1. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 50.12-50.14 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 235| 50.12. "אִם־אֶרְעַב לֹא־אֹמַר לָךְ כִּי־לִי תֵבֵל וּמְלֹאָהּ׃", 50.13. "הַאוֹכַל בְּשַׂר אַבִּירִים וְדַם עַתּוּדִים אֶשְׁתֶּה׃", 50.14. "זְבַח לֵאלֹהִים תּוֹדָה וְשַׁלֵּם לְעֶלְיוֹן נְדָרֶיךָ׃", | 50.12. "If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is Mine, and the fulness thereof.", 50.13. "Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?", 50.14. "offer unto God the sacrifice of thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the Most High;", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Hosea, 6.6 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 235| 6.6. "כִּי חֶסֶד חָפַצְתִּי וְלֹא־זָבַח וְדַעַת אֱלֹהִים מֵעֹלוֹת׃", | 6.6. "For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God rather than burnt-offerings.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 1.3-1.5, 3.1-3.2, 4.4, 6.2-6.8, 9.4, 17.11, 23.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 50, 87, 88, 130, 149, 209| 1.3. "אִם־עֹלָה קָרְבָּנוֹ מִן־הַבָּקָר זָכָר תָּמִים יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ אֶל־פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד יַקְרִיב אֹתוֹ לִרְצֹנוֹ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה׃", 1.4. "וְסָמַךְ יָדוֹ עַל רֹאשׁ הָעֹלָה וְנִרְצָה לוֹ לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו׃", 1.5. "וְשָׁחַט אֶת־בֶּן הַבָּקָר לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְהִקְרִיבוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים אֶת־הַדָּם וְזָרְקוּ אֶת־הַדָּם עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב אֲשֶׁר־פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", 3.1. "וְאֵת שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיֹת וְאֶת־הַחֵלֶב אֲשֶׁר עֲלֵהֶן אֲשֶׁר עַל־הַכְּסָלִים וְאֶת־הַיֹּתֶרֶת עַל־הַכָּבֵד עַל־הַכְּלָיֹת יְסִירֶנָּה׃", 3.1. "וְאִם־זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים קָרְבָּנוֹ אִם מִן־הַבָּקָר הוּא מַקְרִיב אִם־זָכָר אִם־נְקֵבָה תָּמִים יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה׃", 3.2. "וְסָמַךְ יָדוֹ עַל־רֹאשׁ קָרְבָּנוֹ וּשְׁחָטוֹ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְזָרְקוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים אֶת־הַדָּם עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב׃", 4.4. "וְהֵבִיא אֶת־הַפָּר אֶל־פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְסָמַךְ אֶת־יָדוֹ עַל־רֹאשׁ הַפָּר וְשָׁחַט אֶת־הַפָּר לִפְנֵי יְהוָה׃", 6.2. "צַו אֶת־אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת־בָּנָיו לֵאמֹר זֹאת תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה הִוא הָעֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כָּל־הַלַּיְלָה עַד־הַבֹּקֶר וְאֵשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תּוּקַד בּוֹ׃", 6.2. "כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יִגַּע בִּבְשָׂרָהּ יִקְדָּשׁ וַאֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה מִדָּמָהּ עַל־הַבֶּגֶד אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה עָלֶיהָ תְּכַבֵּס בְּמָקוֹם קָדֹשׁ׃", 6.3. "וְלָבַשׁ הַכֹּהֵן מִדּוֹ בַד וּמִכְנְסֵי־בַד יִלְבַּשׁ עַל־בְּשָׂרוֹ וְהֵרִים אֶת־הַדֶּשֶׁן אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל הָאֵשׁ אֶת־הָעֹלָה עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְשָׂמוֹ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ׃", 6.4. "וּפָשַׁט אֶת־בְּגָדָיו וְלָבַשׁ בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים וְהוֹצִיא אֶת־הַדֶּשֶׁן אֶל־מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה אֶל־מָקוֹם טָהוֹר׃", 6.5. "וְהָאֵשׁ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תּוּקַד־בּוֹ לֹא תִכְבֶּה וּבִעֵר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן עֵצִים בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר וְעָרַךְ עָלֶיהָ הָעֹלָה וְהִקְטִיר עָלֶיהָ חֶלְבֵי הַשְּׁלָמִים׃", 6.6. "אֵשׁ תָּמִיד תּוּקַד עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לֹא תִכְבֶה׃", 6.7. "וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה הַקְרֵב אֹתָהּ בְּנֵי־אַהֲרֹן לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֶל־פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ׃", 6.8. "וְהֵרִים מִמֶּנּוּ בְּקֻמְצוֹ מִסֹּלֶת הַמִּנְחָה וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ וְאֵת כָּל־הַלְּבֹנָה אֲשֶׁר עַל־הַמִּנְחָה וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ אַזְכָּרָתָהּ לַיהוָה׃", 9.4. "וְשׁוֹר וָאַיִל לִשְׁלָמִים לִזְבֹּחַ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וּמִנְחָה בְּלוּלָה בַשָּׁמֶן כִּי הַיּוֹם יְהוָה נִרְאָה אֲלֵיכֶם׃", 17.11. "כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר בַּדָּם הִוא וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְכַפֵּר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם כִּי־הַדָּם הוּא בַּנֶּפֶשׁ יְכַפֵּר׃", 23.19. "וַעֲשִׂיתֶם שְׂעִיר־עִזִּים אֶחָד לְחַטָּאת וּשְׁנֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנֵי שָׁנָה לְזֶבַח שְׁלָמִים׃", | 1.3. "If his offering be a burnt-offering of the herd, he shall offer it a male without blemish; he shall bring it to the door of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD.", 1.4. "And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.", 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.", 3.1. "And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace-offerings: if he offer of the herd, whether male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD.", 3.2. "And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the tent of meeting; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall dash the blood against the altar round about.", 4.4. "And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tent of meeting before the LORD; and he shall lay his hand upon the head of the bullock, and kill the bullock before the LORD.", 6.2. "Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt-offering: it is that which goeth up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby.", 6.3. "And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the ashes whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar.", 6.4. "And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean place.", 6.5. "And the fire upon the altar shall be kept burning thereby, it shall not go out; and the priest shall kindle wood on it every morning; and he shall lay the burnt-offering in order upon it, and shall make smoke thereon the fat of the peace-offerings.", 6.6. "Fire shall be kept burning upon the altar continually; it shall not go out.", 6.7. "And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, in front of the altar.", 6.8. "And he shall take up therefrom his handful, of the fine flour of the meal-offering, and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense which is upon the meal-offering, and shall make the memorial-part thereof smoke upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD.", 9.4. "and an ox and a ram for peace-offerings, to sacrifice before the LORD; and a meal-offering mingled with oil; for to-day the LORD appeareth unto you.’", 17.11. "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.", 23.19. "And ye shall offer one he-goat for a sin-offering, and two he-lambs of the first year for a sacrifice of peace-offerings.", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 1.11 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 235| 1.11. "לָמָּה־לִּי רֹב־זִבְחֵיכֶם יֹאמַר יְהוָה שָׂבַעְתִּי עֹלוֹת אֵילִים וְחֵלֶב מְרִיאִים וְדַם פָּרִים וּכְבָשִׂים וְעַתּוּדִים לֹא חָפָצְתִּי׃", | 1.11. "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? Saith the LORD; I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, And the fat of fed beasts; And I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats.", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, 1 Samuel, 15.22 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 235| 15.22. "וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל הַחֵפֶץ לַיהוָה בְּעֹלוֹת וּזְבָחִים כִּשְׁמֹעַ בְּקוֹל יְהוָה הִנֵּה שְׁמֹעַ מִזֶּבַח טוֹב לְהַקְשִׁיב מֵחֵלֶב אֵילִים׃", | 15.22. "And Shemu᾽el said, Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Amos, 5.21-5.24 (8th cent. BCE - 6th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 235| 5.21. "שָׂנֵאתִי מָאַסְתִּי חַגֵּיכֶם וְלֹא אָרִיחַ בְּעַצְּרֹתֵיכֶם׃", 5.22. "כִּי אִם־תַּעֲלוּ־לִי עֹלוֹת וּמִנְחֹתֵיכֶם לֹא אֶרְצֶה וְשֶׁלֶם מְרִיאֵיכֶם לֹא אַבִּיט׃", 5.23. "הָסֵר מֵעָלַי הֲמוֹן שִׁרֶיךָ וְזִמְרַת נְבָלֶיךָ לֹא אֶשְׁמָע׃", 5.24. "וְיִגַּל כַּמַּיִם מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה כְּנַחַל אֵיתָן׃", | 5.21. "I hate, I despise your feasts, And I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies.", 5.22. "Yea, though ye offer me burnt-offerings and your meal-offerings, I will not accept them; Neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts.", 5.23. "Take thou away from Me the noise of thy songs; And let Me not hear the melody of thy psalteries.", 5.24. "But let justice well up as waters, And righteousness as a mighty stream.", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 7.21-7.24 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 235| 7.21. "כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עֹלוֹתֵיכֶם סְפוּ עַל־זִבְחֵיכֶם וְאִכְלוּ בָשָׂר׃", 7.22. "כִּי לֹא־דִבַּרְתִּי אֶת־אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם וְלֹא צִוִּיתִים בְּיוֹם הוציא [הוֹצִיאִי] אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם עַל־דִּבְרֵי עוֹלָה וָזָבַח׃", 7.23. "כִּי אִם־אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה צִוִּיתִי אוֹתָם לֵאמֹר שִׁמְעוּ בְקוֹלִי וְהָיִיתִי לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ־לִי לְעָם וַהֲלַכְתֶּם בְּכָל־הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָכֶם׃", 7.24. "וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ וְלֹא־הִטּוּ אֶת־אָזְנָם וַיֵּלְכוּ בְּמֹעֵצוֹת בִּשְׁרִרוּת לִבָּם הָרָע וַיִּהְיוּ לְאָחוֹר וְלֹא לְפָנִים׃", | 7.21. "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Add your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat ye flesh.", 7.22. "For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices;", 7.23. "but this thing I commanded them, saying: ‘Hearken unto My voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be My people; and walk ye in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’", 7.24. "But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in their own counsels, even in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward,", |
|
