b and with regard to Jeroboam, son of Nevat, about whom it is written: “Who [ i asher /i ] sinned and caused others to sin” /b (I Kings 14:16), b so too /b is the interpretation b that this generation is happy? /b The Gemara answers: b Here, /b in the case of a king who brings an offering, it b is different, as the verse altered its formulation; /b in parallel verses, the term “if” is utilized, e.g., in the verse: “If the anointed priest shall sin” (Leviticus 4:3). In the other instances, i asher /i is the standard formulation.,Apropos the homiletic interpretation of the term i asher /i , b Rav Naḥman bar Ḥisda interpreted /b a verse homiletically: b What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “There is a vanity that is [ i asher /i ] performed upon the earth; /b that there are [ i asher /i ] righteous men to whom it happens according to [ i asher /i ] the action of the wicked, and there are wicked men to whom it happens according to the action of the righteous” (Ecclesiastes 8:14)? b Happy [ i ashrei /i ] are the righteous, to whom it happens in this world according to the experiences of the wicked in the World-to-Come, /b i.e., they suffer in this world. b Woe unto the wicked, to whom it happens in this world according to the experiences of the righteous in the World-to-Come, /b i.e., they enjoy this world., b Rava said: Is that to say that if the righteous enjoyed two worlds it would be awful for them? /b Why must the righteous suffer in this world? b Rather, Rava said /b as follows: b Happy are the righteous to whom it happens in this world according to the experiences of the wicked in this world, /b i.e., happy are the righteous who enjoy this world as well. b Woe to the wicked, to whom it happens in this world according to the experiences of the righteous in this world, /b i.e., like the many righteous people who suffer in this world.,The Gemara relates: b Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came before Rava. /b Rava b said to them: Have you mastered this tractate and that tractate? They said to him: Yes. /b Rava said to them: b Have you become somewhat wealthy? They said to him: Yes, as /b each of b us bought a parcel of land /b from which we earn our livelihoods. Rava b proclaimed about them: Happy are the righteous, to whom it happens in this world according to /b the goodness resulting from b the actions of the wicked in this world. /b ,§ b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “For the ways of the Lord are right, and the righteous will walk in them and transgressors will stumble in them” /b (Hosea 14:10)? It is b comparable to /b an incident involving b two people who roasted their Paschal offerings. One ate it for the sake of /b the b mitzva, and /b the other b one ate it /b with gusto, b for the sake of excessive eating. /b With regard to b that /b person b who ate it for the sake of /b the b mitzva, /b it is written: b “The righteous will walk in them.” /b With regard to b that /b person b who ate it for the sake of excessive eating, /b it is written: b “And transgressors will stumble in them.” /b , b Reish Lakish said to /b Rabba bar bar Ḥana: b Did you call /b the one who ate the Paschal offering for the sake of excessive eating b wicked? Although he did not perform /b the b mitzva /b in the b ideal /b manner, b didn’t he eat /b the b Paschal offering? /b Since he fulfilled the mitzva, how can he be characterized as a transgressor? b Rather, /b it is b analogous to /b an incident involving b two people; this /b one has b his wife and his sister with him in /b a dark b house and that /b one has b his wife and his sister with him in /b a dark b house. One /b of them, b his wife happened /b to come b to him /b and he engaged in intercourse with her, b and /b the other b one, his sister happened /b to come b to him /b and he engaged in intercourse with her. With regard to b that /b one, b to whom his wife happened /b to come, it is written: b “The righteous will walk in them.” /b With regard to b that /b one, b to whom his sister happened /b to come, it is written: b “And transgressors will stumble in them.” /b ,The Gemara asks: b Are these /b matters b comparable? /b In the verse, b we are speaking of one path /b upon which both the righteous and the wicked walk, b and here, /b in the incident mentioned by Reish Lakish, there are b two paths, /b as the two people are not performing the same action. b Rather, /b it is b analogous to /b the incident involving b Lot and his two daughters /b (see Genesis 19:30–38): With regard to the daughters, b who, /b when engaging in intercourse with their father, b intended /b their action b for the sake of a mitzva, /b as they believed that the world had been destroyed and that only they remained alive, it is written: b “The righteous will walk in them.” /b With regard to Lot, b who intended /b his action b for the sake of a transgression, /b it is written: b “And transgressors will stumble in them.” /b ,The Gemara challenges: b Perhaps /b Lot b too intended /b his