1. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 32.32 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 32.32. וַיִּזְרַח־לוֹ הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר עָבַר אֶת־פְּנוּאֵל וְהוּא צֹלֵעַ עַל־יְרֵכוֹ׃ | 32.32. And the sun rose upon him as he passed over Peniel, and he limped upon his thigh." |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 1.14 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 1.14. וְאִם מִן־הָעוֹף עֹלָה קָרְבָּנוֹ לַיהוָה וְהִקְרִיב מִן־הַתֹּרִים אוֹ מִן־בְּנֵי הַיּוֹנָה אֶת־קָרְבָּנוֹ׃ | 1.14. And if his offering to the LORD be a burnt-offering of fowls, then he shall bring his offering of turtle-doves, or of young pigeons." |
|
3. Mishnah, Hulin, 2.7-2.10, 10.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.7. If one slaughtered for a non-Jew, the slaughtering is valid. Rabbi Eliezer declares it invalid. Rabbi Eliezer said: even if one slaughtered a beast with the intention that a non-Jew should eat [only] its liver, the slaughtering is invalid, for the thoughts of a non-Jew are usually directed towards idolatry. Rabbi Yose said: is there not a kal vehomer argument? For if in the case of consecrated animals, where a wrongful intention can render invalid, it is established that everything depends solely upon the intention of him who performs the service, how much more in the case of unconsecrated animals, where a wrongful intention cannot render invalid, is it not logical that everything should depend solely upon the intention of him who slaughters!" 2.8. If one slaughtered [an animal] as a sacrifice to mountains, hills, seas, rivers, or deserts, the slaughtering is invalid. If two persons held a knife and slaughtered [an animal], one intending it as a sacrifice to one of these things and the other for a legitimate purpose, the slaughtering is invalid." 2.9. One may not slaughter [so that the blood runs] into the sea or into rivers, or into vessels, But one may slaughter into a pool (or vessel) of water. And when on board a ship on to vessels. One may not slaughter at all into a hole, but one may dig a hole in his own house for the blood to run into. In the street, however, he should not do so as not to follow the ways of the heretics." 2.10. If one slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court] for it to be an olah or a shelamim or an asham for a doubtful sin or as a Pesah or a todah, the slaughtering is invalid. But Rabbi Shimon declares it valid. If two persons held one knife and slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court], one declaring it to be one of the above and the other intending it for a legitimate purpose, the slaughtering is invalid. If one slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court] for it to be a hatat or an asham or a first-born or the tithe [of cattle] or a substitute offering, the slaughtering is valid. This is the general rule: if one slaughtered an animal declaring it to be a sacrifice which can be brought either as a voluntary or a freewill-offering it is invalid, but if he declares it to be a sacrifice which cannot be brought either as a votive or a freewill-offering it is valid." 10.3. A first-born got mixed up with a hundred other animals: If a hundred [and one] persons slaughtered them all, they are all exempt from the gifts. If one person slaughtered them all, only one animal is exempt from the gifts. If a man slaughtered an animal for a priest or a non-Jew, he is exempt from the gifts. If he had a share [in the animal] with them, he must indicate this by some sign. If he said, “Except the gifts” he is exempt from giving the gifts. If he said, “Sell me the entrails of a cow” and among them were the gifts, he must give them to a priest and [the seller] does not need to reduce the price. But if he bought them from him by weight, he must give them to a priest, and [the seller] must reduce the price." |
|
4. Mishnah, Menachot, 9.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 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." |
|
