1. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 16.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 194| 16.5. "תּוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה כָּל־גְּבַהּ־לֵב יָד לְיָד לֹא יִנָּקֶה׃", | 16.5. "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD; My hand upon it! he shall not be unpunished.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Malachi, 1.13 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 192| 1.13. "וַאֲמַרְתֶּם הִנֵּה מַתְּלָאָה וְהִפַּחְתֶּם אוֹתוֹ אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת וַהֲבֵאתֶם גָּזוּל וְאֶת־הַפִּסֵּחַ וְאֶת־הַחוֹלֶה וַהֲבֵאתֶם אֶת־הַמִּנְחָה הַאֶרְצֶה אוֹתָהּ מִיֶּדְכֶם אָמַר יְהוָה׃", | 1.13. "Ye say also: ‘Behold, what a weariness is it!’ And ye have snuffed at it, Saith the LORD of hosts; And ye have brought that which was taken by violence, And the lame, and the sick; Thus ye bring the offering; Should I accept this of your hand? Saith the LORD.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 2.1, 10.10, 15.16, 19.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis •ritual impurity, of temple, at qumran Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 109, 154, 188, 194| 2.1. "וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת מִן־הַמִּנְחָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים מֵאִשֵּׁי יְהוָה׃", 2.1. "וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי־תַקְרִיב קָרְבַּן מִנְחָה לַיהוָה סֹלֶת יִהְיֶה קָרְבָּנוֹ וְיָצַק עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְנָתַן עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה׃", 15.16. "וְאִישׁ כִּי־תֵצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת־זָרַע וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם אֶת־כָּל־בְּשָׂרוֹ וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃", 19.15. "לֹא־תַעֲשׂוּ עָוֶל בַּמִּשְׁפָּט לֹא־תִשָּׂא פְנֵי־דָל וְלֹא תֶהְדַּר פְּנֵי גָדוֹל בְּצֶדֶק תִּשְׁפֹּט עֲמִיתֶךָ׃", | 2.1. "And when any one bringeth a meal-offering unto the LORD, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon.", 10.10. "And that ye may put difference between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean;", 15.16. "And if the flow of seed go out from a man, then he shall bathe all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.", 19.15. "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favour the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 23.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 195| 23.19. "רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ תָּבִיא בֵּית יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא־תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ׃", | 23.19. "The choicest first-fruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 17.1, 21.1-21.9, 22.10, 23.10-23.11, 23.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis •ritual impurity, of temple, at qumran Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 154, 182, 191, 193, 194| 17.1. "לֹא־תִזְבַּח לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בוֹ מוּם כֹּל דָּבָר רָע כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ הוּא׃", 17.1. "וְעָשִׂיתָ עַל־פִּי הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יַגִּידוּ לְךָ מִן־הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה וְשָׁמַרְתָּ לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ׃", 21.1. "כִּי־יִמָּצֵא חָלָל בָּאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ לְרִשְׁתָּהּ נֹפֵל בַּשָּׂדֶה לֹא נוֹדַע מִי הִכָּהוּ׃", 21.1. "כִּי־תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה עַל־אֹיְבֶיךָ וּנְתָנוֹ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּיָדֶךָ וְשָׁבִיתָ שִׁבְיוֹ׃", 21.2. "וְיָצְאוּ זְקֵנֶיךָ וְשֹׁפְטֶיךָ וּמָדְדוּ אֶל־הֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹת הֶחָלָל׃", 21.2. "וְאָמְרוּ אֶל־זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ בְּנֵנוּ זֶה סוֹרֵר וּמֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ זוֹלֵל וְסֹבֵא׃", 21.3. "וְהָיָה הָעִיר הַקְּרֹבָה אֶל־הֶחָלָל וְלָקְחוּ זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הַהִוא עֶגְלַת בָּקָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא־עֻבַּד בָּהּ אֲשֶׁר לֹא־מָשְׁכָה בְּעֹל׃", 21.4. "וְהוֹרִדוּ זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הַהִוא אֶת־הָעֶגְלָה אֶל־נַחַל אֵיתָן אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יֵעָבֵד בּוֹ וְלֹא יִזָּרֵעַ וְעָרְפוּ־שָׁם אֶת־הָעֶגְלָה בַּנָּחַל׃", 21.5. "וְנִגְּשׁוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי לֵוִי כִּי בָם בָּחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְשָׁרְתוֹ וּלְבָרֵךְ בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה וְעַל־פִּיהֶם יִהְיֶה כָּל־רִיב וְכָל־נָגַע׃", 21.6. "וְכֹל זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הַהִוא הַקְּרֹבִים אֶל־הֶחָלָל יִרְחֲצוּ אֶת־יְדֵיהֶם עַל־הָעֶגְלָה הָעֲרוּפָה בַנָּחַל׃", 21.7. "וְעָנוּ וְאָמְרוּ יָדֵינוּ לֹא שפכה [שָׁפְכוּ] אֶת־הַדָּם הַזֶּה וְעֵינֵינוּ לֹא רָאוּ׃", 21.8. "כַּפֵּר לְעַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר־פָּדִיתָ יְהוָה וְאַל־תִּתֵּן דָּם נָקִי בְּקֶרֶב עַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנִכַּפֵּר לָהֶם הַדָּם׃", 21.9. "וְאַתָּה תְּבַעֵר הַדָּם הַנָּקִי מִקִּרְבֶּךָ כִּי־תַעֲשֶׂה הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה׃", 23.11. "כִּי־יִהְיֶה בְךָ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִהְיֶה טָהוֹר מִקְּרֵה־לָיְלָה וְיָצָא אֶל־מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה לֹא יָבֹא אֶל־תּוֹךְ הַמַּחֲנֶה׃", 23.19. "לֹא־תָבִיא אֶתְנַן זוֹנָה וּמְחִיר כֶּלֶב בֵּית יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְכָל־נֶדֶר כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ גַּם־שְׁנֵיהֶם׃", | 17.1. "Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God an ox, or a sheep, wherein is a blemish, even any evil thing; for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.", 21.1. "If one be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath smitten him;", 21.2. "then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain.", 21.3. "And it shall be, that the city which is nearest unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke.", 21.4. "And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which may neither be plowed nor sown, and shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley.", 21.5. "And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near—for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto Him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and according to their word shall every controversy and every stroke be.", 21.6. "And all the elders of that city, who are nearest unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley.", 21.7. "And they shall speak and say: ‘Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.", 21.8. "Forgive, O LORD, Thy people Israel, whom Thou hast redeemed, and suffer not innocent blood to remain in the midst of Thy people Israel.’ And the blood shall be forgiven them.", 21.9. "So shalt thou put away the innocent blood from the midst of thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD.", 22.10. "Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.", 23.10. "When thou goest forth in camp against thine enemies, then thou shalt keep thee from every evil thing.", 23.11. "If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of that which chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp.", 23.19. "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow; for even both these are an abomination unto the LORD thy God. .", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 9.10-9.13, 19.10-19.13 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 183| 9.11. "בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם יַעֲשׂוּ אֹתוֹ עַל־מַצּוֹת וּמְרֹרִים יֹאכְלֻהוּ׃", 9.12. "לֹא־יַשְׁאִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד־בֹּקֶר וְעֶצֶם לֹא יִשְׁבְּרוּ־בוֹ כְּכָל־חֻקַּת הַפֶּסַח יַעֲשׂוּ אֹתוֹ׃", 9.13. "וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־הוּא טָהוֹר וּבְדֶרֶךְ לֹא־הָיָה וְחָדַל לַעֲשׂוֹת הַפֶּסַח וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מֵעַמֶּיהָ כִּי קָרְבַּן יְהוָה לֹא הִקְרִיב בְּמֹעֲדוֹ חֶטְאוֹ יִשָּׂא הָאִישׁ הַהוּא׃", 19.11. "הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמֵת לְכָל־נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם וְטָמֵא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים׃", 19.12. "הוּא יִתְחַטָּא־בוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי יִטְהָר וְאִם־לֹא יִתְחַטָּא בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי לֹא יִטְהָר׃", 19.13. "כָּל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמֵת בְּנֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר־יָמוּת וְלֹא יִתְחַטָּא אֶת־מִשְׁכַּן יְהוָה טִמֵּא וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל כִּי מֵי נִדָּה לֹא־זֹרַק עָלָיו טָמֵא יִהְיֶה עוֹד טֻמְאָתוֹ בוֹ׃", | 9.10. "’Speak unto the children of Israel, saying: If any man of you or of your generations shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto the LORD;", 9.11. "in the second month on the fourteenth day at dusk they shall keep it; they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs;", 9.12. "they shall leave none of it unto the morning, nor break a bone thereof; according to all the statute of the passover they shall keep it.", 9.13. "But the man that is clean, and is not on a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, that soul shall be cut off from his people; because he brought not the offering of the LORD in its appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.", 19.10. "And he that gathereth the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even; and it shall be unto the children of Israel, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among them, for a statute for ever.", 19.11. "He that toucheth the dead, even any man’s dead body, shall be unclean seven days;", 19.12. "the same shall purify himself therewith on the third day and on the seventh day, and he shall be clean; but if he purify not himself the third day and the seventh day, he shall not be clean.", 19.13. "Whosoever toucheth the dead, even the body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself—he hath defiled the tabernacle of the LORD—that soul shall be cut off from Israel; because the water of sprinkling was not dashed against him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 61.8 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 192| 61.8. "כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה אֹהֵב מִשְׁפָּט שֹׂנֵא גָזֵל בְּעוֹלָה וְנָתַתִּי פְעֻלָּתָם בֶּאֱמֶת וּבְרִית עוֹלָם אֶכְרוֹת לָהֶם׃", | 61.8. "For I the LORD love justice, I hate robbery with iniquity; And I will give them their recompense in truth, And I will make an everlasting covet with them.", |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, 2 Kings, 21.16 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 183| 21.16. "וְגַם דָּם נָקִי שָׁפַךְ מְנַשֶּׁה הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד עַד אֲשֶׁר־מִלֵּא אֶת־יְרוּשָׁלִַם פֶּה לָפֶה לְבַד מֵחַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר הֶחֱטִיא אֶת־יְהוּדָה לַעֲשׂוֹת הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה׃", | 21.16. "Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; beside his sin wherewith he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.", |