8. Anon., Jubilees, 49.5-49.6, 49.17-49.21 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice, of passover Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 150 | 49.5. And this is the sign which the Lord gave them: Into every house on the lintels of which they saw the blood of a lamb of the first year, into (that) house they should not enter to slay, but should pass by (it), that all those should be saved that were in the house because the sign of the blood was on its lintels. 49.6. And the powers of the Lord did everything according as the Lord commanded them, and they passed by all the children of Israel, 49.17. And it is not permissible to slay it during any period of the light, but during the period bordering on the evening, 49.18. and let them eat it at the time of the evening until the third part of the night, and whatever is leftover of all its flesh from the third part of the night and onwards, let them burn it with fire. 49.19. And they shall not cook it with water, nor shall they eat it raw, but roast on the fire: they shall eat it with diligence, 49.20. its head with the inwards thereof and its feet they shall roast with fire, and not break any bone thereof; for of the children of Israel no bone shall be crushed. 49.21. For this reason the Lord commanded the children of Israel to observe the passover on the day of its fixed time, and they shall not break a bone thereof; for it is a festival day, and a day commanded, and there may be no passing over from day to day, and month to month, but on the day of its festival let it be observed. |
|
9. Mishnah, Hagigah, 1.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice, of passover Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 145| 1.2. "בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, הָרְאִיָּה שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף, וַחֲגִיגָה מָעָה כֶסֶף. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, הָרְאִיָּה מָעָה כֶסֶף, וַחֲגִיגָה שְׁתֵּי כָסֶף: \n", | 1.2. "Bet Shammai say: the pilgrimage-offering (re’eyah) must be worth [at least] two pieces of silver and the hagigah one piece (ma’ah) of silver. But Bet Hillel say: the pilgrimage-offering must be worth [at least] one ma'ah of silver and the hagigah two pieces of silver.", |
|
10. Mishnah, Keritot, 1.1-1.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •and blood, as purpose of sacrifice Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 130| 1.1. "שְׁלשִׁים וָשֵׁשׁ כְּרֵתוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. הַבָּא עַל הָאֵם, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת הָאָב, וְעַל הַכַּלָּה, הַבָּא עַל הַזְּכוּר, וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה הַמְבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה עָלֶיהָ, הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו, וְעַל הַנִּדָּה, הַמְגַדֵּף, וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהַנּוֹתֵן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ, וּבַעַל אוֹב, הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְטָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְהַבָּא לַמִּקְדָּשׁ טָמֵא, הָאוֹכֵל חֵלֶב, וְדָם, נוֹתָר, וּפִגּוּל, הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהַמַּעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ, הָאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח, וְהָאוֹכֵל וְהָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, הַמְפַטֵּם אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן, וְהַמְפַטֵּם אֶת הַקְּטֹרֶת, וְהַסָּךְ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה. הַפֶּסַח וְהַמִּילָה בְּמִצְוֹת עֲשֵׂה: \n", 1.2. "עַל אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִים עַל זְדוֹנָם כָּרֵת, וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָם חַטָּאת, וְעַל לֹא הוֹדַע שֶׁלָּהֶן אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, חוּץ מִן הַמְטַמֵּא מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, מִפְנֵי שֶׁהוּא בְעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אַף הַמְגַדֵּף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טו), תּוֹרָה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם לָעֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁגָגָה, יָצָא מְגַדֵּף, שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה: \n", | 1.1. "There are in the Torah thirty-six [transgressions which are punishable with] karet:When one has intercourse with his mother, His father's wife; Or his daughter-in-law; When a man has intercourse with a male, Or with a beast, Or when a woman brings a beast upon herself; When one has intercourse with a woman and her daughter; Or with a married woman; Or with his sister; Or with his father's sister; Or his mother's sister; Or his wife's sister; Or his brother's wife; Or the wife of his father's brother; Or with a menstruating woman; One who blasphemes [the Lord]; One who worships idols; Or dedicates his children to Molech; Or has a ba’al ov; Or desecrates the Shabbat; When an unclean person eats of sacred food; Or when one enters the precincts of the Temple in an unclean state; When one eats forbidden fat, Or blood; Notar; Or piggul; When one slaughters Or offers up [a consecrated animal] outside [the Temple]; One who eats anything leavened on Pesah; One who eats Or works on Yom Kippur; One who compounds the oil [of anointing]; Or compounds incense; Or uses [unlawfully] oil of anointing; And [when one transgresses the laws of] the pesah, And circumcision from among positive commandments.", 1.2. "For these [transgressions] one is liable to karet if committed intentionally, and if committed unwittingly to a hatat. If there is a doubt whether he had committed the transgression to an asham talui, except in the case of one who defiled the Temple or its consecrated things, for in that case one is liable in this case to a sliding-scale sacrifice, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: also the blasphemer [is an exception], as it says: “You shall have one law for one that acts in error” (Numbers 15:29), this excludes the blasphemer who performs no action.", |
|
11. Mishnah, Menachot, 1.3, 2.1, 5.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 50, 103| 1.3. "רִבָּה שַׁמְנָהּ, וְחִסַּר שַׁמְנָהּ, חִסַּר לְבוֹנָתָהּ, פְּסוּלָה. הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה לֶאֱכֹל שְׁיָרֶיהָ בַחוּץ, אוֹ כַזַּיִת מִשְּׁיָרֶיהָ בַחוּץ, לְהַקְטִיר קֻמְצָהּ בַּחוּץ, אוֹ כַזַּיִת מִקֻּמְצָהּ בַּחוּץ, אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָתָהּ בַּחוּץ, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. לֶאֱכֹל שְׁיָרֶיהָ לְמָחָר, אוֹ כַזַּיִת מִשְּׁיָרֶיהָ לְמָחָר, לְהַקְטִיר קֻמְצָהּ לְמָחָר, אוֹ כַזַּיִת מִקֻּמְצָהּ לְמָחָר, אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָתָהּ לְמָחָר, פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל הַקּוֹמֵץ, וְהַנּוֹתֵן בִּכְלִי, וְהַמְהַלֵּךְ, וְהַמַּקְטִיר, לֶאֱכֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר, חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּקְרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ. כֵּיצַד קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ. קָמַץ בִּשְׁתִיקָה וְנָתַן בַּכְּלִי וְהִלֵּךְ וְהִקְטִיר חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁקָּמַץ חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְנָתַן בַּכְּלִי וְהִלֵּךְ וְהִקְטִיר בִּשְׁתִיקָה, אוֹ שֶׁקָּמַץ וְנָתַן בַּכְּלִי וְהִלֵּךְ וְהִקְטִיר חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, זֶה הוּא שֶׁקָּרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ: \n", 2.1. "הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה לֶאֱכֹל שְׁיָרֶיהָ אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר קֻמְצָהּ לְמָחָר, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּזֶה, שֶׁהוּא פִגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָתָהּ לְמָחָר, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, פִּגוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מַה שָּׁנָה זוֹ מִן הַזָּבַח. אָמַר לָהֶם, שֶׁהַזֶּבַח דָּמוֹ וּבְשָׂרוֹ וְאֵמוּרָיו אֶחָד, וּלְבוֹנָה אֵינָהּ מִן הַמִּנְחָה: \n", 5.7. "רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁלשָׁה מִינִים טְעוּנִים שָׁלשׁ מִצְוֹת, שְׁתַּיִם בְּכָל אַחַת וְאַחַת, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁית אֵין בָּהֶן. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד, וְזִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר, וַאֲשַׁם מְצֹרָע. זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד, טְעוּנִים סְמִיכָה חַיִּים, וּתְנוּפָה שְׁחוּטִים, וְאֵין בָּהֶם תְּנוּפָה חַיִּים. זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר, טְעוּנִים תְּנוּפָה חַיִּים וּשְׁחוּטִים, וְאֵין בָּהֶן סְמִיכָה. וַאֲשַׁם מְצֹרָע, טָעוּן סְמִיכָה וּתְנוּפָה חַי, וְאֵין בּוֹ תְנוּפָה שָׁחוּט: \n", | 1.3. "If he put in too much of its oil or too little of its oil or too little of its frankincense, it is invalid. One who takes a fistful from the minhah [intending]: To eat the remainder outside [the Temple] or an olive’s worth outside; To burn the fistful or an olive’s worth of the fistful outside; To burn its frankincense outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One who takes a fistful from the minhah intending]: To eat the remainder the next day or an olive’s worth the next day; To burn the fistful the next day or an olive’s worth of the fistful the next day; To burn its frankincense the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth. This is the general rule: anyone who removes the fistful, or puts it into a vessel, or carries it to the altar, or burns it, [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the minhah] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law. How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful in silence, and put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it, [intending to eat it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time, and put it in a vessel, and carried it and burned it in silence, or if one took out the fistful, or put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law.", 2.1. "If he took out the handful [intending] to eat the remainder or to burn the handful the next day, in this case Rabbi Yose agrees that the offering is piggul and he is obligated for karet. [If he intended] to burn its frankincense the next day: Rabbi Yose says: it is invalid but he is not liable for karet. But the sages say: it is piggul and he is liable for karet. They said to him: how does this differ from an animal-offering? He said to them: with the animal-offering the blood, the flesh and the sacrificial portions are all one; but the frankincense is not part of the minhah.", 5.7. "Rabbi Shimon says, there are three kinds [of sacrifices] which require three commandments; two [of the three] apply to each kind, but none of them require a third. And these are they: the shelamim of the individual, the shelamim of the community and the asham of the leper. The shelamim of the individual requires the laying on of hands for the living animal and waving after it is slaughtered, but it does not require waving while alive. The shelamim of the community requires waving while alive and also after it is slaughtered, but it does not require the laying on of hands. The asham of the leper requires the laying on of hands and also waving while alive, but it does not require waving after it is slaughtered.", |