5. New Testament, Luke, 3.11, 12.33, 16.19-16.31 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 3.11. He answered them, "He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none. He who has food, let him do likewise. 12.33. Sell that which you have, and give gifts to the needy. Make for yourselves purses which don't grow old, a treasure in the heavens that doesn't fail, where no thief approaches, neither moth destroys. 16.19. Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, living in luxury every day. 16.20. A certain beggar, named Lazarus, was laid at his gate, full of sores 16.21. and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. Yes, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 16.22. It happened that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. 16.23. In Hades, he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far off, and Lazarus at his bosom. 16.24. He cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue! For I am in anguish in this flame.' 16.25. But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that you, in your lifetime, received your good things, and Lazarus, in like manner, bad things. But now here he is comforted and you are in anguish. 16.26. Besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that those who want to pass from here to you are not able, and that none may cross over from there to us.' 16.27. He said, 'I ask you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house; 16.28. for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, so they won't also come into this place of torment.' 16.29. But Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.' 16.30. He said, 'No, father Abraham, but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 16.31. He said to him, 'If they don't listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead.' |
|
6. Tosefta, Hagigah, 2.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
7. Babylonian Talmud, Betzah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 20b. והביא כל צאן קדר שבירושלים והעמידן בעזרה ואמר כל מי שרוצה לסמוך יבא ויסמוך ואותו היום גברה ידן של בית הלל וקבעו הלכה כמותן ולא היה שם אדם שערער בדבר כלום:,שוב מעשה בתלמיד אחד מתלמידי ב"ה שהביא עולתו לעזרה לסמוך עליה מצאו תלמיד אחד מתלמידי ב"ש אמר לו מה זו סמיכה אמר לו מה זו שתיקה שתקו בנזיפה והלך לו,אמר אביי הלכך האי צורבא מרבנן דאמר ליה חבריה מלתא לא להדר ליה מלתא טפי ממאי דאמר ליה חבריה דאיהו אמר ליה מה זו סמיכה וקא מהדר ליה מה זו שתיקה:,תניא אמרו להם בית הלל לבית שמאי ומה במקום שאסור להדיוט מותר לגבוה מקום שמותר להדיוט אינו דין שמותר לגבוה אמרו להם בית שמאי נדרים ונדבות יוכיחו שמותר להדיוט ואסור לגבוה,אמרו להם בית הלל מה לנדרים ונדבות שאין קבוע להם זמן תאמר בעולת ראייה שקבוע לה ' זמן אמרו להם בית שמאי אף זו אין קבוע לה זמן דתנן מי שלא חג ביום טוב ראשון של חג חוגג והולך כל הרגל כולו ויום טוב האחרון של חג,אמרו להם בית הלל אף זו קבוע לה זמן דתנן עבר הרגל ולא חג אינו חייב באחריותו,אמרו להם בית שמאי והלא כבר נאמר לכם ולא לגבוה אמרו להם בית הלל והלא כבר נאמר לה' כל דלה' אם כן מה תלמוד לומר לכם לכם ולא לכותים לכם ולא לכלבים:,אבא שאול אומרה בלשון אחרת ומה במקום שכירתך סתומה כירת רבך פתוחה במקום שכירתך פתוחה אינו דין שכירת רבך פתוחה וכן בדין שלא יהא שולחנך מלא ושולחן רבך ריקן,במאי קא מפלגי מר סבר נדרים ונדבות קרבין ביום טוב ומר סבר אין קרבין ביום טוב,אמר רב הונא לדברי האומר נדרים ונדבות אין קרבין ביום טוב לא תימא מדאורייתא מחזא חזו ורבנן הוא דגזרי בהו גזירה שמא ישהה,אלא אפילו מדאורייתא נמי לא חזו דהא שתי הלחם דחובת היום נינהו וליכא למגזר שמא ישהה ואינו דוחה לא את השבת ולא את יו"ט:,איבעיא להו לדברי האומר נדרים ונדבות אין קרבין בי"ט עבר ושחט מאי רבא אמר זורק את הדם על מנת להתיר בשר באכילה רבה בר רב הונא אמר זורק את הדם על מנת להקטיר אימורין לערב,מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו נטמא בשר או שאבד לרבא לא זריק לרבה בר רב הונא זריק,מיתיבי כבשי עצרת ששחטן שלא לשמן או ששחטן בין לפני זמנן בין לאחר זמנן הדם יזרק והבשר יאכל ואם היתה שבת לא יזרוק ואם זרק | 20b. band brought all thehigh-quality bsheep of Kedar thatwere bin Jerusalem, and he stood them in theTemple bcourtyard and said: Anyone who wishes to placehis bhandson the head of an animal should bcome and placehis bhandsthere. bAndon bthat day Beit Hillel gained the upper handover Beit Shammai, band they established the ihalakha /iin this case bin accordance with theiropinion, band there was no one there who disputed the matter in any way. /b, bAndsome time later bthere was another incident involving a certain disciple from among the disciples of Beit Hillel who