action b for the sake of a mitzva. Rabbi Yoḥa says /b that b this entire verse: /b “And Lot cast his eyes and beheld the entire plain of the Jordan that it was well watered everywhere” (Genesis 13:10), b is stated in the context of transgression. /b ,He explains: b “And Lot cast /b his eyes” is an allusion to the verse: b “His master’s wife cast her eyes /b upon Joseph and said: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:7). b “His eyes” /b is an allusion to the verse: b “And Samson said: Get her for me, as she is pleasing to my eyes” /b (Judges 14:3). b “And beheld” /b is an allusion to the verse: b “And Shechem, son of Hamor, /b the prince of the land, b beheld her; /b and he took her and lay with her” (Genesis 34:2). b “The entire plain [ i kikar /i ] of the Jordan” /b is an allusion to the verse: b “For on account of a prostitute a man is brought to a loaf [ i kikar /i ] of bread” /b (Proverbs 6:26). b “That it was well watered [ i mashke /i ] everywhere” /b is an allusion to the verse b “I will follow my lovers, givers of my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink [ i veshikkuyai /i ]” /b (Hosea 2:7).,The Gemara asks: Why is Lot accused of wrongdoing? b Wasn’t he /b the victim of b circumstances beyond his control, /b as he was drunk and asleep? It is b taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥoni: Why is it dotted over /b the letter b i vav /i that /b is in the word b “ i bekumah /i ” /b written with regard to Lot’s b elder /b daughter in the verse: “And he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose [ i bekumah /i ]” (Genesis 19:33)? It is b to say to you that when she lay down he did not know; but when she arose, he knew. /b Therefore, his action was not completely beyond his control. The Gemara asks: b And what was he to do? What was, was. /b The Gemara answers: He should have b derived from it that on the following night he should not drink. /b Since he drank again, this indicates that he did so with intent to engage in intercourse with his other daughter.,Apropos Lot, b Rabba taught: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “A brother betrayed a strong city, and their contentions are like the bars of a castle” /b (Proverbs 18:19)? b “A brother betrayed a strong city”; that is Lot, who parted from Abraham. “And their contentions are like the bars of a castle” /b is stated b because he, /b i.e., Lot, b introduced contention between Israel and Ammon, as it is stated: “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” /b (Deuteronomy 23:4)., b Rava taught, and some say /b it was b Rabbi Yitzḥak /b who taught: b What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “He that separates himself seeks his own desire, and snarls against all sound wisdom” /b (Proverbs 18:1)? b “He that separates himself seeks his own desire”; that is Lot, who separated from Abraham /b to pursue his lust. b “And snarls [ i yitgalla /i ] against all sound wisdom”; his shame was revealed [ i shenitgalla /i ] in synagogues and study halls, /b where the i halakha /i concerning his offspring is taught; b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Yevamot /i 76a): b An Ammonite and a Moabite, /b descendants of Lot, b are forbidden /b with b a permanent prohibition. /b ,§ b And Ulla says: Tamar engaged in licentiousness /b with Judah (see Genesis, chapter 38), b and Zimri engaged in licentiousness /b with Cozbi (see Numbers 25:6–9). b Tamar engaged in licentiousness, /b and b kings and prophets emerged from her. Zimri engaged in licentiousness, /b and b tens of thousands from the Jewish people fell. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: A transgression /b performed b for the sake of /b Heaven b is greater than a mitzva /b performed b not for its own sake, as it is stated: “Blessed above women shall be Yael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, above women in the tent shall she be blessed” /b (Judges 5:24). b Who are /b these b “women in the tent”? /b They are b Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah, /b and Yael is more blessed than they are. Apparently, a mitzva performed not for its own sake is a negative phenomenon.,The Gemara asks: b Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say /b that b Rav says: A person should always engage in Torah /b study b and /b the performance of b mitzvot, even /b if he does so b not for its /b own b sake, as through /b the performance of mitzvot b not for its /b own b sake, /b one gains understanding and b comes /b to perform them b for its /b own b sake. /b Apparently, even when performed not for its own sake a mitzva is still a positive phenomenon. The Gemara emends the statement: b Say /b that the status of a transgression performed for the sake of Heaven is b like /b that of b a mitzva /b performed b not for its /b own b sake. /b ,Apropos Yael, b Rabbi Yoḥa says: That wicked /b man Sisera b performed seven /b acts of b intercourse /b with Yael b at that time, as it is stated: “Between her legs he crouched, he