1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 12.22 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •commandment, performance of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 172| 12.22. "וּלְקַחְתֶּם אֲגֻדַּת אֵזוֹב וּטְבַלְתֶּם בַּדָּם אֲשֶׁר־בַּסַּף וְהִגַּעְתֶּם אֶל־הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְאֶל־שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת מִן־הַדָּם אֲשֶׁר בַּסָּף וְאַתֶּם לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח־בֵּיתוֹ עַד־בֹּקֶר׃", | 12.22. "And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two side-posts with the blood that is in the basin; and none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning.", |
|
| 2. Philo of Alexandria, Questions On Exodus, 1.12 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •commandment, performance of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 172 |
3. Mishnah, Parah, 3.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •commandment, performance of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 172| 3.9. "כְּפָתוּהָ בְחֶבֶל שֶׁל מֶגֶג וּנְתָנוּהָ עַל גַּב הַמַּעֲרָכָה, רֹאשָׁהּ בַּדָּרוֹם וּפָנֶיהָ לַמַּעֲרָב. הַכֹּהֵן עוֹמֵד בַּמִּזְרָח וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב. שָׁחַט בִּימִינוֹ וְקִבֵּל בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בִּימִינוֹ הָיָה מְקַבֵּל וְנוֹתֵן לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ, וּמַזֶּה בִימִינוֹ. טָבַל וְהִזָּה שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים. עַל כָּל הַזָּיָה, טְבִילָה. גָּמַר מִלְּהַזּוֹת, קִנַּח אֶת יָדוֹ בְּגוּפָהּ שֶׁל פָּרָה. יָרַד וְהִצִּית אֶת הָאֵשׁ בַּאֲלִיתוֹת. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, בַּחֲרִיּוֹת: \n", | 3.9. "They bound it with a rope of reed and placed it on the pile with its head towards the south and its face towards the west. The priest stood in the east with his face towards the west. He slaughtered with his right hand and received the blood with his left. Rabbi Judah said: he received the blood with his right hand and put it in his left hand. He sprinkled with his right. Seven times he dipped his finger in the blood and sprinkled it towards the Holy of Holies, dipping once again for each sprinkling. When he finished the sprinkling he wiped his hand on the body of the cow, came down and kindled the fire with wood chips. Rabbi Akiva said: with dry branches of palm-trees.", |
|
4. Mishnah, Negaim, 14.4, 14.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •commandment, performance of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 59, 172| 14.4. "שְׁלשָׁה מְגַלְּחִין וְתִגְלַחְתָּן מִצְוָה, הַנָּזִיר וְהַמְּצֹרָע וְהַלְוִיִּם. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁגִּלְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְתַעַר אוֹ שֶׁשִּׁיְּרוּ שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, לֹא עָשׂוּ כְלוּם: \n", 14.10. "נָטַל מִלֹּג הַשֶּׁמֶן וְיָצַק לְתוֹךְ כַּפּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ. וְאִם יָצַק לְתוֹךְ כַּף עַצְמוֹ, יָצָא. טָבַל וְהִזָּה שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים, עַל כָּל הַזָּיָה טְבִילָה. בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל הַמְּצֹרָע, מְקוֹם שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן אֶת הַדָּם, שָׁם הוּא נוֹתֵן אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יד), עַל מְקוֹם דַּם הָאָשָׁם. וְהַנּוֹתָר מִן הַשֶּׁמֶן אֲשֶׁר עַל כַּף הַכֹּהֵן יִתֵּן עַל רֹאשׁ הַמִּטַּהֵר לְכַפֵּר. אִם נָתַן, כִּפֵּר. וְאִם לֹא נָתַן, לֹא כִפֵּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר, שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה הֵן, בֵּין שֶׁנָּתַן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן, כִּפֵּר, וּמַעֲלִין עָלָיו כְּאִלּוּ לֹא כִפֵּר. חָסַר הַלֹּג עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָצַק, יְמַלְאֶנּוּ. מִשֶּׁיָּצַק, יָבִיא אַחֵר בַּתְּחִלָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, חָסַר הַלֹּג עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן, יְמַלְאֶנּוּ. מִשֶּׁנָּתַן, יָבִיא אַחֵר בַּתְּחִלָּה: \n", | 14.4. "There are three who must shave their hair, and their shaving of it is a commandment: the nazirite, the metzora, and the Levites. If any of these cut their hair but not with a razor, or if they left even two remaining hairs, their act is of no validity.", 14.10. "[The priest] then took some [of the contents] of the log of oil and poured it into his colleague's hand; And if he poured it into his own hand, the obligation is fulfilled. He then dipped [his right forefinger] in the oil and sprinkled it seven times towards the Holy of Holies, dipping it for every sprinkling. He then approached the metzora, to the same places that he applied the blood he now applied the oil, as it is said, \"Over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering; 29 and what is left of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed, to make expiation for him before the Lord.\" (Leviticus 14:28-29). If he \"put upon,\" he has made atonement, but if he did not \"put upon,\" he did not make atonement, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yoha ben Nuri says: these are but the remainders of the mitzvah. Whether he \"put upon\" or did not \"put upon,\" atonement is made, only it is accounted to him as if he did not make atonement. If any oil was missing from the log before it was poured out it may be filled up again; if after it was poured out, other oil must be brought anew, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: if any oil was missing from the log before it was applied, it may be filled up; but if after it had been applied, other oil must be brought anew.", |
|
5. Mishnah, Menachot, 9.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •commandment, performance of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 59| 9.8. "הַכֹּל סוֹמְכִין, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה, וְקָטָן, סוּמָא, וְנָכְרִי, וְהָעֶבֶד, וְהַשָּׁלִיחַ, וְהָאִשָּׁה. וּסְמִיכָה, שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה, עַל הָרֹאשׁ, בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיִם. וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁסּוֹמְכִין שׁוֹחֲטִין, וְתֵכֶף לַסְּמִיכָה שְׁחִיטָה: \n", | 9.8. "All lay hands on the offering except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind man, a gentile, a slave, an agent, or a woman. The laying on of hands is outside the commandment. [One must lay] the hands: On the head of the animal, Both hands In the place where one lays on the hands there the animal must be slaughtered; And the slaughtering must immediately follow the laying on of hands.", |
|
| 6. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 2.14.6 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •commandment, performance of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 172 |
7. Mishnah, Pesahim, 8.2, 9.5, 9.9, 38.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •commandment, performance of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 169, 172| 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", 9.5. "מַה בֵּין פֶּסַח מִצְרַיִם לְפֶסַח דּוֹרוֹת, פֶּסַח מִצְרַיִם מִקָּחוֹ מִבֶּעָשׂוֹר, וְטָעוּן הַזָּאָה בַאֲגֻדַּת אֵזוֹב עַל הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְעַל שְׁתֵּי מְזוּזוֹת, וְנֶאֱכָל בְּחִפָּזוֹן בְּלַיְלָה אֶחָד, וּפֶסַח דּוֹרוֹת נוֹהֵג כָּל שִׁבְעָה: \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.", 9.5. "What is the difference between the pesah [which was offered] in Egypt and the pesah of [subsequent] generations?The pesah in Egypt was taken on the tenth [of Nisan], And it required sprinkling with a bunch of hyssop on the lintel and on the two door-posts, And it was eaten in haste on one night, whereas the pesah of [subsequent] generations is kept the whole seven [days].", 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, Pesahim, 7.11, 7.13 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 169 |
9. Tosefta, Kippurim, 3.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •commandment, performance of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 172| 3.2. "הזה על טהרו של מזבח שבע פעמים לא היה מזה לא על האפר ולא על הגחלים אלא על גגו של מזבח [והיה נכפפת] על הקיר על כל הזייה טבילה נתן על הקרן [מכן ומכן] כשר מן הקרן ולפנים פסול.", | |
|
| 10. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Shimeon Ben Yohai, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •commandment, performance of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 172 |
| 11. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 59 |
| 12. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 133, 114 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 167 |
| 13. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 172 |
14. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •commandment, performance of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 60| 5a. אמר רב יוסף סמיכה איכא בינייהו למ"ד כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן סמיכה מעכבא למ"ד דבר שאין מעכב לדורות אין מעכב בהן סמיכה לא מעכבא,ולדורות מנא לן דלא מעכבא דתניא (ויקרא א, ד) וסמך ונרצה וכי סמיכה מכפרת והלא אין כפרה אלא בדם שנאמר (ויקרא יז, יא) כי הדם הוא בנפש יכפר,ומה ת"ל וסמך ונרצה שאם עשאה לסמיכה שירי מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו לא כפר וכפר,רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר תנופה איכא בינייהו למ"ד כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן מעכבא ולמ"ד דבר שאין מעכב לדורות אין מעכב בהן לא מעכבא,ולדורות מנא לן דלא מעכבא דתניא (ויקרא יד, כא) לתנופה לכפר וכי תנופה מכפרת והלא אין כפרה אלא בדם שנאמר כי הדם הוא בנפש יכפר ומה ת"ל לתנופה לכפר שאם עשאה לתנופה שירי מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו לא כפר וכפר,רב פפא אמר פרישת שבעה איכא בינייהו למ"ד כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן מעכבא למ"ד דבר שאינו מעכב לדורות אינו מעכב בהן לא מעכבא,ולדורות מנא לן דלא מעכבא מדקא תני מתקינין ולא קתני מפרישין,רבינא אמר ריבוי שבעה ומשיחה שבעה איכא בינייהו למ"ד כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן מעכבא למ"ד דבר שאין מעכב לדורות אין מעכב בהן לא מעכבא,ולדורות מנא לן דלא מעכבא דתניא (ויקרא טז, לב) וכפר הכהן אשר ימשח אותו ואשר ימלא את ידו לכהן תחת אביו מה תלמוד לומר,לפי שנאמר (שמות כט, ל) שבעת ימים ילבשם הכהן תחתיו מבניו אין לי אלא נתרבה שבעה ונמשח שבעה נתרבה שבעה ונמשח יום אחד נתרבה יום אחד ונמשח שבעה מניין תלמוד לומר אשר ימשח אותו ואשר ימלא את ידו מ"מ,אשכחן ריבוי שבעה לכתחלה משיחה שבעה לכתחלה מנא לן,איבעית אימא מדאיצטריך קרא למעוטה ואיבעית אימא דאמר קרא (שמות כט, כט) ובגדי הקדש אשר לאהרן יהיו לבניו אחריו למשחה בהם ולמלא בם את ידם איתקש משיחה לריבוי מה ריבוי שבעה אף משיחה שבעה,מאי טעמא דמ"ד כל הכתוב בהן מעכב אמר רבי יצחק בר ביסנא אמר קרא (שמות כט, לה) ועשית לאהרן ולבניו ככה ככה עיכובא הוא תינח כל | 5a. b Rav Yosef said: /b The practical difference b between them /b relates to the question of b placing hands /b on the head of an animal brought as an offering. According b to the one who said: /b Failure to perform b all /b the details b that are written in its /b regard, including details that do not invalidate offerings throughout the generations, b invalidates /b the inauguration, failure to perform the b placing /b of b hands /b on the head of the animal b also invalidates /b the inauguration. According b to the one who said: A matter that does not invalidate /b offerings b throughout the generations does not invalidate /b the inauguration, failure to perform the b placing /b of b hands /b on the head of the animal b does not invalidate /b the inauguration., b And /b with regard to the i halakhot /i of offerings that apply b throughout the generations /b the Gemara asks: b From where do we derive /b that failure to place hands on the head of the animal b does not invalidate /b the offering? The Gemara answers: b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that the verse states: b “And he shall place /b his hand on the head of the burnt-offering, b and it shall be accepted /b for him to atone on his behalf” (Leviticus 1:4). b Does /b the b placing /b of b hands atone /b for one’s sins? b Isn’t atonement /b accomplished b only by /b the sprinkling of b the blood, as it is stated: “For it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life” /b (Leviticus 17:11)?, b And /b for b what /b purpose, then, b does the verse state: “And he shall place…and it shall be accepted”? /b It teaches that if b one deemed /b the ritual of b placing hands /b to be b a peripheral aspect of the mitzva /b and consequently failed to perform it, b the verse ascribes to him /b status b as though he did not achieve /b optimal b atonement; and /b nevertheless, the offering b atones /b for his sins. Apparently, failure to lay hands on the head of the offering does not invalidate the offering throughout the generations, as atonement can be achieved without it. Nevertheless, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥa, failure to lay hands on the offering invalidates the offerings brought during the inauguration., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b The issue of b waving /b the offering is the practical difference b between /b the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Ḥanina. According b to the one who said: /b Failure to perform b all /b the details b that are written in its /b regard b invalidates /b the inauguration, failure to wave the offering also b invalidates /b the inauguration. b And /b according b to the one who said: A matter that does not invalidate /b offerings b throughout the generations does not invalidate /b the inauguration, failure to wave the offering b does not invalidate /b the inauguration., b And /b with regard to the i halakhot /i of offerings b throughout the generations, /b the Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive that failure to wave the offering b does not invalidate /b the offering? The Gemara answers: b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that the verse says: “He shall take one male lamb as a guilt-offering b to be waved to make atonement /b for him” (Leviticus 14:21). b Does waving /b the offering b atone /b for one’s sins? b Isn’t atonement /b accomplished b only by /b the sprinkling of b the blood, as it is stated: “For it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life” /b (Leviticus 17:11)? b And /b for b what /b purpose, then, b does the verse state: To be waved to make atonement? /b It teaches that if b one deemed /b the ritual of b waving /b to be b a peripheral aspect of the mitzva /b and therefore failed to perform it, b the verse ascribes to him /b status b as though he did not achieve /b optimal b atonement; and /b nevertheless, the offering b atones /b for his sins on his behalf., b Rav Pappa said: /b The issue of b sequestering /b the priest for b seven /b days is the practical difference b between /b the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Ḥanina. According b to the one who said: /b Failure to perform b all /b the details b that are written in its /b regard b invalidates /b the inauguration, failure to sequester the priest for seven days also b invalidates /b the inauguration. b And /b according b to the one who said: A matter that does not invalidate /b offerings b throughout the generations does not invalidate /b the inauguration, failure to sequester the priest for seven days b does not invalidate /b the inauguration., b And /b with regard to the i halakhot /i of offerings b throughout the generations, /b the Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive that failure to sequester the priest for seven days b does not invalidate /b the offering? The Gemara answers: It is derived b from the fact that it is taught /b in the mishna: And b they /b would b designate /b another priest in his stead, b and it is not taught: /b The Sages b remove /b the designated priest from his house, despite the possibility that ultimately he might replace the High Priest and perform the Yom Kippur service. Apparently, sequestering is not essential., b Ravina said: /b The issue of the priest performing the service with the b multiple /b garments of the High Priest for b seven /b days and serving with b anointment /b for b seven /b days is the practical difference b between /b the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Ḥanina. According b to the one who said: /b Failure to perform b all /b the details b that are written in its /b regard b invalidates /b the inauguration, failure to serve with multiple garments and anointment for seven days also b invalidates /b the inauguration. b And /b according b to the one who said: A matter that does not invalidate /b offerings b throughout the generations does not invalidate /b the inauguration, failure to serve with multiple garments and anointment for seven days b does not invalidate /b the inauguration., b And /b with regard to the i halakhot /i of offerings b throughout the generations, /b the Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive that failure to serve with multiple garments and anointment for seven days b does not invalidate /b the offering? The Gemara answers: b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : For b what /b purpose b does the verse state: “And the priest who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated to serve in his father’s stead shall make the atonement” /b (Leviticus 16:32)? If it comes to teach that all service must be performed by the High Priest, it is already written with regard to the Yom Kippur service that it must be performed by Aaron, the High Priest., b Since it is stated: “Seven days shall the son that is priest in his stead don them” /b (Exodus 29:30), b I /b derive b only /b that one who donned the b multiple /b garments of the High Priest for b seven /b days b and was anointed seven /b days assumes the position of High Priest and may perform the service on Yom Kippur. However, with regard to whether one who donned the b multiple /b garments for b seven /b days b and was anointed /b for b one /b day, or one who donned the b multiple /b garments for b one /b day b and was anointed /b for b seven /b days is thereby inaugurated as High Priest, b from where /b are those cases derived? Therefore, b the verse states: “Who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated”; in any case /b he is appointed High Priest, even if either anointment or donning the garments did not continue for seven days.,The Gemara asks: b We found /b a source for the fact that when the High Priest is appointed, there is a requirement of donning b multiple /b garments for b seven /b days b i ab initio /i ; /b however, b from where do we /b derive the requirement of b anointment /b for b seven /b days b i ab initio /i ? /b According to Ravina, there is a requirement to anoint the priest on each of the seven days i ab initio /i , even though failure to do so does not invalidate the offering throughout the generations. From where is that requirement derived?, b If you wish, say: /b It is derived b from /b the fact b that the verse: /b “And the priest who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated to serve in his father’s stead shall make the atonement,” b is necessary to exclude /b requirements derived from other sources, i.e., that both donning multiple garments and anointment must be for seven days. Apparently, anointment for seven days is required i ab initio /i . b And if you wish, say /b instead that it is derived from b that /b which b the verse states: “And the sacred garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him, to be anointed in them and to be consecrated in them” /b (Exodus 29:29). b Anointment is juxtaposed /b in this verse b to /b donning b multiple /b garments: b Just as /b donning b multiple /b garments is required b for seven /b days i ab initio /i , b so too, anointment /b is required b for seven /b days i ab initio /i .,§ After ascertaining the halakhic distinctions between the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Ḥanina with regard to the inauguration, the Gemara proceeds to analyze the rationales for those opinions. b What is the reason /b for the opinion b of the one who said: /b Failure to perform b all /b the details b that are written in its /b regard b invalidates /b the inauguration? b Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Bisna said /b that b the verse states: “And so shall you do to Aaron and to his sons /b according to all that I have commanded you, seven days shall you consecrate them” (Exodus 29:35). The term: b So, /b teaches that failure to perform the ritual precisely in this manner b invalidates /b the inauguration. The Gemara asks: That works out b well /b as a source that b all /b |