brought his burnt-offering to theTemple bcourtyard in order to placehis bhands onthe animal’s head on a Festival. bA certain disciple from among the disciples of Beit Shammai found himand bsaid to him: What is this placing of hands?Why do you place your hands on the animal’s head and thereby violate the statement of Beit Shammai? bHe said to him: What is this silence?Why do you not stay silent, as the ihalakhawas not established in accordance with their opinion? bHe silenced him with a rebuke, and he,Beit Shammai’s disciple, bdepartedquietly., bAbaye said: Therefore,it is clear from here that ba Torah scholar whose colleague says somethingreprimanding or insulting bto himshould bnot answer backwith bsomething more than his colleague had said to him,to avoid adding fuel to the fire, basin the above story bthe one said tothe other: bWhat is this placing of hands? andthe latter bresponded tothe former using the same language: bWhat is this silence? /b,§ With regard to the dispute concerning the sacrifice of burnt-offerings of appearance on a Festival, bit is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bBeit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Just as in a place where it is prohibitedto slaughter bforthe sake of ba common person [ ihedyot /i],e.g., on Shabbat, bit is permittedto slaughter offerings in the Temple bfor the Most High,such as the daily and additional offerings, then so too, with regard to ba place where it is permittedto slaughter bforthe sake of ba common person,e.g., on a Festival, bis it not right thatit should be bpermitted forthe sake of bthe Most High?This argument should include burnt-offerings of appearance as well. bBeit Shammai said to them:This is no proof. bVow /b-offerings band gift-offerings provethat this reasoning is not valid, basit is bpermittedto slaughter an animal on a Festival bfor a common personto eat, bbutit is bprohibitedto slaughter vow-offerings and gift-offerings on a Festival bforthe sake of bthe Most High. /b, bBeit Hillel said to them: If vow /b-offerings band gift-offeringsmay not be slaughtered on a Festival, that is bbecause they do not have a fixed timeand there is no obligation to sacrifice them on a Festival in particular, but can byou saythe same bwith regard to a burnt-offering of appearance, which has a fixed time,the Festival itself? bBeit Shammai said to them: It too has no fixed time, as we learnedin a mishna: bOne who did not bringhis bFestival offering on the first Festivalday bof iSukkotmay bringit bthroughout the entire Festival, including the last Festivalday bof iSukkot /i,on the Eighth Day of Assembly, as that day is regarded as part of iSukkotfor this purpose. This shows that a burnt-offering of appearance need not be brought at a fixed time on the Festival either., bBeit Hillel said to them:Although a burnt-offering of appearance need not be sacrificed on a particular day of the Festival, nevertheless bit too has a fixed time,albeit a lengthier one. bAs we learnedin a mishna: bIf theentire bFestival passed and he did not bring his Festival-offering, he is not accountable for it.That is to say, he is not required to bring another offering, as the mitzva has already passed. This indicates that the offering is limited specifically to the Festival days, unlike vow-offerings and gift-offerings, which may be brought at any time., bBeit Shammai said toBeit Hillel in support of their own position: bBut wasn’t it already statedin the verse: “Only that which every soul must eat, that alone may be done bfor you”(Exodus 12:16), which indicates that for you may food be prepared, bbut not for the Most High? Beit Hillel said to them: But wasn’t it already statedin the verse: “You shall observe it as a Festival bto the Lord”(Leviticus 23:41), which teaches: bAnythingsacrificed bto the Lordmay be sacrificed? bIf so, whatis the meaning when bthe verse states “for you”?It means bfor you, but not for gentiles; for you, but not for dogs. /b, bAbba Shaul statedthe same disagreement bin a different formulation,that Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai as follows: bJust as in a place where your stove is closed,i.e., on Shabbat, when a person may not cook for himself, byour Master’s stove is open,as it is permitted to