|
9. Hebrew Bible, 1 Samuel, 2.15-2.17, 2.22 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 181, 182| 2.15. "גַּם בְּטֶרֶם יַקְטִרוּן אֶת־הַחֵלֶב וּבָא נַעַר הַכֹּהֵן וְאָמַר לָאִישׁ הַזֹּבֵחַ תְּנָה בָשָׂר לִצְלוֹת לַכֹּהֵן וְלֹא־יִקַּח מִמְּךָ בָּשָׂר מְבֻשָּׁל כִּי אִם־חָי׃", 2.16. "וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הָאִישׁ קַטֵּר יַקְטִירוּן כַּיּוֹם הַחֵלֶב וְקַח־לְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשֶׁךָ וְאָמַר לו [לֹא] כִּי עַתָּה תִתֵּן וְאִם־לֹא לָקַחְתִּי בְחָזְקָה׃", 2.17. "וַתְּהִי חַטַּאת הַנְּעָרִים גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד אֶת־פְּנֵי יְהוָה כִּי נִאֲצוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים אֵת מִנְחַת יְהוָה׃", 2.22. "וְעֵלִי זָקֵן מְאֹד וְשָׁמַע אֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשׂוּן בָּנָיו לְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר־יִשְׁכְּבוּן אֶת־הַנָּשִׁים הַצֹּבְאוֹת פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", | 2.15. "Also before they burnt the fat, the priest’s lad came, and said to the man that sacrificed, Give some roasting meat for the priest; for he will not have boiled meat of thee, but raw.", 2.16. "And if any man said to him, Let them first burn the fat, and then take as much as thy soul desires; then he would answer him, No; but thou shalt give it me now: and if not, I will take it by force.", 2.17. "Wherefore the sin of the lads was very great before the Lord: for the men dishonoured the offering of the Lord.", 2.22. "Now ῾Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did to all Yisra᾽el; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the Tent of Meeting.", |
|
| 10. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 8.1-11.25 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 186 |
11. Hebrew Bible, 2 Chronicles, 24.20-24.22 (5th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 184| 24.21. "וַיִּקְשְׁרוּ עָלָיו וַיִּרְגְּמֻהוּ אֶבֶן בְּמִצְוַת הַמֶּלֶךְ בַּחֲצַר בֵּית יְהוָה׃", 24.22. "וְלֹא־זָכַר יוֹאָשׁ הַמֶּלֶךְ הַחֶסֶד אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהוֹיָדָע אָבִיו עִמּוֹ וַיַּהֲרֹג אֶת־בְּנוֹ וּכְמוֹתוֹ אָמַר יֵרֶא יְהוָה וְיִדְרֹשׁ׃", | 24.20. "And the spirit of God clothed Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest; and he stood above the people, and said unto them: ‘Thus saith God: Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, He hath also forsaken you.’", 24.21. "And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD.", 24.22. "Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said: ‘The LORD look upon it, and require it.’", |
|
| 12. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Qmmt, None (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 154 |
13. Septuagint, 2 Maccabees, 4.7-4.8, 4.23-4.24 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 180 | 4.7. When Seleucus died and Antiochus who was called Epiphanes succeeded to the kingdom, Jason the brother of Onias obtained the high priesthood by corruption,' 4.8. promising the king at an interview three hundred and sixty talents of silver and, from another source of revenue, eighty talents.' 4.23. After a period of three years Jason sent Menelaus, the brother of the previously mentioned Simon, to carry the money to the king and to complete the records of essential business.' 4.24. But he, when presented to the king, extolled him with an air of authority, and secured the high priesthood for himself, outbidding Jason by three hundred talents of silver.' |
|
| 14. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 5.2, 5.9 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual impurity, of temple, at qumran Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 156 |
| 15. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q271, 1.17-18, 5 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 16. Dead Sea Scrolls, 11Qt, 11.9-29.10, 20.12, 20.13, 29.3, 29.4, 29.5, 29.6, 29.7, 29.8, 29.9, 29.10, 39.7, 39.8, 39.9, 39.10, 39.11, 45.7-51.10, 45.7, 45.8, 45.9, 45.10, 45.11, 45.12, 45.13, 45.14, 46.4, 46.8, 46.11, 46.12, 47.3, 47.4, 47.5, 47.6, 47.10, 47.11, 47.18, 48.10, 48.11, 51.6, 51.7, 51.8, 51.9, 51.10, 51.11, 51.12, 51.13, 51.14, 51.15, 51.16 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 156 |
| 17. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 12.1-12.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual impurity, of temple, at qumran Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 155 |
| 18. Dead Sea Scrolls, Pesher On Habakkuk, 8.8-8.13 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 177 |
| 19. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 12.1-12.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual impurity, of temple, at qumran Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 155 |
20. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 1.97 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 196 | 1.97. There is also a third symbol contained in this sacred dress, which it is important not to pass over in silence. For the priests of other deities are accustomed to offer up prayers and sacrifices solely for their own relations, and friends, and fellow citizens. But the high priest of the Jews offers them up not only on behalf of the whole race of mankind, but also on behalf of the different parts of nature, of the earth, of water, of air, and of fire; and pours forth his prayers and thanksgivings for them all, looking upon the world (as indeed it really i |
|
21. Mishnah, Bava Qamma, 10.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 192| 10.2. "נָטְלוּ מוֹכְסִין אֶת חֲמוֹרוֹ וְנָתְנוּ לוֹ חֲמוֹר אַחֵר, גָּזְלוּ לִסְטִים אֶת כְּסוּתוֹ וְנָתְנוּ לוֹ כְסוּת אַחֶרֶת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מִתְיָאֲשִׁין מֵהֶן. הַמַּצִּיל מִן הַנָּהָר אוֹ מִן הַגַּיִס אוֹ מִן הַלִּסְטִים, אִם נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְכֵן נָחִיל שֶׁל דְּבוֹרִים, אִם נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה, נֶאֱמֶנֶת אִשָּׁה אוֹ קָטָן לוֹמַר, מִכָּאן יָצָא נָחִיל זֶה. וּמְהַלֵּךְ בְּתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה חֲבֵרוֹ לְהַצִּיל אֶת נְחִילוֹ. וְאִם הִזִּיק, מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיק. אֲבָל לֹא יָקֹץ אֶת סוֹכוֹ עַל מְנָת לִתֵּן אֶת הַדָּמִים. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר, אַף קוֹצֵץ וְנוֹתֵן אֶת הַדָּמִים: \n", | 10.2. "If excise collectors took his donkey and gave him another donkey, or if bandits robbed a man of his coat and gave him another coat, they are his own, since the original owners gave up hope of recovering them. If a man saved something from a flood or from marauding troops or from bandits: if the owner gave up hope of recovering [the item], it belongs to him. So too with a swarm of bees: if the owner gave up hope of recovering [the swarm], it belongs to him. Rabbi Yocha ben Baroka said: “A woman or child may be believed if they say, ‘The swarm of bees went away from here.’” A man may go into his fellow’s field to save his swarm and if he causes damage he must pay for the damage that he has caused; but he may not cut off a branch of the tree [to save his swarm] even on condition that he pay its value. Rabbi Yishmael, the son of Rabbi Yocha ben Baroka, says: “He may even cut off [the branch] and repay the value.”", |
|
22. New Testament, Matthew, 17.24-17.27 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 196| 17.24. Ἐλθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ προσῆλθον οἱ τὰ δίδραχμα λαμβάνοντες τῷ Πέτρῳ καὶ εἶπαν Ὁ διδάσκαλος ὑμῶν οὐ τελεῖ τὰ δίδραχμα; 17.25. λέγει Ναί. καὶ ἐλθόντα εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν προέφθασεν αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων Τί σοι δοκεῖ, Σίμων; οἱ βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ τίνων λαμβάνουσιν τέλη ἢ κῆνσον; ἀπὸ τῶν υἱῶν αὐτῶν ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων; 17.26. εἰπόντος δέ Ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων, ἔφη αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Ἄραγε ἐλεύθεροί εἰσιν οἱ υἱοί· 17.27. ἵνα δὲ μὴ σκανδαλίσωμεν αὐτούς, πορευθεὶς εἰς θάλασσαν βάλε ἄγκιστρον καὶ τὸν ἀναβάντα πρῶτον ἰχθὺν ἆρον, καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ εὑρήσεις στατῆρα· ἐκεῖνον λαβὼν δὸς αὐτοῖς ἀντὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ. | 17.24. When they had come to Capernaum, those who collected the didrachmas came to Peter, and said, "Doesn't your teacher pay the didrachma?" 17.25. He said, "Yes."When he came into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth receive toll or tribute? From their sons, or from strangers?" 17.26. Peter said to him, "From strangers."Jesus said to him, "Therefore the sons are exempt. 17.27. But, lest we cause them to stumble, go to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the first fish that comes up. When you have opened its mouth, you will find a stater. Take that, and give it to them for me and you." |
|