|
12. Mishnah, Pesahim, 5, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 7.4, 7.5, 7.9, 7.13-8.7, 7.13, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 9.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 164| 7.5. "נִטְמָא הַבָּשָׂר וְהַחֵלֶב קַיָּם, אֵינוֹ זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם. נִטְמָא הַחֵלֶב וְהַבָּשָׂר קַיָּם, זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם. וּבַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין אֵינוֹ כֵן, אֶלָּא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּטְמָא הַבָּשָׂר וְהַחֵלֶב קַיָּם, זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם: \n", | 7.5. "If the flesh was defiled while the fat remained [clean], he may not sprinkle the blood but if the fat was defiled while the flesh has remained [clean], he must sprinkle the blood. But in the case of [other] dedicated sacrifices it is not so, rather even if the flesh was defiled while the fat has remained clean, he must sprinkle the blood.", |
|
13. Mishnah, Shevuot, 1.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •and blood, as purpose of sacrifice Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 130| 1.6. "וְעַל זְדוֹן טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִפְנִים וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפְּרִין. וְעַל שְׁאָר עֲבֵרוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, הַקַּלּוֹת וְהַחֲמוּרוֹת, הַזְּדוֹנוֹת וְהַשְּׁגָגוֹת, הוֹדַע וְלֹא הוֹדַע, עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, כְּרֵתוֹת וּמִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ מְכַפֵּר: \n", | 1.6. "For intentional transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food, the goat offered inside [the Holy of Holies] on the Day of Atonement together with the Day of Atonement itself bring atonement. For other transgressions of the Torah, light and grave, intentional and unintentional, known and unknown, positive and negative, those punishable by kareth and those punishable by death imposed by the court for all these the scapegoat [sent out on the Day of Atonement] brings atonement.", |
|
14. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 5.7-5.8, 10.16-10.20 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice, atonement as Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 89| 5.7. ἐκκαθάρατε τὴν παλαιὰν ζύμην, ἵνα ἦτε νέον φύραμα, καθώς ἐστε ἄζυμοι. καὶ γὰρτὸ πάσχαἡμῶνἐτύθηΧριστός· 5.8. ὥστε ἑορτάζωμεν, μὴ ἐν ζύμῃ παλαιᾷ μηδὲ ἐν ζύμῃ κακίας καὶ πονηρίας, ἀλλʼ ἐν ἀζύμοις εἰλικρινίας καὶ ἀληθείας. 10.16. Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία ἐστὶν τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ χριστοῦ; τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ χριστοῦ ἐστίν; 10.17. ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος, ἓν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν, οἱ γὰρ πάντες ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν. βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα· 10.18. οὐχ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσίν; 10.19. τί οὖν φημί; ὅτι εἰδωλόθυτόν τί ἐστιν, ἢ ὅτι εἴδωλόν τί ἐστιν; 10.20. ἀλλʼ ὅτι ἃ θύουσιν [τὰ ἔθνη],δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ θύουσιν,οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι. | 5.7. Purge out the old yeast, that you may bea new lump, even as you are unleavened. For indeed Christ, ourPassover, has been sacrificed in our place. 5.8. Therefore let us keepthe feast, not with old yeast, neither with the yeast of malice andwickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 10.16. Thecup of blessing which we bless, isn't it a communion of the blood ofChrist? The bread which we break, isn't it a communion of the body ofChrist? 10.17. Because we, who are many, are one bread, one body; forwe all partake of the one bread. 10.18. Consider Israel after theflesh. Don't those who eat the sacrifices have communion with the altar? 10.19. What am I saying then? That a thing sacrificed to idols isanything, or that an idol is anything? 10.20. But I say that thethings which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and notto God, and I don't desire that you would have communion with demons. |
|
| 15. Mishnah, Sukkah, 5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice,of ritual narrative Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 186 |
16. Tosefta, Hagigah, 1.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice, of passover Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 164| 1.2. "יוחנן בן דהבאי אומר משום ר' יהודה אף הסומא [שנאמר יראה פרט לסומא השיב רבי על דברי יוחנן בן דהבאי הכריעו חכמים לסייע דברי רבי יהודה] (שמואל א א׳:כ״ב) וחנה לא עלתה כי אמרה לאשה עד יגמל וגו'.", | |
|
17. Mishnah, Tamid, 5.2, 5.3-6.3, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 205| 7.2. "בָּאוּ וְעָמְדוּ עַל מַעֲלוֹת הָאוּלָם. עָמְדוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנִים לִדְרוֹם אֲחֵיהֶם הַכֹּהֲנִים, וַחֲמִשָּׁה כֵלִים בְּיָדָם, הַטֶּנִי בְיַד אֶחָד, וְהַכּוּז בְּיַד אֶחָד, וְהַמַּחְתָּה בְיַד אֶחָד, וְהַבָּזָךְ בְּיַד אֶחָד, וְכַף וְכִסּוּיָהּ בְּיַד אֶחָד. וּבֵרְכוּ אֶת הָעָם בְּרָכָה אַחַת, אֶלָּא שֶׁבַּמְּדִינָה אוֹמְרִים אוֹתָהּ שָׁלשׁ בְּרָכוֹת, וּבַמִּקְדָּשׁ בְּרָכָה אֶחָת. בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים אֶת הַשֵּׁם כִּכְתָבוֹ, וּבַמְּדִינָה בְּכִנּוּיוֹ. בַּמְּדִינָה הַכֹּהֲנִים נוֹשְׂאִים אֶת כַּפֵּיהֶם, יְדֵיהֶם כְּנֶגֶד כִּתְפוֹתֵיהֶם, וּבַמִּקְדָּשׁ עַל גַּבֵּי רָאשֵׁיהֶן, חוּץ מִכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַגְבִּיהַּ אֶת יָדָיו לְמַעְלָה מִן הַצִּיץ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מַגְבִּיהַּ אֶת יָדָיו לְמַעְלָה מִן הַצִּיץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ט), וַיִּשָּׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת יָדָיו אֶל הָעָם וַיְבָרְכֵם:", | 7.2. "They went and stood on the steps of the Sanctuary. The first ones stood at the south side of their fellow priests with five vessels in their hands: one held the teni, the second the kuz, the third the firepan, the fourth the dish, and the fifth the spoon and its covering. They blessed the people with a single blessing, except in the country they recited it as three blessings, in the Temple as one. In the Temple they pronounced the divine name as it is written, but in the country by its substitute. In the country the priests raised their hands as high as their shoulders, but in the Temple above their heads, except the high priest, who did not raise his hands above the diadem. Rabbi Judah says: the high priest also raised his hands above the diadem, since it says, “And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them” (Leviticus 9:22).", |
|
18. Mishnah, Yoma, 1.2, 8.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •and blood, as purpose of sacrifice •purpose of sacrifice Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 130, 215| 1.2. "כָּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים הוּא זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם וּמַקְטִיר אֶת הַקְּטֹרֶת וּמֵטִיב אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת וּמַקְרִיב אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְאֶת הָרֶגֶל. וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַיָּמִים, אִם רָצָה לְהַקְרִיב, מַקְרִיב, שֶׁכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מַקְרִיב חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ וְנוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ: \n", 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", | 1.2. "All seven days he sprinkles the blood and burns the incense and cleans lamps and offers the head and the leg; And on all other days if he wants he offers, for the high priest is first in offering a portion and has first place in taking a portion.", 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.", |
|
19. Mishnah, Zevahim, 4.1-4.2, 10.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice, atonement as •purpose of sacrifice, offerer in relation to Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 50, 88| 4.1. "בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, כָּל הַנִּתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, שֶׁאִם נְתָנָן מַתָּנָה אַחַת, כִּפֵּר. וּבְחַטָּאת, שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אַף חַטָּאת שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ מַתָּנָה אַחַת, כִּפֵּר. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם נָתַן אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְתִקְנָהּ וְאֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ, כִּפֵּר. נָתַן אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ וְאֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה חוּץ לִמְקוֹמָהּ, פִּגּוּל, וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת: \n", 4.2. "כָּל הַנִּתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי, שֶׁאִם חִסַּר אַחַת מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, לֹא כִפֵּר. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם נָתַן כֻּלָּן כְּתִקְנָן וְאַחַת שֶׁלֹּא כְתִקְנָהּ, פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת: \n", 10.2. "וְכֹל הַמְקֻדָּשׁ מֵחֲבֵרוֹ, קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ. דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֵם לְדַם עוֹלָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְרַצֶּה. אֵבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין לְאֵמוּרֵי חַטָּאת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כָּלִיל לָאִשִּׁים. חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת לְאָשָׁם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּמָהּ נִתָּן עַל אַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת וְעַל הַיְּסוֹד. אָשָׁם קוֹדֵם לְתוֹדָה וּלְאֵיל נָזִיר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים. הַתּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר קוֹדְמִין לִשְׁלָמִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וּטְעוּנִים לָחֶם. שְׁלָמִים קוֹדְמִין לִבְכוֹר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵם טְעוּנִין מַתַּן אַרְבַּע, וּסְמִיכָה וּנְּסָכִים וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק: \n", | 4.1. "Bet Shammai says: any [blood] which is to be sprinkled on the outer altar, if [the priest] applied [it] with one sprinkling, he has made atonement, [and in the case of a hatat two applications, but Bet Hillel says: also the case of the hatat if the priest applied it with one sprinkling it atones Therefore if he made the first application in the proper manner and the second [with the intention to eat the flesh] after the prescribed time, it atones. If he made the first application [with the intention to eat the flesh] after the prescribed time and the second outside the prescribed place, it is piggul and involves [the punishment of] karet.", 4.2. "With regard to any [blood] which is sprinkled on the inner altar, if [the priest] omitted one of the applications, he has not atoned; therefore if he applied all in the proper manner but one in an improper manner, it [the sacrifice] is invalid, but does not involve karet.", 10.2. "Whatever is more sacred than another precedes the other. The blood of a hatat precedes the blood of a olah, because it propitiates. The limbs of a olah precede the innards of a hatat, because it [the former] is entirely for the fires [of the altar]. A hatat precedes an asham, because its blood is sprinkled on the four horns and on the base. An asham precedes a today and a nazirite’s ram, because it is a most holy sacrifice. A todah and a nazirite's ram precede a shelamim, because they are eaten one day [only] and require [the accompaniment of] loaves. A shelamim precedes a firstling, because it requires four [blood] applications and laying [of hands], libations, and the waving of the breast and the thigh.", |
|
20. Mishnah, Shekalim, 2.5, 3.4, 4.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 130, 149, 246| 2.5. "מוֹתַר שְׁקָלִים, חֻלִּין. מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה, מוֹתַר קִנֵּי זָבִין, קִנֵּי זָבוֹת, קִנֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת, וְחַטָאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת, מוֹתְרֵיהֶן נְדָבָה. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל שֶׁהוּא בָּא לְשֵׁם חַטָאת וּלְשֵׁם אַשְׁמָה, מוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה. מוֹתַר עוֹלָה, לָעוֹלָה. מוֹתַר מִנְחָה, לַמִּנְחָה. מוֹתַר שְׁלָמִים, לַשְּׁלָמִים. מוֹתַר פֶּסַח, לַשְּׁלָמִים. מוֹתַר נְזִירִים, לַנְּזִירִים. מוֹתַר נָזִיר, לַנְּדָבָה. מוֹתַר עֲנִיִּים, לָעֲנִיִּים. מוֹתַר עָנִי, לְאוֹתוֹ עָנִי. מוֹתַר שְׁבוּיִים, לַשְּׁבוּיִים. מוֹתַר שָׁבוּי, לְאוֹתוֹ שָׁבוּי. מוֹתַר הַמֵּתִים, לַמֵּתִים. מוֹתַר הַמֵּת, לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, מוֹתַר הַמֵּת, יְהֵא מֻנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר, מוֹתַר הַמֵּת בּוֹנִין לוֹ נֶפֶשׁ עַל קִבְרוֹ: \n", 3.4. "תָּרַם אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּמְחַפֶּה בִּקְטַבְלָאוֹת, שְׁנִיָּה וּמְחַפֶּה בִּקְטַבְלָאוֹת. שְׁלִישִׁית לֹא הָיָה מְחַפֶּה, שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁכַּח וְיִתְרֹם מִן הַדָּבָר הַתָּרוּם. תָּרַם אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה לְשֵׁם אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּשְׁנִיָּה לְשׁוּם כְּרַכִין הַמֻּקָּפִין לָהּ, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁית לְשׁוּם בָּבֶל וּלְשׁוּם מָדַי וּלְשׁוּם מְדִינוֹת הָרְחוֹקוֹת: \n", 4.2. "פָּרָה וְשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁל זְהוֹרִית, בָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִשְׁכָּה. כֶּבֶשׁ פָּרָה, וְכֶבֶשׁ שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁבֵּין קַרְנָיו, וְאַמַּת הַמַּיִם, וְחוֹמַת הָעִיר וּמִגְדְּלוֹתֶיהָ, וְכָל צָרְכֵי הָעִיר, בָּאִין מִשְּׁיָרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, כֶּבֶשׁ פָּרָה כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִשֶּׁל עַצְמָן: \n", | 2.5. "The surplus of [money set aside for] shekels is non-sacred property. The surplus of [money set aside for the] tenth of the ephah, and the surplus of [money set aside for] bird-offerings of zavim, for bird-offerings of zavot, for bird-offerings of women after childbirth, and sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, their surplus [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings. This is the general rule: all [money set aside] for a sin-offering or for a guilt-offering, the surplus [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings. The surplus of [money set aside for] a burnt-offering [must be used] for a burnt-offering. The surplus of [money set aside for] a meal-offering [must be used] for a meal-offering. The surplus of [money set aside for] a peace-offering [must be used] for a peace-offering. The surplus of [money set aside for] a pesach [must be used] for a wellbeing offering. The surplus of [money set aside for] the offerings of nazirites [must be used] for the offerings of other nazirites. The surplus of [money set aside for] the offerings of a [particular] nazirite [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings. The surplus of [money raised for] the poor [must be used] for other poor. The surplus of [money raised for] a [particular] poor person [must be given] to that [poor person]. The surplus of [money raised for the ransom of] captives [must be used] for [the ransom of other] captives. The surplus of [money raised for the ransom of] a [particular] captive [must be given] to that captive. The surplus of [the money raised for the burial of] the dead [must be used] for [the burial of other] dead. The surplus of [the money raised for the burial of] a [particular] dead person [must be given] to his heirs. Rabbi Meir says: the surplus of [money raised for the burial of] a [particular] dead person must be laid aside until Elijah comes. Rabbi Natan says: the surplus of [money raised for the burial of] a [particular] dead person [must be used] for building a monument for him over his grave.", 3.4. "[After] he made the first appropriation, he covers [what is left] with leather covers. [After he made the] second appropriation, he covers [what is left] with leather covers. [But after] the third appropriation he would not cover [what was left]. [And why would he cover?] Lest he should forget and make a [fresh] appropriation from shekels from which had already been appropriated. He would make the first appropriation on behalf of the Land of Israel, and the second on behalf of the surrounding cities, and the third on behalf of Babylon and on behalf of Medea and on behalf of [other] distant countries.", 4.2. "The [red] heifer and the scapegoat and the strip of scarlet came out of the appropriation of the chamber. The ramp for the [red] heifer and the ramp for the scapegoat and the strip of scarlet which was between its horns, and [the maintece of] the pool of water and the wall of the city and its towers and all the needs of the city came out of the remainder in the chamber. Abba Shaul says: the ramp for the [red] cow the high priests made out of their own [means].", |
|
21. Tosefta, Shekalim, 1.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice, atonement as Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 88| 1.6. "המפריש שקלו ואבד והפריש אחר תחתיו ולא הספיק להקריבו עד שנמצא הראשון והרי שניהן עומדין זה וזה שקלים הראשון יפול לחדתין והשני יפול לעתיקין המפריש שקלו [להוציאו] הרי זה מעל המוציא שקלו של חבירו הרי זה מעל לקח בו קיני זבין קיני זבות יולדות המביא את חטאתו אשמו מן ההקדש השוקל שקלי זוזין מן ההקדש כיון שלקח מעל דברי רבי [שמעון] וחכמים אומרים לא מעל עד שיזרקו הדמים.", | |
|
| 22. Tosefta, Zevahim, 8.17 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice, atonement as Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 88 |
23. Tosefta, Kippurim, 3.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice, atonement as Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 88| 3.8. "רבי יוסי אומר כך הוא אומר חטאו עוו פשעו לפניך עמך בית ישראל. כבש עושין מפני אלכסנדרין שהיו מתלשין בשערו ואומרין לו טול וצא טול וצא יקירי ירושלים מלוין אותו עד סוכה ראשונה [מפני שעשר] סוכות בתוך שנים עשר מילין היו דברי ר\"מ רבי יהודה אומר תשע סוכות בתוך עשרה מילין היו רבי יוסי אומר חמש סוכות בתוך עשרה מילין היו מערבין מזו לזו א\"ר יוסי בן ר' יהודה יכולני אני לעשותן שתי סוכות.", | |
|
24. Tosefta, Pesahim, 4.2, 5.3, 6.3-6.4, 6.10, 7.3-7.13, 8.7, 8.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 89, 161, 164, 180| 4.2. "כל הקדשים שהקריבן קודם תמיד של שחר או שעכבן אחר תמיד של בין הערבים [הרי אלו] פסולין שאין לך קודם תמיד של שחר אלא קטורת [ואין לך מתעכב] אחר תמיד של בין הערבים אלא קטורת ופסח בערבי פסחים ומחוסרי כפרה כדי [שיאכלו בפסחים לערב ר' ישמעאל ב\"ר] יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר מחוסרי כפרה [מביאין קרבנותיהן עם תמיד של בין הערבים כדי שיאכלו בקדשים לערב].", 5.3. "חגיגה הבאה עמו באה מן הצאן ומן הבקר ומן [הכשבים] ומן העזים מן הזכרים ומן הנקבות ובאה בת שנתה [בת] שתים ונאכלת לשני ימים ולילה אחד ואין חייבין עליה משום שבירת [העצם] חגיגה הבאה עמו היא נאכלת תחלה כדי שיהא פסח נאכל על השובע [חגיגה הבאה עמו] יוצא בה [ידי חובתו] משום שמחה ואין יוצא [ידי חובתו] משום חגיגה רשב\"א אומר חגיגה העולה עמו על השלחן ותבשילין העולים עמו על השלחן הרי אלו מתבערין עמו.", 6.3. "ר' יהושע אומר כל הזבחים שבתורה שנשתייר [מהן] כזית בשר [וכזית] חלב זורק את הדם [עליו כחצי] זית בשר [וכחצי] זית חלב אין זורק [הדם עליו בעולה אפילו לא נשתייר ממנה אלא כחצי] זית בשר [וכחצי] זית חלב זורק את הדם [עליה] מפני שכולה [ראויה להקטרה] ובמנחה אפי' [כל המנחה קיימת ולא נשתייר מן הזבח כזית בשר וכזית חלב אין זורק את הדם עליה] ובפסח אם יש כזית לכל אחד ואחד זורק ואם לאו לא יזרוק.", 6.4. "רבי יהושע אומר כל הזבחים שבתורה שנטמא [בשר] וחלבים קיימין זורק את הדם על החלבים נטמאו [חלבים] והבשר קיים זורק את הדם על הבשר אבל [פסח] אינו כן אע\"פ שנטמא [בשר] וחלבין קיימין אין זורק את הדם על החלבים שלא בא מתחלתו אלא לאכילה נטמאו [חלבים] והבשר קיים אם יש כזית לכל אחד ואחד יזרוק ואם לאו לא יזרוק.", 7.3. "יתום ששחטו עליו [אפטרופין] יאכל [ממקום] שהוא רוצה הומנה על אחד מהן אוכל [ממקום] שהומנה הומנה על שני פסחים [אוכל] מאיזה מהן [שנשחט בו] ראשון רבי שמעון אומר לעולם ממנין על הפסח עד שישחט ומושכין ידיהן ממנו עד שיזרוק עליו הדם.", 7.4. "לא ישחוט אדם על [ידי] בנו ובתו הגדולים [וע\"י] עבדו ושפחתו העברים ועל [ידי] אשתו אלא מדעתן אבל שוחט הוא על [ידי] בנו ובתו הקטנים ועל [ידי] עבדו ושפחתו הכנענים בין מדעתן ובין שלא מדעתן וכולן ששחטו לעצמן [או ששחט] רבן עליהן [אוכלין משל עצמן חוץ מן העבד שאוכל משל רבו] עבד עברי ומי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין אוכלין משל עצמן עבד של שני שותפין אוכל משל שניהן הומנה על אחד מהן אוכל ממקום שהומנה הומנה על שני פסחים אוכל מאיזה [מהן] שנשחט ראשון [או ששחטו] שניהם כאחד אוכל משל [רבו] שכח רבו מה אמר לו שניהם יצאו לבית השריפה וצריכין לעשות פסח שני רבי נתן אומר אין צריכין לעשות פסח שני שכבר נזרק הדם עליהן.", 7.5. "בני חבורה