| 1. Tosefta, Arakhin, 3.15 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •intention, of giver/owner Found in books: Balberg (2017) 37 |
2. Tosefta, Kippurim, 4.5, 4.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •intention, of giver/owner Found in books: Balberg (2017) 38| 4.5. "מי שאחזו בולמוס מאכילין אותו הקל הקל כיצד היו לפניו טבל ושביעית מאכילין אותו שביעית טבל ונבלה מאכילין אותו נבלה [נבלה] ותרומה מאכילין אותו תרומה תרומה ושביעית מאכילין אותו שביעית עד שיאורו עיניו מניין היו יודעין שיאורו עיניו כדי שיכיר בין יפה לרע.", 4.9. "רבי ישמעאל אומר ארבעה חלוקי כפרה הן עבר על מצות עשה ועשה תשובה אין זז ממקומו עד שמוחלין לו שנאמר (ירמיהו ג׳:כ״ב) שובו בנים שובבים ארפא משובותיכם עבר על מצות לא תעשה ועשה תשובה תשובה תולה ויום הכפורים מכפר שנאמר (ויקרא ט״ז:ל׳) כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם וגו' עבר על כריתות ומיתות בית דין מזיד ועשה תשובה תשובה ויום הכפורים תולין ויסורין שבשאר ימות השנה ממרקין שנאמר (תהילים פט) ופקדתי בשבט פשעם וגו' אבל מי שנתחלל בו שם שמים מזיד ועשה תשובה אין כח בתשובה לתלות ולא [יום הכפורים] לכפר אלא תשובה ויום הכפורים מכפרין שליש ויסורין מכפרין שליש ומיתה ממרקת עם היסורין ועל זה נאמר (ישעיהו כ״ב:י״ד) אם יכופר העון הזה לכם עד תמותון מלמד שיום המיתה ממרק.", | |
|
3. Mishnah, Arakhin, 5.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •intention, of giver/owner Found in books: Balberg (2017) 37| 5.6. "חַיָּבֵי עֲרָכִים, מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָן. חַיָּבֵי חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת, אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָן. חַיָּבֵי עוֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים, מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתְרַצֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא א), לִרְצוֹנוֹ, כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר, רוֹצֶה אָנִי. וְכֵן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּגִטֵּי נָשִׁים, כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר, רוֹצֶה אָנִי: \n", | 5.6. "With regard to those who made a vow of value: they take a pledge from them. With regard to those obligated to bring a hatat or asham: they do not take a pledge. With regard to those obligated to bring an olah or a shelamim: they do take a pledge. And even though he is not atoned for unless he is willing [to pay his obligation], as it is said: “willingly” (Leviticus 1:3), they coerce him until he says: I agree. The same is true in the case of divorce documents: they coerce him until he says: I agree.", |
|
4. Mishnah, Eduyot, 7.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •intention, of giver/owner Found in books: Balberg (2017) 38| 7.9. "הֵעִיד רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶן גֻּדְגְּדָא עַל הַחֵרֶשֶׁת שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָהּ אָבִיהָ, שֶׁהִיא יוֹצְאָה בְגֵט. וְעַל קְטַנָּה בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן, שֶׁהִיא אוֹכֶלֶת בַּתְּרוּמָה, וְאִם מֵתָה, בַּעְלָהּ יוֹרְשָׁהּ. וְעַל הַמָּרִישׁ הַגָּזוּל שֶׁבְּנָאוֹ בַבִּירָה, שֶׁיִּתֵּן אֶת דָּמָיו. וְעַל הַחַטָּאת הַגְּזוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא נוֹדְעָה לָרַבִּים, שֶׁהִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ: \n", | 7.9. "Rabbi Nehunia ben Gudgada testified concerning a deaf-mute whose father had given her in marriage, that she could be sent away with a bill of divorcement; And concerning a minor, daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah, and if she died her husband inherited from her; And concerning a stolen beam that had been built into a palace, that it might be restored by the payment of its value; And concerning a sin-offering that had been stolen, and this was not known to many, that it caused atonement because of the welfare of the altar.", |
|
