1. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 23.17 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •consecration, of foodstuffs Found in books: Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 208| 23.17. "מִמּוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם תָּבִיאּוּ לֶחֶם תְּנוּפָה שְׁתַּיִם שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרֹנִים סֹלֶת תִּהְיֶינָה חָמֵץ תֵּאָפֶינָה בִּכּוּרִים לַיהוָה׃", | 23.17. "Ye shall bring out of your dwellings two wave-loaves of two tenth parts of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baked with leaven, for first-fruits unto the LORD.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 15.18-15.21 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •consecration, of foodstuffs Found in books: Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 208| 15.18. "דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם בְּבֹאֲכֶם אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה׃", 15.19. "וְהָיָה בַּאֲכָלְכֶם מִלֶּחֶם הָאָרֶץ תָּרִימוּ תְרוּמָה לַיהוָה׃", 15.21. "מֵרֵאשִׁית עֲרִסֹתֵיכֶם תִּתְּנוּ לַיהוָה תְּרוּמָה לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם׃", | 15.18. "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When ye come into the land whither I bring you,", 15.19. "then it shall be, that, when ye eat of the bread of the land, ye shall set apart a portion for a gift unto the LORD.", 15.20. "of the first of your dough ye shall set apart a cake for a gift; as that which is set apart of the threshing-floor, so shall ye set it apart.", 15.21. "of the first of your dough ye shall give unto the LORD a portion for a gift throughout your generations.", |
|
| 3. Dead Sea Scrolls, Copper Scroll, 11.4 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •consecration, of foodstuffs Found in books: Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 209 |
4. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 1.132 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •consecration, of foodstuffs Found in books: Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 208 | 1.132. in the first place, that the necessary food for their support shall at all times be provided for them without any labour or toil of their own; for God commands those who are making bread, to take of all the fat and of all the dough, a loaf as first fruits for the use of the priests, making thus, by this legitimate instruction, a provision for those men who put aside these first fruits, proceeding in the way that leads to piety; |
|
5. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 4.71 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •consecration, of foodstuffs Found in books: Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 208 | 4.71. but that the owners of those first-born which are not appointed for sacrifices in the laws of our country, should bring a shekel and a half in their stead: but for the first-born of a man, five shekels: that they should also have the first-fruits out of the shearing of the sheep; and that when any baked breadcorn, and made loaves of it, they should give somewhat of what they had baked to them. |
|
6. Mishnah, Terumot, 3.1-3.2, 5.1-5.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •consecration, of foodstuffs Found in books: Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 209| 3.1. "הַתּוֹרֵם קִשּׁוּת וְנִמְצֵאת מָרָה, אֲבַטִּיחַ וְנִמְצָא סָרוּחַ, תְּרוּמָה, וְיַחֲזֹר וְיִתְרֹם. הַתּוֹרֵם חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן וְנִמְצֵאת שֶׁל חֹמֶץ, אִם יָדוּעַ שֶׁהָיְתָה שֶׁל חֹמֶץ עַד שֶׁלֹּא תְרָמָהּ, אֵינָה תְרוּמָה. אִם מִשֶּׁתְּרָמָהּ הֶחֱמִיצָה, הֲרֵי זוֹ תְרוּמָה. אִם סָפֵק, תְּרוּמָה, וְיַחֲזֹר וְיִתְרֹם. