1. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 1.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •holy things, lesser Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 63| 1.5. "וְשָׁחַט אֶת־בֶּן הַבָּקָר לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְהִקְרִיבוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים אֶת־הַדָּם וְזָרְקוּ אֶת־הַדָּם עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב אֲשֶׁר־פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", | 1.5. "And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD; and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and dash the blood round about against the altar that is at the door of the tent of meeting.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 12.27, 24.1, 39.33 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •holy things, lesser Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 63| 12.27. "וַאֲמַרְתֶּם זֶבַח־פֶּסַח הוּא לַיהוָה אֲשֶׁר פָּסַח עַל־בָּתֵּי בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִצְרַיִם בְּנָגְפּוֹ אֶת־מִצְרַיִם וְאֶת־בָּתֵּינוּ הִצִּיל וַיִּקֹּד הָעָם וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲוּוּ׃", 24.1. "וַיִּרְאוּ אֵת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתַחַת רַגְלָיו כְּמַעֲשֵׂה לִבְנַת הַסַּפִּיר וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם לָטֹהַר׃", 24.1. "וְאֶל־מֹשֶׁה אָמַר עֲלֵה אֶל־יְהוָה אַתָּה וְאַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא וְשִׁבְעִים מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוִיתֶם מֵרָחֹק׃", 39.33. "וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּן אֶל־מֹשֶׁה אֶת־הָאֹהֶל וְאֶת־כָּל־כֵּלָיו קְרָסָיו קְרָשָׁיו בריחו [בְּרִיחָיו] וְעַמֻּדָיו וַאֲדָנָיו׃", | 12.27. "that ye shall say: It is the sacrifice of the LORD’s passover, for that He passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when He smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses.’ And the people bowed the head and worshipped.", 24.1. "And unto Moses He said: ‘Come up unto the LORD, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off;", 39.33. "And they brought the tabernacle unto Moses, the Tent, and all its furniture, its clasps, its boards, its bars, and its pillars, and its sockets;", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 22.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •holy things, lesser Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 63| 22.5. "וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל־נְעָרָיו שְׁבוּ־לָכֶם פֹּה עִם־הַחֲמוֹר וַאֲנִי וְהַנַּעַר נֵלְכָה עַד־כֹּה וְנִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה וְנָשׁוּבָה אֲלֵיכֶם׃", | 22.5. "And Abraham said unto his young men: ‘Abide ye here with the ass, and I and the lad will go yonder; and we will worship, and come back to you.’", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 95.6, 99.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •holy things, lesser Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 63| 95.6. "בֹּאוּ נִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה וְנִכְרָעָה נִבְרְכָה לִפְנֵי־יְהוָה עֹשֵׂנוּ׃", 99.5. "רוֹמְמוּ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לַהֲדֹם רַגְלָיו קָדוֹשׁ הוּא׃", | 95.6. "O come, let us bow down and bend the knee; Let us kneel before the LORD our Maker;", 99.5. "Exalt ye the LORD our God, And prostrate yourselves at His footstool; Holy is He.", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 20.11 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 63| 20.11. "גַּם בְּמַעֲלָלָיו יִתְנַכֶּר־נָעַר אִם־זַךְ וְאִם־יָשָׁר פָּעֳלוֹ׃", | 20.11. "Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right.", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, 1 Samuel, 1.24-1.28 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •holy things, lesser Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 63| 1.24. "וַתַּעֲלֵהוּ עִמָּהּ כַּאֲשֶׁר גְּמָלַתּוּ בְּפָרִים שְׁלֹשָׁה וְאֵיפָה אַחַת קֶמַח וְנֵבֶל יַיִן וַתְּבִאֵהוּ בֵית־יְהוָה שִׁלוֹ וְהַנַּעַר נָעַר׃", 1.25. "וַיִּשְׁחֲטוּ אֶת־הַפָּר וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת־הַנַּעַר אֶל־עֵלִי׃", 1.26. "וַתֹּאמֶר בִּי אֲדֹנִי חֵי נַפְשְׁךָ אֲדֹנִי אֲנִי הָאִשָּׁה הַנִּצֶּבֶת עִמְּכָה בָּזֶה לְהִתְפַּלֵּל אֶל־יְהוָה׃", 1.27. "אֶל־הַנַּעַר הַזֶּה הִתְפַּלָּלְתִּי וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה לִי אֶת־שְׁאֵלָתִי אֲשֶׁר שָׁאַלְתִּי מֵעִמּוֹ׃", 1.28. "וְגַם אָנֹכִי הִשְׁאִלְתִּהוּ לַיהוָה כָּל־הַיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר הָיָה הוּא שָׁאוּל לַיהוָה וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ שָׁם לַיהוָה׃", | 1.24. "And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bullocks, and one efa of flour, and a bottle of wine, and brought him to the house of the Lord in Shilo: and the child was young.", 1.25. "And they slew a bullock, and brought the child to ῾Eli.", 1.26. "And she said, O my lord, as thy soul lives, my lord, I am the woman that stood by thee here, praying to the Lord.", 1.27. "For this child I prayed; and the Lord has given me my petition which I asked of him:", 1.28. "therefore also I have presented him to the Lord; as long as he lives he shall be devoted to the Lord. And he bowed down to the Lord there.", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 27.13 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •holy things, lesser Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 63| 27.13. "וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יִתָּקַע בְּשׁוֹפָר גָּדוֹל וּבָאוּ הָאֹבְדִים בְּאֶרֶץ אַשּׁוּר וְהַנִּדָּחִים בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לַיהוָה בְּהַר הַקֹּדֶשׁ בִּירוּשָׁלִָם׃", | 27.13. "And it shall come to pass in that day, That a great horn shall be blown; And they shall come that were lost in the land of Assyria, And they that were dispersed in the land of Egypt; And they shall worship the LORD in the holy mountain at Jerusalem.", |
|
8. Mishnah, Zevahim, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •holy things, lesser Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 63| 3.1. "כָּל הַפְּסוּלִין שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ, שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה. שֶׁהַשְּׁחִיטָה כְשֵׁרָה בְּזָרִים, בְּנָשִׁים, וּבַעֲבָדִים, וּבִטְמֵאִים, אֲפִלּוּ בְקָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ טְמֵאִים נוֹגְעִים בַּבָּשָׂר. לְפִיכָךְ הֵם פּוֹסְלִים בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ אֶת הַדָּם חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, אִם יֵשׁ דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ, יַחֲזֹר הַכָּשֵׁר וִיקַבֵּל:", | 3.1. "All unfit persons who slaughtered, their slaughtering is valid, for slaughtering is valid [even when performed] by non-priests, and by women, and by slaves, and by the unclean, even in the case of most-holy sacrifices, provided that unclean [persons] do not touch the flesh. Therefore they invalidate [the sacrifice] by an [illegitimate] intention. And in all of these cases, if they received the blood [in order to eat the sacrifice] after the prescribed time, or outside of the prescribed place, if there remains [in the animal] life-blood, a fit person should go back and receive the blood.", |
|
| 9. Mishnah, Qiddushin, 2.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •holy things, lesser Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 104, 105 |
10. Mishnah, Maaser Sheni, 1.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •holy things, lesser Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 104| 1.2. "מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, אֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ תָּמִים חַי, וְלֹא בַעַל מוּם חַי וְשָׁחוּט, וְאֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ הָאִשָּׁה. הַבְּכוֹר מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ תָּמִים חַי, וּבַעַל מוּם חַי וְשָׁחוּט, וּמְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ הָאִשָּׁה. אֵין מְחַלְּלִין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי עַל אֲסִימוֹן, וְלֹא עַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא, וְלֹא עַל הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ: \n", | |
|
| 11. Tosefta, Kiddushin, 47 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •holy things, lesser Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 104 |