|
15. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •commandment, performance of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 59| 31a. שמשדלתו בדברים לפיכך הקדים הקב"ה כיבוד אב לכיבוד אם וגלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שהבן מתיירא מאביו יותר מאמו מפני שמלמדו תורה לפיכך הקדים הקב"ה מורא האם למורא האב,תני תנא קמיה דרב נחמן בזמן שאדם מצער את אביו ואת אמו אמר הקב"ה יפה עשיתי שלא דרתי ביניהם שאלמלי דרתי ביניהם ציערוני אמר ר' יצחק כל העובר עבירה בסתר כאילו דוחק רגלי שכינה שנאמר (ישעיהו סו, א) כה אמר ה' השמים כסאי והארץ הדום רגלי,אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אסור לאדם שיהלך ארבע אמות בקומה זקופה שנא' (ישעיהו ו, ג) מלא כל הארץ כבודו רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לא מסגי ארבע אמות בגילוי הראש אמר שכינה למעלה מראשי,שאל בן אלמנה אחת את ר' אליעזר אבא אומר השקיני מים ואימא אומרת השקיני מים איזה מהם קודם אמר ליה הנח כבוד אמך ועשה כבוד אביך שאתה ואמך חייבים בכבוד אביך בא לפני רבי יהושע אמר לו כך,אמר לו רבי נתגרשה מהו אמר ליה מבין ריסי עיניך ניכר שבן אלמנה אתה הטל להן מים בספל וקעקע להן כתרנגולין,דרש עולא רבה אפיתחא דבי נשיאה מאי דכתיב (תהלים קלח, ד) יודוך ה' כל מלכי ארץ כי שמעו אמרי פיך מאמר פיך לא נאמר אלא אמרי פיך בשעה שאמר הקב"ה (שמות כ, ב) אנכי ולא יהיה לך אמרו אומות העולם לכבוד עצמו הוא דורש,כיון שאמר (שמות כ, יא) כבד את אביך ואת אמך חזרו והודו למאמרות הראשונות רבא אמר מהכא (תהלים קיט, קס) ראש דברך אמת ראש דברך ולא סוף דברך אלא מסוף דברך ניכר שראש דברך אמת,בעו מיניה מרב עולא עד היכן כיבוד אב ואם אמר להם צאו וראו מה עשה עובד כוכבים אחד באשקלון ודמא בן נתינה שמו פעם אחת בקשו חכמים פרקמטיא בששים ריבוא שכר והיה מפתח מונח תחת מראשותיו של אביו ולא ציערו,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שאלו את ר' אליעזר עד היכן כיבוד אב ואם אמר להם צאו וראו מה עשה עובד כוכבים אחד לאביו באשקלון ודמא בן נתינה שמו בקשו ממנו חכמים אבנים לאפוד בששים ריבוא שכר ורב כהנא מתני בשמונים ריבוא והיה מפתח מונח תחת מראשותיו של אביו ולא ציערו,לשנה האחרת נתן הקב"ה שכרו שנולדה לו פרה אדומה בעדרו נכנסו חכמי ישראל אצלו אמר להם יודע אני בכם שאם אני מבקש מכם כל ממון שבעולם אתם נותנין לי אלא אין אני מבקש מכם אלא אותו ממון שהפסדתי בשביל כבוד אבא,וא"ר חנינא ומה מי שאינו מצווה ועושה כך מצווה ועושה עאכו"כ דאר"ח גדול מצווה ועושה ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה,אמר רב יוסף מריש ה"א מאן דהוה אמר לי הלכה כר"י דאמר סומא פטור מן המצות עבידנא יומא טבא לרבנן דהא לא מיפקידנא והא עבידנא השתא דשמעיתא להא דא"ר חנינא גדול מצווה ועושה יותר ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה אדרבה מאן דאמר לי דאין הלכה כרבי יהודה עבידנא יומא טבא לרבנן,כי אתא רב דימי אמר פעם אחת היה לבוש סירקון של זהב והיה יושב בין גדולי רומי ובאתה אמו וקרעתו ממנו וטפחה לו על ראשו וירקה לו בפניו ולא הכלימה,תני אבימי בריה דרבי אבהו יש מאכיל לאביו פסיוני וטורדו מן העולם ויש מטחינו בריחים | 31a. b she persuades him with /b many b statements /b of encouragement and does not treat him harshly. b Therefore, /b in the mitzva of: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:11), b the Holy One, Blessed be He, preceded /b the mention of b the honor /b due one’s b father before /b mentioning the b honor /b due one’s b mother. /b The verse emphasizes the duty that does not come naturally. Similarly, b it is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that a son fears his father more than his mother, because /b his father b teaches him Torah, /b and consequently he is strict with him. b Therefore, /b in the verse: “A man shall fear his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), b the Holy One, Blessed be He, preceded /b the mention of b fear of the mother before /b the mention of b fear of the father. /b , b A i tanna /i taught /b a i baraita /i b before Rav Naḥman: When a person causes his father and mother suffering, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: I did well in not dwelling among them, for if I had dwelled among them they would have caused Me suffering /b as well, as it were. b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Anyone who transgresses in private, it is /b considered b as though he is pushing away the feet of the Divine Presence, /b i.e., he distances God from him, so to speak. b As it is stated: “So says the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool” /b (Isaiah 66:1). When someone sins in secret, he demonstrates that he thinks God is absent from that place, and it is as though he pushes His feet away from the earth.,With regard to the same issue, b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: /b It is b prohibited for a person to walk /b even b four cubits with an upright posture, /b which is considered an arrogant manner, b as it is stated: “The entire world is full of His glory” /b (Isaiah 6:3). One who walks in an arrogant manner indicates a lack of regard for the glory and honor of God that is surrounding him, and thereby chases God from that place, as it were. The Gemara relates: b Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would not walk four cubits with an uncovered head. He said: The Divine Presence is above my head, /b and I must act respectfully., b The son of one widow asked Rabbi Eliezer: /b If my b father says /b to me: b Give me water to drink, and /b my b mother /b also b says /b to me: b Give me water to drink, which of them /b should I honor b first? /b Rabbi Eliezer b said to him: Set /b aside b the honor of your mother, and perform the honor of your father, as you and your mother are /b both b obligated in the honor of your father. He came before Rabbi Yehoshua and /b asked him the same question, and Rabbi Yehoshua b said this /b same answer b to him. /b ,The man b said to him: My teacher, /b if one’s mother b is divorced, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Rabbi Yehoshua b said to him: From your eyelashes, /b which are filled with tears, b it is evident that you are the son of a widow, /b and you have no father. Why, then, are you asking this question as though it were relevant for you? Consequently, Rabbi Yehoshua answered him sarcastically: b Pour water for them into a pitcher and squawk at them as /b one does to summon b chickens. /b In other words, if one’s mother is divorced, the same honor is due to both parents, and neither takes precedence.,§ b Ulla the Great interpreted /b a verse b homiletically at the entrance to the house of the i Nasi /i . What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “All the kings of the earth shall give You thanks, O Lord, for they have heard the words of Your mouth” /b (Psalms 138:4)? It b is not stated: The word of Your mouth, /b in the singular. b Rather, /b the verse uses the expression: b “The words of Your mouth,” /b in the plural. To what is this phrase referring? b When the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: “I am /b the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2), b and, /b in the same verse: b “You shall have no /b other gods before Me,” b the nations of the world said: He teaches /b this b for His own honor, /b as both statements entail respect for God., b Once He said: “Honor your father and your mother” /b (Exodus 20:11), b they returned and conceded /b the truth b of the first statements, /b which is why the verse uses the plural expression: “Words of Your mouth,” i.e., all the words of God’s mouth. b Rava said: /b This can be derived b from here: “The beginning of Your word is truth” /b (Psalms 119:160). Is b the beginning of Your word /b truth b but not the end of Your word? Rather, from the end of Your word it is apparent /b to everyone b that the beginning of Your word is truth. /b ,The Sages b raised a dilemma before Rav Ulla: How far /b must one go to fulfill the mitzva of b honoring one’s father and mother? /b Rav Ulla b said to them: Go and see what one gentile did in Ashkelon, and his name was Dama ben Netina. Once the Sages sought /b to purchase b merchandise [ i perakmatya /i ] /b from him b for six hundred thousand /b gold dinars’ b profit, but the key /b for the container in which the merchandise was kept b was placed under his father’s head, /b and he was sleeping at the time. b And /b Dama ben Netina would b not disturb /b his father by waking him, although he could have made a substantial profit., b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Shmuel says: They asked Rabbi Eliezer: How far /b must one go to fulfill the mitzva b of honoring one’s father and mother? /b Rabbi Eliezer b said to them: Go and see what one gentile did for his father in Ashkelon, and /b the b name /b of the son b was Dama ben Netina. /b Once b the Sages wished /b to purchase precious b stones from him for the ephod /b of the High Priest b for six hundred thousand /b gold dinars’ b profit, and Rav Kahana taught /b that it was b eight hundred thousand /b gold dinars’ profit. b And the key /b to the chest holding the jewels b was placed under his father’s head, and he /b would b not disturb him. /b , b The next year the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave /b Dama ben Netina b his reward, as a red heifer was born in his herd, /b and the Jews needed it. When b the Sages of Israel came to him he said to them: I know, /b concerning b you, that if I /b were to b ask for all the money in the world you /b would b give /b it b to me. But I ask only that money that I lost due to /b the b honor of Father. /b , b And Rabbi Ḥanina says: And if /b this is related about b one who is not commanded /b by the Torah to honor his father, as Dama was a gentile, b and /b nevertheless when b he performs /b the mitzva he is given b this /b great reward, b all the more so /b is one rewarded who is b commanded /b to fulfill a mitzva b and performs /b it. b As Rabbi Ḥanina says: Greater /b is one who b is commanded /b to do a mitzva b and performs /b it b than one who is not commanded /b to do a mitzva b and performs /b it., b Rav Yosef, /b who was blind, b said: At first I would say: /b If b someone would tell me /b that the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, who says: A blind person is exempt from /b fulfilling b the mitzvot, I would make a festive day for the rabbis, as I am not commanded and yet I perform /b the mitzvot. This means my reward is very great. b Now that I have heard that which Rabbi Ḥanina says: Greater /b is one who b is commanded /b to do a mitzva b and performs /b it b than one who is not commanded /b to do a mitzva b and performs /b it, b on the contrary: /b If b someone would tell me /b that the b i halakha /i /b is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b and a blind person is obligated in mitzvot, b I would make a festive day for the rabbis. /b , b When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, b he said: Once /b Dama ben Netina b was wearing a fine cloak [ i sirkon /i ] of gold, and was sitting among the nobles /b of b Rome. And his mother came to him and tore /b his garment b from him and smacked him on the head and spat in his face, and /b yet b he did not embarrass her. /b , b Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, taught: There is /b a type of son b who feeds his father pheasant [ i pasyonei /i ] and /b yet this behavior b causes him to be removed from the World, /b i.e., the World-to-Come; b and there is /b one b who makes him grind with a millstone, /b which is difficult work, |
|
16. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •commandment, performance of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 60 | 93b. The Gemara answers: He holds that b one derives /b the i halakhot /i of the offering of b an individual from /b the i halakhot /i of another offering of b an individual, /b such as the burnt offering of appearance, b and one does not derive /b the i halakhot /i of the offering of b an individual from /b the i halakhot /i of b a communal /b offering, e.g., the bull brought for a community-wide violation.,The Gemara asks: b And according to the one who said /b that the exclusion of a blind person is derived b from /b the placing of hands performed by the b Elders of /b the b congregation, what is the reason /b that b he does not derive /b this b from /b the b burnt offering of appearance? /b The Gemara answers: He holds that b one derives /b the i halakhot /i of b a matter /b concerning b which /b the requirement of b placing hands is /b explicitly b written with regard to /b that case b itself, /b as is the case in the passage detailing the general requirement of placing hands, b from /b another b matter /b concerning b which placing hands is /b also explicitly b written with regard to /b that case b itself, /b as is the case in the passage describing the bull brought for a community-wide violation of a sin. This serves b to exclude /b the possibility of deriving the i halakhot /i from those of the b burnt offering of appearance, as /b the requirement to place hands upon it is not explicitly written in the Torah with regard to it, but rather b it itself is derived from /b the requirement stated with regard to b a voluntary burnt offering. /b ,This is b as a i tanna /i taught /b in a i baraita /i b in the presence of Rav Yitzḥak bar Abba: /b With regard to the obligatory offering brought by Aaron the High Priest on the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, it is written: b “And the burnt offering was presented, and he sacrificed in accordance with the ordice” /b (Leviticus 9:16). This last phrase means: b In accordance with the ordice of a voluntary burnt offering. /b Accordingly, this verse b teaches about /b every b obligatory burnt offering, /b including the burnt offering of appearance, b that it requires placing hands, /b just as a voluntary burnt offering does.,§ The mishna states: A Canaanite b slave, the agent /b of the owner of the offering who brings the offering on his behalf, b and a woman /b do not place hands on their offerings. Concerning these i halakhot /i , b the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The term “his hand” is mentioned three times in Leviticus, chapter 3, which details the requirement of placing hands. Each mention is expounded to exclude a different case. b “His hand” /b (Leviticus 3:2), b but not the hand of his /b Canaanite b slave; “his hand” /b (Leviticus 3:8), b but not the hand of his agent; “his hand” /b (Leviticus 3:13), b but not the hand of his wife. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Why do I /b need b all these /b three exclusions? The Gemara explains that all three mentions b are necessary, /b as b had the Merciful One written /b only b one /b exclusion, b I would say /b that it serves b to exclude /b only a Canaanite b slave, as /b since b he is not commanded in mitzvot /b it is reasonable that he cannot perform the rite of placing hands. b But /b with regard to b an agent, since he is commanded in mitzvot, and /b there is a principle that the halakhic status of b a person’s agent is like /b that of b himself, /b one might b say /b that he b could place /b his b hands /b on the offering of the owner on the owner’s behalf, and thereby fulfill the requirement. Therefore, it is necessary to have an independent source to exclude an agent., b And had /b the Merciful One b taught us /b only b these two /b i halakhot /i , one would have excluded only a Canaanite slave and an agent, b as they are not considered like his own flesh. But /b with regard to b his wife, who is considered like his own flesh, /b one might b say /b that b she places /b her b hands /b on her husband’s offering. Therefore, the third mention is b necessary /b to teach that even a wife cannot fulfill the requirement on behalf of her husband.,§ The mishna states: The requirement of b placing hands is a non-essential mitzva. The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b “And he shall place his hand /b upon the head of the burnt offering, b and it shall be accepted for him /b to effect atonement for him” (Leviticus 1:4). The i baraita /i asks: b But does /b the rite of b placing hands effect atonement? Isn’t atonement /b effected b only through /b the presentation of the b blood? As it is stated /b with regard to blood: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to effect atonement for your souls, b for it is the blood of the soul that effects atonement” /b (Leviticus 17:11). b Rather, /b the verse serves b to say to you that if one treated placing hands /b as though it were b a non-essential mitzva /b and therefore neglected to perform it, then b the verse ascribes him /b blame b as though he did not effect atonement; but /b nevertheless, in actuality, the offering b atones /b for his sin and he does not need to bring another offering., b And it is taught /b in a i baraita /i b with regard to waving in this way: /b “He shall take one male lamb as a guilt offering b to be waved to effect atonement /b for him” (Leviticus 14:21). The i baraita /i asks: b Does waving /b the offering b effect atonement? Isn’t atonement /b effected b only through /b the presentation of b the blood? As it is stated: “For it is the blood of the soul that effects atonement” /b (Leviticus 17:11). b Rather, /b the verse serves b to say to you that if one treated waving /b as though it were b a non-essential mitzva /b and therefore neglected to perform it, then b the verse ascribes him /b blame b as though he did not effect atonement; but /b nevertheless, in actuality, the offering b effects atonement /b for his sin and he does not need to bring another offering.,§ The mishna further states that that placing hands is performed by leaning b on the head /b of the offering. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The phrase “his hand upon the head” is mentioned three times in Leviticus, chapter 3. Each mention is expounded to exclude the possibility of performing the rite on a different part of the animal’s body. Placing hands is performed with b “his hand upon the head” /b (Leviticus 3:2), b but not /b with b his hand on the neck /b of the animal; with b “his hand upon the head” /b (Leviticus 3:8), b but not /b with b his hand on the back /b of the animal; with b “his hand upon the head” /b (Leviticus 3:13), b but not /b with b his hand on the breast /b of the animal.,The Gemara asks: b Why do I /b need b all these /b three exclusions? The Gemara explains that all three mentions b are necessary, /b as b had the Merciful One written /b only b one /b exclusion, b I would say /b that it serves b to exclude /b only the animal’s b neck, as it is not level with the head of /b the animal. b But /b with regard to b its back, which is level with its head, /b one might b say /b that it is b not /b precluded and that one can fulfill the requirement by placing one’s hands there. Therefore, it is b necessary /b to have an independent source to exclude the animal’s back., b And had /b the Torah b taught us /b only b these two /b i halakhot /i , one would have excluded only the neck and the back, b as /b those parts are b not included in /b the b waving /b of the offering, i.e., they are not waved. b But /b with regard to the animal’s b breast, which is included in the waving /b of the offering, one might say that it is b not /b precluded and that one can fulfill the requirement by placing one’s hands there. Therefore, the third mention is b necessary /b to teach that placing hands cannot be performed even on the animal’s breast., b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: If one placed b his hand on the sides /b of the animal’s head, b what is /b the i halakha /i ; does one fulfill the requirement of placing hands by doing so? The Gemara answers: b Come /b and b hear, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Abba Bira’a, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, says /b that the verse: “And he shall place b his hand upon the head of /b the burnt offering” (Leviticus 1:4), indicates that it must be done with his hand b on /b the top of b its head and not /b with b his hand on the sides /b of its head., b Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: /b If one’s hands were wrapped in b a cloth, what is /b the i halakha /i as b to /b whether the cloth is regarded as b an interposition /b between his hands and the animal such that it invalidates the rite? The Gemara answers: b Come /b and b hear /b a resolution from a i baraita /i , which states: The rite is valid b provided that there is no item that interposes between him and the offering. /b ,§ The mishna adds that the placing of hands is performed b with two hands. /b The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? b Reish Lakish said: As the verse states /b with regard to the Yom Kippur service: b “And Aaron shall place both his hands [ i yadav /i ] /b upon the head of the live goat” (Leviticus 16:21). The word i yadav /i , meaning: His hands, is written without a second i yod /i , and so if read without vowels it reads as: b His hand. But it is /b also b written “both,” /b which makes clear that the intention is that he must use both of his hands. b This established a paradigm /b that in b any place where it is stated /b in the Torah: b His hand, there are here two /b hands, b unless the verse /b explicitly b specifies /b that there is only b one. /b ,The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Elazar went and stated this i halakha /i in the study hall, but he did not say it in the name of Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish heard /b about this b and became angry. /b He b said to /b Rabbi Elazar: b If it enters your mind /b that b wherever it is written: His hand, /b the meaning is that b there are /b actually b two /b hands, then b why do I /b ever need the Torah b to write: His hands, his hands, /b i.e., i yadav /i in the plural, which it does on numerous occasions?,Reish Lakish b raised objections against him /b from b twenty-four /b occasions where the Torah writes: b His hands, /b for example: b “His own hands [ i yadav /i ] shall bring /b the offerings of the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30); b “his hands [ i yadav /i ] shall contend for him, /b and You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7); b “Guiding his hands [ i yadav /i ] wittingly, /b for Manasseh was the firstborn” (Genesis 48:14). Rabbi Elazar b was silent, /b as he had no response., b After /b Reish Lakish had b calmed down, he said to /b Rabbi Elazar: b What is the reason /b that b you did not say to me /b the following: When I established that paradigm, b I was speaking /b only about the term: b His hands [ i yadav /i ], with regard to placing hands. /b But with regard to other i halakhot /i , when the Torah says “his hand” the reference is to just one hand, and so when referring to two hands it must say “his hands.”,The Gemara asks: But b also with regard to placing hands it is written, /b concerning Moses’ ordination of Joshua: b “And he placed his hands [ i yadav /i ] upon him /b and gave him a charge” (Numbers 27:23), using the plural “his hands” [ i yadav /i ] instead of: His hand [ i yado /i ]. The Gemara clarifies that Reish Lakish meant that one could say: When I established that paradigm, b I was speaking /b only about the term: His hands [ i yadav /i ], b with regard to placing hands /b on b an animal /b offering. But in all other cases, if the intention is that there were two hands, the plural must be used.,§ The mishna teaches: b And in the /b same b location /b in the Temple b that one places hands, one slaughters /b the animal. b And immediately following /b the rite of b placing hands, /b the b slaughter /b is performed. The Gemara asks: b What is /b the mishna b saying? /b The mishna appears to state two distinct rulings. But if so, the first statement is superfluous, because if the slaughter immediately follows the placing of hands, then it is obvious that the animal is slaughtered without changing its location. The Gemara explains that b this /b is what the mishna b is saying: In the /b same b location /b in the Temple b that one places hands one slaughters /b the animal, b because immediately following /b the rite of b placing hands, /b the b slaughter /b is performed. There are not two distinct rulings; rather, the second statement is the explanation of the first., strong MISHNA: /strong There is an aspect of greater b stringency with regard to placing hands than /b there is b with regard to waving, and /b there is an aspect of greater stringency b with regard to waving than /b there is b with regard to placing hands. /b The stringency with regard to placing hands is b that /b if several people are partners in bringing an offering, b one /b of them b waves /b the offering b on behalf of all the /b other b partners, but one cannot /b fulfill the requirement of placing hands if he alone b places hands on behalf of all the /b other b partners; /b rather, each member must place hands himself. b The stringency with regard to waving /b is b that waving is practiced in /b the cases of both b offerings of an individual, /b e.g., peace offerings, where the breast and thigh and sacrificial portions are waved, b and in /b the cases of b communal offerings, /b e.g., the two lambs sacrificed on i Shavuot /i , which are waved together with the two loaves; |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •commandment, performance of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 59| 16b. הראשונים היו נשיאים ושניים להם אב ב"ד:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר שלשה מזוגות הראשונים שאמרו שלא לסמוך ושנים מזוגות האחרונים שאמרו לסמוך (הראשונים) היו נשיאים ושניים להם אבות ב"ד דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים יהודה בן טבאי אב ב"ד ושמעון בן שטח נשיא,מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן אמר רבי יהודה בן טבאי אראה בנחמה אם לא הרגתי עד זומם להוציא מלבן של צדוקין שהיו אומרים אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיהרג הנידון,אמר לו שמעון בן שטח אראה בנחמה אם לא שפכת דם נקי שהרי אמרו חכמים אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין לוקין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין משלמין ממון עד שיזומו שניהם,מיד קבל עליו יהודה בן טבאי שאינו מורה הלכה אלא בפני שמעון בן שטח,כל ימיו של יהודה בן טבאי היה משתטח על קברו של אותו הרוג והיה קולו נשמע כסבורין העם לומר שקולו של הרוג הוא אמר להם קולי הוא תדעו שלמחר הוא מת ואין קולו נשמע,אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי ודלמא פיוסי פייסיה או בדינא תבעי',מני הא אי אמרת בשלמא רבי מאיר דאמר שמעון בן שטח אב ב"ד ר"י בן טבאי נשיא היינו דקא מורי הלכה בפני שמעון בן שטח אלא אי אמרת רבנן דאמרי יהודה בן טבאי אב ב"ד שמעון בן שטח נשיא אב ב"ד בפני נשיא מי מורה הלכה,לא מאי קבל עליו דקאמר לאצטרופי דאפי' אצטרופי נמי לא מצטריפנא:,יצא מנחם ונכנס שמאי כו': להיכן יצא אביי אמר יצא לתרבות רעה רבא אמר יצא לעבודת המלך תניא נמי הכי יצא מנחם לעבודת המלך ויצאו עמו שמונים זוגות תלמידים לבושין סיריקון,אמר רב שמן בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אל תהא שבות קלה בעיניך שהרי סמיכה אינה אלא משום שבות ונחלקו בה גדולי הדור,פשיטא שבות מצוה אצטריכא ליה,הא נמי פשיטא לאפוקי ממאן דאמר בסמיכה גופה פליגי קא משמע לן בשבות הוא דפליגי,אמר רמי בר חמא שמע מינה סמיכה בכל כחו בעינן דאי ס"ד לא בעינן בכל כחו מאי קא עביד ליסמוך,מיתיבי (ויקרא א, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל וסמך בני ישראל סומכין ואין בנות ישראל סומכות רבי יוסי ור' (ישמעאל) [שמעון] אומרים בנות ישראל סומכות רשות,אמר רבי יוסי סח לי אבא אלעזר פעם אחת היה לנו עגל של זבחי שלמים והביאנוהו לעזרת נשים וסמכו עליו נשים לא מפני שסמיכה בנשים אלא כדי לעשות נחת רוח לנשים ואי ס"ד סמיכה בכל כחו בעינן משום נחת רוח דנשים עבדינן עבודה בקדשים אלא לאו ש"מ לא בעינן בכל כחו,לעולם אימא לך בעינן בכל כחו דאמר להו אקפו ידייכו אי הכי לא מפני שסמיכה בנשים תיפוק ליה דאינה לסמיכה כלל,א"ר אמי חדא ועוד קאמר חדא דליתא לסמיכה כלל ועוד כדי לעשות נחת רוח לנשים,אמר רב פפא שמע מינה צדדין אסורין דאי ס"ד צדדין מותרין לסמוך לצדדין אלא לאו שמע מינה צדדין אסורין | 16b. b The first /b members of each pair b served as i Nasi /i , and their counterparts /b served as b deputy i Nasi /i . /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught: Three of the first pairs who say not to place hands and two of the last pairs who say to place hands served as i Nasi /i , and their counterparts /b served as b deputy i Nasi /i ; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say /b the opposite: b Yehuda ben Tabbai /b was b deputy i Nasi /i and Shimon ben Shataḥ /b was the b i Nasi /i . /b ,The Gemara asks: b Who is the i tanna /i /b who taught b that which the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai said: /b I swear that b I will /b not b see the consolation /b of Israel b if I did not kill a conspiring witness. /b This means that Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai sentenced a conspiring witness to death, in order b to counter the views of the Sadducees, who would say: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless the sentenced one has been executed. /b Their views opposed the traditional view, which maintains that conspiring witnesses are executed only if the one sentenced by their testimony has not yet been executed., b Shimon ben Shataḥ said to him: /b I swear that b I will /b not b see the consolation /b of Israel b if you did not shed innocent blood, as the Sages said: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless they are both found to be conspirators; /b if only one is found to be a conspirator, he is not executed. b And they are not flogged /b if they are liable to such a penalty, b unless they are both found to be conspirators. And /b if they testified falsely that someone owed money, b they do not pay money unless they are both found to be conspirators. /b ,Hearing this, b Yehuda ben Tabbai immediately accepted upon himself not to rule /b on any matter of b law unless he was in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥ, /b as he realized he could not rely on his own judgment.,The i baraita /i further relates: b All of Yehuda ben Tabbai’s days, he would prostrate himself on the grave of that executed /b individual, to request forgiveness, b and his voice was heard /b weeping. b The people thought that it was the voice of that executed /b person, rising from his grave. Yehuda ben Tabbai b said to them: It is my voice, /b and b you /b shall b know /b that it is so, b for tomorrow, /b i.e., sometime in the future, b he will die, and his voice will no /b longer b be heard. /b Yehuda ben Tabbai was referring to himself, but he did not want to mention something negative about himself in direct terms., b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: /b This provides no conclusive proof that the voice was not that of the executed man, as b perhaps /b ben Tabbai b appeased /b the executed individual in the World-to-Come. b Or, /b alternatively, the latter may have b prosecuted him by the law /b of Heaven, and that is why his voice can no longer be heard.,The Gemara returns to its original question: b Whose /b opinion does b this /b i baraita /i follow? b Granted, if you say /b it is in accordance b with /b that of b Rabbi Meir, /b who b said /b that b Shimon ben Shataḥ was deputy i Nasi /i /b while b Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai was i Nasi /i , that /b explains why b he /b had previously b issued a halakhic ruling in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥ /b to execute the conspiring witness, and only after that unfortunate incident did he undertake to issue rulings only in the presence of his colleague. b But if you say /b that the i baraita /i is in accordance with b the Sages, who said: Yehuda ben Tabbai /b was b deputy i Nasi /i /b and b Shimon ben Shataḥ /b the b i Nasi /i , /b why did he need to make such a commitment? b May /b the b deputy i Nasi /i issue a halakhic ruling in the presence of /b the b i Nasi /i ? /b ,The Gemara refutes this: b No; what /b did he mean by b accepting upon himself /b not to rule on his own? b He spoke /b with regard b to joining /b the ruling of others: b Even /b with regard to b joining /b the ruling of others, b I will also not join /b until I have first heard the view of Shimon ben Shataḥ.,§ It is taught in the mishna: b Menaḥem departed and Shammai entered. /b The Gemara asks: b To where did /b Menaḥem b depart? Abaye said: He departed and went astray. /b Therefore, the mishna did not wish to delve into the details of his case. b Rava said: He departed for the king’s service. /b He received a post from the king and had to leave the court. b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Menaḥem departed for the king’s service, and eighty pairs of students dressed in silk robes left with him /b to work for the king, and that they no longer studied Torah.,§ b Rav Shemen bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: A rabbinic decree [ i shevut /i ] should never be taken lightly in your eyes, since placing hands /b on the head of an offering on a Festival b is prohibited only as a rabbinic decree /b because it is considered making use of an animal, which is not considered a prohibited labor but merely resembles one, and yet b the greatest /b scholars b of each generation disputed it. /b ,The Gemara is puzzled by this statement: This b is obvious. /b Since it is an accepted rabbinic decree, why should people take it lightly? The Gemara answers: It was b necessary for him /b to state it because it is b a rabbinic decree related to a mitzva. /b In other words, although this rabbinic decree of placing the hands on an animal is not performed for one’s own sake but for the purpose of a mitzva, it was nevertheless a serious matter in the eyes of the Sages.,The Gemara remains puzzled: b This too is obvious. /b In that case as well, the act is prohibited by the Sages. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement comes b to exclude /b the opinion b of the one who said /b that b they disagree with regard to the actual /b obligation of b placing hands, /b i.e., whether or not obligatory peace-offerings require placing the hands. b He /b therefore b teaches us /b that b it is a rabbinic decree /b that is the subject b of their dispute, /b not the requirement itself., b Rami bar Ḥama said: /b You can b learn from here, /b from this dispute, that the mitzva of b placing hands /b requires not only placing one’s hands on the animal’s head, but b we also require /b that one places his hands b with all his strength. For if it enters your mind /b that b we do not require all his strength, what /b prohibition b does one violate /b by placing his hands? b Let him place /b them on a Festival as well, as this does not resemble a prohibited action at all., b The Gemara raises an objection /b to this from a i baraita /i : b “Speak to the children of [ i benei /i ] Israel” /b (Leviticus 1:2). The word i benei /i literally means: Sons of. And it states nearby: b “And he shall place /b his hand on the head of the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 1:4), from which we learn that b the sons of Israel place /b their hands, b but the daughters of Israel do not place /b them. b Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yishmael say: It is optional for the daughters of Israel to place /b their hands. They may place their hands if they so choose, although they are not obligated to do so., b Rabbi Yosei said: /b The Sage b Abba Elazar related to me /b the following incident: b On one occasion, we had a calf for a peace-offering, and we brought it to the Women’s Courtyard, and women placed /b their hands b on it. /b We did this b not because there /b is an obligation of b placing hands in /b the case of b women, but in order to please the women, /b by allowing them to sacrifice an offering, in all of its particulars, as men do. Now, b if it enters your mind /b that b we require /b placing hands b with all one’s strength, /b would b we perform work with consecrated /b offerings b in order to please /b the b women? /b Placing one’s hands forcefully on an animal is considered performing work with it, and if one does it without being obligated to do so, he has thereby performed work with an offering. b Rather, isn’t it /b correct to b conclude from this /b that b we do not require /b placing hands b with all one’s strength? /b ,The Gemara rejects this: b Actually, I /b could b say to you /b that b we do require /b placing hands b with all one’s strength, /b but here they allowed women to place their hands b by saying to them: Ease your hands /b and do not press forcefully, so that their hand placing should not constitute work. The Gemara retorts: b If so, /b then the reason formulated as: b Not because there /b is an obligation to b place hands in /b the case of b women, /b is irrelevant to this law. b Let him derive /b the permission for women to do so from the reason that b it is not /b considered b placing hands at all. /b If placing hands must be performed with all one’s strength, this action the women are performing does not constitute placing hands., b Rabbi Ami said: He stated one /b reason b and another. One /b reason is b that it is not /b considered b placing hands at all, /b as it is not performed with all of one’s strength; b and another /b reason is that they allowed it b in order to please the women. /b , b Rav Pappa said: Learn from this /b that anything upon which one may not place objects or upon which one may not sit on Shabbat, its b sides are /b likewise b prohibited, for if it enters your mind /b to say that the b sides are permitted, /b they could have told the women b to place /b their hands b on the sides, /b i.e., on the head of the animal rather than on its back, as the head of the animal is considered as if it were one of its sides. b Rather, /b must one b not conclude from this /b that the b sides are prohibited? /b |