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ, וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ חֹמֶשׁ. וְכֵן הַשְּׁנִיָּה: \n", 3.2. "נָפְלָה אַחַת מֵהֶן לְתוֹךְ הַחֻלִּין, אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעְתָּן. נָפְלָה שְׁנִיָּה לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר, אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעְתָּן. נָפְלוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד, מְדַמְּעוֹת כַּקְּטַנָּה שֶׁבִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן: \n", 5.1. "סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁנָפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה חֻלִּין, אוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן, אוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, אוֹ לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ, בֵּין טְמֵאִין בֵּין טְהוֹרִים, יֵרָקֵבוּ. אִם טְהוֹרָה הָיְתָה אוֹתָהּ הַסְּאָה, יִמָּכְרוּ לַכֹּהֲנִים בִּדְמֵי תְרוּמָה, חוּץ מִדְּמֵי אוֹתָהּ סְאָה. וְאִם לְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן נָפְלָה, יִקְרָא שֵׁם לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר. וְאִם לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי אוֹ לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ נָפְלָה, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִפָּדוּ. וְאִם טְמֵאִים הָיוּ אוֹתָן הַחֻלִּין, יֵאָכְלוּ נִקּוּדִים אוֹ קְלָיוֹת, אוֹ יִלּוֹשׁוּ בְמֵי פֵרוֹת, אוֹ יִתְחַלְּקוּ לְעִסּוֹת, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בְמָקוֹם אֶחָד כַּבֵּיצָה: \n", 5.2. "סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְתוֹךְ מֵאָה חֻלִּין טְהוֹרִין, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, תֵּרוֹם וְתִשָּׂרֵף, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר, סְאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה הִיא סְאָה שֶׁעָלְתָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, תַּעֲלֶה וְתֵאָכֵל נִקּוּדִים אוֹ קְלָיוֹת, אוֹ תִלּוֹשׁ בְּמֵי פֵרוֹת, אוֹ תִתְחַלֵּק לְעִסּוֹת, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בְמָקוֹם אֶחָד כַּבֵּיצָה: \n", 5.3. "סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה חֻלִּין טְמֵאִין, תַּעֲלֶה וְתֵאָכֵל נִקּוּדִים אוֹ קְלָיוֹת, אוֹ תִלּוֹשׁ בְּמֵי פֵרוֹת, אוֹ תִתְחַלֵּק לְעִסּוֹת, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בְמָקוֹם אֶחָד כַּבֵּיצָה: \n", 5.4. "סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹסְרִים, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. אָמְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, הוֹאִיל וּטְהוֹרָה אֲסוּרָה לְזָרִים וּטְמֵאָה אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֲנִים, מַה טְּהוֹרָה עוֹלָה, אַף טְמֵאָה תַּעֲלֶה. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, לֹא, אִם הֶעֱלוּ הַחֻלִּין הַקַּלִּין הַמֻּתָּרִין לְזָרִים אֶת הַטְּהוֹרָה, תַּעֲלֶה תְרוּמָה הַחֲמוּרָה הָאֲסוּרָה לְזָרִים אֶת הַטְּמֵאָה. לְאַחַר שֶׁהוֹדוּ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, תֵּרוֹם וְתִשָּׂרֵף. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אָבְדָה בְמִעוּטָהּ: \n", 5.5. "סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה, הִגְבִּיהָהּ וְנָפְלָה לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, מְדַמַּעַת כִּתְרוּמָה וַדָּאי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינָה מְדַמַּעַת אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן: \n", 5.6. "סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה וְנִדַּמְּעוּ, וְנָפַל מִן הַמְדֻמָּע לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, מְדַמַּעַת כִּתְרוּמָה וַדָּאי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין הַמְדֻמָּע מְדַמֵּעַ אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן, וְאֵין הַמְחֻמָּץ מַחְמִיץ אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן, וְאֵין הַמַּיִם שְׁאוּבִים פּוֹסְלִים אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן: \n", 5.7. "סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה, הִגְבִּיהָהּ וְנָפְלָה אַחֶרֶת, הִגְבִּיהָהּ וְנָפְלָה אַחֶרֶת, הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת, עַד שֶׁתִּרְבֶּה תְרוּמָה עַל הַחֻלִּין: \n", 5.8. "סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְהַגְבִּיהָהּ עַד שֶׁנָּפְלָה אַחֶרֶת, הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר: \n", 5.9. "סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה, וּטְחָנָן וּפָחֲתוּ, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁפָּחֲתוּ הַחֻלִּין, כָּךְ פָּחֲתָה הַתְּרוּמָה, וּמֻתָּר. סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה, וּטְחָנָן וְהוֹתִירוּ, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוֹתִירוּ הַחֻלִּין, כָּךּ הוֹתִירָה הַתְּרוּמָה, וְאָסוּר. אִם יָדוּעַ שֶׁהַחִטִּים שֶׁל חֻלִּין יָפוֹת מִשֶּׁל תְּרוּמָה, מֻתָּר. סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה, וְאַחַר כֵּן נָפְלוּ שָׁם חֻלִּין, אִם שׁוֹגֵג, מֻתָּר, וְאִם מֵזִיד, אָסוּר: \n", | 3.1. "If one gave a cucumber as terumah and it was found to be bitter, a melon and it was found to be rotten, it is considered terumah, but he must again give terumah. If one gave a jar of wine as terumah and it was found to be vinegar: If prior to his act he knew that it was vinegar, the terumah is not valid; But if it had turned sour after he had given it as terumah, behold it is terumah. In case of doubt, it is terumah but he must again give terumah. The first terumah does not render on its own [produce into which it falls] “doubtful terumah” and it is not subject to the added fifth, and so the second.", 3.2. "If one of them falls into non-sacred produce, it does not make [the mixture] medumma [a mixture into which terumah has fallen]. If the second of them falls [then] into another place, it also does not make it medumma. But if both fall into one place, they do make it medumma, according to the size of the smaller of the two.", 5.1. "If a seah of unclean terumah fell into less than a hundred seahs of hullin, or first tithe, or second tithe, or dedicated property, whether these were unclean or clean, they must all be left to rot. If the seah [of terumah] was clean, [the mixture] must be sold to priests at the price of terumah, excluding the value of that seah itself. If it fell into first tithe, he should declare terumah of tithe. And if it fell into second tithe or dedicated property, they must be redeemed. If the hullin was unclean, it may be eaten in small quantities, or roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or divided into pieces of dough so that the size of one egg be not in any one place.", 5.2. "A seah of unclean terumah which fell into a hundred of clean hullin:Rabbi Eliezer says: [a seah] must be taken out and burnt, for I say that the seah taken out is the one that fell in. But the sages say: it may be taken out and eaten in small quantities, or roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or divided into pieces of dough so that the size of one egg be not in any one place.", 5.3. "A seah of clean terumah fell into a hundred of unclean hullin, it may be eaten in small quantities, or roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or divided into pieces of dough so that the size of one egg be not in any one place.", 5.4. "A seah of unclean terumah that falls into one hundred seahs of clean terumah: Bet Shammai prohibits, But Bet Hillel permits. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: since clean [terumah] is forbidden to non-priests and unclean [terumah is forbidden] to priests, then just as clean [terumah] is brought up, so too unclean [terumah] can be brought up. Bet Shammai answered them: No! If hullin which is treated more leniently [in that it is permitted to non-priests] allows us to bring up clean [terumah that falls into it], does terumah [which is more stringent in that it is forbidden to non-priests] also allow us to bring up that which is unclean? After [Bet Shammai] had agreed [with Bet Hillel], Rabbi Eliezer said: it should be taken out and burned. But the sages say: it is gone, on account of its being a tiny [portion of the whole mixture].", 5.5. "A seah of terumah that fell into a hundred [of hullin], and he lifted it out and fell into [hullin] elsewhere:Rabbi Eliezer says: it renders medumma as though it were certainly terumah. But the sages say: it is rendered medumma only according to proportion.", 5.6. "A seah of terumah which fell into less than a hundred [of hullin], and rendered the whole medumma, and part of this mixture fell afterwards into another place: Rabbi Eliezer says: it renders again medumma as if certain terumah [had fallen in]. But the sages say: the [first] mixture renders medumma only according to the proportion. [Similarly], that which is leavened [with terumah] renders other