fell, he lay; /b between her legs he crouched, he fell; where he crouched, there he fell dead” (Judges 5:27). Each of the seven verbs is a euphemism for intercourse. The Gemara asks: b But didn’t she experience pleasure from /b the b transgression /b of engaging in intercourse with Sisera? Why does the verse praise her? b Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Even the good /b provided b by the wicked is bad for the righteous, /b so Yael did not experience any pleasure from her intercourse with Sisera., b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: A person should always engage in Torah /b study b and /b the performance of b mitzvot, even /b if he does so b not for its own sake, as through /b the performance of mitzvot b not for its own sake, /b one gains understanding and b comes /b to perform them b for its own sake. /b Proof for this can be adduced from the incident involving Balak, b as in reward for the forty-two offerings that Balak the wicked sacrificed /b to God, despite the fact that he did this in order to curse the Jewish people (see Numbers, chapter 23), b he merited and Ruth emerged from him, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Ruth was the daughter of the son of Eglon, the son of the son of Balak, king of Moab. /b ,§ Apropos Lot and his daughters, b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: From where /b is it derived b that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not withhold even /b the b reward for euphemistic speech? /b It is derived b from here, as the elder /b daughter b called her son Moab, /b an allusion to the fact that the child is from her own father [ i me’av /i ], and b the Merciful One said to Moses: “Be not at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle” /b (Deuteronomy 2:9). From this it may be inferred: b It is /b in b battle /b |
|
21. Babylonian Talmud, Nazir, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 179| 23a. ומתניתין כגון דאמר לה הריני נזיר ואת מאי משום הכי מיפר את שלה ושלו קיים:,מתני' האשה שנדרה בנזיר והיתה שותה ביין ומטמאה למתים ה"ז סופגת את הארבעים הפר לה בעלה והיא לא ידעה שהפר לה בעלה והיתה שותה ביין ומטמאה למתים אינה סופגת את הארבעים רבי יהודה אומר אם אינה סופגת את הארבעים תספוג מכת מרדות:,גמ' ת"ר (במדבר ל, יג) אישה הפרם וה' יסלח לה באשה שהפר לה בעלה והיא לא ידעה הכתוב מדבר שהיא צריכה כפרה וסליחה,וכשהיה מגיע ר"ע אצל פסוק זה היה בוכה ומה מי שנתכוון לעלות בידו בשר חזיר ועלה בידו בשר טלה טעון כפרה וסליחה המתכוון לעלות בידו בשר חזיר ועלה בידו בשר חזיר על אחת כמה וכמה,כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (ויקרא ה, יז) ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו,ומה מי שנתכוון לעלות בידו בשר טלה ועלה בידו בשר חזיר כגון חתיכה ספק של שומן ספק של חלב אמר קרא ונשא עונו מי שנתכוון לעלות בידו בשר חזיר ועלה בידו בשר חזיר עאכ"ו,איסי בן יהודה אומר ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו ומה מי שנתכוון לעלות בידו בשר טלה ועלה בידו בשר חזיר כגון שתי חתיכות אחת של חלב ואחת של שומן ונשא עונו המתכוון לעלות בידו בשר חזיר ועלה בידו בשר חזיר על אחת כמה וכמה,על דבר זה ידוו הדווים,וכל הני למה לי צריכין דאי תנא גבי אשה התם הוא דבעיא כפרה וסליחה משום דמעיקרא לאיסורא איכוון אבל חתיכה ספק של חלב ספק של שומן דלהיתרא איכוין לא בעי כפרה וסליחה,ואי איתמר הדא דאיכא איסורא אבל אשה דהפר לה בעלה דהתירא לא תיבעי כפרה וסליחה,ואי איתמר הני תרתי הוה אמינא הני תרתי הוא דסגי להון בכפרה וסליחה דלא איקבע איסורא אבל שתי חתיכות אחת של חלב ואחת של שומן דאיקבע איסורא לא סגי ליה בכפרה וסליחה קמ"ל דלא שנא,אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מאי דכתיב (הושע יד, י) כי ישרים דרכי ה' וצדיקים ילכו בם ופושעים יכשלו בם משל לשני בני אדם שצלו את פסחיהן אחד אכלו לשום מצוה ואחד אכלו לשום אכילה גסה זה שאכלו לשום מצוה וצדיקים ילכו בם וזה שאכלו לשום אכילה גסה ופושעים יכשלו בם,אמר ליה ר"ל האי רשע קרית ליה נהי דלא קא עביד מצוה מן המובחר פסח מיהא קא עביד אלא משל לשני בני אדם זה אשתו ואחותו עמו וזה אשתו ואחותו עמו לזה נזדמנה לו אשתו ולזה נזדמנה לו אחותו זה שנזדמנה לו אשתו צדיקים ילכו בם וזה שנזדמנה לו אחותו ופושעים יכשלו בם,מי דמי אנן קאמרינן חדא דרך הכא שני דרכים אלא משל ללוט ושתי בנותיו עמו הן שנתכוונו לשם מצוה וצדיקים ילכו בם הוא שנתכוין לשם עבירה ופושעים יכשלו בם,ודלמא הוא נמי לשום מצוה איכווין אמר רבי יוחנן כל הפסוק הזה על שם עבירה נאמר,(בראשית יג, י) וישא לוט (בראשית לט, ז) ותשא אשת אדוניו את עיניה [את עיניו] (שופטים יד, ג) כי היא ישרה בעיני,וירא (בראשית לד, ב) וירא אותה שכם בן חמור את כל ככר הירדן (משלי ו, כו) כי בעד אשה זונה עד ככר לחם כי כלה משקה (הושע ב, ז) אלכה אחרי מאהבי נותני לחמי ומימי צמרי ופשתי שמני ושיקויי,והא מינס אניס תנא משום רבי יוסי בר רב חוני למה נקוד על וי"ו (בראשית יט, לג) ובקומה של בכירה לומר שבשכבה לא ידע אבל בקומה ידע,ומאי הוה ליה למיעבד מאי דהוה הוה נפקא מינה דלפניא אחרינא לא איבעי למישתי חמרא:,דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (משלי יח, יט) אח נפשע מקרית עוז | 23a. b And the mishna /b is referring to a case b where he said to her /b in the form of a question: b I am hereby a nazirite, and what /b about b you? /b This indicates that he himself has completely accepted his naziriteship, and