23. Mishnah, Shekalim, 4.1-4.4, 5.1-5.6, 6.1-6.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 178, 196| 4.1. "הַתְּרוּמָה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ, לוֹקְחִין בָּהּ תְּמִידִין וּמוּסָפִין וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם, הָעֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וְכָל קָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר. שׁוֹמְרֵי סְפִיחִים בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, (אַף הָרוֹצֶה) מִתְנַדֵּב שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אַף אַתָּה אוֹמֵר, שֶׁאֵינָן בָּאִין אֶלָּא מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר: \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", 4.3. "מוֹתַר שְׁיָרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן, לוֹקְחִין בָּהֶן יֵינוֹת, שְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת, וְהַשָּׂכָר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֵין מִשְׂתַּכְּרִין מִשֶּׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל עֲנִיִּים: \n", 4.4. "מוֹתַר תְּרוּמָה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ, רִקּוּעֵי זָהָב צִפּוּי לְבֵית קָדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, מוֹתַר הַפֵּרוֹת לְקַיִץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וּמוֹתַר הַתְּרוּמָה לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, מוֹתַר הַתְּרוּמָה לְקַיִץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וּמוֹתַר נְסָכִים לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמֵר, מוֹתַר נְסָכִים לְקַיִץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וּמוֹתַר הַתְּרוּמָה לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. זֶה וָזֶה לֹא הָיוּ מוֹדִים בַּפֵּרוֹת: \n", 5.1. "אֵלּוּ הֵן הַמְמֻנִּין שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, יוֹחָנָן בֶּן פִּנְחָס עַל הַחוֹתָמוֹת, אֲחִיָּה עַל הַנְּסָכִים, מַתִּתְיָה בֶּן שְׁמוּאֵל עַל הַפְּיָסוֹת, פְּתַחְיָה עַל הַקִּנִּין. פְּתַחְיָה, זֶה מָרְדְּכָי. לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פְּתַחְיָה. שֶׁהָיָה פּוֹתֵחַ בִּדְבָרִים וְדוֹרְשָׁן, וְיוֹדֵעַ שִׁבְעִים לָשׁוֹן. בֶּן אֲחִיָּה עַל חוֹלֵי מֵעַיִם, נְחוּנְיָא חוֹפֵר שִׁיחִין, גְּבִינֵי כָרוֹז, בֶּן גֶּבֶר עַל נְעִילַת שְׁעָרִים, בֶּן בֵּבָי עַל הַפָּקִיעַ, בֶּן אַרְזָה עַל הַצִּלְצָל, הֻגְרַס בֶּן לֵוִי עַל הַשִּׁיר, בֵּית גַּרְמוּ עַל מַעֲשֵׂה לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, בֵּית אַבְטִינָס עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הַקְּטֹרֶת, אֶלְעָזָר עַל הַפָּרוֹכוֹת, וּפִנְחָס עַל הַמַּלְבּוּשׁ: \n", 5.2. "אֵין פּוֹחֲתִין מִשְּׁלֹשָה גִּזְבָּרִין וּמִשִּׁבְעָה אֲמַרְכָּלִין, וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין שְׂרָרָה עַל הַצִּבּוּר בְּמָמוֹן פָּחוּת מִשְּׁנַיִם, חוּץ מִבֶּן אֲחִיָּה שֶׁעַל חוֹלֵי מֵעַיִם וְאֶלְעָזָר שֶׁעַל הַפָּרוֹכוֹת, שֶׁאוֹתָן קִבְּלוּ רוֹב הַצִּבּוּר עֲלֵיהֶן: \n", 5.3. "אַרְבָּעָה חוֹתָמוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן, עֵגֶל, זָכָר, גְּדִי, חוֹטֵא. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר, חֲמִשָּׁה הָיוּ, וַאֲרָמִית כָּתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן, עֵגֶל, זָכָר, גְּדִי, חוֹטֵא דַּל, וְחוֹטֵא עָשִׁיר. עֵגֶל מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי בָּקָר גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת. גְּדִי מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי צֹאן גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל אֵילִים. זָכָר מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי אֵילִים בִּלְבָד. חוֹטֵא מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי שָׁלשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁל מְצוֹרָעִין: \n", 5.4. "מִי שֶׁהוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ נְסָכִים הוֹלֵךְ לוֹ אֵצֶל יוֹחָנָן שֶׁהוּא מְמֻנֶּה עַל הַחוֹתָמוֹת, נוֹתֵן לוֹ מָעוֹת וּמְקַבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ חוֹתָם. בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל אֲחִיָּה שֶׁהוּא מְמֻנֶּה עַל הַנְּסָכִים, וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ חוֹתָם וּמְקַבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ נְסָכִים. וְלָעֶרֶב בָּאִין זֶה אֵצֶל זֶה, וַאֲחִיָּה מוֹצִיא אֶת הַחוֹתָמוֹת וּמְקַבֵּל כְּנֶגְדָּן מָעוֹת. וְאִם הוֹתִירוּ הוֹתִירוּ לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְאִם פָּחָתוּ, הָיָה מְשַׁלֵּם יוֹחָנָן מִבֵּיתוֹ, שֶׁיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה: \n", 5.5. "מִי שֶׁאָבַד מִמֶּנּוּ חוֹתָמוֹ, מַמְתִּינִין לוֹ עַד הָעֶרֶב. אִם מוֹצְאִין לוֹ כְּדֵי חוֹתָמוֹ, נוֹתְנִין לוֹ. וְאִם לָאו לֹא הָיָה לוֹ. וְשֵׁם הַיּוֹם כָּתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן מִפְּנֵי הָרַמָּאִין: \n", 5.6. "שְׁתֵּי לְשָׁכוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, אַחַת לִשְׁכַּת חֲשָׁאִים, וְאַחַת לִשְׁכַּת הַכֵּלִים, לִשְׁכַּת חֲשָׁאִים יִרְאֵי חֵטְא נוֹתְנִים לְתוֹכָה בַּחֲשַׁאי, וַעֲנִיִּים בְּנֵי טוֹבִים מִתְפַּרְנְסִים מִתוֹכָהּ בַּחֲשַׁאי. לִשְׁכַּת הַכֵּלִים, כָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא מִתְנַדֵּב כֶּלִי, זוֹרְקוֹ לְתוֹכָהּ. וְאַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, גִּזְבָּרִין פּוֹתְחִין אוֹתָהּ. וְכָל כְּלִי שֶׁמּוֹצְאִין בּוֹ צֹרֶךְ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, מַנִּיחִין אוֹתוֹ. וְהַשְּׁאָר נִמְכָּרִין בִּדְמֵיהֶן וְנוֹפְלִין לְלִשְׁכַּת בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת: \n", 6.1. "שְלשָׁה עָשָר שוֹפָרוֹת, שְלשָה עָשָר שֻלְחָנוֹת, שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיוֹת, הָיוּ בַּמִקְדָּשׁ. שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְשֶׁל בֵּית רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים הָיוּ מִשְׁתַּחֲוִין אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה. וְהֵיכָן הָיְתָה יְתֵרָה, כְּנֶגֶד דִּיר הָעֵצִים, שֶׁכֵּן מָסֹרֶת בְּיָדָם מֵאֲבוֹתֵיהֶם שֶׁשָּׁם הָאָרוֹן נִגְנַז:", 6.2. "מַעֲשֶׂה בְּכֹהֵן אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מִתְעַסֵּק, וְרָאָה הָרִצְפָּה שֶׁהִיא מְשֻׁנָּה מֵחֲבֵרוֹתֶיהָ. בָּא וְאָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ. לֹא הִסְפִּיק לִגְמֹר אֶת הַדָּבָר עַד שֶׁיָּצְתָה נִשְׁמָתוֹ, וְיָדְעוּ בְיִחוּד שֶׁשָּׁם הָאָרוֹן נִגְנַז:", 6.3. "וְהֵיכָן הָיוּ מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים, אַרְבַּע בַּצָּפוֹן, וְאַרְבַּע בַּדָּרוֹם, שָׁלשׁ בַּמִּזְרָח, וּשְׁתַּיִם בַּמַּעֲרָב, כְּנֶגֶד שְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר שְׁעָרִים. שְׁעָרִים דְּרוֹמִיִּים סְמוּכִין לַמַּעֲרָב, שַׁעַר הָעֶלְיוֹן, שַׁעַר הַדֶּלֶק, שַׁעַר הַבְּכוֹרוֹת, שַׁעַר הַמָּיִם. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ שַׁעַר הַמַּיִם, שֶׁבּוֹ מַכְנִיסִין צְלוֹחִית שֶׁל מַיִם שֶׁל נִסּוּךְ בֶּחָג. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, בּוֹ הַמַּיִם מְפַכִּים וַעֲתִידִין לִהְיוֹת יוֹצְאִין מִתַּחַת מִפְתַּן הַבַּיִת. לְעֻמָּתָן בַּצָּפוֹן סְמוּכִין לַמַּעֲרָב, שַׁעַר יְכָנְיָה, שַׁעַר קָרְבָּן, שַׁעַר נָשִׁים, שַׁעַר הַשִּׁיר. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ שַׁעַר יְכָנְיָה, שֶׁבּוֹ יָצָא יְכָנְיָה בְּגָלוּתוֹ. בַּמִּזְרָח, שַׁעַר נִיקָנוֹר, וּשְׁנֵי פִשְׁפְּשִׁין הָיוּ לוֹ, אֶחָד בִּימִינוֹ וְאֶחָד בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ. וּשְׁנַיִם בַּמַּעֲרָב שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לָהֶם שֵׁם:", 6.4. "שְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר שֻׁלְחָנוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, שְׁמוֹנֶה שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ בְּבֵית הַמִּטְבְּחַיִם, שֶׁעֲלֵיהֶן מְדִיחִין אֶת הַקְּרָבַיִם. וּשְׁנַיִם בְּמַעֲרַב הַכֶּבֶשׁ, אֶחָד שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ וְאֶחָד שֶׁל כֶּסֶף עַל שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ הָיוּ נוֹתְנִים אֶת הָאֵבָרִים, עַל שֶׁל כֶּסֶף כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת. וּשְׁנַיִם בָּאוּלָם מִבִּפְנִים עַל פֶּתַח הַבַּיִת, אֶחָד שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ וְאֶחָד שֶׁל זָהָב, עַל שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ נוֹתְנִין לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ, וְעַל שֶׁל זָהָב בִּיצִיאָתוֹ, שֶׁמַּעֲלִין בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין. וְאֶחָד שֶׁל זָהָב מִבִּפְנִים, שֶׁעָלָיו לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים תָּמִיד:", 6.5. "שְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר שׁוֹפָרוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶם, תִּקְלִין חַדְתִין וְתִקְלִין עַתִּיקִין, קִנִּין וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, עֵצִים, וּלְבוֹנָה, זָהָב לַכַּפֹּרֶת. שִׁשָּׁה, לִנְדָבָה. תִּקְלִין חַדְתִּין, שֶׁבְּכָל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה. עַתִּיקִין, מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁקַל אֶשְׁתָּקַד, שׁוֹקֵל לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה. קִנִּין, הֵם תּוֹרִים. וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, הֵן בְּנֵי יוֹנָה. וְכֻלָּן עוֹלוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, קִנִּין, אֶחָד חַטָאת וְאֶחָד עוֹלָה. וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, כֻּלָּן עוֹלוֹת:", 6.6. "הָאוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי עָלַי עֵצִים, לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי גִּזְרִין. לְבוֹנָה, לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִקֹּמֶץ. זָהָב, לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִדִּינַר זָהָב, שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה, נְדָבָה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ, לוֹקְחִין בָּהּ עוֹלוֹת, הַבָּשָׂר לַשֵּׁם, וְהָעוֹרוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים. זֶה מִדְרָשׁ דָּרַשׁ יְהוֹיָדָע כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, (ויקרא ה) אָשָׁם הוּא אָשֹׁם אָשַׁם לַיְיָ. (זֶה הַכְּלָל), כֹּל שֶׁהוּא בָּא מִשּׁוּם חֵטְא וּמִשּׁוּם אַשְׁמָה, יִלָּקַח בּוֹ עוֹלוֹת, הַבָּשָׂר לַשֵּׁם, וְהָעוֹרוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִים קַיָּמִים, אָשָׁם לַה', וְאָשָׁם לַכֹּהֲנִים, וְאוֹמֵר, (מלכים ב יב), כֶּסֶף אָשָׁם וְכֶסֶף חַטָאוֹת לֹא יוּבָא בֵּית ה' לַכֹּהֲנִים יִהְיוּ:", | 4.1. "What did they do with the appropriation? They bring with it the daily burnt-offerings (tamidim) and the additional burnt-offerings (musafim) and their libations, the omer and the two loaves and the showbread and all the other public offerings. Those who guard the aftergrowths of the seventh year take their wages out of the appropriation from the chamber. Rabbi Yose says: [if a man wished] he could volunteer to watch without payment. But they said to him: you too admit that they can only be offered out of public funds.", 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].", 4.3. "What did they do with the surplus of the remainder in the chamber?They would buy with it wines, oils and fine flours, and the profit belonged to the Temple, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: one may not make a profit with the property of the Temple, nor with the property of the poor.", 4.4. "What was done with the surplus of the appropriation?