| 12. Tosefta, Qiddushin, 47 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •holy things, lesser Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 104 |
| 13. Palestinian Talmud, Kiddushin, 2.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •holy things, lesser Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 104 |
| 14. Palestinian Talmud, Nazir, 102 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •holy things, lesser Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 103 |
| 15. Palestinian Talmud, Qiddushin, 2.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •holy things, lesser Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 104 |
| 16. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 101-102 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 103 |
17. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 103, 105| 52b. והא מתניתין דגזל דידה וקאמר רב אינה מקודשת לא קשיא הא דשדיך הא דלא שדיך,ההיא איתתא דהוה קא משיא כרעא במשיכלא דמיא אתא ההוא גברא חטף זוזי מחבריה ושדא לה אמר לה מיקדשת לי אתא ההוא גברא לקמיה דרבא אמר לית דחש להא דר' שמעון דאמר סתם גזילה יאוש בעלים הוי,ההוא אריסא דקדיש במוזא דשמכי אתא לקמיה דרבא אמר ליה מאן אחלך והני מילי במוזא אבל כישא מצי אמר ליה אנא שקלי כישא שקיל את כישא כישא כי כישא,ההוא סרסיא דקדיש בפרומא דשיכרא אתא מריה דשיכרא אשכחיה אמר ליה אמאי לא תיתיב מהאי חריפא אתא לקמיה דרבא אמר לא אמרו כלך אצל יפות אלא לענין תרומה בלבד,דתניא כיצד אמרו תורם שלא מדעת תרומתו תרומה הרי שירד לתוך שדה חבירו וליקט ותרם שלא ברשות אם חושש משום גזל אין תרומתו תרומה ואם לאו תרומתו תרומה,ומנין היה יודע אם חושש משום גזל אם לאו הרי שבא בעל הבית ומצאו ואמר לו כלך אצל יפות אם נמצאו יפות מהם תרומתו תרומה ואם לאו אין תרומתו תרומה היו הבעלים מלקטים ומוסיפים בין כך ובין כך תרומתו תרומה,אבל הכא משום כיסופא הוא דעבד ואינה מקודשת, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המקדש בחלקו בין קדשי קדשים בין קדשים קלים אינה מקודשת במעשר שני בין שוגג בין מזיד לא קידש דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר בשוגג לא קידש במזיד קידש,ובהקדש במזיד קידש ובשוגג לא קידש דברי ר' מאיר רבי יהודה אומר בשוגג קידש במזיד לא קידש, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big נימא מתניתין דלא כרבי יוסי הגלילי דתניא (ויקרא ה, כא) ומעלה מעל בה' לרבות קדשים קלים שהן ממונו דברי ר' יוסי הגלילי,אפי' תימא ר' יוסי הגלילי כי קאמר ר' יוסי הגלילי מחיים אבל לאחר שחיטה לא מאי טעמא כי קא זכו משלחן גבוה קא זכו,דיקא נמי דקתני המקדש בחלקו בין קדשי קדשים ובין קדשים קלים לא קידש ש"מ,תנו רבנן לאחר פטירתו של ר' מאיר אמר להם רבי יהודה לתלמידיו אל יכנסו תלמידי רבי מאיר לכאן מפני שקנתרנים הם ולא ללמוד תורה הם באים אלא לקפחני בהלכות הם באים דחק סומכוס ונכנס אמר להם כך שנה לי ר' מאיר המקדש בחלקו בין קדשי קדשים ובין קדשים קלים לא קידש,כעס ר' יהודה עליהם אמר להם לא כך אמרתי לכם אל יכנסו מתלמידי ר"מ לכאן מפני שקנתרנים הם ולא ללמוד תורה הם באים אלא לקפחני בהלכות הם באים וכי אשה בעזרה מנין,אמר ר' יוסי יאמרו מאיר שכב יהודה כעס יוסי שתק דברי תורה מה תהא עליה וכי אין אדם עשוי לקבל קידושין לבתו בעזרה ואין אשה עשויה לעשות לה שליח לקבל קידושיה בעזרה ועוד דחקה ונכנסה מאי,תניא ר' יהודה אומר מקודשת ר' יוסי אומר אינה מקודשת אמר ר' יוחנן שניהם מקרא אחד דרשו (במדבר יח, ט) וזה יהיה לך מקדש הקדשים מן האש ר' יהודה סבר לך ולכל צרכיך ור' יוסי סבר כאש מה אש לאכילה אף הוא נמי לאכילה,אמר ר' יוחנן | 52b. The Gemara questions this analysis: b But /b doesn’t b the mishna /b deal b with /b a case where the b stolen item /b is b hers, and /b yet b Rav says she is not betrothed. /b The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult; this /b case, in the i baraita /i , is referring to a situation b where he had arranged /b to betroth her beforehand, which indicates that she has released him from his obligation to return it, but b that /b case, in the mishna, is referring to a situation b where he had not arranged /b his marriage with her, so it is stolen property and she is not betrothed.,The Gemara relates: There was b a certain woman who was washing her feet in a vessel of water. A certain man came /b along, b grabbed /b a few b dinars from another /b person, b and threw /b them b to her, /b and b said to her: You are betrothed to me. That man /b subsequently b came before Rava, /b to inquire as to the status of