he is simply asking his wife if she would like to join him. b Due to that /b reason, as he did not link his vow to hers, b he may nullify hers and his is intact. /b ,mishna With regard to b a woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and /b she transgressed her vow since b she was drinking wine and rendering herself ritually impure by /b contact with b the dead, she incurs the forty /b lashes for each of the Torah prohibitions she transgressed. If b her husband nullified her /b vow, b and she did not know that her husband had nullified her /b vow, b and she was drinking wine and rendering herself impure by /b contact with b the dead, she does not incur the forty /b lashes, as she is no longer a nazirite. b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b Even b if she does not incur the forty /b lashes by Torah law, b she should incur lashes for rebelliousness [ i makat mardut /i ], /b an extrajudicial punishment imposed by the Sages, for her intention to commit a transgression, since she believed that it was prohibited to her.,gemara b The Sages taught /b with regard to a verse in the section discussing vows: b “Her husband has nullified them, and the Lord will forgive her” /b (Numbers 30:13), that b the verse is speaking of a woman whose husband nullified her /b vow b and she did not know /b that he had done so. It teaches b that /b if she performs the actions prohibited by the vow b she requires atonement and forgiveness. /b , b And when Rabbi Akiva would reach this verse he would cry, /b saying: b And if one who intended to pick up pork in his hand /b and eat it, b and /b in fact b he picked up the meat of a lamb in his hand /b and ate it, so that he did not in fact commit a transgression, like this woman who tried to sin and was unaware that her husband had nullified her vow, nevertheless b requires atonement and forgiveness, /b then with regard to b one who intends to pick up pork in his hand and /b in fact b picked up pork in his hand, all the more so /b does he require atonement., b On a similar note, you /b can b say /b and quote the following verse with regard to one who is liable to bring an uncertain guilt-offering, which is brought for a possible transgression: b “Though he does not know it yet he is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” /b (Leviticus 5:17).,This verse teaches: b And if /b in a case similar to b one who intended to pick up the meat of a lamb in his hand /b and eat it, which is permitted, b and he picked up pork in his hand /b and ate it, thereby sinning unintentionally, b for example, /b where one took b a piece /b of meat with regard to which it is b uncertain /b whether it is permitted b fat /b and b uncertain /b whether it is forbidden b fat, /b and he ate it, rendering him liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering, b the verse states: “And shall bear his iniquity,” /b indicating that he requires atonement via an offering; then with regard to b one who intends to pick up pork in his hand and /b in fact b picked up pork in his hand, all the more so /b he requires atonement., b Isi ben Yehuda says /b that this verse: b “Though he does not know it yet he is guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” /b (Leviticus 5:17), should be explained in a slightly different manner: b And if /b in a case similar to b one who intended to pick up the meat of a lamb in his hand and he picked up pork in his hand, e.g., /b where there were b two pieces /b before him, b one of /b forbidden b fat and one of /b permitted b fat, /b and he picked up one and ate it without knowing which of them was forbidden, it states with regard to him: b “And shall bear his iniquity,” /b i.e., he is obligated to bring an offering; then with regard to b one who intends to pick up pork in his hand and picked up pork in his hand, all the more so /b is he in need of atonement.,The Gemara adds: b And with regard to this matter, those who suffer should suffer, /b i.e., one can see from here the extent to which one requires atonement and forgiveness.,The Gemara asks: b And why do I /b need b all these /b examples for the same idea? The Gemara answers: All of them b are necessary, as had we taught /b this idea only b with regard to /b the case of b a woman, /b one might have said that b it is there that she requires atonement and forgiveness because at the outset her intention was to sin. However, /b in the case of one who took b a piece /b with regard to which it was b uncertain /b whether it was permitted b fat /b and b uncertain /b whether it was forbidden b fat, who intended /b to eat b permitted /b food, one might have said that b he does not require atonement and forgiveness. /b , b And had this /b case concerning one who eats a piece that might be forbidden b been stated /b alone, one could say that atonement is required in this situation, b as there is /b possibly b a prohibition /b present before him. b However, /b with regard to b a woman whose husband nullified her /b vow, b where /b she was