light a fire on the altar and sacrifice offerings upon it, so too, bin a place where your stove is open,i.e., on a Festival, when one may cook food that he will eat, bis it not right that your Master’s stoveshould be bopen? Andit blikewisestands bto reason that your table should not be full while your Master’s table,the altar, remains bempty. /b,The Gemara asks: bWith regard to what dothe itannaof the first ibaraitaand Abba Shaul bdisagreein their different versions of Beit Hillel’s statement? The Gemara explains: bOne Sage,Abba Shaul, bholdsthat according to Beit Hillel, even bvow /b-offerings band gift-offerings may be sacrificed on a Festival,and therefore Beit Shammai could not cite as proof the fact that they may not be sacrificed, as they claim in the first ibaraita /i. bAnd one Sage,the itannaof the first ibaraita /i, bholdsthat according to Beit Hillel, vow-offerings and gift-offerings bmay not be sacrificed on a Festival,and therefore Beit Shammai could adduce this ihalakhain support of their opinion., bRav Huna said: According to the statement of the one who saysthat bvow /b-offerings band gift-offerings may not be sacrificed on a Festival, youshould bnot say that by Torah law they arein fact bfitto be sacrificed, bandthat it was bthe Sages who issued a decree about themthat they should not be sacrificed on a Festival as ba preventive measure, lest one delaysacrificing them until the Festival, when it is more convenient for him to bring them to the Temple, and thereby transgress the prohibition against delaying the fulfillment of one’s pledge.,This is not the reason; brather,according to this opinion, bthey are not fitto be sacrificed on a Festival beven by Torah law. As the two loavesbrought on the festival of iShavuot bare an obligation ofthat bday, and there is noreason bto issue a decreeabout them blest onecome to bdelaytheir offering, since they may be brought only on that Festival, and yet their baking and preparation boverride neither Shabbat nor the Festival.According to this view, anything that need not be performed on the Festival itself may not be done on the Festival.,§ bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: bAccording to the statement of the one who saysthat bvow /b-offerings band gift-offerings may not be sacrificed on a Festival,if bone transgressed and slaughteredthose vow-offerings and gift-offerings on a Festival, bwhat isthe ihalakha /i? bRava said: He sprinkles the bloodof these offerings on the altar bin order to allow the meat to be eatenon the Festival. bRabba bar Rav Huna,however, bsaid: He sprinkles the blood in order to burn the sacrificial partsof the animal, including the fats and other portions that are brought upon the altar, bin the evening. /b,The Gemara asks: bWhat isthe practical difference bbetweenthe opinion of Rava and that of Rabba bar Rav Huna, since both agree that the blood is sprinkled? The Gemara answers: bThere isa practical difference bbetween themin a case where bthe meat becameritually bimpure or was lost. According to Rava,who holds that the blood is sprinkled in order to permit the meat to be eaten, by rabbinic decree bone may not sprinklethe blood, as this sprinkling is not required for the Festival. On the other hand, baccording to Rabba bar Rav Huna,who holds that the blood is sprinkled in order to burn the sacrificial parts upon the altar in the evening, bhe does sprinklethe blood, even though it does not enable him to eat the meat.,The Gemara braises an objectionto the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna from the following ibaraita /i: With regard to bthe lambs of iShavuot /i,i.e., the two lambs sacrificed as peace-offerings that accompany the two loaves of bread brought on that Festival, if bone slaughtered them not for theirown bpurpose,i.e., at the time of slaughter his intent was to slaughter them as a different offering, borif bhe slaughtered themnot at their proper time, bwhether before their time or after their time,the offerings themselves are valid, although the community has not fulfilled its obligation. What is to be done with them? bThe bloodshould bbe sprinkled and the meatshould bbe eaten. And ifthe day he slaughtered the lambs bwas Shabbat,on which cooking or roasting the meat is prohibited, then since the sprinkling of the blood serves no purpose, neither with regard to their mitzva nor for any other matter, bhe may not sprinklethe blood. bAnd ifnevertheless bhe sprinkledthe blood |