5. Mishnah, Gittin, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •intention, of giver/owner Found in books: Balberg (2017) 38| 5.5. "הֵעִיד רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן גֻּדְגְּדָה עַל הַחֵרֶשֶׁת שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָהּ אָבִיהָ, שֶׁהִיא יוֹצְאָה בְגֵט. וְעַל קְטַנָּה בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן, שֶׁאוֹכֶלֶת בַּתְּרוּמָה, וְאִם מֵתָה, בַּעְלָהּ יוֹרְשָׁהּ. וְעַל הַמָּרִישׁ הַגָּזוּל שֶׁבְּנָאוֹ בַבִּירָה, שֶׁיִּטֹּל אֶת דָּמָיו, מִפְּנֵי תַקָּנַת הַשָּׁבִים. וְעַל חַטָּאת הַגְּזוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא נוֹדְעָה לָרַבִּים, שֶׁהִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ: \n", | 5.5. "Rabbi Nehunia ben Gudgada testified concerning a deaf-mute whose father had given her in marriage, that she could be sent away with a bill of divorcement; And concerning a minor, daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah, and if she died her husband inherited from her; And concerning a stolen beam that had been built into a palace, that it might be restored by the payment of its value, because of the enactment to encourage repentance. And concerning a sin-offering that had been stolen, and this was not known to many, that it caused atonement because of the welfare of the altar.", |
|
6. Mishnah, Hulin, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •intention, of giver/owner Found in books: Balberg (2017) 43| 2.7. "הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְנָכְרִי, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְשֵׁרָה. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אֲפִלּוּ שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁיֹּאכַל הַנָּכְרִי מֵחֲצַר כָּבֵד שֶׁלָּהּ, פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁסְּתָם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת נָכְרִי לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, קַל וָחֹמֶר הַדְּבָרִים, וּמַה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַמַּחֲשָׁבָה פוֹסֶלֶת, בְּמֻקְדָּשִׁין, אֵין הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אֶלָּא אַחַר הָעוֹבֵד, מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה פוֹסֶלֶת, בְּחֻלִּין, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אֶלָּא אַחַר הַשּׁוֹחֵט: \n", | 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!", |
|
7. Mishnah, Yoma, 8.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •intention, of giver/owner Found in books: Balberg (2017) 37| 8.8. "חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם וַדַּאי מְכַפְּרִין. מִיתָה וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפְּרִין עִם הַתְּשׁוּבָה. הַתְּשׁוּבָה מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל עֲבֵרוֹת קַלּוֹת עַל עֲשֵׂה וְעַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. וְעַל הַחֲמוּרוֹת הִיא תוֹלָה עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וִיכַפֵּר: \n", | 8.8. "The sin-offering and the certain guilt-offering effect atonement. Death and Yom HaKippurim effect atonement together with repentance. Repentance effects atonement for light transgressions: [the transgression of] positive commandments and negative commandments. And for severer transgressions [repentance] suspends [the divine punishment], until Yom HaKippurim arrives and effects atonement.", |
|
8. Mishnah, Zevahim, 12.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •intention, of giver/owner Found in books: Balberg (2017) 43| 12.1. "טְבוּל יוֹם וּמְחֻסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, אֵינָן חוֹלְקִים בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לֶאֱכֹל לָעָרֶב. אוֹנֵן, נוֹגֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מַקְרִיב, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק לֶאֱכֹל לָעָרֶב. בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין, בֵּין בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין קְבוּעִין, בֵּין בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין עוֹבְרִין, חוֹלְקִין וְאוֹכְלִין, אֲבָל לֹא מַקְרִיבִין. וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָעֲבוֹדָה, אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק בַּבָּשָׂר. וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בַּבָּשָׂר, אֵין לוֹ בָעוֹרוֹת. אֲפִלּוּ טָמֵא בִשְׁעַת זְרִיקַת דָּמִים וְטָהוֹר בִּשְׁעַת הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים, אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק בַּבָּשָׂר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ז), הַמַּקְרִיב אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים וְאֶת הַחֵלֶב מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לוֹ תִהְיֶה שׁוֹק הַיָּמִין לְמָנָה: \n", | 12.1. "A tebul yom and one who lacks atonement do not share in sacrifices for consumption in the evening. An onen may handle [sacrifices], but he may not offer them, and he does not receive a share for consumption in the evening. Priests with blemishes, whether permanent or passing, receive a share and may eat [of the sacrifices] but they may not offer them. Whoever is not eligible for service does not share in the flesh. And he who does not share in the flesh does not share in the hides. Even if one was unclean when the blood was sprinkled but clean when the fats were burned [on the altar], he does not share in the flesh, for it is said: “he among the sons of Aaron, that offers the blood of the shelamim, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33).", |
|
| 9. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •intention, of giver/owner Found in books: Balberg (2017) 38 |
10. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •intention, of giver/owner Found in books: Balberg (2017) 38| 13a. בעומד במרדו ורבי היא דתניא רבי אומר על כל עבירות שבתורה בין עשה תשובה בין לא עשה תשובה יום הכפורים מכפר חוץ מפורק עול ומגלה פנים בתורה ומפר ברית בבשר שאם עשה תשובה יום הכפורים מכפר ואם לאו אין יום הכפורים מכפר,מאי טעמא דרבי דתניא (במדבר טו, לא) כי דבר ה' בזה זה הפורק עול ומגלה פנים בתורה ואת מצותו הפר זה המפר ברית בבשר (במדבר טו, לא) הכרת תכרת הכרת לפני יוה"כ תכרת לאחר יוה"כ,יכול אפילו עשה תשובה ת"ל (במדבר טו, לא) עונה בה לא אמרתי אלא בזמן שעונה בה,ורבנן הכרת בעולם הזה תכרת לעולם הבא עונה בה שאם עשה תשובה ומת מיתה ממרקת,ומי מצית מוקמת לה כרבי והא מדסיפא רבי יהודה היא רישא נמי ר' יהודה היא דקתני סיפא אחד ישראל ואחד כהנים ואחד כהן משוח ומאן אית ליה האי סברא רבי יהודה מכלל דרישא ר' יהודה,אמר רב יוסף רבי היא וסבר לה כר' יהודה,א"ל אביי דוקא קאמר מר רבי סבר לה כר' יהודה אבל רבי יהודה לא סבר לה כרבי או דלמא מדרבי סבר לה כרבי יהודה אף רבי יהודה סבר לה נמי כרבי מיהו אורחא דמילתא קתני למימר דתלמיד סבר לה כרביה,א"ל אין דוקא קאמינא רבי סבר לה כרבי יהודה אבל ר' יהודה לא סבר לה כרבי,דתניא יכול יהא יוה"כ מכפר על שבים ועל שאינן שבים ודין הוא הואיל וחטאת ואשם מכפרין ויום הכפורים מכפר מה חטאת ואשם אין מכפרין אלא על השבים אף יוה"כ אין מכפר אלא על השבים מה לחטאת ואשם שאין מכפרין על המזיד כשוגג תאמר ליוה"כ שמכפר על המזיד כשוגג,הואיל ומכפר על המזיד כשוגג יכפר על שבים ועל שאינן שבים תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כג, כז) אך חלק,סתם סיפרא מני ר' יהודה וקאמר שבים אין לא שבים לא,ורמי סתם סיפרא אסתם סיפרא דתניא יכול לא יהא יוה"כ מכפר אא"כ התענה בו וקראו מקרא קדש ולא עשה בו מלאכה לא התענה בו ולא קראו מקרא קדש ועשה בו מלאכה מנין ת"ל (ויקרא כג, כח) יום כפורים הוא מ"מ,אמר אביי לא קשיא הא רבי והא רבי יהודה,רבא אמר הא והא רבי ומודה רבי בכרת דיומא דאי לא תימא הכי כרת דיום הכפורים לרבי לית ליה,אלמה לא משכחת לה כגון דעבד בליליא ומית דלא אתא יממא לכפורי ליה,אלא אימא | 13a. The mishna is referring to a case b where /b the person did not repent and b persists in his rebellion, and it is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, that even for such a case Yom Kippur and the scapegoat will atone. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: For all transgressions that are /b stated b in the Torah, whether one repented, /b or b whether one did not repent, Yom Kippur atones, except for one who divests /b himself of the b yoke /b of Heaven, by denying God’s existence, b and one who reveals facets of the Torah /b that differ from its true meaning, b and one who nullifies /b the b covet of /b circumcision of b the flesh. For /b these, b if one repented, Yom Kippur atones, and if not, Yom Kippur does not atone. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is the reasoning of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi? It is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i in interpretation of the verse: “For he scorned the word of the Lord and nullified His commandment; that person will be cut off [ i hikkaret tikkaret /i ], his sin is upon him” (Numbers 15:31): b “For he scorned the word of the Lord”; this /b is referring to b one who divests /b himself b of /b the b yoke /b of Heaven b and one who reveals facets of the Torah /b that differ from its true meaning. b “And nullified His commandment”; this /b is referring to b one who nullified the covet of /b circumcision of b the flesh. /b The use of the double verb form b i hikkaret tikkaret /i /b teaches that b he will be cut off, /b i.e., he is liable to receive i karet /i , b before Yom Kippur, and he will /b still b be cut off after Yom Kippur, /b as Yom Kippur does not atone for him.,One b might /b have thought that this applies b even /b if b he repented. /b To counter this, b the verse states: “His sin is upon him,” /b by which God indicates: b I said /b that Yom Kippur does not atone for these sins b only when his sin is /b still b upon him, /b as he did not repent. It is apparent from this i baraita /i that it is only for the three sins mentioned that Yom Kippur does not atone without repentance, but Yom Kippur atones for other sins even if one did not repent., b And /b with regard to b the Rabbis /b who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, how do they interpret the verse? If someone commits one of the three sins mentioned, then b he is cut off [ i hikkaret /i ] /b from life b in this world, /b and b he will be cut off [ i tikkaret /i ] in the World-to-Come. /b The phrase b “His sin is upon him” /b teaches b that if he repented and died, /b his b death cleanses /b him of his sin.,The Gemara asks: b And can you interpret /b the mishna to be b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi? b But from /b the fact b that the latter clause is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b by inference, b the first clause is also /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b but not of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, b as the latter clause /b of the mishna b teaches: Israelites and priests and /b the b anointed priest, /b i.e., the High Priest, all equally achieve atonement from the scapegoat. b And who accepts this reasoning? Rabbi Yehuda, /b as the Gemara will demonstrate. b By inference, the first clause /b is also in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b not of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi., b Rav Yosef said: /b It is possible that the entire mishna b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b and /b the latter clause does not pose a difficulty, because with regard to whether priests achieve atonement through the scapegoat, b he holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda. /b , b Abaye said to him: /b Does b the Master /b mean b specifically /b what b he is saying, /b i.e., that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda /b with regard to whether the scapegoat atones for both Israelites and priest, b but Rabbi Yehuda does not hold in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi with regard to atonement for one who did not repent? b Or perhaps from /b the fact b that Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b it follows that b Rabbi Yehuda also holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b but /b the reason that Rav Yosef did not make this clear is that b he teaches the matter in the manner in which it /b typically occurs, which is b to say that a disciple, /b in this case, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, b holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b his teacher, /b i.e., Rabbi Yehuda.,Rav Yosef b said to him: Yes, /b I mean b specifically /b what b I was saying: Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, but Rabbi Yehuda does not hold in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi., b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i recorded in the i Sifra /i : One b might /b have thought that b Yom Kippur would atone for those who repent and for those who do not repent, and /b this assertion b is /b supported by the following b logical inference: /b Although it would appear that b since a sin-offering and a guilt-offering atone and Yom Kippur atones, /b it should follow that b just as a sin-offering and a guilt-offering atone only for those who repent, so too, Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent, /b this comparison is flawed. One can claim: b What /b is notable b about a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? /b They are notable in b that they do not atone for intentional /b sins b like /b they do for b unwitting /b sins. b Can you say /b the same b about Yom Kippur, which does atone for intentional /b sins b as /b it does for b unwitting /b sins?,The i baraita /i continues: b Since /b it is the case that the atonement of Yom Kippur is more far-reaching in that b it atones for intentional /b sins b as /b it does for b unwitting /b sins, it follows that b it should atone /b both b for those who repent and for those who do not repent. /b To counter this, b the verse states: “Yet /b on the tenth day of this seventh month it is Yom Kippur” (Leviticus 23:27). The word “yet” serves to b divide /b and limit the atonement of Yom Kippur in that it atones only for those who repent.,Rav Yosef attributes the i baraita /i to Rabbi Yehuda: b Whose /b opinion is expressed by the b unattributed /b i baraitot /i in the b i Sifra /i ? Rabbi Yehuda. And he says: /b For b those who repent, yes, /b Yom Kippur atones, but for b those who do not repent, /b Yom Kippur does b not /b atone.,The Gemara asks: b But raise a contradiction, /b setting one b unattributed /b i baraita /i in the b i Sifra /i , /b i.e., the one just cited, b against /b another b unattributed /b i baraita /i in the b i Sifra /i , as /b in another i baraita /i there b it is taught: /b One b might /b have thought that b Yom Kippur would atone only if one fasted on it and declared it a holy convocation and did not perform labor on it. From where /b is it derived that even if b one did not fast on it and did not declare it a holy convocation and performed labor on it, /b that it still atones? b The verse states: /b “Yet on the tenth day of this seventh month b it is Yom Kippur” /b (Leviticus 23:27). The additional emphasis on “it is” serves to teach that the day atones b in any case. /b This i baraita /i contradicts the one cited above that states clearly that Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent., b Abaye said: /b This is b not difficult: This /b second i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b and that /b first i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda. /b , b Rava said: /b Both b this /b i baraita /i b and that /b i baraita /i are in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that Yom Kippur atones for those who do not repent, b but /b even b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b concedes /b that b with regard to /b avoiding the punishment of b i karet /i /b incurred b for /b violating b the day /b of Yom Kippur, Yom Kippur atones and one is not liable to be punished with i karet /i only if one repented for the sin of violating the day of Yom Kippur. Perforce he must concede this point, b as if you do not say so, /b then b according to Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b there would be no /b instance in which one would be liable to be punished with b i karet /i for /b violating b Yom Kippur. /b ,The Gemara questions this proof: b Why not? You /b could b find it /b in a case b where he performed /b labor b on the night /b of Yom Kippur b and died /b that night, b as /b in such a case, b the daytime /b of Yom Kippur, which is the part of Yom Kippur that effects atonement, b never came to atone for him. /b , b Rather, say /b that Rava’s proof is as follows: |
|
11. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •intention, of giver/owner Found in books: Balberg (2017) 38| 85b. אבל להחיות אפילו מעל מזבחי ומה זה שספק יש ממש בדבריו ספק אין ממש בדבריו ועבודה דוחה שבת קל וחומר לפקוח נפש שדוחה את השבת נענה רבי אלעזר ואמר ומה מילה שהיא אחד ממאתים וארבעים ושמונה איברים שבאדם דוחה את השבת קל וחומר לכל גופו שדוחה את השבת,רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר (שמות לא, יג) את שבתותי תשמורו יכול לכל ת"ל אך חלק רבי יונתן בן יוסף אומר (שמות לא, יד) כי קודש היא לכם היא מסורה בידכם ולא אתם מסורים בידה,ר' שמעון בן מנסיא אומר (שמות לא, טז) ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת אמרה תורה חלל עליו שבת אחת כדי שישמור שבתות הרבה א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל אי הואי התם הוה