שנמנו על הפסח אם יש כזית לכל אחד ואחד יאכלו ואם לאו לא יאכלו נמנו עליו זה אחר זה הראשונים שיש להם יאכלו והאחרונים לא יאכלו וצריכין לעשות פסח שני דברי רבי רבי נתן אומר אין צריכין לעשות פסח שני שכבר נזרק עליהן הדם בני חבורה שרצו [להמנות] אחרים על [פסחן] הרשות בידן רצו [להמשך ולהמנות אחרים על פסחן הרשות בידם רצה] להמשך ולהמנות אחרים על חלקו הרשות בידו לעולם נמשכין והולכין ובלבד שנשתייר אחד מחבורה ראשונה דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר בין מחבורה ראשונה בין מחבורה אחרונה ובלבד שלא יניחו את פסחו כמות שהוא בני חבורה [רצו] להמנות אחרים על חלקן הרשות בידם [המעות] חולין רצו להמשך להמנות אחרים על חלקן הרשות בידם [המעות] חולין.", 7.6. "[הממנה אחרים על חלקו הרשות בידו המעות חולין רצה להמשך להמנות אחרים על חלקו הרשות בידו המעות חולין] הממנה אחרים על חגיגתו המעות חולין רצה להמשך ולמנות אחרים על חגיגתו המעות חולין.", 7.7. "המוכר עולתו ושלמיו לא עשה כלום [המעות גזל ביד בעלים] ואצ\"ל בחטאת ואשם בני חבורה שמתו מקצתן או שנטמאו מקצתן השאר אוכלין ואין חוששין בני חבורה שהיה [אחד בהן שהיו] ידיו [רפות] רשאין לומר לו טול חלקך [שלך] ולא מפני שהוא פסח אלא [אף בני חבורה שעשו חבול והיה בהן אחד שהיו ידיו רפות] רשאין לומר לו טול חלקך [שלך] רצו לעשות עמו טובה בא ואוכל [מהן] מצורע מוסגר שוחטין עליו בשביעי מוחלט שוחטין עליו בח' יולדת שוחטין עליה ביום מ' לזכר [ויום] פ' לנקבה וכולן שנטמאו בין לפני זריקת דמים בין לאחר זריקת דמים הרי הן כמפקח הגל וצריכין לעשות פסח שני רבי [ישמעאל ב\"ר] יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר [פעמים שהן כמפקח הגל ופעמים שאין מפקח הגל כיוצא בהן כיצד היה גל ארוך בדק בצד זה ונמצאת טומאה בצד השני הרי הן כיוצא בו וצריכין לעשות פסח שני וכולן שנטמאו לפני זריקת דמים הרי הן כיוצא בהן וצריכין לעשות פסח שני].", 7.8. "היה טמא בשעת שחיטה וטהור בשעת זריקה טהור בשעת שחיטה וטמא בשעת זריקה הרי זה אינו אוכל וצריך לעשות פסח שני חולה בשעת שחיטה ואינו יכול לאכול כזית [חלים בשעת זריקה ויכול לוכל כזית] חלים בשעת שחיטה ויכול [לוכל כזית חולה] בשעת זריקה ואינו יכול [לוכל] כזית הרי זה אינו אוכל וצריך לעשות פסח שני לעולם אינו יוצא ידי חובתו עד שיהא חלים בשעת שחיטה ובשעת זריקה וכולן ספק נזרק עליהם דם ספק לא נזרק עליהן דם ספק יש [בהן] כזית לכל אחד ואחד ספק אין [בהן] ספק טמאין ספק טהורין פטורין מלעשות פסח שני זה הכלל כל הספיקות פטורין מלעשות פסח שני רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר שומרת יום כנגד יום שנזרק עליה דם ואח\"כ ראתה הרי זה אינה אוכלת ופטורה מלעשות פסח שני שכבר יצתה בזריקה אבל ערל שנזרק עליו דם ואח\"כ מל ה\"ז אינו אוכל וחייב לעשות פסח שני.", 7.9. "אמר [ר\"א בר צדוק מודים בית שמאי ובית הלל בערל זר שמקבל הזאה ואוכל] על מה נחלקו על ערל נכרי שבית שמאי אומרים טובל ואוכל פסחו לערב ובה\"א הפורש מן הערלה כפורש מן הקבר אחד נכרי שמל ואחד שפחה שטבלה רבי אליעזר בר צדוק אומר [שטרדיוטות ושומרי] צירין [היו] בירושלים שטובלין ואוכלין פסחיהן לערב.", 8.7. "אלו דברים שבין פסח מצרים לפסח דורות פסח מצרים מקחו [בעשור] שחיטתו בי\"ד אין חייבין עליו כרת פסח [דורות חייבין עליו כרת פסח] מצרים לא נהגו בו דקין ותבלולין [אתנן ומחיר] משא\"כ בפסח דורות פסח מצרים נאמר בו (שמות י״ב:ד׳) ולקח הוא ושכנו מה שאין כן בפסח דורות ר\"ש אומר אומר אני אף בפסח דורות כן וכל כך למה כדי שלא יניח אדם שכנו הקרוב אל ביתו וילך ויעשה את פסחו אצל חבירו לקיים מה שנא' (משלי כ״ז:י׳) טוב שכן קרוב מאח רחוק פסח מצרים לא היה טעון דמים וחלבים לגבי מזבח מה שאין כן בפסח דורות פסח מצרים נאמר בו (שמות י״ב:כ״ב) והגעתם אל המשקוף ואל שתי המזוזות מה שאין כן בפסח דורות פסח מצרים נאמר בו (שם) ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בוקר מה שאין כן בפסח דורות פסח מצרים כל אחד ואחד שוחט בתוך ביתו פסח דורות כל ישראל שוחטין במקום אחד פסח מצרים מקום אכילה שם היתה לינה פסח דורות אוכלין במקום אחד ולנין במקום אחר אחד פסח מצרים ואחד פסח דורות מי שהיו לו עבדים שלא מלו ושפחות שלא טבלו מעכבין אותו מלאכול בפסח ראב\"י אומר אומר אני בפסח מצרים הכתוב מדבר.", | |
|
25. Tosefta, Menachot, 7.9, 13.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 33, 84| 7.9. "כיצד מחלק את השמן מנחה של עשרון אחד נותנין לה לוג. של ששים עשרון נותנין לה ששים לוג אבל קומץ לבונה קומץ אזכרה קומץ אחד לכולן ר' נחמיה ור' אלעזר כשם שהקומץ של לבונה ושל אזכרה קומץ אחד לכולן כך מנחה של עשרון א' ושל ששים עשרון לוג אחד לכולן שנאמר למנחה ולוג שמן לכל המנחה לוג שמן. כיצד מניף שלמי יחיד היה מפריש מהן שתי כליות ויותרת הכבד ואליה מן הכבש חזה ושוק ומוסיף עליהן הזרוע והלחיים ונותנין לידי הבעלים וכהן מניח ידו תחת ידי הבעלים ומוליך ומביא ומעלה ומוריד וכן היתה תנופתה. חזה ושוק וזרוע ותרומת הלחם נאכל לכהנים ויותרת הכבד ואליה וחזה ושוק נותנה לכהן אחר ומניח ידו תחת ידו של כהן ומוליך ומביא ומעלה ומוריד וכן היתה תנופתו וחזה ושוק נאכל לכהנים והשאר קרב לאשים.", | |
|
26. Mishnah, Arakhin, 5.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice, atonement as Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 88| 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.", |
|
| 27. Mishnah, Bikkurim, 3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice,of ritual narrative Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 186 |
| 28. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 84 |
| 29. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 107, 114, 118, 133, 143 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 33, 84 |
| 30. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 132, 129 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 89, 164 |
| 31. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 33 |
| 32. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Shimeon Ben Yohai, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice, of passover Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 161, 164 |
33. Tosefta, Kelim Baba Qamma, 7.6 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice, atonement as Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 88| 7.6. "אין מקיפין בקסטרון מפני שהוא פתיל ואינו צמיד ואם עשאו לחיזוק הרי זה מציל כפיתין של מורייס שנפתית עם השפה ושפתותיהן נראין אע\"פ שהטיט שוקע לתוכן מלא זרת אינן מצילין שכל מי שאינו מציל באהל המת באהל השרץ. רי\"א אין צמיד פתיל מבפנים וחכ\"א יש צמיד פתיל מבפנים כיצד חבית שניקבה וסתמוה שמרים רבי יהודה אומר אינה מצלת וחכ\"א מצלת נתקלפה והזפת שלה עומד ר' יהודה אומר אינה מצלת וחכ\"א מצלת.", | |
|
| 34. Palestinian Talmud, Pesahim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 180 |
35. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice, atonement as Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 88| 5a. אמר רב יוסף סמיכה איכא בינייהו למ"ד כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן סמיכה מעכבא למ"ד דבר שאין מעכב לדורות אין מעכב בהן סמיכה לא מעכבא,ולדורות מנא לן דלא מעכבא דתניא (ויקרא א, ד) וסמך ונרצה וכי סמיכה מכפרת והלא אין כפרה אלא בדם שנאמר (ויקרא יז, יא) כי הדם הוא בנפש יכפר,ומה ת"ל וסמך ונרצה שאם עשאה לסמיכה שירי מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו לא כפר וכפר,רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר תנופה איכא בינייהו למ"ד כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן מעכבא ולמ"ד דבר שאין מעכב לדורות אין מעכב בהן לא מעכבא,ולדורות מנא לן דלא מעכבא דתניא (ויקרא יד, כא) לתנופה לכפר וכי תנופה מכפרת והלא אין כפרה אלא בדם שנאמר כי הדם הוא בנפש יכפר ומה ת"ל לתנופה לכפר שאם עשאה לתנופה שירי מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו לא כפר וכפר,רב פפא אמר פרישת שבעה איכא בינייהו למ"ד כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן מעכבא למ"ד דבר שאינו מעכב לדורות אינו מעכב בהן לא מעכבא,ולדורות מנא לן דלא מעכבא מדקא תני מתקינין ולא קתני מפרישין,רבינא אמר ריבוי שבעה ומשיחה שבעה איכא בינייהו למ"ד כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן מעכבא למ"ד דבר שאין מעכב לדורות אין מעכב בהן לא מעכבא,ולדורות מנא לן דלא מעכבא דתניא (ויקרא טז, לב) וכפר הכהן אשר ימשח אותו ואשר ימלא את ידו לכהן תחת אביו מה תלמוד לומר,לפי שנאמר (שמות כט, ל) שבעת ימים ילבשם הכהן תחתיו מבניו אין לי אלא נתרבה שבעה ונמשח שבעה נתרבה שבעה ונמשח יום אחד נתרבה יום אחד ונמשח שבעה מניין תלמוד לומר אשר ימשח אותו ואשר ימלא את ידו מ"מ,אשכחן ריבוי שבעה לכתחלה משיחה שבעה לכתחלה מנא לן,איבעית אימא מדאיצטריך קרא למעוטה ואיבעית אימא דאמר קרא (שמות כט, כט) ובגדי הקדש אשר לאהרן יהיו לבניו אחריו למשחה בהם ולמלא בם את ידם איתקש משיחה לריבוי מה ריבוי שבעה אף משיחה שבעה,מאי טעמא דמ"ד כל הכתוב בהן מעכב אמר רבי יצחק בר ביסנא אמר קרא (שמות כט, לה) ועשית לאהרן ולבניו ככה ככה עיכובא הוא תינח כל | 5a. b Rav Yosef said: /b The practical difference b between them /b relates to the question of b placing hands /b on the head of an animal brought as an offering. According b to the one who said: /b Failure to perform b all /b the details b that are written in its /b regard, including details that do not invalidate offerings throughout the generations, b invalidates /b the inauguration, failure to perform the b placing /b of b hands /b on the head of the animal b also invalidates /b the inauguration. According b to the one who said: A matter that does not invalidate /b offerings b throughout the generations does not invalidate /b the inauguration, failure to perform the b placing /b of b hands /b on the head of the animal b does not invalidate /b the inauguration., b And /b with regard to the i halakhot /i of offerings that apply b throughout the generations /b the Gemara asks: b From where do we derive /b that failure to place hands on the head of the animal b does not invalidate /b the offering? The Gemara answers: b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that the verse states: b “And he shall place /b his hand on the head of the burnt-offering, b and it shall be accepted /b for him to atone on his behalf” (Leviticus 1:4). b Does /b the b placing /b of b hands atone /b for one’s sins? b Isn’t atonement /b accomplished b only by /b the sprinkling of b the blood, as it is stated: “For it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life” /b (Leviticus 17:11)?, b And /b for b what /b purpose, then, b does the verse state: “And he shall place…and it shall be accepted”? /b It teaches that if b one deemed /b the ritual of b placing hands /b to be b a peripheral aspect of the mitzva /b and consequently failed to perform it, b the verse ascribes to him /b status b as though he did not achieve /b optimal b atonement; and /b nevertheless, the offering b atones /b for his sins. Apparently, failure to lay hands on the head of the offering does not invalidate the offering throughout the generations, as atonement can be achieved without it. Nevertheless, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥa, failure to lay hands on the offering invalidates the offerings brought during the inauguration., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b The issue of b waving /b the offering is the practical difference b between /b the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Ḥanina. According b to the one who said: /b Failure to perform b all /b the details b that are written in its /b regard b invalidates /b the