[They would buy] plates of gold for covering the interior of the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Ishmael says: the surplus [from the sale] of the produce was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the appropriation was used for the ministering vessels. Rabbi Akiba says: the surplus of the appropriation was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the libations was used for the ministering vessels. Rabbi Haiah the chief of the priests says: the surplus of the libations was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the appropriation was used for the ministering vessels. Neither of these [two sages] allowed [a profit from the sale of] the produce.", 5.1. "These were the officers in the Temple:Yoha the son of Pinchas was over the seals. Ahiyah over the libations. Mattityah the son of Shmuel over the lots. Petahiah over the bird-offering. (Petahiah was Mordecai. Why was his name called Petahiah? Because he ‘opened’ matters and expounded them, and he understood the seventy tongues). The son of Ahijah over the sickness of the bowels. Nehuniah, the digger of ditches. Gevini, the crier. The son of Gever over the locking of the gates. The son of Bevai over the strips [for lighting the menorah]. The son of Arza over the cymbal. Hugras the son of Levi over the song. The house of Garmu over the making of the showbread. The house of Avtinas over the preparing of the frankincense. Elazar over the curtains. And Pinchas over the priestly vestments.", 5.2. "They did not have less than three treasurers. Or less than seven superintendents. Nor create positions of authority over the public in matters of money [with] less than two [officers], except [in the case] of the son of Ahiyah who was over the sickness of the bowels and Elazar who was over the veil, for these had been accepted by the majority of the public.", 5.3. "There were four seals in the Temple, and on them was inscribed [respectively]: ‘calf’, ‘ram’, ‘kid’, ‘sinner’. Ben Azzai says: there were five and on them was inscribed in Aramaic [respectively]” ‘calf’, ‘ram’, ‘kid’, ‘poor sinner’, and ‘rich sinner’. [The seal inscribed] ‘calf’ served for the libations of cattle, both large and small, male and female. [The seal inscribed] ‘kid’ served for the libations of flock animals, both large and small, male and female, with the exception of rams. [The one inscribed] ‘ram’ served for the libations of rams alone. [The one inscribed] ‘sinner’ served for the libations of the three animals [offered] by lepers.", 5.4. "If one required libations he would go to Yoha who was the officer over the seals, and give him money and receive from him a seal. Then he would go to Ahiyah who was the officer over the libations, and give him the seal, and receive from him the libations. And in the evening these two [officers] would come together, and Ahiyah would bring out the seals and receive money for their value. And if there was more [than their value] the surplus belonged to the sanctuary, but if there was less [than their value] Yoha would pay [the loss] out of his own pocket; for the Temple has the upper hand.", 5.5. "If one lost his seal his case they wait [to deal] with him until the evening. If they found [money left over] to the value of his lost seal, they give [it] to him and if not he gets nothing. On the seals was inscribed the name of the day because of the defrauders.", 5.6. "There were two chambers in the Temple, one the chamber of secret gifts and the other the chamber of the vessels. The chamber of secret gifts: sin-fearing persons used to put their gifts there in secret, and the poor who were descended of the virtuous were secretly supported from them. The chamber of the vessels: whoever offered a vessel as a gift would throw it in, and once in thirty days the treasurers opened it; and any vessel they found in it that was of use for the repair of the temple they left there, but the others were sold and their price went to the chamber of the repair of the temple.", 6.1. "There were in the Temple thirteen chests, thirteen tables and thirteen prostrations. [Members] of the household of Rabban Gamaliel and of Rabbi Haiah the chief of the priests used would prostrate fourteen [times. And where was the additional [prostration]? In front of the wood storage yard, for they had a tradition from their forefathers that the Ark was hidden there.", 6.2. "It once happened that a priest who was busy [there] noticed that the floor [of the wood storage area] was different from the others. He went and told it to his friend but before he had time to finish his words his soul departed. Then they knew for certain that there the Ark was hidden.", 6.3. "And where did they make the prostrations? Four [times] in the north, four [times] in the south, three [times] in the east, and twice in the west, in front of the thirteen gates. The southern gates close to the west [side were]: the Upper Gate, the Fuel Gate, the Gate of the Firstborn [Animals], and the Water Gate. Why was it called the Water Gate? Because through it was brought in the flask of water for the libation on Sukkot. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: through it the waters trickle forth and in the time to come “they will come forth from under the threshold of the Temple” (Ezekiel 47:1). On the opposite side in the north close to the west were: Jechoniah’ Gate, the Gate of the offerings, the Gate of the Women, and the Gate of Song. And why was it called the Jechoniah’ Gate? Because through it Jechoniah went out into his captivity. In the east was the Nicanor’s Gate, and it had two small gates, one to the right and one to the left. There were also two gates in the west which had no name.", 6.4. "There were thirteen tables in the Temple:Eight of marble in the place of slaughtering and on them they would rinse the entrails. And two to the west of the ramp [which ascends the altar], one of marble and one of silver; on that of marble they would place the limbs [of the offerings], and on that of silver the ministering vessels. And there were two tables in the Porch on the inside of the entrance to the Temple, one of marble and the other of gold; on that of marble they would place the showbread placed when it was brought in, and on that of gold [they would place the showbread] when it was taken out, because things sacred may be raised [in honor] but not lowered. And there was one [table] of gold on the inside of the Sanctuary on which the showbread lay continually.", 6.5. "There were thirteen chests in the Temple and on them was inscribed [respectively]:“new shekels”;“New shekels” those for each year; “old shekels”;“Old shekels” whoever has not paid his shekel in the past year may pay it in the coming year; “bird-offerings”;“Bird-offerings” these are turtle-doves; “young pigeons for burnt-offerings”;“Young pigeons for burnt-offerings” these are young pigeons. “wood”; “frankincense”; “gold for the kapporet”; and on six, “freewill offerings”. Both [these two chests] are for burnt-offerings, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: “bird-offerings” one [half] is for sin-offerings and the other [half] for burnt-offerings, but “young pigeons for burnt-offerings” all goes to burnt-offerings.", 6.6. "One who says: “Behold, I am obligated to bring wood”, he may not bring less than two logs. [If he says: “Behold, I am obligated to bring] frankincense”, he may not bring less than a handful of it. [If he says: “Behold, I am obligated to bring] gold”, he may not bring less than a gold denar. “On six [was inscribed] “for freewill-offerings”: What was done with the freewill-offerings? They would buy with them burnt-offerings, the flesh [of which] was for the name [of God] and the hides for the priests. The following is the midrash which was expounded by Yehoyada the high priest: “It is a guilt-offering; it is a guilt offering, it goes to the Lord” (Leviticus 5:19). This is the general rule: anything which is brought because of a sin or because of guilt, they should purchase with it burnt offerings, the flesh [of which] was for the name [of God] and the hides for the priests. Thus the two verses are fulfilled: a guilt offering for the Lord and a guilt offering for the priests, and it says: “Money brought as a guilt offering or as a sin offering was not deposited in the House of the Lord; it went to the priests” (II Kings 12:17).", |
|
24. Mishnah, Zevahim, 9.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 190, 191| 9.3. "אֵלּוּ לֹא הָיָה פְסוּלָן בַּקֹּדֶשׁ, הָרוֹבֵעַ, וְהַנִּרְבָּע, וְהַמֻּקְצֶה, וְהַנֶּעֱבָד, וְהָאֶתְנָן, וְהַמְּחִיר, וְהַכִּלְאַיִם, וְהַטְּרֵפָה, וְהַיּוֹצֵא דֹפֶן, וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַכְשִׁיר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמֵר, דּוֹחֶה הָיָה אַבָּא אֶת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ: \n", | 9.3. "Which are the ones whose disqualification did not arise in sanctity: An animal which had sexual relations with a woman or with a man, or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through the caesarean section, and blemished animals. Rabbi Akiva declared blemished animals fit [to remain on the altar if they had already been put up]. Rabbi Haya, chief of the priests, said: my father used to push blemished animals off the altar.", |
|
25. Mishnah, Yoma, 1.1-7.5, 1.3, 3.9, 3.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 178| 1.3. "מָסְרוּ לוֹ זְקֵנִים מִזִּקְנֵי בֵית דִּין, וְקוֹרִין לְפָנָיו בְּסֵדֶר הַיּוֹם, וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ, אִישִׁי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, קְרָא אַתָּה בְּפִיךָ, שֶׁמָּא שָׁכַחְתָּ אוֹ שֶׁמָּא לֹא לָמָדְתָּ. עֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שַׁחֲרִית, מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁעַר מִזְרָח, וּמַעֲבִירִין לְפָנָיו פָּרִים וְאֵילִים וּכְבָשִׂים, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּיר וְרָגִיל בָּעֲבוֹדָה: \n", | 1.3. "They delivered to him elders from the elders of the court and they read before him [throughout the seven days] from the order of the day. And they say to him, “Sir, high priest, you read it yourself with your own mouth, lest you have forgotten or lest you have never learned.” On the eve of Yom HaKippurim in the morning they place him at the eastern gate and pass before him oxen, rams and sheep, so that he may recognize and become familiar with the service.", |
|
26. Mishnah, Yevamot, 6.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 179| 6.4. "כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לֹא יִשָּׂא אַלְמָנָה, בֵּין אַלְמָנָה מִן הָאֵרוּסִין, בֵּין אַלְמָנָה מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין, וְלֹא יִשָּׂא אֶת הַבּוֹגֶרֶת. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁירִין בְּבוֹגֶרֶת. לֹא יִשָּׂא אֶת מֻכַּת עֵץ. אֵרֵס אֶת הָאַלְמָנָה, וְנִתְמַנָּה לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, יִכְנֹס. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן גַּמְלָא שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ אֶת מָרְתָא בַת בַּיְתוֹס, וּמִנָּהוּ הַמֶּלֶךְ לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וּכְנָסָהּ. שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁנָּפְלָה לִפְנֵי כֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, וְנִתְמַנָּה לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָשָׂה בָהּ מַאֲמָר, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִכְנֹס. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת אָחִיו, חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מְיַבֵּם: \n", | 6.4. "A high priest shall not marry a widow whether she became a widow after a betrothal or after a marriage. He shall not marry one who has reached puberty. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon permit him to marry one who has reached puberty, but he may not marry one who lost her virginity through a stick. [A priest who] betrothed a widow, and was subsequently appointed high priest, may bring her into marriage. It once happened with Joshua ben Gamla that he betrothed Marta the daughter of Boethus, and the king appointed him high priest, and he brought her into marriage. If a shomeret yavam became liable to have yibbum with an ordinary priest and then he was appointed high priest, even though he already did ma’amar, he may not bring her into marriage. A high priest whose brother died must perform halitzah but may not contract yibbum.", |