|
8. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 93a. if the repeated term “his offering” is not needed to counter the ia fortioriinferences, bwhy do Ineed these three bverses?The Gemara explains: One instance of b“his offering”teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, bbut noton ban offering of anotherperson. Another instance of b“his offering”teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, bbut noton ban offering of a gentile.The third instance of b“his offering”serves bto include allthe bowners ofa jointly owned boffering inthe requirement of bplacing hands,i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.,§ The mishna states: If the owner of an offering died, then bthe heiris regarded as the offering’s owner. Therefore, he bplaceshis bhandson the offering and brings the accompanying libations, and he can substitute a non-sacred animal for it. Although it is prohibited to perform an act of substitution, if the owner of an offering does this, his attempt is successful to the extent that the non-sacred animal is thereby consecrated, even though the original offering also remains sacred., bRav Ḥaya taughta ibaraita bin the presence of Rava: An heir does not place handson an offering he inherited, and ban heir cannot substitutea non-sacred animal for an offering he inherited. Rava asked: bBut didn’t we learnin the mishna: bThe heir placeshis bhandson the offering, band bringsthe accompanying blibations, and he can substitutea non-sacred animal for it and thereby consecrate the non-sacred animal?,Rav Ḥaya bsaid toRava: bShould I reversethe current version of the ibaraitato have it be in accordance with the mishna? Rava bsaid to him: No,as bwhoseopinion is expressed in bthe mishna? It isthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bAn heir places hands,and ban heir can effect substitution. Rabbi Yehuda says: An heir does not place hands,and ban heir cannot effect substitution. /b,The Gemara clarifies: bWhat is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda?He expounds the term b“his offering”as teaching that one places hands only on one’s own offering, bbut noton bone’s father’s offeringthat one inherited. bAndfurthermore, Rabbi Yehuda bderivesthe ihalakhaconcerning who can substitute a non-sacred animal for an offering, which is bthe initial stage of consecration, fromthe ihalakhaconcerning who performs the rite of placing hands on the offering, which is bthe final stage of consecration: Just aswith regard to bthe final stage of consecration, an heir does not placehis bhands, so too,with regard to bthe initial stage of consecration, an heir cannot effect substitution. /b, bAndas for bthe Rabbis,from where do they derive their opinion? The verse states: “If bhe shall substitute [ ihamer yamir /i]animal for animal” (Leviticus 27:10), with the doubled form of ihamer yamirserving bto include the heiras one capable of effecting substitution. bAndfurthermore, bthey derivethe ihalakhaconcerning who performs the rite of placing hands, which is the bfinal stage of consecration, fromthe ihalakhaconcerning who can effect substitution, which is ban initial stage of consecration: Just aswith regard to bthe initial stage of consecration, an heir can effect substitution, so too,with regard to bthe final stage of consecration, an heir placeshis bhands. /b,The Gemara asks: bAndas for bthe Rabbis, what do they do with thisterm: b“His offering”?The Gemara explains how the Rabbis expound each mention of the term. One instance of b“his offering”teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, bbut noton ban offering of a gentile.Another instance of b“his offering”teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, bbut noton ban offering of anotherperson. The third instance of b“his offering”serves bto include allthe bowners ofa jointly owned boffering inthe requirement of bplacing hands,i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.,The Gemara clarifies: bAnd Rabbi Yehuda does not holdthat one of the mentions serves bto include allthe bowners