אמינא דידי עדיפא מדידהו (ויקרא יח, ה) וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם,אמר רבא לכולהו אית להו פירכא בר מדשמואל דלית ליה פירכא דר' ישמעאל דילמא כדרבא דאמר רבא מאי טעמא דמחתרת חזקה אין אדם מעמיד עצמו על ממונו והאי מידע ידע דקאי לאפיה ואמר אי קאי לאפאי קטילנא ליה והתורה אמרה בא להרגך השכם להרגו ואשכחן ודאי ספק מנלן,דר' עקיבא נמי דילמא כדאביי דאמר אביי מסרינן ליה זוגא דרבנן לידע אם ממש בדבריו ואשכחן ודאי ספק מנא לן,וכולהו אשכחן ודאי ספק מנא לן ודשמואל ודאי לית ליה פירכא אמר רבינא ואיתימא רב נחמן בר יצחק טבא חדא פלפלתא חריפא ממלא צנא דקרי, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big חטאת ואשם ודאי מכפרין מיתה ויוה"כ מכפרין עם התשובה תשובה מכפרת על עבירות קלות על עשה ועל לא תעשה ועל החמורות הוא תולה עד שיבא יוה"כ ויכפר האומר אחטא ואשוב אחטא ואשוב אין מספיקין בידו לעשות תשובה אחטא ויוה"כ מכפר אין יוה"כ מכפר עבירות שבין אדם למקום יוה"כ מכפר עבירות שבין אדם לחבירו אין יוה"כ מכפר עד שירצה את חבירו,דרש ר' אלעזר בן עזריה (ויקרא טז, ל) מכל חטאתיכם לפני ה' תטהרו עבירות שבין אדם למקום יוה"כ מכפר עבירות שבין אדם לחבירו אין יוה"כ מכפר עד שירצה את חבירו אמר רבי עקיבא אשריכם ישראל לפני מי אתם מטהרין מי מטהר אתכם אביכם שבשמים שנאמר (יחזקאל לו, כה) וזרקתי עליכם מים טהורים וטהרתם ואומר (ירמיהו יז, יג) מקוה ישראל (ה') מה מקוה מטהר את הטמאים אף הקב"ה מטהר את ישראל, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אשם ודאי אין אשם תלוי לא והא כפרה כתיבא ביה הנך מכפרי כפרה גמורה אשם תלוי אינו מכפר כפרה גמורה,אי נמי הנך אין אחר מכפר כפרתן אשם תלוי אחר מכפר כפרתן דתנן חייבי חטאות ואשמות ודאין שעבר עליהן יוה"כ חייבין אשמות תלוין פטורין,מיתה ויוה"כ מכפרין עם התשובה: עם התשובה אין בפני עצמן לא נימא דלא כרבי דתניא רבי אומר על כל עבירות שבתורה בין עשה תשובה בין לא עשה תשובה יום הכפורים מכפר חוץ (מפורק עול) ומגלה פנים בתורה ומיפר ברית בשר שאם עשה תשובה יוה"כ מכפר ואם לא עשה תשובה אין יוה"כ מכפר,אפילו תימא רבי תשובה בעיא יוה"כ יוה"כ לא בעיא תשובה,תשובה מכפרת על עבירות קלות על עשה ועל לא תעשה השתא על לא תעשה מכפרת על עשה מיבעיא אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר על עשה ועל לא תעשה שניתק לעשה,ועל לא תעשה גמור לא ורמינהו אלו הן קלות עשה ולא תעשה | 85b. b but to preserve a life, /b e.g., if the priest can testify to the innocence of one who is sentenced to death, one removes him b even from on top of My altar, /b even while he is sacrificing an offering. b Just as this /b priest, about whom b there is uncertainty whether there is substance to his words /b of testimony b or whether there is no substance to his words, /b is taken from the Temple service in order to save a life, b and /b Temple b service overrides Shabbat, /b so too, b i a fortiori /i , saving a life overrides Shabbat. Rabbi Elazar /b ben Azarya b answered and said: Just as /b the mitzva b of circumcision, which /b rectifies only b one of the 248 limbs of the body, overrides Shabbat, /b so too, b i a fortiori /i , /b saving b one’s whole body, /b which is entirely involved in mitzvot, b overrides Shabbat. /b ,Other i tanna’im /i debated this same issue. b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says /b that b it /b is stated: “But b keep my i Shabbatot /i ” /b (Exodus 31:13). One b might /b have thought that this applies b to everyone /b in all circumstances; therefore, b the verse states “but,” /b a term that restricts and b qualifies. /b It implies that there are circumstances where one must keep Shabbat and circumstances where one must desecrate it, i.e., to save a life. b Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says /b that b it /b is stated: b “For it is sacred to you” /b (Exodus 31:14). This implies that Shabbat b is given into your hands, and you are not given to it /b to die on account of Shabbat., b Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya said: /b It is stated: b “And the children of Israel shall keep Shabbat, /b to observe Shabbat” (Exodus 31:16). b The Torah said: Desecrate one Shabbat on his behalf so he will observe many i Shabbatot /i . Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: If I would /b have been b there /b among those Sages who debated this question, b I would have said /b that b my proof is preferable to theirs, /b as it states: “You shall keep My statutes and My ordices, which a person shall do b and live by them” /b (Leviticus 18:5), b and not that he /b should b die by them. /b In all circumstances, one must take care not to die as a result of fulfilling the mitzvot., b Rava /b commented on this: b All of these /b arguments b have refutations except for /b that b of Shmuel, which has no refutation. /b The Gemara explains Rava’s claim: The proof brought b by Rabbi Yishmael /b from the thief who breaks in could b perhaps /b be refuted based on the principle b of Rava, /b as b Rava said: What is the reason /b for the i halakha /i b about /b the thief who b breaks in? /b There is b a presumption /b that while b a person /b is being robbed he b does not restrain himself with respect to his money. And this /b thief b knows that /b the homeowner b will rise to oppose him /b and b said /b to himself from the start: b If he rises against me, I will kill him. And the Torah states: /b If a person b comes to kill you, rise to kill him first. We found /b a source for saving a life that is in b certain /b danger, but b from where do we /b derive that even in a case where there is b uncertainty /b as to whether a life is in danger one may desecrate Shabbat? Consequently, Rabbi Yishmael’s argument is refuted.,The proof b of Rabbi Akiva /b can b also /b be refuted. He brought the case of removing a priest from altar service in order to have him testify on another’s behalf, since his testimony might acquit the accused and save him from execution. But b perhaps /b that i halakha /i is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Abaye, as Abaye said: /b If the accused says he has a witness in his favor, b we send a pair of rabbis /b on b his /b behalf b to determine if his words /b of testimony have b substance. /b These rabbis would first check that the testimony of the priest is substantive before removing him from the altar. If so, b we /b have b found /b that one interrupts the Temple service to save a life from b certain /b danger, but b from where do we /b derive that one interrupts the Temple service when the likelihood of saving life is b uncertain? /b , b And for all /b the other arguments as well, b we /b have b found /b proofs for saving a life from b certain /b danger. But for cases of uncertainty, b from where do we /b derive this? For this reason, all the arguments are refuted. However, the proof b that Shmuel /b brought from the verse: “And live by them,” which teaches that one should not even put a life in possible danger to observe mitzvot, b there is certainly no refutation. Ravina said, and some say it was Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak /b who said with regard to this superior proof of Shmuel: b One spicy pepper is better than a whole basket of squash, /b since its flavor is more powerful than all the others., strong MISHNA: /strong b A sin-offering, /b which atones for unwitting performance of transgressions punishable by i karet /i , and b a definite guilt-offering, /b which is brought for robbery and misuse of consecrated items, b atone /b for those sins. b Death and Yom Kippur atone /b for sins when accompanied b by repentance. Repentance /b itself b atones for minor transgressions, for /b both b positive /b mitzvot b and negative /b mitzvot. b And /b repentance places punishment b for severe /b transgressions b in abeyance until Yom Kippur comes and /b completely b atones /b for the transgression. With regard to b one who says: I will sin and /b then b I will repent, I will sin and I will repent, /b Heaven b does not provide him the opportunity to repent, /b and he will remain a sinner all his days. With regard to one who says: b I will sin and Yom Kippur /b will b atone /b for my sins, b Yom Kippur does not atone /b for his sins. Furthermore, for b transgressions between a person and God, Yom Kippur atones; /b however, for b transgressions between a person and another, Yom Kippur does not atone until he appeases /b the b other /b person.,Similarly, b Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya taught /b that point from the verse: b “From all your sins you shall be cleansed before the Lord” /b (Leviticus 16:30). For b transgressions