inauguration, failure to wave the offering also b invalidates /b the inauguration. b And /b according b to the one who said: A matter that does not invalidate /b offerings b throughout the generations does not invalidate /b the inauguration, failure to wave the offering b does not invalidate /b the inauguration., b And /b with regard to the i halakhot /i of offerings b throughout the generations, /b the Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive that failure to wave the offering b does not invalidate /b the offering? The Gemara answers: b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that the verse says: “He shall take one male lamb as a guilt-offering b to be waved to make atonement /b for him” (Leviticus 14:21). b Does waving /b the offering b atone /b for one’s sins? b Isn’t atonement /b accomplished b only by /b the sprinkling of b the blood, as it is stated: “For it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life” /b (Leviticus 17:11)? b And /b for b what /b purpose, then, b does the verse state: To be waved to make atonement? /b It teaches that if b one deemed /b the ritual of b waving /b to be b a peripheral aspect of the mitzva /b and therefore failed to perform it, b the verse ascribes to him /b status b as though he did not achieve /b optimal b atonement; and /b nevertheless, the offering b atones /b for his sins on his behalf., b Rav Pappa said: /b The issue of b sequestering /b the priest for b seven /b days is the practical difference b between /b the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Ḥanina. According b to the one who said: /b Failure to perform b all /b the details b that are written in its /b regard b invalidates /b the inauguration, failure to sequester the priest for seven days also b invalidates /b the inauguration. b And /b according b to the one who said: A matter that does not invalidate /b offerings b throughout the generations does not invalidate /b the inauguration, failure to sequester the priest for seven days b does not invalidate /b the inauguration., b And /b with regard to the i halakhot /i of offerings b throughout the generations, /b the Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive that failure to sequester the priest for seven days b does not invalidate /b the offering? The Gemara answers: It is derived b from the fact that it is taught /b in the mishna: And b they /b would b designate /b another priest in his stead, b and it is not taught: /b The Sages b remove /b the designated priest from his house, despite the possibility that ultimately he might replace the High Priest and perform the Yom Kippur service. Apparently, sequestering is not essential., b Ravina said: /b The issue of the priest performing the service with the b multiple /b garments of the High Priest for b seven /b days and serving with b anointment /b for b seven /b days is the practical difference b between /b the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Ḥanina. According b to the one who said: /b Failure to perform b all /b the details b that are written in its /b regard b invalidates /b the inauguration, failure to serve with multiple garments and anointment for seven days also b invalidates /b the inauguration. b And /b according b to the one who said: A matter that does not invalidate /b offerings b throughout the generations does not invalidate /b the inauguration, failure to serve with multiple garments and anointment for seven days b does not invalidate /b the inauguration., b And /b with regard to the i halakhot /i of offerings b throughout the generations, /b the Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive that failure to serve with multiple garments and anointment for seven days b does not invalidate /b the offering? The Gemara answers: b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : For b what /b purpose b does the verse state: “And the priest who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated to serve in his father’s stead shall make the atonement” /b (Leviticus 16:32)? If it comes to teach that all service must be performed by the High Priest, it is already written with regard to the Yom Kippur service that it must be performed by Aaron, the High Priest., b Since it is stated: “Seven days shall the son that is priest in his stead don them” /b (Exodus 29:30), b I /b derive b only /b that one who donned the b multiple /b garments of the High Priest for b seven /b days b and was anointed seven /b days assumes the position of High Priest and may perform the service on Yom Kippur. However, with regard to whether one who donned the b multiple /b garments for b seven /b days b and was anointed /b for b one /b day, or one who donned the b multiple /b garments for b one /b day b and was anointed /b for b seven /b days is thereby inaugurated as High Priest, b from where /b are those cases derived? Therefore, b the verse states: “Who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated”; in any case /b he is appointed High Priest, even if either anointment or donning the garments did not continue for seven days.,The Gemara asks: b We found /b a source for the fact that when the High Priest is appointed, there is a requirement of donning b multiple /b garments for b seven /b days b i ab initio /i ; /b however, b from where do we /b derive the requirement of b anointment /b for b seven /b days b i ab initio /i ? /b According to Ravina, there is a requirement to anoint the priest on each of the seven days i ab initio /i , even though failure to do so does not invalidate the offering throughout the generations. From where is that requirement derived?, b If you wish, say: /b It is derived b from /b the fact b that the verse: /b “And the priest who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated to serve in his father’s stead shall make the atonement,” b is necessary to exclude /b requirements derived from other sources, i.e., that both donning multiple garments and anointment must be for seven days. Apparently, anointment for seven days is required i ab initio /i . b And if you wish, say /b instead that it is derived from b that /b which b the verse states: “And the sacred garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him, to be anointed in them and to be consecrated in them” /b (Exodus 29:29). b Anointment is juxtaposed /b in this verse b to /b donning b multiple /b garments: b Just as /b donning b multiple /b garments is required b for seven /b days i ab initio /i , b so too, anointment /b is required b for seven /b days i ab initio /i .,§ After ascertaining the halakhic distinctions between the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Ḥanina with regard to the inauguration, the Gemara proceeds to analyze the rationales for those opinions. b What is the reason /b for the opinion b of the one who said: /b Failure to perform b all /b the details b that are written in its /b regard b invalidates /b the inauguration? b Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Bisna said /b that b the verse states: “And so shall you do to Aaron and to his sons /b according to all that I have commanded you, seven days shall you consecrate them” (Exodus 29:35). The term: b So, /b teaches that failure to perform the ritual precisely in this manner b invalidates /b the inauguration. The Gemara asks: That works out b well /b as a source that b all /b |
|
36. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice, atonement as Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 88 | 93b. The Gemara answers: He holds that b one derives /b the i halakhot /i of the offering of b an individual from /b the i halakhot /i of another offering of b an individual, /b such as the burnt offering of appearance, b and one does not derive /b the i halakhot /i of the offering of b an individual from /b the i halakhot /i of b a communal /b offering, e.g., the bull brought for a community-wide violation.,The Gemara asks: b And according to the one who said /b that the exclusion of a blind person is derived b from /b the placing of hands performed by the b Elders of /b the b congregation, what is the reason /b that b he does not derive /b this b from /b the b burnt offering of appearance? /b The Gemara answers: He holds that b one derives /b the i halakhot /i of b a matter /b concerning b which /b the requirement of b placing hands is /b explicitly b written with regard to /b that case b itself, /b as is the case in the passage detailing the general requirement of placing hands, b from /b another b matter /b concerning b which placing hands is /b also explicitly b written with regard to /b that case b itself, /b as is the case in the passage describing the bull brought for a community-wide violation of a sin. This serves b to exclude /b the possibility of deriving the i halakhot /i from those of the b burnt offering of appearance, as /b the requirement to place hands upon it is not explicitly written in the Torah with regard to it, but rather b it itself is derived from /b the requirement stated with regard to b a voluntary burnt offering. /b ,This is b as a i tanna /i taught /b in a i baraita /i b in the presence of Rav Yitzḥak bar Abba: /b With regard to the obligatory offering brought by Aaron the High Priest on the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, it is written: b “And the burnt offering was presented, and he sacrificed in accordance with the ordice” /b (Leviticus 9:16). This last phrase means: b In accordance with the ordice of a voluntary burnt offering. /b Accordingly, this verse b teaches about /b every b obligatory burnt offering, /b including the burnt offering of appearance, b that it requires placing hands, /b just as a voluntary burnt offering does.,§ The mishna states: A Canaanite b slave, the agent /b of the owner of the offering who brings the offering on his behalf, b and a woman /b do not place hands on their offerings. Concerning these i halakhot /i , b the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The term “his hand” is mentioned three times in Leviticus, chapter 3, which details the requirement of placing hands. Each mention is expounded to exclude a different case. b “His hand” /b (Leviticus 3:2), b but not the hand of his /b Canaanite b slave; “his hand” /b (Leviticus 3:8), b but not the hand of his agent; “his hand” /b (Leviticus 3:13), b but not the hand of his wife. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Why do I /b need b all these /b three exclusions? The Gemara explains that all three mentions b are necessary, /b as b had the Merciful One written /b only b one /b exclusion, b I would say /b that it serves b to exclude /b only a Canaanite b slave, as /b since b he is not commanded in mitzvot /b it is reasonable that he cannot perform the rite of placing hands. b But /b with regard to b an agent, since he is commanded in mitzvot, and /b there is a principle that the halakhic status of b a person’s agent is like /b that of b himself, /b one might b say /b that he b could place /b his b hands /b on the offering of the owner on the owner’s behalf, and thereby fulfill the requirement. Therefore, it is necessary to have an independent source to exclude an agent., b And had /b the Merciful One b taught us /b only b these two /b i halakhot /i , one would have excluded only a Canaanite slave and an agent, b as they are not considered like his own flesh. But /b with regard to b his wife, who is considered like his own flesh, /b one might b say /b that b she places /b her b hands /b on her husband’s offering. Therefore, the third mention is b necessary /b to teach that even a wife cannot fulfill the requirement on behalf of her husband.,§ The mishna states: The requirement of b placing hands is a non-essential mitzva. The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b “And he shall place his hand /b upon the head of the burnt offering, b and it shall be accepted for him /b to effect atonement for him” (Leviticus 1:4). The i baraita /i asks: b But does /b the rite of b placing hands effect atonement? Isn’t atonement /b effected b only through /b the presentation of the b blood? As it is stated /b with regard to blood: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to effect atonement for your souls, b for it is the blood of the soul that effects atonement” /b (Leviticus 17:11). b Rather, /b the verse serves b to say to you that if one treated placing hands /b as though it were b a non-essential mitzva /b and therefore neglected to perform it, then b the verse ascribes him /b blame b as though he did not effect atonement; but /b nevertheless, in actuality, the offering b atones /b for his sin and he does not need to bring another offering., b And it is taught /b in a i baraita /i b with regard to waving in this way: /b “He shall take one male lamb as a guilt offering b to be waved to effect atonement /b for him” (Leviticus 14:21). The i baraita /i asks: b Does waving /b the offering b effect atonement? Isn’t atonement /b effected b only through /b the presentation of b the blood? As it is stated: “For it is the blood of the soul that effects atonement” /b (Leviticus 17:11). b Rather, /b the verse serves b to say to you that if one treated waving /b as though it were b a non-essential mitzva /b and therefore neglected to perform it, then b the verse ascribes him /b blame b as though he did not effect atonement; but /b nevertheless, in actuality, the offering b effects atonement /b for his sin and he does not need to bring another offering.,§ The mishna further states that that placing hands is performed by leaning b on the head /b of the offering. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The phrase “his hand upon the head” is mentioned three times in Leviticus, chapter 3. Each mention is expounded to exclude the possibility of performing the rite on a different part of the animal’s body. Placing hands is performed with b “his hand upon the head” /b (Leviticus 3:2), b but not /b with b his hand on the neck /b of the animal; with b “his hand upon the head” /b (Leviticus 3:8), b but not /b with b his hand on the back /b of the animal; with b “his hand upon the head” /b (Leviticus 3:13), b but not /b with b his hand on the breast /b of the animal.,The Gemara asks: b Why do I /b need b all these /b three exclusions? The Gemara explains that all three mentions b are necessary, /b as b had the Merciful One written /b only b one /b exclusion, b I would say /b that it serves b to exclude /b only the animal’s b neck, as it is not level with the head of /b the animal. b But /b with regard to b its back, which is level with its head, /b one might b say /b that it is b not /b precluded and that one can fulfill the requirement by placing one’s hands there. Therefore, it is b necessary /b to have an independent source to exclude the animal’s back., b And had /b the Torah b taught us /b only b these two /b i halakhot /i , one would have excluded only the neck and the back, b as /b those parts are b not included in /b the b waving /b of the offering, i.e., they are not waved. b But /b with regard to the animal’s b breast, which is included in the waving /b of the offering, one might say that it is b not /b precluded and that one can fulfill the requirement by placing one’s hands there. Therefore, the third mention is b necessary /b to teach that placing hands cannot be performed even on the animal’s breast., b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: If one placed b his hand on the sides /b of the animal’s head, b what is /b the i halakha /i ; does one fulfill the requirement of placing hands by doing so? The Gemara answers: b Come /b and b hear, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Abba Bira’a, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, says /b that the verse: “And he shall place b his hand upon the head of /b the burnt offering” (Leviticus 1:4), indicates that it must be done with his hand b on /b the top of b its head and not /b with b his hand on the sides /b of its head., b Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: /b If one’s hands were wrapped in b a cloth, what is /b the i halakha /i as b to /b whether the cloth is regarded as b an interposition /b between his hands and the animal such that it invalidates the rite? The Gemara answers: b Come /b and b hear /b a resolution from a i baraita /i , which states: The rite is valid b provided that there is no item that interposes between him and the offering. /b ,§ The mishna adds that the placing of hands is performed b with two hands. /b The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? b Reish Lakish said: As the verse states /b with regard to the Yom Kippur service: b “And Aaron shall place both his hands [ i yadav /i ] /b upon the head of the live goat” (Leviticus 16:21). The word i yadav /i , meaning: His hands, is written without a second i yod /i , and so if read without vowels it reads as: b His hand. But it is /b also b written “both,” /b which makes clear that the intention is that he must use both of his hands. b This established a paradigm /b that in b any place where it is stated /b in the Torah: b His hand, there are here two /b hands, b unless the verse /b explicitly b specifies /b that there is only b one. /b ,The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Elazar went and stated this i halakha /i in the study hall, but he did not say it in the name of Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish heard /b about this b and became angry. /b He b said to /b Rabbi Elazar: b If it enters your mind /b that b wherever it is written: His hand, /b the meaning is that b there are /b actually b two /b hands, then b why do I /b ever need the Torah b to write: His hands, his hands, /b i.e., i yadav /i in the plural, which it does on numerous occasions?,Reish Lakish b raised objections against him /b from b twenty-four /b occasions where the Torah writes: b His hands, /b for example: b “His own hands [ i yadav /i ] shall bring /b the offerings of the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30); b “his hands [ i yadav /i ] shall contend for him, /b and You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7); b “Guiding his hands [ i yadav /i ] wittingly, /b for Manasseh was the firstborn” (Genesis 48:14). Rabbi Elazar b was silent, /b as he had no response., b After /b Reish Lakish had b calmed down, he said to /b Rabbi Elazar: b What is the reason /b that b you did not say to me /b the following: When I established that paradigm, b I was speaking /b only about the term: b His hands [ i yadav /i ], with regard to placing hands. /b But with regard to other i halakhot /i , when the Torah says “his hand” the reference is to just one hand, and so when referring to two hands it must say “his hands.”,The Gemara asks: But b also with regard to placing hands it is written, /b concerning Moses’ ordination of Joshua: b “And he placed his hands [ i yadav /i ] upon him /b and gave him a charge” (Numbers 27:23), using the plural “his hands” [ i yadav /i ] instead of: His hand [ i yado /i ]. The Gemara clarifies that Reish Lakish meant that one could say: When I established that paradigm, b I was speaking /b only about the term: His hands [ i yadav /i ], b with regard to placing hands /b on b an animal /b offering. But in all other cases, if the intention is that there were two hands, the plural must be used.,§ The mishna teaches: b And in the /b same b location /b in the Temple b that one places hands, one slaughters /b the animal. b And immediately following /b the rite of b placing hands, /b the b slaughter /b is performed. The Gemara asks: b What is /b the mishna b saying? /b The mishna appears to state two distinct rulings. But if so, the first statement is superfluous, because if the slaughter immediately follows the placing of hands, then it is obvious that the animal is slaughtered without changing its location. The Gemara explains that b this /b is what the mishna b is saying: In the /b same b location /b in the Temple b that one places hands one slaughters /b the animal, b because immediately following /b the rite of b placing hands, /b the b slaughter /b is performed. There are not two distinct rulings; rather, the second statement is the explanation of the first., strong MISHNA: /strong There is an aspect of greater b stringency with regard to placing hands than /b there is b with regard to waving, and /b there is an aspect of greater stringency b with regard to waving than /b there is b with regard to placing hands. /b The stringency with regard to placing hands is b that /b if several people are partners in bringing an offering, b one /b of them b waves /b the offering b on behalf of all the /b other b partners, but one cannot /b fulfill the requirement of placing hands if he alone b places hands on behalf of all the /b other b partners; /b rather, each member must place hands himself. b The stringency with regard to waving /b is b that waving is practiced in /b the cases of both b offerings of an individual, /b e.g., peace offerings, where the breast and thigh and sacrificial portions are waved, b and in /b the cases of b communal offerings, /b e.g., the two lambs sacrificed on i Shavuot /i , which are waved together with the two loaves; |