ofa jointly owned boffering inthe requirement of bplacing hands,so he is able to expound it to exclude an heir from the requirement. bAlternatively,if bhe holdsthat one of the mentions serves to include owners of a jointly owned offering, then he must bderivethat one does not place hands on the offering of ba gentile orof banotherperson bfromthe same bonemention in the bverse,which bleaves him twomore mentions in the bverses. Onehe expounds to teach that on b“his offering”he places hands, bbut noton bhis father’s offeringthat he inherited, band the othermention remains bto include allthe bowners ofa jointly owned boffering inthe requirement of bplacing hands. /b,The Gemara asks: bAndas for bRabbi Yehuda, what does he dowith the use of the doubled form bin thisverse: “If bhe shall substitute [ ihamer yamir /i]”?The Gemara answers: bHe requires it to include a womanamong those who can effect substitution. bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bSince the entire matterof substitution bis statedin the Torah bonly in the masculine form, whatis the reason that bwe ultimatelycome bto include a woman? The verse states:“If bhe shall substitute [ ihamer yamir /i],”using a doubled form., bAndas for bthe Rabbis, they derivethat a woman can effect substitution bfromthe term: b“And if”(Leviticus 27:10), in the phrase “and if he shall substitute.” bAnd Rabbi Yehuda does not expoundthe term b“and if”at all., strongMISHNA: /strong bEveryonewho brings an animal offering bplaces handsupon its head, bexcept for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind person, a gentile,a Canaanite bslave, the agentof the owner of the offering who brings the offering on the owner’s behalf, band a woman. /b, bAndthe requirement of bplacing hands is a non-essential mitzva;therefore, failure to place hands does not prevent the owner from achieving atonement.,The rite of placing hands is performed by leaning bon the headof the offering bwith two hands. And in thesame blocationin the Temple bthat one places hands, one slaughtersthe animal. bAnd immediately followingthe rite of bplacing hands,the bslaughteris performed., strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara explains why certain types of people do not place hands on an offering: bGranted, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minordo not place their hands on the offering, bas they are not mentally competent.The exclusion of ba gentileis also understandable, as the verses concerning placing hands are introduced with: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them” (Leviticus 1:2), which indicates that bthe children of Israel place handsupon their offerings, bbut gentiles do not placetheir bhandsupon their offerings. bButwith regard to ba blind person, what is the reasonthat he does bnotplace his hands on his offering?, bRav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimidisagree as to the source of the exclusion of a blind person. bOne saidthat it is bderivedfrom a verbal analogy between the mention of bplacing handsin the passage detailing the general requirement to do so, and the mention of bplacing handsstated with regard to the bull offering brought for a community-wide violation perpetrated due to an erroneous ruling of the Sanhedrin, which is performed bbythe bElders ofthe bcongregation,i.e., the judges of the Sanhedrin: Just as the judges may not be blind (see iSanhedrin34b), so too the rite of placing hands is not performed by a blind person., bAndthe other bone saidthat it is bderivedfrom a verbal analogy between the mention of bplacing handsin the passage detailing the general requirement to do so, and the mention of bplacing handsstated with regard to the bburnt offering of appearancebrought by an individual on the pilgrimage Festivals: Just as a blind person is exempt from making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and bringing the offering (see iḤagiga2a), so too he is excluding from the requirement of placing hands.,The Gemara asks: bAnd according to the one who saidthat the exclusion of a blind person is derived bfromthe bburnt offering of appearance, what is the reasonthat bhe does not derivethis bfromthe placing of hands performed by the bElders ofthe bcongregation? /b |
|