dough leavened [as with terumah] only according to the proportion. And drawn water disqualifies a ritual bath also only according to the proportion.", 5.7. "If a seah of terumah fell into a hundred [of hullin] and he lifted [a seah] out, and then another fell in, and he lifted another out and another fell in, the pile is permissible as long as the amount of terumah does not exceed that of the hullin.", 5.8. "If a seah of terumah fell into a hundred [of hullin], and before he could take it out, another fell in, the whole becomes forbidden. Rabbi Shimon permits it.", 5.9. "If a seah of terumah fell into a hundred [of hullin], and they were ground together and reduced in bulk, just as the hullin was reduced so too the terumah was reduced, and it is permitted. If a seah of terumah fell into less than a hundred [of hullin] and they were ground together and increased in bulk, just as the hullin became more, so too the terumah became more, and it is forbidden. If it is known that the kernels of hullin were better than the terumah, it is permitted. If a seah of terumah fell into less than a hundred [of hullin], and more hullin fell in afterwards, if it was accidental it is permissible, but if intentional it is forbidden.", |
|
7. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 5.6 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •consecration, of foodstuffs Found in books: Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 209| 5.6. Οὐ καλὸν τὸ καύχημα ὑμῶν. οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα ζυμοῖ; | 5.6. Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeastleavens the whole lump? |
|
8. New Testament, Galatians, 5.9 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •consecration, of foodstuffs Found in books: Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 209| 5.9. μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα ζυμοῖ. | 5.9. A little yeast grows through the wholelump. |
|
9. New Testament, Romans, 9.21, 11.16-11.24 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •consecration, of foodstuffs Found in books: Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 207, 208, 209| 9.21. ἢ οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίανὁ κεραμεὺς τοῦ πηλοῦἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ φυράματος ποιῆσαι ὃ μὲν εἰς τιμὴν σκεῦος, ὃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν; 11.16. εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀπαρχὴ ἁγία, καὶ τὸ φύραμα· καὶ εἰ ἡ ῥίζα ἁγία, καὶ οἱ κλάδοι. 11.17. Εἰ δέ τινες τῶν κλάδων ἐξεκλάσθησαν, σὺ δὲ ἀγριέλαιος ὢν ἐνεκεντρίσθης ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ συνκοινωνὸς τῆς ῥίζης τῆς πιότητος τῆς ἐλαίας ἐγένου, μὴ κατακαυχῶ τῶν κλάδων· 11.18. εἰ δὲ κατακαυχᾶσαι, οὐ σὺ τὴν ῥίζαν βαστάζεις ἀλλὰ ἡ ῥίζα σέ. 11.19. ἐρεῖς οὖν Ἐξεκλάσθησαν κλάδοι ἵνα ἐγὼ ἐνκεντρισθῶ. καλῶς· 11.20. τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ ἐξεκλάσθησαν, σὺ δὲ τῇ πίστει ἕστηκας. 11.21. μὴ ὑψηλὰ φρόνει, ἀλλὰ φοβοῦ· εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τῶν κατὰ φύσιν κλάδων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, οὐδὲ σοῦ φείσεται. ἴδε οὖν χρηστότητα καὶ ἀποτομίαν θεοῦ· 11.22. ἐπὶ μὲν τοὺς πεσόντας ἀποτομία, ἐπὶ δὲ σὲ χρηστότης θεοῦ, ἐὰν ἐπιμένῃς τῇ χρηστότητι, ἐπεὶ καὶ σὺ ἐκκοπήσῃ. 11.23. κἀκεῖνοι δέ, ἐὰν μὴ ἐπιμένωσι τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ, ἐνκεντρισθήσονται· δυνατὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς πάλιν ἐνκεντρίσαι αὐτούς. 11.24. εἰ γὰρ σὺ ἐκ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν ἐξεκόπης ἀγριελαίου καὶ παρὰ φύσιν ἐνεκεντρίσθης εἰς καλλιέλαιον, πόσῳ μᾶλλον οὗτοι οἱ κατὰ φύσιν ἐνκεντρισθήσονται τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐλαίᾳ. | 9.21. Or hasn't the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel for honor, and another for dishonor? 11.16. If the first fruit is holy, so is the lump. If the root is holy, so are the branches. 11.17. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them, and became partaker with them of the root and of the richness of the olive tree; 11.18. don't boast over the branches. But if you boast, it is not you who support the root, but the root supports you. 11.19. You will say then, "Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in." 11.20. True; by their unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by your faith. Don't be conceited, but fear; 11.21. for if God didn't spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 11.22. See then the goodness and severity of God. Toward those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in his goodness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 11.23. They also, if they don't continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 11.24. For if you were cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree, how much more will these, which are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? |
|
10. Mishna, Challah, 1.9 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •consecration, of foodstuffs Found in books: Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 208| 1.9. "הַחַלָּה וְהַתְּרוּמָה, חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ מִיתָה וְחֹמֶשׁ, וַאֲסוּרִים לְזָרִים, וְהֵם נִכְסֵי כֹהֵן, וְעוֹלִין בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה, וּטְעוּנִין רְחִיצַת יָדַיִם וְהַעֲרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ, וְאֵין נִטָּלִין מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא, אֶלָּא מִן הַמֻּקָּף וּמִן הַדָּבָר הַגָּמוּר. הָאוֹמֵר, כָּל גָּרְנִי תְרוּמָה וְכָל עִסָּתִי חַלָּה, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁיֵּר מִקְצָת: \n", | 1.9. "In the case of hallah and terumah:One is liable for death on account of [having eaten] them death [intentionally], or to [repay] an added fifth [if unwittingly]; They are forbidden to non-priests; They are the property of the priest; They are nullified [in a mixture of] one-hundred-and-one [parts, the rest being non-sacred dough or produce]; They require washing of one’s hands; And [waiting until] the setting of the sun [prior to eating them]; They may not be separated from pure [stuff] for impure; But rather from that which is close, And from that [in a] finished [state]. If one said: “All my threshing-floor is terumah, or all my dough is hallah,” he has not said anything, unless he has left some over.", |
|
11. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •consecration, of foodstuffs Found in books: Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 209| 46b. לפי שמצינו שהשוה הכתוב הקטן כגדול לזדון שבועה ולאיסר ולבל יחל יכול יהא חייב על הקדשו קרבן,ת"ל (במדבר ל, ב) זה הדבר,קתני מיהת לאיסר ולבל יחל חייב אימא לאיסור בל יחל,איסור בל יחל מה נפשך אי מופלא סמוך לאיש דאורייתא מילקא נמי לילקי ואי מופלא סמוך לאיש לאו דאורייתא איסור נמי ליכא לאותן המוזהרים עליו,שמע מינה קטן אוכל נבלות ב"ד מצווין עליו להפרישו הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהקדיש הוא ואכלו אחרים,הניחא למ"ד הקדיש הוא ואכלו אחרים לוקין אלא למ"ד אין לוקין מאי איכא למימר דאיתמר הקדיש הוא ואכלו אחרים רב כהנא אמר אין לוקין רבי יוחנן ור"ל דאמרי תרוויהו לוקין,מדרבנן וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא,גופא הקדיש ואכלו אחרים רב כהנא אמר אין לוקין רבי יוחנן ור"ל דאמרי תרוייהו לוקין במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר מופלא סמוך לאיש דאורייתא ומר סבר מופלא סמוך לאיש מדרבנן,מתיב רב ירמיה יתומה שנדרה בעלה מפר לה אי אמרת בשלמא מופלא סמוך לאיש דרבנן אתו נשואין דרבנן ומבטלי נדרא דרבנן אלא אי אמרת דאורייתא אתו נשואין דרבנן ומבטלי נדרא דאורייתא,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בעלה מפר לה ממה נפשך אי דרבנן דרבנן הוא אי דאורייתא קטן אוכל נבלות הוא ואין ב"ד מצווין עליו להפרישו,והא כי גדלה אכלה בהפרה קמייתא,אמר רבה בר ליואי בעלה מפר לה כל שעה ושעה והוא שבעל,והא אין בעל מפר בקודמין כדרב פינחס משמיה דרבא דאמר רב פנחס משמיה דרבא כל הנודרת על דעת בעלה היא נודרת,אמר אביי ת"ש קטן שלא הביא ב' שערות רבי יהודה אומר אין תרומתו תרומה רבי יוסי אומר עד שלא בא לעונת נדרים אין תרומתו תרומה משבא לעונת נדרים תרומתו תרומה,סברוה קסבר ר' יוסי תרומה בזמן הזה דאורייתא אי אמרת בשלמא מופלא סמוך לאיש דאורייתא אתי גברא דאורייתא ומתקן טבלא דאורייתא אלא אי אמרת דרבנן אתי גברא דרבנן ומתקן טבלא דאורייתא לא קסבר רבי