the woman. Rava b said: There is not /b anyone b who is concerned for this /b opinion b of Rabbi Shimon, who said: /b In b an ordinary /b case of b robbery /b the b owner has despaired /b of recovering the stolen item, and it belongs to the robber. Rather, the assumption is that the owner has not despaired of recovering the stolen item. In this case, since the stolen dinars do not belong to the man, his betrothal is of no effect.,The Gemara relates another incident: The was b a certain sharecropper who betrothed /b a woman b with a handful [ i bemoza /i ] of onions [ i deshamkhei /i ] /b taken from the field where he worked. b He came before Rava /b to ask about the status of the woman. Rava b said to him: Who relinquished /b these onions b to you? /b Since the owner did not allow you to take them, they are stolen property, and the woman is not betrothed. The Gemara comments: b And this matter applies /b only b to a handful, but /b if he took b a bundle /b of onions and betrothed a woman with them, the sharecropper b can say to /b the owner: b I took a bundle, you take a bundle; one bundle for /b another b bundle. /b Since in any case they divide the crop between them, it is not considered theft.,The Gemara relates another incident: There was b a certain brewer [ i sarseya /i ] /b who was making date beer for someone, b who betrothed /b a woman b with sediment [ i bifruma /i ] from the beer. The owner of the beer came /b and b found him. /b The owner b said to him: Why don’t you give /b her the betrothal b from this, /b the b sharp /b sediments that are of better quality than the kind you chose? The brewer b came before Rava /b to ask whether the owner’s comment indicated that he had relinquished his rights to the sediment, which would mean the woman is betrothed. Rava b said /b to him: The Sages b said /b that if the owner discovers that someone has taken something of his without permission and says: b Go to /b and take b the /b item of b better /b quality, that it is a sign he agrees with the man’s action b only with regard to i teruma /i alone, /b and you did not have the right to use the sediment.,The Gemara explains the previous statement: b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Terumot /i 1:5): b When did they say /b that in the case where b one separates i teruma /i without /b the owner’s b consent, his i teruma /i is /b considered b i teruma /i ? /b The i baraita /i clarifies: In a case where b there was /b someone b who entered another’s field and gathered /b produce from it, b and separated i teruma /i without /b the owner’s b permission, if /b the owner is b concerned about /b his actions and view it b as robbery, his i teruma /i is not i teruma /i , but if /b he is b not /b concerned, b his i teruma /i is i teruma /i . /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b And from where would /b the gatherer b know whether /b he should be b concerned /b that the owner objects and views it b as robbery or not? /b If b the owner came and found him /b separating i teruma /i b and said to him: Go to /b take b the /b produce of b better /b quality and separate i teruma /i from that, then b if /b produce of b better /b quality b than /b the produce he had separated b is found, his i teruma /i is /b considered b i teruma /i , /b since the owner is assumed to have been sincere and pleased that the other has separated i teruma /i from his produce. b But if not, his i teruma /i is not i teruma /i , /b as it may be assumed that the owner was angry at him and was speaking sarcastically. The i baraita /i adds: If b the owners were gathering and adding /b to the i teruma /i he had separated, indicating that they agree to his act of separation, b either way, /b whether or not better-quality produce was found, b his i teruma /i is /b considered b i teruma /i . /b ,Rava concludes the explanation of his ruling: This i halakha /i applies only to i teruma /i , which is a mitzva that the owner must in any case perform. b But here, /b in the case of the brewer who betrothed a woman with sediment from the beer, the owner b acts because of embarrassment, /b and while he does not feel comfortable protesting, he did not in fact relinquish his rights to the sediment, b and she is not betrothed. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to a priest b who betroths /b a woman b with his portion /b of offerings, b whether /b he did so with b offerings of the most sacred order /b or b whether /b he did so with b offerings of lesser sanctity, she is not betrothed. /b One who betroths a woman b with second tithe, whether unwittingly /b or b intentionally, has not betrothed /b her; this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If he did so b unwittingly he has not betrothed /b her, but if he did so b intentionally he has betrothed /b her., b And /b with regard to one who betroths a woman b with consecrated /b property belonging to the Temple treasury, if he does so b intentionally he has betrothed /b her, b and /b if he does so b unwittingly he has not betrothed /b her; this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says /b the opposite: If he does so b unwittingly he has betrothed /b her, but if he does so b intentionally he has not betrothed /b her., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara suggests: b Shall we say /b that b the mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that the verse states with regard to the obligation to bring an offering for taking a false oath concerning unlawful possession of the property of another: “If any one sin, b and he commits a trespass against the Lord, /b and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighbor” (Leviticus 5:21). As the verse is discussing property belonging to another, the phrase “a trespass against the Lord” serves b to include /b in the obligation of an offering a false oath with regard to possession of b offerings of lesser sanctity /b of another person, b which are the property /b of the owner; this is b the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. /b According to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the portion of an offering of lesser sanctity that the priest receives belongs to him, so he should be able to betroth a woman with it.,The Gemara rejects this: b You /b can b even say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says /b that an offering of lesser sanctity belongs to its owner only b while /b the animal is still b alive, but after /b its b slaughter /b it does b not /b belong to the priest who receives portions from it. b What is the reason /b for this? b When /b the priests b receive /b their portion after the animal has been slaughtered b they receive /b their portion b from the table of the Most High, /b and do not own the portion itself.,The Gemara adds: The language of the mishna b is also precise, as it teaches: /b With regard to a priest b who betroths /b a woman b with his portion /b of offerings, b whether /b he did so with b offerings of the most sacred order or whether /b he used b offerings of lesser sanctity, has not betrothed /b her. The mishna does not speak of a priest who betroths a woman with a living offering of lesser sanctity but of one who betroths with the portion of the slaughtered animal he has received. The Gemara concludes: b Learn from it /b that it is only in this case that she is not betrothed., b The Sages taught: After the death of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda said to his students: Do not let the students of Rabbi Meir enter here /b into our house of study, b because they are vexatious [ i kanteranim /i ]. And they do not come to study Torah, /b but b rather they come to overwhelm me with i halakhot /i . Sumakhos, /b a student of Rabbi Meir, b pushed and entered /b anyway. b He said to them: This /b is what b Rabbi Meir taught me: /b With regard to a priest b who betroths /b a woman b with his portion /b of the offerings, b whether /b he did so with b offerings of the most sacred order or whether /b he used b offerings of lesser sanctity, he has not betrothed /b her.,Upon hearing this, b Rabbi Yehuda became angry with /b his students. b He said to them: Didn’t I say this to you: Do not let the students of Rabbi Meir enter here /b into our house of study, b because they are vexatious? And they do not come to study