|
27. Mishnah, Sukkah, 3.1-3.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 191, 192| 3.1. "לוּלָב הַגָּזוּל וְהַיָּבֵשׁ, פָּסוּל. שֶׁל אֲשֵׁרָה וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, פָּסוּל. נִקְטַם רֹאשׁוֹ, נִפְרְצוּ עָלָיו, פָּסוּל. נִפְרְדוּ עָלָיו, כָּשֵׁר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, יֶאֶגְדֶנּוּ מִלְמָעְלָה. צִנֵּי הַר הַבַּרְזֶל, כְּשֵׁרוֹת. לוּלָב שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ שְׁלשָׁה טְפָחִים כְּדֵי לְנַעְנֵעַ בּוֹ, כָּשֵׁר: \n", 3.2. "הֲדַס הַגָּזוּל וְהַיָּבֵשׁ, פָּסוּל. שֶׁל אֲשֵׁרָה וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, פָּסוּל. נִקְטַם רֹאשׁוֹ, נִפְרְצוּ עָלָיו אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ עֲנָבָיו מְרֻבּוֹת מֵעָלָיו, פָּסוּל. וְאִם מִעֲטָן, כָּשֵׁר. וְאֵין מְמַעֲטִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב: \n", 3.3. "עֲרָבָה גְזוּלָה וִיבֵשָׁה, פְּסוּלָה. שֶׁל אֲשֵׁרָה וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, פְּסוּלָה. נִקְטַם רֹאשָׁהּ, נִפְרְצוּ עָלֶיהָ, וְהַצַּפְצָפָה, פְּסוּלָה. כְּמוּשָׁה, וְשֶׁנָּשְׁרוּ מִקְצָת עָלֶיהָ, וְשֶׁל בַּעַל, כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", 3.4. "רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, שְׁלשָׁה הֲדַסִּים וּשְׁתֵּי עֲרָבוֹת, לוּלָב אֶחָד וְאֶתְרוֹג אֶחָד, אֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם קְטוּמִים וְאֶחָד אֵינוֹ קָטוּם. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן קְטוּמִים. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁלּוּלָב אֶחָד וְאֶתְרוֹג אֶחָד, כָּךְ הֲדַס אֶחָד וַעֲרָבָה אֶחָת: \n", 3.5. "אֶתְרוֹג הַגָּזוּל וְהַיָּבֵשׁ, פָּסוּל. שֶׁל אֲשֵׁרָה וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, פָּסוּל. שֶׁל עָרְלָה, פָּסוּל. שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה, פָּסוּל. שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה, לֹא יִטֹּל, וְאִם נָטַל, כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁל דְּמַאי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין. שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, לֹא יִטֹּל, וְאִם נָטַל, כָּשֵׁר: \n", | 3.1. "A stolen or a dried up lulav is invalid. One [that came] from an asherah tree or from a condemned city is invalid. If its top was broken off or its leaves were detached, it is invalid. If its leaves are spread apart it is valid. Rabbi Judah says he should tie it at the top. The thorny palms of the iron mountain are valid. A lulav which is three handbreadths in length, long enough to wave, is valid.", 3.2. "A stolen or withered hadas is invalid. One [that came from] an asherah or a condemned city is invalid. If its tip was broken off, or its leaves were detached, or its berries were more numerous than its leaves, it is invalid. But if he diminished them it is valid. But many not diminish them on the festival.", 3.3. "A stolen or withered aravah is invalid. One [take from an] asherah or from a condemned city is invalid. One whose tip was broken off or whose leaves were detached, or a tzatzefah is invalid. One that was shriveled or had lost some of its leaves, or one grown in a rain-watered soil, is valid.", 3.4. "Rabbi Ishmael says: three hadasim, two aravot, one lulav and one etrog, even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off and [only] one is whole. Rabbi Tarfon says: even if all three have their tips broken off. Rabbi Akiva says: just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too only one hadas and one aravah.", 3.5. "An etrog which is stolen or withered is invalid. One from an asherah or a condemned city is invalid. of orlah or of unclean terumah it is invalid. of clean terumah, he should not take it, but if he did take it, it is valid. of demai (doubtfully-tithed): Bet Shammai says it invalid, And Bet Hillel says it valid. of second tithe, it should not be taken [even] in Jerusalem, but if he took it, it is valid.", |
|
28. Mishnah, Nazir, 3.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 188| 3.6. "מִי שֶׁנָּזַר נְזִירוּת הַרְבֵּה וְהִשְׁלִים אֶת נְזִירוּתוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא לָאָרֶץ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, נָזִיר שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, נָזִיר בַּתְּחִלָּה. מַעֲשֶׂה בְהִילְנִי הַמַּלְכָּה, שֶׁהָלַךְ בְּנָהּ לַמִּלְחָמָה, וְאָמְרָה, אִם יָבֹא בְנִי מִן הַמִּלְחָמָה בְשָׁלוֹם אֱהֵא נְזִירָה שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים, וּבָא בְנָהּ מִן הַמִּלְחָמָה, וְהָיְתָה נְזִירָה שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים. וּבְסוֹף שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים עָלְתָה לָאָרֶץ, וְהוֹרוּהָ בֵית הִלֵּל שֶׁתְּהֵא נְזִירָה עוֹד שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים אֲחֵרוֹת. וּבְסוֹף שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים נִטְמֵאת, וְנִמְצֵאת נְזִירָה עֶשְׂרִים וְאַחַת שָׁנָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לֹא הָיְתָה נְזִירָה אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה: \n", | 3.6. "If one vows a long naziriteship of and completes his naziriteship and afterwards comes to the land [of Israel]: Beth Shammai says that he is a nazirite for thirty days, But Beth Hillel says that his naziriteship begins again. It happened that Queen Helena, when her son went to war, said: “If my son returns in peace from the war, I shall be a nazirite for seven years.” Her son returned from the war, and she was a nazirite for seven years. At the end of the seven years, she went up to the land [of Israel] and Beth Hillel instructed her to be a nazirite for a further seven years. Towards the end of this seven years, she contracted ritual defilement, and so altogether she was a nazirite for twenty-one years. Rabbi Judah said: she was a nazirite only for fourteen years.", |
|
29. Mishnah, Sotah, 3.1-3.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 178| 3.1. "הָיָה נוֹטֵל אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ מִתּוֹךְ כְּפִיפָה מִצְרִית וְנוֹתְנָהּ לְתוֹךְ כְּלִי שָׁרֵת, וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל יָדָהּ. וְכֹהֵן מֵנִיחַ יָדוֹ מִתַּחְתֶּיהָ וּמְנִיפָהּ: \n", 3.2. "הֵנִיף וְהִגִּישׁ, קָמַץ וְהִקְטִיר, וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים. הָיָה מַשְׁקָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, מַקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הָיָה מַשְׁקָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה) וְאַחַר יַשְׁקֶה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה אֶת הַמָּיִם. אִם הִשְׁקָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְרִיב אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ, כְּשֵׁרָה: \n", 3.3. "עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִמְחֲקָה הַמְּגִלָּה אָמְרָה אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה, מְגִלָּתָהּ נִגְנֶזֶת, וּמִנְחָתָהּ מִתְפַּזֶּרֶת עַל הַדָּשֶׁן. וְאֵין מְגִלָּתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה לְהַשְׁקוֹת בָּהּ סוֹטָה אַחֶרֶת. נִמְחֲקָה הַמְּגִלָּה וְאָמְרָה טְמֵאָה אָנִי, הַמַּיִם נִשְׁפָּכִין וּמִנְחָתָהּ מִתְפַּזֶּרֶת עַל הַדָּשֶׁן. נִמְחֲקָה הַמְּגִלָּה וְאָמְרָה אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה, מְעַרְעֲרִים אוֹתָהּ וּמַשְׁקִין אוֹתָהּ בְּעַל כָּרְחָהּ: \n", | 3.1. "He takes her meal-offering out of the basket of palm-twigs and places it in a ministering vessel and sets it upon her hand. And the priest places his hand under hers and waves it.", 3.2. "He waves it, he brings it near [the altar], he takes a handful and he turns it into smoke, and then the remainder is eaten by the priests. He [first] gives [her the water] to drink, and then sacrifices her meal-offering. Rabbi Shimon says: he sacrifices her meal-offering and then gives her to drink, as it is said, “And afterward he shall make the woman drink the water” (Numbers 5:26), but if he gave her to drink and then sacrificed her meal-offering it is valid.", 3.3. "If before [the writing on] the scroll had been rubbed out, she said “I refuse to drink”, her scroll is stored away and her meal-offering is scattered over the ashes. And her scroll is not valid to be used in giving another sotah to drink. If [the writing on] the scroll has been rubbed out and she said “I am defiled”, the water is poured out and her meal-offering is scattered over the ashes. If [the writing on] the scroll had been rubbed out and she said “I refuse to drink”, they open her throat and make her drink by force.", |
|
30. Mishnah, Bekhorot, 7.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 195| 7.7. "אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִין בָּאָדָם, וּפְסוּלִין בַּבְּהֵמָה, אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, וּטְרֵפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דֹפֶן, (וְשֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בָהֶן עֲבֵרָה, וְשֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הָאָדָם). הַנּוֹשֵׂא נָשִׁים בַּעֲבֵרָה, פָּסוּל, עַד שֶׁיַּדִּיר הֲנָיָה. הַמִּטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים, פָּסוּל, עַד שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא מִטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים: \n", | 7.7. "The following are fit in the case of human beings, but unfit in the case of animals:A father with his son, A terefah; One born by means of a caesarean section. One with which a sin has been committed or has killed a person; A priest who contracts an illegal marriage is unfit [for the priesthood] until he vows not to derive any benefit from the woman. One who makes himself unclean through contact with the dead is unfit, until he undertakes that he will no longer make himself unclean through the dead.", |
|