in fact b permitted /b to perform the actions she performed, perhaps b she does not require atonement and forgiveness. /b , b And had /b only b these two /b cases b been stated, I would say: It is /b in b these two /b cases in b which atonement and forgiveness are enough for them, as the prohibition is not established; /b even one who ate the piece that was possibly forbidden fat has not necessarily committed a sin. b However, /b if there were b two pieces, one of /b forbidden b fat and one of /b permitted b fat, where the prohibition is established, /b as there was definitely a forbidden piece before him and nevertheless he proceeded to eat one of them, one might have said that b atonement and forgiveness should not suffice for him. /b Isi ben Yehuda therefore b teaches us that /b there, it b is no different, /b as even this individual is included in the verse: “And he shall be forgiven” (Leviticus 5:18).,§ b Rabba bar bar Ḥanna said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “For the paths of the Lord are right, and the just walk in them, but transgressors stumble over them” /b (Hosea 14:10)? How can the same path lead to such different outcomes? This is b comparable to two people who roasted their Paschal offerings /b on Passover eve, in the proper manner. b One ate it for the sake of the mitzva, and one ate it for the sake of excessive eating. This /b one, b who ate it for the sake of the mitzva, /b has fulfilled: b “And the just walk in them,” while that /b one, b who ate it for the sake of excessive eating, /b is described by the end of the verse: b “But transgressors stumble over them.” /b , b Reish Lakish said to /b Rabba bar bar Ḥanna: b You call this /b individual b wicked? /b Even b though he had not performed the mitzva in the optimal manner /b when he eats this Paschal offering, b he has at least performed /b the mitzva of the b Paschal offering. Rather, /b this is b comparable to two people; this /b one has b his wife and sister /b in the same house b with him, and that /b one has b his wife and sister with him. /b Each husband arrives home and engages in sexual intercourse with one of the women. b This /b one b happened upon his wife, and that /b one b happened upon his sister. This /b one, b who happened upon his wife, /b is described by the phrase b “And the just walk in them,” and that /b one, b who happened upon his sister, /b is described by the phrase b “But transgressors stumble over them.” /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b Is it comparable? We said one path; /b i.e., two people follow the same path by performing the very same action with two different outcomes; whereas b here /b there are b two paths. /b Each person engaged in sexual intercourse with a different relative and therefore they cannot be said to have followed the same path. b Rather, /b it is b comparable to Lot and his two daughters, /b who were b with him. They, who intended /b to engage in sexual intercourse with him b for the sake of a mitzva, /b as they thought that the entire world was destroyed and wished to preserve the human race, are described in the first part of the verse: b “And the just walk in them.” He who intended /b to act b for the sake of a transgression /b is described by the last part: b “But transgressors stumble over them.” /b ,The Gemara asks: b And perhaps /b Lot b too intended /b that his actions should be b for the sake of a mitzva? /b The Gemara answers: This was not the case, as b Rabbi Yoḥa said /b with regard to Lot: b This entire verse: /b “And Lot lifted up his eyes, and saw all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere” (Genesis 13:10), b is stated with regard to /b the b sin /b of licentiousness. Since this verse teaches that Lot was a lustful man, it can therefore be assumed he meant to sin with his daughters as well.,Rabbi Yoḥa explains: b “And Lot lifted up /b his eyes” employs the same expression as a verse that refers to Joseph’s temptation: b “That his master’s wife lifted up her eyes” /b (Genesis 39:7), which is clearly referring to sin. The phrase used in reference to Lot, b “his eyes,” /b is stated similarly to Samson’s appraisal of the Philistine girl he sought to marry: b “For she is pleasing in my eyes” /b (Judges 14:3).,Rabbi Yoḥa continues to interpret the verse as a series of references to licentiousness. The phrase b “and saw” /b is reminiscent of the verse dealing with Jacob’s daughter Dinah: b “And Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, saw her /b and he took her, and lay with her” (Genesis 34:2). The verse continues: b “All the plain [ i kikar /i ] of the Jordan,” /b which alludes to the verse: b “For on account of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf [ i kikar /i ] of bread” /b (Proverbs 6:26). The last part of the verse: b “That it was well watered everywhere,” /b recalls: b “I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink” /b (Hosea 2:7).,The Gemara asks: b But /b Lot b was forced /b to participate in the sexual intercourse, as