Torah, /b but b rather they come to overwhelm me with i halakhot /i . /b Rabbi Yehuda explained his objection to the statement of Rabbi Meir: This i halakha /i is not relevant, b as from where /b would b a woman /b appear b in the /b Temple b courtyard? /b Women may not enter the area of the Temple courtyard where the priests eat the offerings of the most sacred order, so there is no reason to address an impossible scenario., b Rabbi Yosei, /b who was present, b said: They will say: Meir died, Yehuda grew angry, /b and b Yosei remained silent; what will become of the words of Torah? /b He said: In fact, this i halakha /i is relevant; b but isn’t it common /b for b a man to accept betrothal for his daughter in the /b Temple b courtyard? /b There is no need to give the betrothal item directly to the woman; it can be given to her father. b And /b additionally, b isn’t it common /b for b a woman to designate an agent for herself to accept her betrothal in the courtyard? And furthermore: What /b would be the i halakha /i if the woman b pushed and entered? /b Since it is possible for her to do so, the i halakha /i in such a case must be determined., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that the Sages discussed the issue of a priest who betroths a woman with his portion of offerings of the most sacred order: b Rabbi Yehuda says she is betrothed, /b and b Rabbi Yosei says she is not betrothed. Rabbi Yoḥa says: Both of them derived /b their opinions from b one verse, /b which states that the priests have a right to a portion of offerings of the most sacred order, but they explained it in different ways. The verse states: b “This shall be yours of the most holy things, reserved from the fire” /b (Numbers 18:9). b Rabbi Yehuda holds /b that the term b “yours” /b indicates that the portion the priest receives is intended for you, i.e., a priest, b and for all your needs, /b including betrothing a woman. b And Rabbi Yosei holds /b that the verse compares the priest’s portion b to the fire /b on the altar: b Just as /b the portion burned on the b fire /b is b for /b the fire’s b consumption, so too, /b the priest’s portion b is also for consumption /b alone, and not for any other purpose., b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b |
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Nazir, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 103| 9b. מתני' דלא כי האי תנא דתניא רבי נתן אומר בש"א נדור ונזיר וב"ה אומרים נדור ואין נזיר ב"ש סברי לה כר"מ וכר' יהודה וב"ה סברי לה כרבי יוסי,לישנא אחרינא אמרי לה רבי נתן אומר בית שמאי אומרים נדור ואינו נזיר ובית הלל אומרים לא נדור ולא נזיר ב"ש כרבי יהודה וב"ה כר"ש,תנן התם האומר הרי עלי מנחה להביא מן השעורים יביא מן החיטים קמח יביא סולת שלא בשמן ולבונה יביאנה בשמן ולבונה חצי עשרון יביא עשרון שלם עשרון ומחצה יביא שנים ר"ש פוטר שלא התנדב כדרך המתנדבים,מאן תנא דכי אמר הרי עלי מנחה מן השעורים מביא מן החיטים אמר חזקיה במחלוקת שנויה וב"ש היא לאו אמרי ב"ש כי אמר מן הגרוגרות ומן הדבילה הוי נזיר הכי נמי כי אמר מן השעורין מביא מן החיטים,ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא דברי הכל באומר אילו הייתי יודע שאין נודרין כך לא נדרתי כך אלא כך,אמר חזקיה לא שנו אלא שאמר מן השעורים אבל אמר מן העדשים לא מייתי ולא כלום,מכדי חזקיה כמאן מוקים לה למתני' כבית שמאי והא עדשים לגבי מנחה כגרוגרות לגבי נזיר דמו וקאמרי בית שמאי הוי נזיר הדר ביה חזקיה,ואמאי הדר ביה אמר רבא מתני' קשיתיה מאי איריא דתני מן השעורים ליתני מן העדשים אלא סבר חזקיה כי קאמרי ב"ש התם כרבי יהודה,ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו מן העדשים והא רבי יוחנן הוא דאמר באומר אילו הייתי יודע שאין נודרין כך לא נדרתי כך אלא כך לדבריו דחזקיה הוא דקאמר,את מ"ט קא הדרת בך משום דלא קתני מן העדשים דלמא לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעי' כי אמר מעדשים דמייתי מנחה מעלייתא דאיכא למימר מיהדר הוא דהדר ביה ותפוס לשון ראשון אלא כי אמר מן השעורין ודאי דהכי קאמר אי קדשה כמנחת העומר | 9b. § The Gemara comments: b The mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b this i tanna /i . As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Natan says /b that if one says: I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain from dried figs, b Beit Shammai say: /b He has rendered dried