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •commandment, performance of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 59| 87a. וכן היה רבי יהודה פוטרו מכל דינים שבתורה מ"ט דרבי יהודה אמר קרא (במדבר לה, כד) ושפטו העדה בין המכה ובין גואל הדם על המשפטים האלה כל שישנו במכה ובגואל הדם ישנו במשפטים כל שאינו במכה ובגואל הדם אינו במשפטים,תניא אידך ר' יהודה אומר סומא אין לו בושת וכן היה רבי יהודה פוטרו מכל מצות האמורות בתורה אמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי מאי טעמא דר' יהודה אמר קרא (דברים ו, א) ואלה המצות החקים והמשפטים כל שישנו במשפטים ישנו במצות וחקים וכל שאינו במשפטים אינו במצות וחקים,אמר רב יוסף מריש הוה אמינא מאן דאמר הלכה כר' יהודה דאמר סומא פטור מן המצות קא עבדינא יומא טבא לרבנן מ"ט דלא מפקדינא וקא עבדינא מצות,והשתא דשמעית להא דר' חנינא דאמר ר' חנינא גדול המצווה ועושה ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה מאן דאמר לי אין הלכה כרבי יהודה עבדינא יומא טבא לרבנן מ"ט דכי מפקדינא אית לי אגרא טפי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big זה חומר באדם מבשור שהאדם משלם נזק צער ריפוי שבת ובושת ומשלם דמי ולדות ושור אינו משלם אלא נזק ופטור מדמי ולדות,המכה את אביו ואת אמו ולא עשה בהן חבורה וחובל בחבירו ביום הכפורים חייב בכולן,החובל בעבד עברי חייב בכולן חוץ מן השבת בזמן שהוא שלו החובל בעבד כנעני של אחרים חייב בכולן רבי יהודה אומר אין לעבדים בושת,חש"ו פגיעתן רעה החובל בהן חייב והם שחבלו באחרים פטורין,העבד והאשה פגיעתן רעה החובל בהם חייב והם שחבלו באחרים פטורין אבל משלמין לאחר זמן נתגרשה האשה נשתחרר העבד חייבין לשלם,המכה אביו ואמו ועשה בהן חבורה והחובל בחבירו בשבת פטור מכולן מפני שהוא נדון בנפשו,והחובל בעבד כנעני שלו פטור מכולן:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big בעא מיניה רבי אלעזר מרב החובל בבת קטנה של אחרים חבלה למי,מי אמרינן כיון דאקני ליה רחמנא שבח נעורים לאב חבלה נמי דאבוה הוי מאי טעמא דהא אפחתה מכספה או דילמא שבח נעורים הוא דאקני ליה רחמנא דאי בעי לממסר לה למוכה שחין מצי מסר אבל חבלה כיון דאי בעי מתחבל בה לא מצי חביל לא קנייה ליה רחמנא | 87a. b and so did Rabbi Yehuda exempt /b a blind person b from all judgments /b of civil law b that are in the Torah. /b The Gemara explains: b What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The verse states /b with regard to an unintentional killing: b “Then the congregation shall judge between the smiter and the avenger of blood, according to these laws” /b (Numbers 35:24), to teach that b anyone who is subject to /b the i halakha /i of b a smiter and to /b the i halakha /i of b an avenger of blood is subject to /b civil b laws, and anyone who is not subject to /b the i halakha /i of b a smiter or to /b the i halakha /i of b an avenger of blood, /b including a blind person, b is not subject to /b civil b laws. /b ,The Gemara presents another statement of Rabbi Yehuda. It b is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda says: A blind person does not have, /b i.e., receive, compensation for b humiliation, and so did Rabbi Yehuda exempt /b a blind person b from all mitzvot that are stated in the Torah. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The verse states: “And this is the commandment, statutes, and laws” /b (Deuteronomy 6:1), to teach that b anyone who is subject to /b civil b laws is /b also b subject to /b the b commandments and statutes, and anyone who is not subject to /b civil b laws, /b including a blind person, b is /b also b not subject to /b the b commandments and statutes. /b , b Rav Yosef, /b who was blind, b said: At first, I would say: /b If I hear b one who says that /b the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, who says: A blind person /b is b exempt from the mitzvot, /b then b I will host a festive day for the Sages. What is the reason? /b It is b that I am not commanded and /b nevertheless b I perform mitzvot. /b ,Rav Yosef continues. b But now that I heard this /b statement b of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: /b One who is b commanded and performs /b a mitzva b is greater than /b one who b is not commanded and performs /b it, I say: If I hear b one who says to me /b that the b i halakha /i /b is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b then b I will host a festive day for the Sages. What is the reason? /b It is b that as I am commanded, I have more reward. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong b This /b i halakha /i b is a stringency with regard to a person /b who caused injury, b compared to /b the i halakha /i b with regard to an ox /b that caused injury: The i halakha /i is b that the person pays /b compensation for b damage, pain, medical costs, loss of livelihood, and humiliation; and /b if he caused a woman to miscarry he also b pays compensation for /b miscarried b offspring, /b as the verse states (see Exodus 21:22). b But /b in the case of b an ox /b that caused injury, the owner b pays only /b compensation for b damage, and /b he is b exempt from /b paying b compensation for /b miscarried b offspring. /b ,The mishna continues: b One who strikes his father or his mother but did not cause them /b to have b a bruise, /b and therefore is not liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, b and one who injures another on Yom Kippur, /b the punishment for which is not court-imposed capital punishment, is b liable /b to pay b for all of /b the five types of indemnity., b One who injures a Hebrew slave /b is b liable /b to pay b for all of /b the five types of indemnity. This is b except for /b compensation for b loss of livelihood /b suffered b during the time that /b the injured slave b belongs to /b the one that injured him. Since the right to the slave’s labor belongs to his master, his inability to work is his master’s loss. b One who injures a Canaanite slave belonging to others is liable /b to pay b for all of /b the five types of indemnity. b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b Canaanite b slaves do not have humiliation, /b so the one who injures the slave pays only the other four types of indemnity.,The mishna continues: With regard to b a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, an encounter with them is disadvantageous. /b In other words, no favorable outcome is possible for someone involved in an incident with one of these people, since b one who injures them /b is b liable. But /b if b they were /b the ones b who injured others, they /b are b exempt. /b This is because they lack awareness and are not responsible for their actions.,Similarly, with regard to b a slave and /b a married b woman, an encounter with them is disadvantageous, /b since b one who injures them /b is b liable. But /b if b they /b were the ones b who injured others, they /b are b exempt, /b because they do not have money with which to pay compensation. b But they pay /b compensation b at a later time. /b The exemption is only temporary, as, if b the woman becomes divorced /b or b the slave becomes emancipated, /b and they then have their own money, they are b liable to pay /b compensation.,The mishna continues: b One who strikes his father or his mother and causes them /b to have b a bruise, or one who injures another on Shabbat, /b is b exempt from /b paying b all of /b the five types of indemnity, b because he is judged with /b losing b his life. /b The court imposes capital punishment for these acts, so there is no additional monetary punishment., b And one who injures his own Canaanite slave /b is b exempt from /b paying b all of /b the five types of indemnity, because his slave is his property., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara discusses a case of compensation for injury. b Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rav: /b In a case of b one who injures the minor daughter of others, to whom /b does he pay compensation for the b injury? /b ,Rabbi Elazar explains the dilemma: b Do we say /b that b since the Merciful One granted the profits of /b her b youth to the father, /b as he receives her betrothal money, compensation for b injury also belongs to her father? What is the reason /b that he should receive it? The reason is b that /b the one who injured her b lowered her monetary /b value, resulting in her father receiving gifts of lesser value when she is betrothed. b Or perhaps it is /b only b the profits of /b her b youth that the Merciful One granted to /b her father, b because if he desires to give her /b in marriage b to a /b man b afflicted with boils, he can give /b her to him, b but /b with regard to b injury, since if he desires to injure her he may not injure her, /b just as he may not injure any other person, b the Merciful One did not grant him /b the right to receive the compensation when she is injured. |
|
| 19. Anon., Sifre Zuta Numbers, 9.7 Tagged with subjects: •commandment, performance of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 167 |