|
38. Babylonian Talmud, Zevahim, None Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice, atonement as Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 88| 6a. ושותפין לא מצו ממירין אלא אי אמרת לא קניא להו אמורי נמי לימרו,שאני התם דאמר קרא (ויקרא כז, י) אם המר ימיר לרבות את היורש אחד ממיר ואין שנים ממירין,מתקיף לה רב יעקב מנהר פקוד אלא מעתה גבי מעשר דכתיב (ויקרא כז, יג) ואם גאל יגאל לרבות את היורש הכי נמי אחד גואל ואין שנים גואלין,שאני מעשר דגבי אבוהון נמי איתיה בשותפות,אמר ליה רב אסי לרב אשי ומינה אי אמרת בשלמא קניא להו היינו דחד מיהא מימר אלא אי אמרת לא קניא להו היכי מימר,והאמר רבי אבהו אמר ר' יוחנן המקדיש מוסיף חומש ומתכפר עושה תמורה והתורם משלו על של חבירו טובת הנאה שלו,מקיבעא לא מכפרא מקופיא מכפרא:,איבעיא להו כיפרו על מה שבאו או לא כיפרו,אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי מסתברא דלא כיפרו דאי סלקא דעתך כיפרו שני למה הוא בא,ואלא מאי לא כיפרו למה הוא קרב,אמר רב אשי רב שישא בריה דרב אידי הכי קא קשיא ליה אי אמרת בשלמא לא כיפרו שלא לשמו מכח לשמו קאתי ושני למה הוא בא לכפר אלא אי אמרת כיפרו שני למה הוא בא:,איבעיא להו אעשה דלאחר הפרשה מכפרא או לא מכפרא,מי אמרינן מידי דהוה אחטאת מה חטאת דקודם הפרשה אין דלאחר הפרשה לא אף הכא נמי דקודם הפרשה אין לאחר הפרשה לא,או דלמא לא דמיא לחטאת דחטאת על כל חטא וחטא בעי לאיתויי חדא חטאת והכא כיון דאיכא כמה עשה גביה מכפרא אעשה דלאחר הפרשה נמי מכפרא,תא שמע (ויקרא א, ד) וסמך ונרצה וכי סמיכה מכפרת והלא אין כפרה אלא בדם שנאמר (ויקרא יז, יא) כי הדם הוא בנפש יכפר אלא מה תלמוד לומר וסמך ונרצה לכפר שאם עשאה לסמיכה שירי מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו לא כיפר וכיפר,מאי לאו דכיפר עשה דקודם הפרשה לא כיפר אעשה דסמיכה דהוה ליה עשה דלאחר הפרשה,אמר רבא עשה דסמיכה קאמרת שאני התם דכל כמה דלא שחיט בעמוד וסמוך קאי אימת קא הוי עשה לאחר שחיטה לאחר שחיטה לא קא מיבעיא לן,א"ל רב הונא בר יהודה לרבא אימא כיפר גברא | 6a. b and partners cannot effect substitution /b of other animals for their offering. b But if you say /b that it is b not acquired by them, /b and the animal is the property solely of the deceased father, b let them also effect substitution /b on his behalf, as heirs are able to affect substitution for their deceased parents’ offerings.,The Gemara answers: b There it is different, as /b although b the verse states: “If he shall at all change [ i hamer yamir /i ] /b animal for animal” (Leviticus 27:10), the superfluous word i hamer /i serving b to include the heir /b as one who is able to effect substitution, nevertheless the subject’s singular form teaches that only b one /b heir b can effect substitution, but two /b heirs b cannot effect substitution. /b , b Rav Ya’akov of Nehar Pekod objects to this /b derivation: b If that is so, /b one should say the same b with regard to /b the redemption of the second b tithe, as it is written: “And if /b a man b will redeem [ i gaol yigal /i ] /b any of his tithe, he shall add to it the fifth part thereof” (Leviticus 27:31), with the superfluous word i gaol /i serving b to include the heir /b as one who must add the one-fifth. b So too, /b it should be derived from the verb’s singular form that if b one /b heir b redeems /b the tithe, he must add one-fifth of its value, b but /b if b two /b heirs b redeem /b it, b they do not /b need to add one-fifth. In fact, the i halakha /i is that partners must also add one-fifth.,The Gemara answers: Redemption of the b tithe is different, as /b the b father had /b the ability to redeem the tithe b even in partnership /b with another when alive. Therefore, the heirs can do so as well. By contrast, substitution of an offering cannot be effected by partners., b Rav Asi said to Rav Ashi: But from /b this i halakha /i b itself, /b that two heirs cannot effect substitution of an offering, it can be proven that they acquire the offering of the deceased. b Granted, if you say /b it is b acquired by them, this is /b the reason b that one /b heir, b in any event, can effect substitution /b of another animal for the offering. b But if you say /b it is b not acquired by them, how can /b even one heir b effect substitution? /b , b But doesn’t Rabbi Abbahu say /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b If b one consecrates /b his own animal to atone for someone else and he then redeems it, he b adds one-fifth /b of its value, as he would for any other offering he owned, but if the one for whom it atones redeems it, he need not add one-fifth, since he is not the owner. Nevertheless, only the b one for whom /b the offering b atones can render /b another animal b a substitute /b for it, as in this respect only he is considered its owner. Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement concludes: b And /b if b one separates i teruma /i from his /b own produce b to /b exempt the produce b of another /b from the obligation to have teruma separated from it, b the benefit of discretion is his. /b Only the one who separated the i teruma /i is entitled to determine which priest receives it. Since an heir is able to effect substitution, apparently the offering atones for his transgression. This supports the claim that the heir acquires the offering.,Rav Ashi responds: The offering b does not atone /b for the transgressions of the heirs b by /b its b essence, /b as it was not consecrated for their atonement, and they do not acquire it. Therefore, two heirs of a meal offering can bring it, as explained above. Yet, it b does atone /b for them b incidentally [ i mikkufeya /i ]. /b Therefore, an heir can effect substitution of another animal for it.,§ With regard to the i halakha /i that offerings slaughtered not for their sake are fit to be sacrificed but do not satisfy the obligations of their owners, b a dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: After these offerings are sacrificed, b did they atone for /b the sins for b which they came, or did they not atone /b for them?, b Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: It stands to reason that they did not atone, as, if it enters your mind /b that b they did atone, for what /b purpose b is /b the b second /b offering b brought? /b Why is the owner required to bring another offering if the first atoned for his sin?,The Gemara challenges this reasoning: b Rather, what /b is the alternative? That b they did not atone? /b If so, b for what /b purpose b is /b the first offering b sacrificed? /b , b Rav Ashi said: This /b is what is b difficult for Rav Sheisha, /b i.e., Rav Sheshet, b son of Rav Idi: Granted, if you say /b that such an offering b did not atone, /b it b is brought /b even when slaughtered b not for its sake on the strength of /b its prior consecration b for its sake. And /b in that case, b for what /b purpose b is /b the b second /b offering b brought? /b It is brought b to atone /b for the sin. b But if you say /b that offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake b atoned /b for the sin, b for what /b purpose b is /b the b second /b offering b brought? /b ,§ b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: When one brings a burnt offering, which atones for violations of positive mitzvot, b does it atone /b even b for /b a violation of b a positive mitzva that /b one committed b after designating /b the animal as an offering, b or does it not atone /b for such a violation?,The Gemara elaborates: b Do we say /b that the i halakha /i in this case is b just as it is with regard to a sin offering, /b in that b just as a sin offering does /b atone for a sin b that /b one committed b before designation /b of the animal but does b not /b atone for a sin b that /b one committed b after designation, here too, /b a burnt offering b does /b atone for violations b that /b one committed b before designation /b but does b not /b atone for those committed b after designation? /b , b Or, perhaps /b a burnt offering is b not similar to a sin offering, as /b with regard to b a sin offering one must bring one sin offering for each and every sin /b he commits. b But here, since /b a burnt offering b atones /b even for one who b has /b committed b several /b violations of b positive mitzvot, /b one may claim that b it also atones /b even b for /b the violation of b a positive mitzva that /b one committed b after designation /b of the animal.,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b proof from a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And he shall place /b his hand on the head of the burnt offering, b and it shall be accepted /b for him to atone for him” (Leviticus 1:4). b And does placing hands atone /b for one’s sins? b But isn’t atonement /b achieved b only by /b the sprinkling of b the blood, as it is stated: “For it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life” /b (Leviticus 17:11)? b Rather, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: “And he shall place…and it shall be accepted /b for him b to atone”? /b This teaches b that if one deemed /b the ritual of b placing hands /b to be b a non-essential mitzva /b and consequently failed to perform it, b the verse ascribes to him /b blame b as though /b the offering b did not atone /b for his sins; b and /b nevertheless, the offering b atoned /b for his sins., b What, /b does the final clause of the i baraita /i b not /b mean b that /b the offer-ing b atoned /b for the violation of any b positive mitzva that /b the owner committed b before designation /b of the animal, but b it did not atone for /b violation of b the positive mitzva of placing hands /b on the head of the offering, b as that constitutes /b a violation of b a positive mitzva after designation /b of the animal? Apparently, a burnt offering does not atone for the violations committed after the animal’s designation., b Rava said /b in response: b You say /b that b the positive mitzva of placing hands /b is proof? b There it is different, since as long as he does not slaughter /b the offering, b he remains /b obligated b to stand and place /b his b hands /b on its head. He has not yet violated the mitzva. b When does /b the violation of this b positive mitzva occur? /b It occurs b after /b the b slaughter, /b at which point fulfillment of the mitzva is no longer possible. And with regard to a violation committed b after /b the b slaughter, we do not raise the dilemma; /b clearly a burnt offering does not atone for such a violation., b Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava: Say /b the i baraita /i means that the offering b atoned /b for the transgression of b the person, /b |
|
| 39. Anon., Sifre Zuta Numbers, 9.2, 9.7, 28.2 Tagged with subjects: •purpose of sacrifice, of passover •purpose of sacrifice Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 33, 84, 167, 180 |