figs b forbidden /b to himself b by a vow, and /b he is also b a nazirite; and Beit Hillel say: /b He has rendered dried figs b forbidden /b to himself b by a vow, but /b he is b not a nazirite. /b According to Rabbi Natan, b Beit Shammai hold in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir /b that a person does not utter statements for naught and that he becomes a nazirite as soon as he says: I am hereby a nazirite; b and /b he explains the opinion of Beit Shammai b as Rabbi Yehuda /b does, i.e., that one in this situation has vowed that dried figs are forbidden to him, since the rest of his statement also has significance. b And Beit Hillel hold in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei /b that one is held to the conclusion of his statement, and he has therefore vowed that dried figs are forbidden to him., b Some say a different version /b of the i baraita /i : b Rabbi Natan says /b that b Beit Shammai say: /b He has rendered dried figs b forbidden /b to himself b by a vow and he is not a nazirite; and Beit Hillel say: /b He has b not /b rendered dried figs b forbidden /b to himself b by a vow, and /b he is b not a nazirite. /b According to this version, the opinion of b Beit Shammai is as Rabbi Yehuda /b explained in the mishna, b and Beit Hillel hold in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, /b who maintains that a donation not performed in the manner typical of donors is not a donation.,§ The Gemara discusses a case mentioned earlier. b We learned /b in a mishna b there /b ( i Menaḥot /i 103a): With regard to b one who says: It is /b incumbent b upon me to bring a meal-offering from barley, /b since voluntary meal-offerings are made only with wheat b he must bring /b a meal-offering b from wheat. /b If one vows to bring a meal-offering from b flour, /b since a standard meal-offering is made from fine flour b he must bring /b one from b fine flour. /b If one vows to bring a meal-offering b without oil and frankincense, he must bring it with oil and frankincense, /b in accordance with the i halakha /i . If one vows to bring a meal-offering with b half of a tenth /b of an ephah of fine flour, b he must bring /b a meal-offering with b a full tenth, /b since a meal-offering cannot have less than one-tenth of an ephah of flour. If one vows to bring a meal-offering with b a tenth and a half, he brings two /b units of a tenth of an ephah in his meal-offering. Since half of one-tenth of an ephah is the minimum, his vow is increased to two full tenths. b Rabbi Shimon exempts /b him entirely in all these cases, b as he did not donate in the manner /b typical b of donors. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Who /b is the i tanna /i who b taught that when one said: It is /b incumbent b upon me /b to bring b a meal-offering from barley, he brings /b a meal-offering b from wheat? Ḥizkiyya said /b that this i halakha /i b is taught as a dispute /b between i tanna’im /i , b and it is /b the opinion of b Beit Shammai. /b He explains: b Didn’t Beit Shammai say that when one said: /b I am hereby a nazirite and therefore will refrain b from dried figs and from cakes of dried figs, he is a nazirite, /b indicating that he is held to only the first part of his statement, and the conflicting details are ignored? b So too, when he said /b that he will bring a meal-offering b from barley, he brings /b it b from wheat, /b and the same analysis applies to the other cases listed in this mishna., b And Rabbi Yoḥa said: You /b can b even say /b that b all, /b including Beit Hillel, b agree /b with the opinion of the Rabbis of the mishna, as the mishna may be stated b with regard to one who /b later b says, /b to clarify his earlier statement: b Had I known that one cannot vow in this manner, /b that one cannot bring a voluntary meal-offering from barley, b I would not have vowed that way, only this way, /b to bring a meal-offering from wheat. Mentioning barley was an error on his part rather than a condition, and he actually meant to bring a standard meal-offering. In this case even Beit Hillel, who maintain in the mishna here that there is no vow at all, deem him liable to bring a proper