יוסי תרומה בזמן הזה דרבנן,וסבר ר' יוסי תרומה בזמן הזה דרבנן והתניא בסדר עולם (דברים ל, ה) אשר ירשו אבותיך וירשתה,ירושה ראשונה ושניה יש להן שלישית אין להן,וא"ר יוחנן מאן תנא סדר עולם ר' יוסי,ר' יוסי תני לה ולא סבר לה ה"נ מסתברא דתניא עיסה שנדמעה או שנתחמצה בשאור של תרומה | 46b. b Since we find that the verse equates a minor, /b i.e., one on the brink of adulthood, b to an adult with regard to an intentional /b violation of b an oath and with regard to /b a vow of b prohibition, /b where one renders an item prohibited to himself through a vow, b and with regard to /b the prohibition of b he shall not profane /b his word, one b might /b have thought that this minor, like an adult, b should /b also b be liable /b to bring b an offering for /b misuse of b his consecrated /b property, e.g., if he ate an item that he consecrated.,Therefore, b the verse states /b with regard to vows: b “This is the matter /b which the Lord has commanded. When a man vows a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath” (Numbers 30:2–3). The emphasis of “this” indicates that it is only with regard to this matter, i.e., prohibitions resulting from vows, that a discriminating minor on the brink of adulthood is considered an adult, but he is not rendered liable to bring an offering for his misuse.,The Gemara analyzes the i baraita /i . b In any event, /b the i baraita /i b teaches /b that a discriminating minor on the brink of adulthood is considered an adult b with regard to /b a vow of b prohibition and with regard to /b the prohibition of b he shall not profane /b his word, which indicates that he is b liable /b for violating this prohibition. This supports the opinion of Rav Huna that a minor is flogged for eating food he consecrated. The Gemara refutes this proof: There is room to b say /b that the word: And, in the phrase: With regard to a vow of prohibition and with regard to the prohibition of he shall not profane his word, should be omitted, and the i baraita /i is comparing a minor to an adult b with regard to the prohibition /b of b he shall not profane /b his word, but it does not indicate that he is liable to receive lashes for violating this prohibition.,The Gemara asks: Can the i baraita /i actually mean that a minor is compared to an adult with regard to b the prohibition /b of b he shall not profane /b his word, but he is not flogged? b Whichever way you /b look at it, this is problematic: b If a discriminating /b minor b on the brink of adulthood /b is considered an adult b by Torah law, he should be flogged too, /b for his violation. b And if a discriminating /b minor b on the brink of adulthood /b is b not /b considered an adult b by Torah law, there is no prohibition /b violated here b either. /b The Gemara answers that according to the i baraita /i the prohibition does not apply to the minor himself, but b to those who are warned to /b keep b him /b away from the prohibited item.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, one can b conclude from /b the i baraita /i that if b a minor eats /b meat from unslaughtered b animal carcasses /b or violates other prohibitions, b the court is commanded to prevent him /b from doing so. This is problematic, as elsewhere it is stated that this matter is subject to dispute (see i Yevamot /i 114a). The Gemara explains: b Here we are dealing with /b a case b where /b the minor b consecrated /b the food item b and others ate /b it. They are liable to receive lashes for their consumption, but if he ate it he is not liable.,The Gemara raises another difficulty: b This works out well according to the one who said /b that if a minor b consecrated /b a food item b and others ate /b it, b they are flogged. But according to the one who said /b that in such a case b they are not flogged, what can be said? As it was stated /b that i amora’im /i disagreed with regard to this issue: If a minor b consecrated /b a food item b and others ate /b it, b Rav Kahana says /b that b they are not flogged; Rabbi Yoḥa and Reish Lakish both say /b that b they are flogged. /b ,The Gemara therefore reverts to the interpretation that the i baraita /i is referring to the prohibition of he shall not profane his word, not the punishment for violation of the vow. And the reason lashes are not administered is that the prohibition is b by rabbinic law. And /b as for the b verse /b mentioned in the i baraita /i , when it states that the verse equates a minor to an adult, which indicates that it is dealing with Torah law, this verse is b a mere support /b for a rabbinic law.,§ The Gemara discusses b the /b matter b itself, /b i.e., the dispute cited above. If a minor b consecrated /b a food item b and others ate /b it, b Rav Kahana says /b that b they are not flogged; Rabbi Yoḥa and Reish Lakish both say /b that b they are flogged. With regard to what /b principle b do /b these Sages b disagree? /b One b Sage, /b i.e., Rabbi Yoḥa and Reish Lakish, b holds /b that b a discriminating /b minor b on the brink of adulthood /b is considered an adult b by Torah law, /b which is why others are liable for eating an item he consecrated; b and /b one b Sage, /b Rav Kahana, b holds /b that b a discriminating /b minor b on the brink of adulthood /b is considered an adult b by rabbinic law. /b , b Rav Yirmeya raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : In the case of a minor girl who is b an orphan /b from her father and her mother or brothers accepted betrothal on her behalf, b who vowed, her husband may nullify her /b vow, like any other husband, despite the fact that this marriage is valid merely by rabbinic law. Rav Yirmeya analyzes this i baraita /i : b Granted, if you say /b that b a discriminating /b minor b on the brink of adulthood /b is considered an adult b by rabbinic law, /b one can explain that a husband whose b marriage /b is b by rabbinic law comes and negates a vow /b that also applies b by rabbinic law. But if you say /b that a discriminating minor on the brink of adulthood is considered an adult b by Torah law, /b can a husband whose b marriage /b is b by rabbinic law come and negate a vow /b that applies b by Torah law? /b , b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Shmuel says: Her husband may nullify her /b vows, b whichever /b way b you /b look at it: b If /b the validity of the vows of such a minor applies b by rabbinic law, /b the husband may nullify her vows, as the validity of their marriage b is /b likewise b by rabbinic law. /b And b if /b the validity of a vow by a discriminating minor on the brink of adulthood is b by Torah law, /b which means she would be violating a Torah prohibition, this b is /b the same as the case of b a minor /b who b may eat /b meat from unslaughtered b animal carcasses /b or violate other prohibitions, b and the court /b or any other adult, including her husband in this case, b is not commanded to prevent him /b from doing so,and it does not matter if his nullification was not effective.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But /b there is still concern for a violation, as b when she grows /b and becomes an adult b she will eat /b the food that she rendered forbidden to herself, relying b on the initial nullification /b of her vow by her husband, which was not valid. At that stage she is an adult, whom the court is certainly commanded to prevent from violating prohibitions., b Rabba bar Livai said /b that this is not a concern, as b her husband nullifies her /b vows b each and every moment, /b and therefore when she reaches majority he will nullify her vow in a manner that is valid by Torah law. b And /b this b is /b the i halakha /i , that the nullification takes effect by Torah law, only in a case b where /b her husband b engaged in intercourse /b with her after she became an adult, thereby rendering their marriage valid by Torah law.,The Gemara raises another difficulty: b But /b there is a principle that b a husband cannot nullify /b vows of his wife that b preceded /b their marriage; and as she is considered his wife by Torah law only when she becomes an adult, her vow when she was a minor preceded their marriage. The Gemara answers that he can still nullify her vow, b in accordance with /b the statement b of Rav Pineḥas in