between a person and God, Yom Kippur atones; /b however, for b transgressions between a person and another, Yom Kippur does not atone until he appeases /b the b other /b person. In conclusion, b Rabbi Akiva said: How fortunate are you, Israel; before Whom are you purified, and Who purifies you? /b It is b your Father in Heaven, as it is stated: “And I will sprinkle purifying water upon you, and you shall be purified” /b (Ezekiel 36:25). b And it says: “The ritual bath of Israel is God” /b (Jeremiah 17:13). b Just as a ritual bath purifies the impure, so too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, purifies Israel. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna says that a definite guilt-offering atones for sins. The Gemara analyzes this: With regard to b a definite guilt-offering, yes, /b it does atone for sins. This implies that b an uncertain guilt-offering /b does b not. /b The Gemara asks: b But isn’t atonement written with regard to it? /b Why, then, doesn’t it atone? The Gemara answers: b Those, /b the sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings, b facilitate complete atonement, /b but b an uncertain guilt-offering does not facilitate complete atonement. /b Instead, this offering provides temporary atonement for an individual, to protect him from punishment until he becomes aware of his sin and brings the appropriate offering., b Alternatively, /b there is this distinction: b Nothing else facilitates the atonement of those /b sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings, whereas something b else does facilitate the atonement of the uncertain guilt-offering, as we learned /b in a mishna: If b Yom Kippur passed, those who are obligated to bring sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings are /b still b obligated /b to bring their offerings; however, those obligated to bring b uncertain guilt-offerings are exempt /b because Yom Kippur atoned for them.,§ It was taught in the mishna that b death and Yom Kippur atone /b for sins when accompanied b by repentance. /b The Gemara analyzes this: b With repentance, yes, /b they do atone for sins; b but by themselves, /b without repentance, b they do not. Let us say /b that the mishna is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says /b that b for all transgressions in the Torah, whether one repented or did not repent, Yom Kippur atones, /b with the b exception /b of b rejecting the yoke /b of Torah and mitzvot; and denying the Holy One, Blessed be He; b and interpreting the Torah falsely; and violating the covet of the flesh, /b i.e., circumcision. In these cases, b if one repents Yom Kippur atones /b for his sin, b and if one does not repent Yom Kippur does not atone /b for his sin.,The Gemara rejects this: This is no proof; b even /b if b you say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, the mishna can be understood as follows: b Repentance /b still b requires Yom Kippur /b in order to complete the atonement, whereas b Yom Kippur does not require repentance /b but atones even without it.,§ It was taught in the mishna: b Repentance /b itself b atones for minor transgressions, for /b both b a positive /b mitzva b and for a negative /b mitzva. The Gemara is surprised at this: b Now /b that it was stated that repentance b atones for a negative /b mitzva, which is severe and warrants lashes, is it b necessary /b to also teach that it atones b for a positive /b mitzva, which is more lenient? b Rav Yehuda said: This is /b what b it said, /b i.e., the mishna should be understood as follows: Repentance atones b for a positive /b mitzva b and for a negative /b mitzva whose violation b can be rectified by a positive /b mitzva. One is not punished by a court for violating a prohibition for which the Torah prescribes a positive act as a corrective measure and which thereby has the same i halakha /i as a positive mitzva.,The Gemara asks: b But /b does repentance b not /b atone b for a full-fledged negative /b mitzva? The Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from a separate source: It was taught that b these are minor /b transgressions: b A positive /b mitzva b and a negative /b mitzva, |
|