meal-offering.,With regard to this ruling b Ḥizkiyya says: They taught /b that he must bring a meal-offering from wheat b only if he said /b that he will bring a meal-offering b from barley. But /b if b he said /b he will bring a meal-offering b from lentils, he does not bring anything. /b The difference is that the meal-offerings of the i omer /i and of a i sota /i are made from barley, so if he said: From barley, he may have mistakenly believed that a voluntary meal-offering can be prepared from barley as well. As everyone knows that no meal-offering is made from lentils, his statement demonstrates that he never intended to bring a meal-offering.,The Gemara asks: b Now /b consider, b in accordance with whose /b opinion b does Ḥizkiyya establish the mishna /b in i Menaḥot /i ? It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Beit Shammai. But lentils relative to a meal-offering are comparable to dried figs relative to a nazirite, /b as everyone is likewise aware that one cannot be a nazirite and therefore refrain from figs, b and /b yet b Beit Shammai say he is a nazirite. /b Why not say that one who vows to bring a meal-offering from lentils is obligated to bring a standard meal-offering? The Gemara answers: b Ḥizkiyya retracted from it /b and no longer holds that the mishna in i Menaḥot /i is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.,The Gemara asks: b And why did he /b in fact b retract from it? Rava said: /b The b mishna caused him difficulty /b and demonstrated his error. If the mishna is in accordance with Beit Shammai’s opinion with regard to a nazirite, b why does /b the i tanna /i b specifically teach /b the case of one who says that he will bring a meal-offering b from barley? Let him teach /b a greater novelty, i.e., that even one who vowed to bring a meal-offering b from lentils /b is obligated to bring a meal-offering made from wheat. b Rather, Ḥizkiyya holds /b that b when Beit Shammai stated /b their opinion b there, /b i.e., in the mishna with regard to a nazirite, their intention was b as /b explained by b Rabbi Yehuda, /b that one’s statement is interpreted to be meaningful and it can have the meaning of creating a vow that dried figs are forbidden to him. In the case of the meal-offering, even they agree that since one’s vow has no meaning, as there cannot be a meal-offering made of lentils, no vow takes effect., b And Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even /b one who vowed to bring a meal-offering b from lentils /b must bring a meal-offering from wheat. The Gemara asks: b But Rabbi Yoḥa is he who said /b that the mishna is referring to a case of one b who says: Had I known that one cannot vow in this manner, I would not have vowed that way, only this way? /b In the case of the lentils, it is not reasonable to say that he erred in thinking that one may vow to bring a meal-offering from lentils. The Gemara answers: b He stated /b this ruling b in accordance with the statement of Ḥizkiyya. /b Rabbi Yoḥa was not stating his own opinion; he was challenging the ruling of Ḥizkiyya.,The Gemara explains his challenge: b What is the reason you retracted /b your earlier opinion that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? You did so b because it does not teach: From lentils. /b That is not conclusive, as b perhaps it is speaking /b utilizing the style of: b It is not necessary, /b as follows: b It is not necessary /b to say that b when one says: /b It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering b from lentils, that he brings a proper meal-offering /b of wheat. In that situation b it can be said /b that by saying: From lentils, b he is retracting /b his first statement and now wants to rescind his vow. b And /b yet Beit Shammai hold that he is b held to the first /b part of his b statement, /b and they do not allow the rescinding of a vow of consecration. b But if he said: /b It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering b from barley, /b since it is possible to explain that b certainly this is what he said: If /b this meal-offering that I have vowed to bring from barley b is consecrated like the i omer /i meal-offering, /b |
|