the name of Rava, as Rav Pineḥas said in the name of Rava: Any /b woman b who takes a vow, /b it is from the outset contingent b on her husband’s consent /b that b she takes the vow. /b Since the minor was married by rabbinic law, she vowed on the condition that her husband should agree to her vow, and therefore the nullification is valid by Torah law.,§ The Gemara continues to discuss the validity of the vows of a discriminating minor on the brink of adulthood. b Abaye said: Come /b and b hear /b a mishna ( i Terumot /i 1:3): With regard to b a minor who has not grown two hairs, Rabbi Yehuda says: His i teruma /i is not /b valid b i teruma /i . Rabbi Yosei says: Until he has reached the age of vows, /b i.e., when he does not yet have the status of a discriminating minor on the brink of adulthood, b his i teruma /i is not /b valid b i teruma /i , /b but b once he has reached the age of vows, his i teruma /i is i teruma /i . /b ,The Sages b assumed /b that b Rabbi Yosei holds /b that b i teruma /i in the present /b applies b by Torah law. /b They therefore objected: b Granted, if you say /b that b a discriminating /b minor b on the brink of adulthood /b is an adult b by Torah law, /b one can understand that one who is b a man by Torah law /b with regard to vows b can come and prepare untithed produce [ i tivla /i ] /b for consumption by tithing it, which also applies b by Torah law. But if you say /b that a discriminating minor on the brink of adulthood is an adult b by rabbinic law, /b can one who is b a man by rabbinic law come and prepare untithed produce, /b which is prohibited b by Torah law? /b The Gemara refutes this proof: b No, /b perhaps b Rabbi Yosei holds /b that b i teruma /i in the present /b applies b by rabbinic law, /b and this is why he rules that a minor on the brink of adulthood can set aside i teruma /i .,The Gemara asks: b And does Rabbi Yosei hold /b that b i teruma /i in the present /b applies b by rabbinic law? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i b in /b the anthology called b i Seder Olam /i : /b The verse that states with regard to the Jewish people’s return to Eretz Yisrael following their exile: “And the Lord your God will bring you into the land b that your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it” /b (Deuteronomy 30:5).,These two expressions of possession indicate that the Jewish people had b a first possession /b of Eretz Yisrael in the days of Joshua, when Eretz Yisrael was first sanctified with regard to the obligation of its mitzvot, b and they had a second /b possession at the time of Ezra and the return of the Babylonian exile. In other words, the sanctity of the land lapsed when the First Temple was destroyed and the Jews were exiled to Babylonia, and therefore a second sanctification was necessary when they returned to their land. But b they /b will b not have a third /b possession. That is, it will never be necessary to sanctify the land a third time, as the second sanctification was permanent., b And Rabbi Yoḥa said: Who /b is the i tanna /i that b taught i Seder Olam /i ? Rabbi Yosei. /b Since Rabbi Yosei maintains that the second sanctification of Eretz Yisrael did not lapse even after the destruction of the Second Temple, he must also maintain that i teruma /i in the present applies by Torah law.,The Gemara answers that b Rabbi Yosei taught /b i Seder Olam /i b but he does not maintain /b in accordance with b its /b ruling here. The Gemara adds: b So too, it is reasonable /b that this is so, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to non-sacred b dough that became mixed /b with i teruma /i dough, b or which was leavened with leaven of i teruma /i , /b |
|
| 12. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Qdamascus, 3.19 Tagged with subjects: •consecration, of foodstuffs Found in books: Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 208 |
| 13. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Qhalakhah, 5.4, 9.3 Tagged with subjects: •consecration, of foodstuffs Found in books: Gordon (2020), Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism, 208, 209 |