20. Babylonian Talmud, Zevahim, None Tagged with subjects: •commandment, performance of Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 60| 6a. ושותפין לא מצו ממירין אלא אי אמרת לא קניא להו אמורי נמי לימרו,שאני התם דאמר קרא (ויקרא כז, י) אם המר ימיר לרבות את היורש אחד ממיר ואין שנים ממירין,מתקיף לה רב יעקב מנהר פקוד אלא מעתה גבי מעשר דכתיב (ויקרא כז, יג) ואם גאל יגאל לרבות את היורש הכי נמי אחד גואל ואין שנים גואלין,שאני מעשר דגבי אבוהון נמי איתיה בשותפות,אמר ליה רב אסי לרב אשי ומינה אי אמרת בשלמא קניא להו היינו דחד מיהא מימר אלא אי אמרת לא קניא להו היכי מימר,והאמר רבי אבהו אמר ר' יוחנן המקדיש מוסיף חומש ומתכפר עושה תמורה והתורם משלו על של חבירו טובת הנאה שלו,מקיבעא לא מכפרא מקופיא מכפרא:,איבעיא להו כיפרו על מה שבאו או לא כיפרו,אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי מסתברא דלא כיפרו דאי סלקא דעתך כיפרו שני למה הוא בא,ואלא מאי לא כיפרו למה הוא קרב,אמר רב אשי רב שישא בריה דרב אידי הכי קא קשיא ליה אי אמרת בשלמא לא כיפרו שלא לשמו מכח לשמו קאתי ושני למה הוא בא לכפר אלא אי אמרת כיפרו שני למה הוא בא:,איבעיא להו אעשה דלאחר הפרשה מכפרא או לא מכפרא,מי אמרינן מידי דהוה אחטאת מה חטאת דקודם הפרשה אין דלאחר הפרשה לא אף הכא נמי דקודם הפרשה אין לאחר הפרשה לא,או דלמא לא דמיא לחטאת דחטאת על כל חטא וחטא בעי לאיתויי חדא חטאת והכא כיון דאיכא כמה עשה גביה מכפרא אעשה דלאחר הפרשה נמי מכפרא,תא שמע (ויקרא א, ד) וסמך ונרצה וכי סמיכה מכפרת והלא אין כפרה אלא בדם שנאמר (ויקרא יז, יא) כי הדם הוא בנפש יכפר אלא מה תלמוד לומר וסמך ונרצה לכפר שאם עשאה לסמיכה שירי מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו לא כיפר וכיפר,מאי לאו דכיפר עשה דקודם הפרשה לא כיפר אעשה דסמיכה דהוה ליה עשה דלאחר הפרשה,אמר רבא עשה דסמיכה קאמרת שאני התם דכל כמה דלא שחיט בעמוד וסמוך קאי אימת קא הוי עשה לאחר שחיטה לאחר שחיטה לא קא מיבעיא לן,א"ל רב הונא בר יהודה לרבא אימא כיפר גברא | 6a. b and partners cannot effect substitution /b of other animals for their offering. b But if you say /b that it is b not acquired by them, /b and the animal is the property solely of the deceased father, b let them also effect substitution /b on his behalf, as heirs are able to affect substitution for their deceased parents’ offerings.,The Gemara answers: b There it is different, as /b although b the verse states: “If he shall at all change [ i hamer yamir /i ] /b animal for animal” (Leviticus 27:10), the superfluous word i hamer /i serving b to include the heir /b as one who is able to effect substitution, nevertheless the subject’s singular form teaches that only b one /b heir b can effect substitution, but two /b heirs b cannot effect substitution. /b , b Rav Ya’akov of Nehar Pekod objects to this /b derivation: b If that is so, /b one should say the same b with regard to /b the redemption of the second b tithe, as it is written: “And if /b a man b will redeem [ i gaol yigal /i ] /b any of his tithe, he shall add to it the fifth part thereof” (Leviticus 27:31), with the superfluous word i gaol /i serving b to include the heir /b as one who must add the one-fifth. b So too, /b it should be derived from the verb’s singular form that if b one /b heir b redeems /b the tithe, he must add one-fifth of its value, b but /b if b two /b heirs b redeem /b it, b they do not /b need to add one-fifth. In fact, the i halakha /i is that partners must also add one-fifth.,The Gemara answers: Redemption of the b tithe is different, as /b the b father had /b the ability to redeem the tithe b even in partnership /b with another when alive. Therefore, the heirs can do so as well. By contrast, substitution of an offering cannot be effected by partners., b Rav Asi said to Rav Ashi: But from /b this i halakha /i b itself, /b that two heirs cannot effect substitution of an offering, it can be proven that they acquire the offering of the deceased. b Granted, if you say /b it is b acquired by them, this is /b the reason b that one /b heir, b in any event, can effect substitution /b of another animal for the offering. b But if you say /b it is b not acquired by them, how can /b even one heir b effect substitution? /b , b But doesn’t Rabbi Abbahu say /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b If b one consecrates /b his own animal to atone for someone else and he then redeems it, he b adds one-fifth /b of its value, as he would for any other offering he owned, but if the one for whom it atones redeems it, he need not add one-fifth, since he is not the owner. Nevertheless, only the b one for whom /b the offering b atones can render /b another animal b a substitute /b for it, as in this respect only he is considered its owner. Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement concludes: b And /b if b one separates i teruma /i from his /b own produce b to /b exempt the produce b of another /b from the obligation to have teruma separated from it, b the benefit of discretion is his. /b Only the one who separated the i teruma /i is entitled to determine which priest receives it. Since an heir is able to effect substitution, apparently the offering atones for his transgression. This supports the claim that the heir acquires the offering.,Rav Ashi responds: The offering b does not atone /b for the transgressions of the heirs b by /b its b essence, /b as it was not consecrated for their atonement, and they do not acquire it. Therefore, two heirs of a meal offering can bring it, as explained above. Yet, it b does atone /b for them b incidentally [ i mikkufeya /i ]. /b Therefore, an heir can effect substitution of another animal for it.,§ With regard to the i halakha /i that offerings slaughtered not for their sake are fit to be sacrificed but do not satisfy the obligations of their owners, b a dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: After these offerings are sacrificed, b did they atone for /b the sins for b which they came, or did they not atone /b for them?, b Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: It stands to reason that they did not atone, as, if it enters your mind /b that b they did atone, for what /b purpose b is /b the b second /b offering b brought? /b Why is the owner required to bring another offering if the first atoned for his sin?,The Gemara challenges this reasoning: b Rather, what /b is the alternative? That b they did not atone? /b If so, b for what /b purpose b is /b the first offering b sacrificed? /b , b Rav Ashi said: This /b is what is b difficult for Rav Sheisha, /b i.e., Rav Sheshet, b son of Rav Idi: Granted, if you say /b that such an offering b did not atone, /b it b is brought /b even when slaughtered b not for its sake on the strength of /b its prior consecration b for its sake. And /b in that case, b for what /b purpose b is /b the b second /b offering b brought? /b It is brought b to atone /b for the sin. b But if you say /b that offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake b atoned /b for the sin, b for what /b purpose b is /b the b second /b offering b brought? /b ,§ b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: When one brings a burnt offering, which atones for violations of positive mitzvot, b does it atone /b even b for /b a violation of b a positive mitzva that /b one committed b after designating /b the animal as an offering, b or does it not atone /b for such a violation?,The Gemara elaborates: b Do we say /b that the i halakha /i in this case is b just as it is with regard to a sin offering, /b in that b just as a sin offering does /b atone for a sin b that /b one committed b before designation /b of the animal but does b not /b atone for a sin b that /b one committed b after designation, here too, /b a burnt offering b does /b atone for violations b that /b one committed b before designation /b but does b not /b atone for those committed b after designation? /b , b Or, perhaps /b a burnt offering is b not similar to a sin offering, as /b with regard to b a sin offering one must bring one sin offering for each and every sin /b he commits. b But here, since /b a burnt offering b atones /b even for one who b has /b committed b several /b violations of b positive mitzvot, /b one may claim that b it also atones /b even b for /b the violation of b a positive mitzva that /b one committed b after designation /b of the animal.,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b proof from a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And he shall place /b his hand on the head of the burnt offering, b and it shall be accepted /b for him to atone for him” (Leviticus 1:4). b And does placing hands atone /b for one’s sins? b But isn’t atonement /b achieved b only by /b the sprinkling of b the blood, as it is stated: “For it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life” /b (Leviticus 17:11)? b Rather, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: “And he shall place…and it shall be accepted /b for him b to atone”? /b This teaches b that if one deemed /b the ritual of b placing hands /b to be b a non-essential mitzva /b and consequently failed to perform it, b the verse ascribes to him /b blame b as though /b the offering b did not atone /b for his sins; b and /b nevertheless, the offering b atoned /b for his sins., b What, /b does the final clause of the i baraita /i b not /b mean b that /b the offer-ing b atoned /b for the violation of any b positive mitzva that /b the owner committed b before designation /b of the animal, but b it did not atone for /b violation of b the positive mitzva of placing hands /b on the head of the offering, b as that constitutes /b a violation of b a positive mitzva after designation /b of the animal? Apparently, a burnt offering does not atone for the violations committed after the animal’s designation., b Rava said /b in response: b You say /b that b the positive mitzva of placing hands /b is proof? b There it is different, since as long as he does not slaughter /b the offering, b he remains /b obligated b to stand and place /b his b hands /b on its head. He has not yet violated the mitzva. b When does /b the violation of this b positive mitzva occur? /b It occurs b after /b the b slaughter, /b at which point fulfillment of the mitzva is no longer possible. And with regard to a violation committed b after /b the b slaughter, we do not raise the dilemma; /b clearly a burnt offering does not atone for such a violation., b Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava: Say /b the i baraita /i means that the offering b atoned /b for the transgression of b the person, /b |
|