he was asleep at the time; how can he be considered a sinner? The Gemara answers that this is as a Sage b taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Rav Ḥoni: Why is there a dot /b in a Torah scroll b over /b the letter b i vav /i of /b the word b “ i uvekumah /i ,” with regard to /b Lot’s b elder /b daughter, in the verse: “And he did not know when she lay down and when she arose [ i uvekumah /i ]” (Genesis 19:33)? This dot serves b to say that when she lay down he did not know; however, when she arose he knew /b what she had done, as he later understood what had happened.,The Gemara asks: b And what could he have done /b about it? b What has happened has happened; /b i.e., Lot could not change the past. The Gemara answers: The b difference /b is b that on the other, /b following, b night, he should not have drunk wine /b again. By allowing himself to get drunk a second time, he showed that the end result, engaging in sexual intercourse with his younger daughter, was something he desired.,§ b Rava interpreted /b a verse b homiletically /b with regard to Lot: b What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city, /b |
|
22. Babylonian Talmud, Zevahim, None Tagged with subjects: •animal, specification of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 119| 103b. לא יהו כהנים זכאין בעורה ת"ל עור העולה מ"מ,עור העולה אין לי אלא עור העולה עורות קדשי קדשים מנין ת"ל עור העולה אשר הקריב יכול שאני מרבה אף קדשים קלים ת"ל עולה מה עולה קדשי קדשים אף כל קדשי קדשים,רבי ישמעאל אומר עור העולה אין לי אלא העולה עורות קדשי קדשים מנין ודין הוא ומה עולה שלא זכו בבשרה זכו בעורה קדשי קדשים שזכו בבשרן אינו דין שזכו בעורן,מזבח יוכיח שזכה בבשר ולא זכה בעור מה למזבח שכן לא זכה במקצת תאמר בכהנים שזכו במקצת הואיל וזכו במקצת זכו בכוליה,רבי אומר כל עצמו לא הוצרכנו אלא לעור העולה בלבד שבכל מקום העור מהלך אחר הבשר,פרים הנשרפין ושעירים הנשרפין הן ועורותיהן [נשרפין] עמהן חטאת ואשם וזבחי שלמי ציבור מתנה לכהן רצו מפשיטין אותן לא רצו אוכלין אותן ע"ג עורן קדשים קלים לבעלים רצו מפשיטין אותן רצו אוכלין אותן על גב עורן,אבל עולה נאמר בה (ויקרא א, ו) והפשיט את העולה ונתח אותה לנתחיה יכול לא יהו הכהנים זכאין בעורה ת"ל (ויקרא ז, ח) עור העולה אשר הקריב,לו יהיה פרט לטבול יום (ומחוסר כיפורים) ואונן שיכול לא יזכו בבשר שהוא לאכילה יזכו בעור שאינו לאכילה ת"ל לו יהיה פרט למחוסר כיפורים וטבול יום ואונן,ות"ק נמי תיפוק לי מדינא מילתא דאתיא בקל וחומר טרח וכתב לה קרא,ורבי ישמעאל האי אשר הקריב מאי עביד ליה פרט לטבול יום ומחוסר כיפורים ואונן,ותיפוק ליה מלו יהיה רבי ישמעאל לטעמיה דאמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי ישמעאל נאמר בעולה לו יהיה ונאמר באשם לו יהיה מה להלן עצמותיו מותרין אף כאן עצמותיו מותרין,מופני דאי לא מופני איכא למיפרך מה לאשם שכן בשרו מותר לו יהיה קרא יתירא הוא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל הקדשים שאירע בהן פסול קודם להפשיטן אין עורותיהן לכהנים לאחר הפשיטן עורותיהן לכהנים אמר רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים מימי לא ראיתי עור שיוצא לבית השריפה,אמר רבי עקיבא מדבריו למדנו שהמפשיט את הבכור ונמצא טריפה שיאותו הכהנים בעורוו חכמים אומרים אין לא ראינו ראיה אלא יצא לבית השריפה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big כל שלא זכה המזבח בבשרה לא זכו הכהנים בעורה ואע"ג דאפשטיה לעור קודם זריקה מני רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון היא דאמר אין הדם מרצה על העור בפני עצמו,אימא סיפא כל הקדשים שאירע בהן פסול קודם הפשיטן אין עורותיהן לכהנים לאחר הפשיטן עורותיהן לכהנים אתאן לרבי דאמר הדם מרצה על העור בפני עצמו רישא רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון סיפא רבי,אמר אביי מדסיפא רבי היא רישא נמי רבי היא ומודה רבי שאין הפשט קודם זריקה,רבא אמר מדרישא ר"א ברבי שמעון סיפא נמי ר"א בר"ש מאי קודם הפשט | 103b. I might have thought that b the priests have no right to its hide. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “The hide of the burnt offering,” /b to teach that b in any case /b where the offering is not disqualified, the priests acquire its hide, even if it did not satisfy the owner’s obligation.,And from the phrase b “the hide of the burnt offering” I have /b derived b only /b that the priests acquire b the hide of the burnt offering. From where /b do I derive that they acquire b the hides of /b all b offerings of the most sacred order? The verse states: “The hide of the burnt offering which he has offered,” /b which serves to include any offering that the priests sacrifice. If so, one b might /b have thought b that I include even offerings of lesser sanctity. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “Burnt offering,” /b and not simply: offering, to teach that b just as a burnt offering is an offering of the most sacred order, so too /b the priests acquire the hides only of b all offerings of the most sacred order; /b they do not acquire the hides of offerings of lesser sanctity.,The i baraita /i continues: b Rabbi Yishmael says /b there is a different derivation. From the phrase b “the hide of the burnt offering,” I have /b derived b only /b that the priests acquire the hide of b the burnt offering. From where /b is it derived that they acquire b the hides of /b all b offerings of the most sacred order? It is /b based on b a logical inference: Just as /b in the case of b a burnt offering, for which /b the priests b do not acquire its meat, /b the priests nevertheless b acquire its hide, /b then in the case of b offerings of the most sacred order, for which /b the priests b do acquire its meat, is it not logical that /b they b acquire their hides? /b ,One may counter: Let the b altar prove /b that this is not a valid i a fortiori /i inference, b as it acquires the meat, and /b still b it does not acquire the hide. /b One may respond: b What /b is notable b about the altar? /b It is notable b in that it does not acquire /b hides b in any /b instance. b Will you say /b the i halakha /i concerning the altar should teach the i halakha /i b concerning /b the b priests, who acquire /b hides of b some of /b the offerings, as the Torah explicitly grants them the hides of burnt offerings? Rather say: b Since /b the priests b acquire /b hides of b some of /b the offerings, b they acquire /b the hides of b all /b offerings of the most sacred order., b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b There is no need to derive that hides of offerings of the most sacred order go to the priests. b We need /b the verse b itself only to /b teach that this is the i halakha /i with regard to b the hide of the burnt offering. As /b the Torah does not generally require that an offering be flayed, b in all /b other b cases the hide /b of the offering b follows the flesh /b of the offering.,For example, b bulls that are burned and goats that are burned /b must be burned b themselves, and their hides burned with them, /b as the Torah states explicitly (see Leviticus 4:11–12). b A sin offering, and a guilt offering, and a communal peace offering /b are given as b a gift to the priest /b (see Leviticus 7:7); if the priests b want, /b they may b flay them /b and use the hides, and if they b do not want /b to use the hides, they may b eat /b the offerings b together with their hides. offerings of lesser sanctity /b are given b to the owners; /b if they b want, /b they may b flay them /b and use the hides, and if they b want, /b they may b eat /b the offerings b together with their hides. /b , b But with regard to a burnt offering it is stated: “And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into its pieces” /b (Leviticus 1:6). One b might /b have thought that, because all the flesh of the burnt offering is burned on the altar, b the priests have no right to its hide. /b Therefore, b the verse states: /b “The priest shall have to himself b the hide of the burnt offering that he has sacrificed” /b (Leviticus 7:8).,The phrase “the priest b shall have to himself” /b serves b to exclude /b a priest b who immersed that day and /b a priest b who has not yet /b brought b an atonement /b offering, b and an acute mourner, /b i.e., meaning that they do not receive a share of the hides, just as they do not receive a share of the meat. b As /b one b might /b have thought that although these priests b will not acquire the meat, /b this is b because it is for consumption, /b and they are not permitted to partake of it; but b they will acquire the hide, because it is not for consumption. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “Shall have to himself,” to exclude /b a priest b who has not yet /b brought b an atonement /b offering, b and /b a priest b who immersed that day, and an acute mourner. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But let the first i tanna /i also derive /b the i halakha /i b logically, /b as Rabbi Yishmael did. Why did he cite a verse? The Gemara answers: often when there is b a matter that can be derived through an i a fortiori /i /b inference, the b verse /b nevertheless b takes the trouble and writes it /b explicitly., b And /b as for b Rabbi Yishmael, what does he do with this /b phrase: “The hide of the burnt offering b that he has sacrificed,” /b from which the first i tanna /i derives the i halakha /i ? He holds that it serves b to exclude /b a priest b who immersed that day, and /b a priest b who has not yet /b brought b an atonement /b offering, b and an acute mourner, /b who do not receive a share in the hides.,The Gemara challenges: b But let /b Rabbi Yishmael b derive /b this i halakha /i b from /b the phrase: b “Shall have to himself,” /b as does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara explains: b Rabbi Yishmael /b conforms b to his /b line of b reasoning, /b that the phrase teaches a different i halakha /i . b As Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: /b It b is stated: “Shall have to himself” /b (Leviticus 7:8), b with regard to a burnt offering, and /b it b is stated: /b “The priest that makes atonement, b he shall have to himself” /b (Leviticus 7:7), b with regard to a guilt offering. /b The following verbal analogy is derived from here: b Just as there, /b after the blood of a guilt offering is presented, b its bones /b become b permitted /b to the priest for any use, since only the portions intended for consumption on the altar are sacrificed whereas the rest of the animal is given to the priests, b so too here, /b with regard to a burnt offering, b its bones /b that are not attached to the flesh and are therefore not intended for the altar b are permitted. /b ,With regard to this verbal analogy the Gemara comments: It must be that those terms b are free, /b i.e., superfluous in their context and therefore available for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy. b As, if they are not free, /b the verbal analogy b can be refuted /b as follows: b What /b is notable b about a guilt offering? /b It is notable b in that its meat is permitted /b to the priests, unlike the flesh of a burnt offering, which is burned upon the altar, and perhaps this is why the bones of a guilt offering are also permitted. Since the phrase: b “Shall have it to himself,” is a superfluous /b term in each b verse, /b the analogy stands, because a verbal analogy based on free terms cannot be refuted logically., strong MISHNA: /strong If b any offerings /b of the most sacred order b were disqualified prior to their flaying, their hides do not /b go b to the priests; /b rather, they are burned together with the flesh in the place of burning. If they were disqualified b after their flaying, their hides /b go b to the priests. Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, said: In /b all b my days, I never saw a hide going out to the place of burning. /b , b Rabbi Akiva said: From the statement of /b Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, b we learned that /b in a case where b one flays the firstborn /b offering, b and /b the animal is later b discovered to have a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months [ i tereifa /i ], /b the i halakha /i is b that the priests may derive benefit [ i sheye’otu /i ] from its hide. And the Rabbis say: /b The claim: b We did not see, is no proof; rather, /b if after flaying it is discovered that the animal was unfit before it was flayed, the hide b goes out to the place of burning. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The previous mishna (103a) teaches: In the case of b any /b burnt offering b for which the altar did not acquire its flesh, /b e.g., if it was disqualified prior to the sprinkling of its blood, b the priests did not acquire its hide. /b The mishna does not state any qualification, indicating that this is the i halakha /i b even if /b the priest b flayed the hide before /b the b sprinkling /b of the blood on the altar. The Gemara posits: b Whose /b opinion is this? b It is /b the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: The blood does not effect acceptance of the hide by itself; /b i.e., it effects acceptance of the hide only together with the flesh. Since the flesh is disqualified and the sprinkling does not effect its acceptance, the sprinkling does not effect acceptance for the hide either.,The Gemara challenges: b Say the latter clause, /b i.e., the mishna here: If b any offerings /b of the most sacred order b were disqualified prior to their flaying, their hides do not /b go b to the priests. /b If they were disqualified b after their flaying, their hides /b go b to the priests. /b This indicates that once the hides are flayed, they go to the priests even if the flesh was disqualified before the sprinkling of the blood. If so, b we arrive at /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b who says: The blood effects acceptance of the hide, /b i.e., renders the hide permitted to the priests, b by itself. /b Can it be that b the former clause /b of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, /b and b the latter clause /b is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi?, b Abaye said: Since the latter clause /b is the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, it must be that b the former clause is also /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi. b And /b although Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in principle the priests should acquire the hides if they are removed before the flesh is disqualified, in any case b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b concedes that /b the b flaying is not /b done b before /b the b sprinkling. /b Since the offering cannot be disqualified before the hide is removed, practically speaking, the priests will never acquire the hides unless the altar acquires the flesh, as taught in the former clause., b Rava said: /b On the contrary, b since the former clause /b is the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, /b it must be that b the latter clause is also /b the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. /b When the mishna states that the priests acquire the hides if the flesh was disqualified after the flaying, it must mean that the flesh was disqualified after the sprinkling. Therefore, b what /b does the mishna mean by the phrase: b Before flaying, /b |
|