31. Mishnah, Keritot, 1.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 177| 1.7. "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ סְפֵק חֲמִשָּׁה זִיבוֹת וּסְפֵק חֲמִשָּׁה לֵדוֹת, מְבִיאָה קָרְבָּן אֶחָד, וְאוֹכֶלֶת בַּזְּבָחִים, וְאֵין הַשְּׁאָר עָלֶיהָ חוֹבָה. חָמֵשׁ לֵדוֹת וַדָּאוֹת, חָמֵשׁ זִיבוֹת וַדָּאוֹת, מְבִיאָה קָרְבָּן אֶחָד, וְאוֹכֶלֶת בַּזְּבָחִים, וְהַשְּׁאָר עָלֶיהָ חוֹבָה. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁעָמְדוּ קִנִּים בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם בְּדִינְרֵי זָהָב. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הַמָּעוֹן הַזֶּה, לֹא אָלִין הַלַּיְלָה, עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ בְדִינָרִין. נִכְנַס לְבֵית דִּין וְלִמֵּד, הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ חָמֵשׁ לֵדוֹת וַדָּאוֹת, חָמֵשׁ זִיבוֹת וַדָּאוֹת, מְבִיאָה קָרְבָּן אֶחָד, וְאוֹכֶלֶת בַּזְּבָחִים, וְאֵין הַשְּׁאָר עָלֶיהָ חוֹבָה. וְעָמְדוּ קִנִּים בּוֹ בַיּוֹם בְּרִבְעָתָיִם: \n", | 1.7. "If a woman had five doubtful genital discharges or five doubtful births, she needs to bring only one offering, and she may eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. If a woman had five certain births, or five certain genital discharges, she brings one offering and may then eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is liable to bring the other offerings. It once happened in Jerusalem that the price of a pair of doves rose to a golden denar. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: By this sanctuary, I shall not go to sleep tonight before they cost but a [silver] denar! Then he entered the court and taught: if a woman had five certain births or five certain genital discharges she needs to bring only one offering, and she may then eat sacrifices, and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. Thereupon the price of a pair of birds stood at a quarter of a [silver] denar each.", |
|
32. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 4.200-4.201, 5.402-5.403, 5.412, 6.110, 6.300 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 186 | 4.200. and at the first they only cast stones at each other in the city, and before the temple, and threw their javelins at a distance; but when either of them were too hard for the other, they made use of their swords; and great slaughter was made on both sides, and a great number were wounded. 4.201. As for the dead bodies of the people, their relations carried them out to their own houses; but when any of the zealots were wounded, he went up into the temple, and defiled that sacred floor with his blood, insomuch that one may say it was their blood alone that polluted our sanctuary. 5.402. You have not avoided so much as those sins that are usually done in secret; I mean thefts, and treacherous plots against men, and adulteries. You are quarreling about rapines and murders, and invent strange ways of wickedness. Nay, the temple itself is become the receptacle of all, and this Divine place is polluted by the hands of those of our own country; which place hath yet been reverenced by the Romans when it was at a distance from them, when they have suffered many of their own customs to give place to our law. 5.403. And, after all this, do you expect Him whom you have so impiously abused to be your supporter? To be sure then you have a right to be petitioners, and to call upon Him to assist you, so pure are your hands! 5.412. Wherefore I cannot but suppose that God is fled out of his sanctuary, and stands on the side of those against whom you fight. 6.110. And are not both the city and the entire temple now full of the dead bodies of your countrymen? It is God, therefore, it is God himself who is bringing on this fire, to purge that city and temple by means of the Romans, and is going to pluck up this city, which is full of your pollutions.” 6.300. and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.” But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Aus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for everyone to make tabernacles to God in the temple, |
|
33. Mishnah, Avot, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 178| 1.1. "משֶׁה קִבֵּל תּוֹרָה מִסִּינַי, וּמְסָרָהּ לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ לִזְקֵנִים, וּזְקֵנִים לִנְבִיאִים, וּנְבִיאִים מְסָרוּהָ לְאַנְשֵׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. הֵם אָמְרוּ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, הֱווּ מְתוּנִים בַּדִּין, וְהַעֲמִידוּ תַלְמִידִים הַרְבֵּה, וַעֲשׂוּ סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה: \n", | 1.1. "Moses received the torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be patient in [the administration of] justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah.", |
|
34. Mishnah, Kelim, 1.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual impurity, of temple, at qumran Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 154| 1.5. "עֶשֶׂר טֻמְאוֹת פּוֹרְשׁוֹת מִן הָאָדָם. מְחֻסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, אָסוּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וּמֻתָּר בַּתְּרוּמָה וּבַמַּעֲשֵׂר. חָזַר לִהְיוֹת טְבוּל יוֹם, אָסוּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וּבַתְּרוּמָה וּמֻתָּר בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר. חָזַר לִהְיוֹת בַּעַל קֶרִי, אָסוּר בִּשְׁלָשְׁתָּן. חָזַר לִהְיוֹת בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה, מְטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב תַּחְתּוֹן כָּעֶלְיוֹן. חָזַר לִהְיוֹת זָב שֶׁרָאָה שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת, מְטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב, וְצָרִיךְ בִּיאַת מַיִם חַיִּים, וּפָטוּר מִן הַקָּרְבָּן. רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ, חַיָּב בַּקָּרְבָּן. חָזַר לִהְיוֹת מְצֹרָע מֻסְגָּר, מְטַמֵּא בְּבִיאָה, וּפָטוּר מִן הַפְּרִיעָה וּמִן הַפְּרִימָה וּמִן הַתִּגְלַחַת וּמִן הַצִּפֳּרִים. וְאִם הָיָה מֻחְלָט, חַיָּב בְּכֻלָּן. פֵּרַשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ אֵבָר שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, מְטַמֵּא בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְאֹהֶל. וְאִם יֵשׁ עָלָיו בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, מְטַמֵּא בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא וּבְאֹהֶל. שִׁעוּר בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, כְּדֵי לְהַעֲלוֹת אֲרוּכָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם יֵשׁ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד כְּדֵי לְהַקִּיפוֹ בְחוּט עֵרֶב, יֶשׁ בּוֹ לְהַעֲלוֹת אֲרוּכָה: \n", | 1.5. "There are ten [grades of] impurity that emanate from a person:A person before the offering of his obligatory sacrifices is forbidden to eat holy things but permitted to eat terumah and [second] tithe. If he is a tevul yom he is forbidden to eat holy things and terumah but permitted to eat [second] tithe. If he emitted semen he is forbidden to eat any of the three. If he had intercourse with a menstruant he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. If he is a zav who has seen two discharges he conveys impurity to that on which he lies or sits and is required to undergo immersion in running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. If he saw three discharges he must bring the sacrifice. If he is a metzora that was only enclosed he conveys impurity by entry [into an ohel] but is exempt from loosening his hair, from rending his clothes, from shaving and from the birds offering. But if he was a confirmed metzora, he is liable for all these. If a limb on which there was not the proper quantity of flesh was severed from a person, it conveys impurity by contact and by carriage but not by ohel. But if it has the proper quantity of flesh it conveys impurity by contact, by carriage and by ohel. A \"proper quantity of flesh\" is such as is capable of healing. Rabbi Judah says: if in one place it has flesh sufficient to surround it with [the thickness of] a thread of the woof it is capable of healing.", |
|
35. Mishnah, Parah, 3.1-3.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis •ritual impurity, of temple, at qumran Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 154, 178| 3.1. "שִׁבְעַת יָמִים קֹדֶם לִשְׂרֵפַת הַפָּרָה מַפְרִישִׁין כֹּהֵן הַשּׂוֹרֵף אֶת הַפָּרָה מִבֵּיתוֹ לַלִּשְׁכָּה שֶׁעַל פְּנֵי הַבִּירָה, צָפוֹנָה מִזְרָחָה, וּבֵית אֶבֶן הָיְתָה נִקְרֵאת, וּמַזִּין עָלָיו כָּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים מִכָּל חַטָּאוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, לֹא הָיוּ מַזִּין עָלָיו אֶלָּא בַשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי בִּלְבָד. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגָן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמֵר, עַל הַכֹּהֵן הַשּׂוֹרֵף אֶת הַפָּרָה, מַזִּין כָּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים. וְעַל שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, לֹא הָיוּ מַזִּין עָלָיו אֶלָּא בַשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי בִּלְבָד: \n", 3.2. "חֲצֵרוֹת הָיוּ בִירוּשָׁלַיִם בְּנוּיוֹת עַל גַּבֵּי סֶלַע וְתַחְתֵּיהֶם חָלוּל, מִפְּנֵי קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. וּמְבִיאִים נָשִׁים עֻבָּרוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת שָׁם וּמְגַדְּלוֹת שָׁם אֶת בְּנֵיהֶן. וּמְבִיאִים שְׁוָרִים וְעַל גַּבֵּיהֶן דְּלָתוֹת, וְתִינוֹקוֹת יוֹשְׁבִין עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן וְכוֹסוֹת שֶׁל אֶבֶן בְּיָדָם. הִגִּיעוּ לַשִּׁלּוֹחַ, יָרְדוּ וּמִלְאוּם, וְעָלוּ וְיָשְׁבוּ עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, מִמְּקוֹמוֹ הָיָה מְשַׁלְשֵׁל וּמְמַלֵּא: \n", 3.3. "בָּאוּ לְהַר הַבַּיִת וְיָרְדוּ. הַר הַבַּיִת וְהָעֲזָרוֹת, תַּחְתֵּיהֶם חָלוּל, מִפְּנֵי קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. וּבְפֶתַח הָעֲזָרָה הָיָה מְתֻקָּן קָלָל שֶׁל חַטָּאת, וּמְבִיאִין זָכָר שֶׁל רְחֵלִים וְקוֹשְׁרִים חֶבֶל בֵּין קַרְנָיו, וְקוֹשְׁרִים מַקֵּל וּמְסַבֵּךְ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל חֶבֶל, וְזוֹרְקוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַקָּלָל, וּמַכֶּה אֶת הַזָּכָר וְנִרְתָּע לַאֲחוֹרָיו, וְנוֹטֵל וּמְקַדֵּשׁ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אַל תִּתְּנוּ מָקוֹם לַצְּדוֹקִים לִרְדּוֹת, אֶלָּא הוּא נוֹטֵל וּמְקַדֵּשׁ: \n", 3.4. "לֹא הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין, לֹא חַטָּאת עַל גַּבֵּי חַטָּאת, וְלֹא תִינוֹק עַל גַּבֵּי חֲבֵרוֹ. וּצְרִיכִין הָיוּ הַתִּינוֹקוֹת לְהַזּוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, לֹא הָיוּ צְרִיכִין לְהַזּוֹת: \n", 3.5. "לֹא מָצְאוּ מִשֶּׁבַע, עוֹשִׂין מִשֵּׁשׁ, מֵחָמֵשׁ, מֵאַרְבַּע, מִשָּׁלשׁ, מִשְּׁתַּיִם וּמֵאֶחָת. וּמִי עֲשָׂאָם. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עָשָׂה משֶׁה, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה עָשָׂה עֶזְרָא, וְחָמֵשׁ, מֵעֶזְרָא וָאֵילָךְ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, שֶׁבַע מֵעֶזְרָא וָאֵילָךְ. וּמִי עֲשָׂאָן. שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק וְיוֹחָנָן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל עָשׂוּ שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם, אֶלְיְהוֹעֵינַי בֶּן הַקּוֹף וַחֲנַמְאֵל הַמִּצְרִי וְיִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן פִּיאָבִי עָשׂוּ אַחַת אֶחָת: \n", 3.6. "וְכֶבֶשׁ הָיוּ עוֹשִׂים מֵהַר הַבַּיִת לְהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה, כִּפִּין עַל גַּבֵּי כִפִּין, וְכִפָּה כְנֶגֶד הָאֹטֶם, מִפְּנֵי קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם, שֶׁבּוֹ כֹהֵן הַשּׂוֹרֵף אֶת הַפָּרָה, וּפָרָה וְכָל מְסַעֲדֶיהָ, יוֹצְאִין לְהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה: \n", 3.7. "לֹא הָיְתָה פָרָה רוֹצָה לָצֵאת, אֵין מוֹצִיאִין עִמָּהּ שְׁחוֹרָה, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ, שְׁחוֹרָה שָׁחֲטוּ. וְלֹא אֲדֻמָּה, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ, שְׁתַּיִם שָׁחֲטוּ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, לֹא מִשּׁוּם זֶה, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יט), וְהוֹצִיא אֹתָהּ, לְבַדָּהּ. וְזִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָיוּ מַקְדִּימִים בְּרַגְלֵיהֶם לְהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה, וּבֵית טְבִילָה הָיָה שָׁם. וּמְטַמְּאִים הָיוּ אֶת הַכֹּהֵן הַשּׂוֹרֵף אֶת הַפָּרָה, מִפְּנֵי הַצְּדוֹקִים, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ אוֹמְרִים, בִּמְעֹרְבֵי שֶׁמֶשׁ הָיְתָה נַעֲשֵׂית: \n", 3.8. "סָמְכוּ יְדֵיהֶם עָלָיו וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִישִׁי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, טְבֹל אֶחָת. יָרַד וְטָבַל וְעָלָה וְנִסְתַּפֵּג. וְעֵצִים הָיוּ מְסֻדָּרִים שָׁם, עֲצֵי אֲרָזִים וָאֳרָנִים וּבְרוֹשִׁים וַעֲצֵי תְאֵנָה חֲלָקָה. וְעוֹשִׂין אוֹתָהּ כְּמִין מִגְדָּל, וּמְפַתְּחִין בָּהּ חַלּוֹנוֹת, וַחֲזִיתָהּ מַעֲרָבָה: \n", 3.9. "כְּפָתוּהָ בְחֶבֶל שֶׁל מֶגֶג וּנְתָנוּהָ עַל גַּב הַמַּעֲרָכָה, רֹאשָׁהּ בַּדָּרוֹם וּפָנֶיהָ לַמַּעֲרָב. הַכֹּהֵן עוֹמֵד בַּמִּזְרָח וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב. שָׁחַט בִּימִינוֹ וְקִבֵּל בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בִּימִינוֹ הָיָה מְקַבֵּל וְנוֹתֵן לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ, וּמַזֶּה בִימִינוֹ. טָבַל וְהִזָּה שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים. עַל כָּל הַזָּיָה, טְבִילָה. גָּמַר מִלְּהַזּוֹת, קִנַּח אֶת יָדוֹ בְּגוּפָהּ שֶׁל פָּרָה. יָרַד וְהִצִּית אֶת הָאֵשׁ בַּאֲלִיתוֹת. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, בַּחֲרִיּוֹת: \n", 3.10. "נִבְקְעָה, וְעָמַד חוּץ מִגִּתָּהּ. נָטַל עֵץ אֶרֶז וְאֵזוֹב וּשְׁנִי תוֹלַעַת. אָמַר לָהֶן, עֵץ אֶרֶז זֶה, עֵץ אֶרֶז זֶה. אֵזוֹב זֶה, אֵזוֹב זֶה. שְׁנִי תוֹלַעַת זֶה, שְׁנִי תוֹלַעַת זֶה. שָׁלשׁ פְּעָמִים עַל כָּל דָּבָר וְדָבָר. וְהֵם אוֹמְרִים לוֹ, הֵין וְהֵין, שָׁלשׁ פְּעָמִים עַל כָּל דָּבָר וְדָבָר: \n", 3.11. "כְּרָכָן בִּשְׁיָרֵי הַלָּשׁוֹן וְהִשְׁלִיךְ לְתוֹךְ שְׂרֵפָתָהּ. נִשְׂרְפָה, חוֹבְטִין אוֹתָהּ בְּמַקְלוֹת, וְכוֹבְרִין אוֹתָהּ בִּכְבָרוֹת. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, בְּמַקָּבוֹת שֶׁל אֶבֶן וּבִכְבָרוֹת שֶׁל אֶבֶן הָיְתָה נַעֲשֵׂית. שָׁחוֹר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ אֵפֶר, כּוֹתְשִׁין אוֹתוֹ. וְשֶׁאֵין בּוֹ, מַנִּיחִין אוֹתוֹ. הָעֶצֶם, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ הָיָה נִכְתָּשׁ. וְחוֹלְקִים אוֹתוֹ לִשְׁלשָׁה חֲלָקִים, אֶחָד נִתָּן בַּחֵיל, וְאֶחָד נִתָּן בְּהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה, וְאֶחָד הָיָה מִתְחַלֵּק לְכָל הַמִּשְׁמָרוֹת: \n", | 3.1. "Seven days before the burning of the [red] cow they would separate the priest who was to burn the cow from his house to a chamber that was facing the north-eastern corner of the birah, and which was called the Stone Chamber. They would sprinkle upon him throughout the seven days with [a mixture of] all the sin-offerings that were there. Rabbi Yose said: they sprinkled upon him only on the third and the seventh days. Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of the priests said: on the priest that was to burn the cow they sprinkled all the seven days, but on the one that was to perform the service on Yom Kippur they sprinkled on the third and the seventh days only.", 3.2. "Courtyards were built in Jerusalem over rock, and beneath them there was a hollow which served as a protection against a grave in the depths. And they used to bring there pregt women, and there they gave birth to their children and there they raised them. And they brought oxen, upon whose backs were placed doors, and the children sat upon them with stone cups in their hands. When they reached the Shiloah spring they got down and filled the cups with water and then they ascended and sat again on the doors. Rabbi Yose said: each child used to let down his cup and fill it from his place.", 3.3. "They arrived at the Temple Mount and got down. Beneath the Temple Mount and the courts was a hollow which served as a protection against a grave in the depths. And at the entrance of the courtyard there was the jar of the ashes of the sin-offerings. They would bring a male from among the sheep and tie a rope between its horns, and a stick or a bushy twig was tied at the other end of the rope, and this was thrown into the jar. They then struck the male [sheep] was so that it started backwards. And [a child] took the ashes and put it [enough] so that it could be seen upon the water. Rabbi Yose said: do not give the Sadducees an opportunity to rule! Rather, [a child] himself took it and mixed it.", 3.4. "One may not bring a sin-offering by virtue of [the purifications made for] another sin-offering, nor one child by virtue of [the preparations made for] another. The children had to be sprinkle on each other, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: they did not need to sprinkle.", 3.5. "If they did not find the residue of the ashes of the seven [red cows] they performed the sprinkling with those of six, of five, of four, of three, of two or of one. And who prepared these? Moses prepared the first, Ezra prepared the second, and five were prepared from the time of Ezra, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: seven from the time of Ezra. And who prepared them? Shimon the Just and Yoha the high priest prepared two; Elihoenai the son of Ha-Kof and Hanamel the Egyptian and Ishmael the son of Piabi prepared one each.", 3.6. "They made a ramp from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, being constructed of arches above arches, each arch placed directly above each foundation [of the arch below] as a protection against a grave in the depths, whereby the priest who was to burn the cow, the cow itself and all who aided in its preparation went forth to the Mount of olives.", 3.7. "If the cow refused to go out, they may not take out with it a black one lest people say, \"They slaughtered a black cow\" nor another red [cow] lest people say, \"They slaughtered two.\" Rabbi Yose says: it was not for this reason but because it is said \"And he shall bring her out\" by herself. The elders of Israel used to go first by foot to the Mount of Olives, where there was a place of immersion. The priest that was to burn the cow was (deliberately) made unclean on account of the Sadducees so that they should not be able to say, \"It can be done only by those on whom the sun has set.\"", 3.8. "They laid their hands upon him and said, \"My Lord the high priest, perform immersion once.\" He went down and immersed himself and came up and dried himself. Different kinds of wood were set in order there: cedar wood, pine, spruce and the wood of smooth fig trees. They made it in the shape of a tower and opened air holes in it; and its foreside was turned towards the west.", 3.9. "They bound it with a rope of reed and placed it on the pile with its head towards the south and its face towards the west. The priest stood in the east with his face towards the west. He slaughtered with his right hand and received the blood with his left. Rabbi Judah said: he received the blood with his right hand and put it in his left hand. He sprinkled with his right. Seven times he dipped his finger in the blood and sprinkled it towards the Holy of Holies, dipping once again for each sprinkling. When he finished the sprinkling he wiped his hand on the body of the cow, came down and kindled the fire with wood chips. Rabbi Akiva said: with dry branches of palm-trees.", 3.10. "It burst and he stood outside its pit and he took the cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet wool. He said to them, \"Is this cedarwood? Is this cedarwood?\" \"Is this hyssop? Is this hyssop?\" \"Is this scarlet wool? Is this scarlet wool?\" Three times he repeated each question and they answered him \"Yes, yes\"three times to each question.", 3.11. "He then wrapped them together with the remains of the strip of wool and cast them into the fire. When it was burnt up they would beat it with sticks and then sift it with sieves. Rabbi Ishmael says: this was done with stone hammers and stone sieves. If there was a black coal on which there were some ashes they would crush it but if there were no [ashes] they would leave it. A bone was crushed in either case. It was then divided into three parts: one part was deposited on the hel, one on the Mount of Olives, and one was divided among the priestly watches.", |
|
36. Mishnah, Hagigah, 2.7, 3.6-3.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 109, 183, 191| 2.7. "בִּגְדֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ מִדְרָס לַפְּרוּשִׁין. בִּגְדֵי פְרוּשִׁין מִדְרָס לְאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה. בִּגְדֵי אוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה מִדְרָס לַקֹּדֶשׁ. בִּגְדֵי קֹדֶשׁ מִדְרָס לְחַטָּאת. יוֹסֵף בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר הָיָה חָסִיד שֶׁבַּכְּהֻנָּה, וְהָיְתָה מִטְפַּחְתּוֹ מִדְרָס לַקֹּדֶשׁ. יוֹחָנָן בֶּן גֻּדְגְּדָא הָיָה אוֹכֵל עַל טָהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ כָּל יָמָיו, וְהָיְתָה מִטְפַּחְתּוֹ מִדְרָס לַחַטָּאת: \n", 3.6. "הַגַּבָּאִין שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וְכֵן הַגַּנָּבִים שֶׁהֶחֱזִירוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים, נֶאֱמָנִין לוֹמַר, לֹא נָגָעְנוּ. וּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וּבִשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל אַף עַל הַתְּרוּמָה: \n", 3.7. "הַפּוֹתֵחַ אֶת חָבִיתוֹ, וְהַמַּתְחִיל בְּעִסָּתוֹ עַל גַּב הָרֶגֶל, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, יִגְמֹר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא יִגְמֹר. מִשֶּׁעָבַר הָרֶגֶל, הָיוּ מַעֲבִירִין עַל טָהֳרַת עֲזָרָה. עָבַר הָרֶגֶל בְּיוֹם שִׁשִּׁי, לֹא הָיוּ מַעֲבִירִין, מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף לֹא בְיוֹם חֲמִישִׁי, שֶׁאֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים פְּנוּיִין: \n", 3.8. "כֵּיצַד מַעֲבִירִים עַל טָהֳרַת עֲזָרָה. מַטְבִּילִין אֶת הַכֵּלִים שֶׁהָיוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאוֹמְרִין לָהֶם, הִזָּהֲרוּ שֶׁלֹּא תִגְּעוּ בַּשֻּׁלְחָן וּבַמְּנוֹרָה וּתְטַמְּאוּהוּ. כָּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁהָיוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ, יֵשׁ לָהֶם שְׁנִיִּים וּשְׁלִישִׁים, שֶׁאִם נִטְמְאוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, יָבִיאוּ שְׁנִיִּים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. כָּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁהָיוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ, טְעוּנִין טְבִילָה, חוּץ מִמִּזְבַּח הַזָּהָב וּמִזְבַּח הַנְּחֹשֶׁת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כַּקַּרְקַע, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מְצֻפִּין: \n", | 2.7. "The garments of an am haaretz possess midras-impurity for Pharisees. The garments of Pharisees possess midras-impurity for those who eat terumah. The garments of those who eat terumah possess midras-impurity for [those who eat] sacred things. The garments of [those who eat] sacred things possess midras-impurity for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification. Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who ate] sacred things. Yoha ben Gudgada all his life used to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for sacred things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification.", 3.6. "Tax-collectors who entered a house, and similarly thieves who restored [stolen] vessels are believed if they say, “We have not touched [anything].” And in Jerusalem they are believed in regard to sacred things, and during a festival also in regard to terumah.", 3.7. "One who opened his jar [of wine] or broke into his dough [to sell them] on account of the festival [and an am haaretz touched the wine or dough]: Rabbi Judah says: he may finish [selling them after the festival]; But the sages say: he may not finish. When the festival was over, they undertook the purification of the Temple court. If the festival ended on Friday, they did not undertake [the purification of the Temple court] because of the honor of the Shabbat. Rabbi Judah said: even not on Thursday, for the priests are not free.", 3.8. "How did they undertake the purification of the Temple court? They immersed the vessels which were in the Temple, and they say to them: “Be cautious lest you touch the table or menorah and defile them.” All the vessels that were in the Temple had second and third sets, so that if the first was defiled, they might bring a second set in its place. All the vessels that were in the Temple required immersion, except the altar of gold and the altar of bronze, for they are like the ground, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: because they were overlaid [with metal].", |
|
37. Mishnah, Gittin, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 191, 192, 193| 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.", |
|
38. Mishnah, Eduyot, 7.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 191| 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.", |
|
39. Mishnah, Bikkurim, 1.1-1.2, 2.3, 3.2-3.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 178, 195| 1.1. "יֵשׁ מְבִיאִין בִּכּוּרִים וְקוֹרִין, מְבִיאִין וְלֹא קוֹרִין, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁאֵינָן מְבִיאִין. אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵינָן מְבִיאִין, הַנּוֹטֵעַ לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ וְהִבְרִיךְ לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל יָחִיד אוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּים, וְכֵן הַמַּבְרִיךְ מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁל יָחִיד אוֹ מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁל רַבִּים לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ. הַנּוֹטֵעַ לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ וְהִבְרִיךְ לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְדֶרֶךְ הַיָּחִיד וְדֶרֶךְ הָרַבִּים בָּאֶמְצַע, הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, כָּזֶה מֵבִיא: \n", 1.2. "מֵאֵיזֶה טַעַם אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ (שמות כג), עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ כָל הַגִּדּוּלִין מֵאַדְמָתְךָ. הָאֲרִיסִין וְהֶחָכוֹרוֹת וְהַסִּקָּרִיקוֹן וְהַגַּזְלָן, אֵין מְבִיאִין מֵאוֹתוֹ הַטַּעַם, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ: \n", 2.3. "יֵשׁ בַּתְּרוּמָה וְבַמַּעֲשֵׂר מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּבִּכּוּרִים, שֶׁהַתְּרוּמָה וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר אוֹסְרִין אֶת הַגֹּרֶן, וְיֵשׁ לָהֶם שִׁעוּר, וְנוֹהֲגִים בְּכָל הַפֵּרוֹת, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, וּבָאֲרִיסִין וּבֶחָכוֹרוֹת וּבַסִּקָּרִיקוֹן וּבַגַּזְלָן. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בַתְּרוּמָה וּבַמַּעֲשֵׂר, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּבִּכּוּרִים: \n", 3.2. "כֵּיצַד מַעֲלִין אֶת הַבִּכּוּרִים. כָּל הָעֲיָרוֹת שֶׁבַּמַּעֲמָד מִתְכַּנְּסוֹת לָעִיר שֶׁל מַעֲמָד, וְלָנִין בִּרְחוֹבָהּ שֶׁל עִיר, וְלֹא הָיוּ נִכְנָסִין לַבָּתִּים. וְלַמַּשְׁכִּים, הָיָה הַמְמֻנֶּה אוֹמֵר (ירמיה לא), קוּמוּ וְנַעֲלֶה צִיּוֹן אֶל בֵּית ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ: \n", 3.3. "הַקְּרוֹבִים מְבִיאִים הַתְּאֵנִים וְהָעֲנָבִים, וְהָרְחוֹקִים מְבִיאִים גְּרוֹגָרוֹת וְצִמּוּקִים. וְהַשּׁוֹר הוֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם, וְקַרְנָיו מְצֻפּוֹת זָהָב, וַעֲטֶרֶת שֶׁל זַיִת בְּרֹאשׁוֹ. הֶחָלִיל מַכֶּה לִפְנֵיהֶם, עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעִים קָרוֹב לִירוּשָׁלָיִם. הִגִּיעוּ קָרוֹב לִירוּשָׁלַיִם, שָׁלְחוּ לִפְנֵיהֶם, וְעִטְּרוּ אֶת בִּכּוּרֵיהֶם. הַפַּחוֹת, הַסְּגָנִים וְהַגִּזְבָּרִים יוֹצְאִים לִקְרָאתָם. לְפִי כְבוֹד הַנִּכְנָסִים הָיוּ יוֹצְאִים. וְכָל בַּעֲלֵי אֻמָּנִיּוֹת שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם עוֹמְדִים לִפְנֵיהֶם וְשׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹמָם, אַחֵינוּ אַנְשֵׁי הַמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, בָּאתֶם לְשָׁלוֹם: \n", 3.4. "הֶחָלִיל מַכֶּה לִפְנֵיהֶם עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעִין לְהַר הַבָּיִת. הִגִּיעוּ לְהַר הַבַּיִת, אֲפִלּוּ אַגְרִיפַּס הַמֶּלֶךְ נוֹטֵל הַסַּל עַל כְּתֵפוֹ וְנִכְנָס, עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לָעֲזָרָה. הִגִּיעַ לָעֲזָרָה וְדִבְּרוּ הַלְוִיִּם בַּשִּׁיר, אֲרוֹמִמְךָ ה' כִּי דִלִּיתָנִי וְלֹא שִׂמַּחְתָּ אֹיְבַי לִי (תהלים ל): \n", 3.5. "הַגּוֹזָלוֹת שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַסַּלִּים, הָיוּ עוֹלוֹת. וּמַה שֶּׁבְּיָדָם, נוֹתְנִים לַכֹּהֲנִים: \n", 3.6. "עוֹדֵהוּ הַסַּל עַל כְּתֵפוֹ, קוֹרֵא מֵהִגַּדְתִּי הַיּוֹם לַה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ (דברים כו), עַד שֶׁגּוֹמֵר כָּל הַפָּרָשָׁה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר עַד אֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי. הִגִּיעַ לַאֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי, מוֹרִיד הַסַּל מֵעַל כְּתֵפוֹ וְאוֹחֲזוֹ בְשִׂפְתוֹתָיו, וְכֹהֵן מַנִּיחַ יָדוֹ תַחְתָּיו וּמְנִיפוֹ, וְקוֹרֵא מֵאֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי עַד שֶׁהוּא גוֹמֵר כָּל הַפָּרָשָׁה, וּמַנִּיחוֹ בְּצַד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה וְיָצָא: \n", 3.7. "בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, כָּל מִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לִקְרוֹת, קוֹרֵא. וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לִקְרוֹת, מַקְרִין אוֹתוֹ. נִמְנְעוּ מִלְּהָבִיא, הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מַקְרִין אֶת מִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ וְאֶת מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ: \n", 3.8. "הָעֲשִׁירִים מְבִיאִים בִּכּוּרֵיהֶם בִּקְלָתוֹת שֶׁל כֶּסֶף וְשֶׁל זָהָב, וְהָעֲנִיִּים מְבִיאִין אוֹתָם בְּסַלֵּי נְצָרִים שֶׁל עֲרָבָה קְלוּפָה, וְהַסַּלִּים וְהַבִּכּוּרִים נִתָּנִין לַכֹּהֲנִים: \n", | 1.1. "There are some who bring bikkurim and recite [the declaration]; others who only bring, but do not recite; and there are some who neither bring nor recite.The following are those that do not bring: one who plants [a vine] on his own property, but buries [a shoot in the ground] so that [it] grows on property belonging to [another] individual or to the public. And similarly if one buries [a shoot in the ground] of another person’s private property or in public property, so that it grows on his own property; Or, if one plants [a vine] on his own [property] and [buries it in the ground] so that it still grows on his own property, but there is a private or public road between, such a one does not bring [bikkurim.] Rabbi Judah says: such a one has to bring bikkurim.", 1.2. "For what reason may he not bring them? Because it is said, “The first-fruits of your land” (Exodus 23:19) until all of their growth is on your land. Sharecroppers, leasers, or occupiers of confiscated property (sikarikon), or a robber does not bring them for the same reason, because it says, “The first-fruits of your land.”", 2.3. "There are [laws] which apply to terumah and maaser [sheni] but not to bikkurim:Terumah and the [second] tithe render forbidden [the contents of] the threshing-floor; They have a set amount. They apply to all produce; Both during and after Temple times; [And they apply to to produce grown] by sharecroppers, leasers, or occupiers of confiscated property (sikarikon), or a robber. These are [the laws] which apply to terumah and maaser [sheni], but not to bikkurim.", 3.2. "How were the bikkurim taken up [to Jerusalem]? All [the inhabitants of] the cities of the maamad would assemble in the city of the maamad, and they would spend the night in the open street and they would not entering any of the houses. Early in the morning the officer would say: “Let us arise and go up to Zion, into the house of the Lord our God” (Jeremiah 31:5).", 3.3. "Those who lived near [Jerusalem] would bring fresh figs and grapes, while those who lived far away would bring dried figs and raisins. An ox would go in front of them, his horns bedecked with gold and with an olive-crown on its head. The flute would play before them until they would draw close to Jerusalem. When they drew close to Jerusalem they would send messengers in advance, and they would adorn their bikkurim. The governors and chiefs and treasurers [of the Temple] would go out to greet them, and according to the rank of the entrants they would go forth. All the skilled artisans of Jerusalem would stand up before them and greet them saying, “Our brothers, men of such and such a place, we welcome you in peace.”", 3.4. "The flute would play before them, until they reached the Temple Mount. When they reached the Temple Mount even King Agrippas would take the basket and place it on his shoulder and walk as far as the Temple Court. When he got to the Temple Court, the Levites would sing the song: “I will extol You, O Lord, for You have raised me up, and You have not let my enemies rejoice over me” (Psalms 30:2).", 3.5. "The birds [tied to] the basket were [offered] as whole burnt-offerings, and those which they held in their hands they gave to the priests.", 3.6. "While the basket was still on his shoulder he recites from: \"I acknowledge this day before the LORD your God that I have entered the land that the LORD swore to our fathers to assign us” (Deuteronomy 26:3) until he completes the passage. Rabbi Judah said: until [he reaches] “My father was a fugitive Aramean” (v.. When he reaches, “My father was a fugitive Aramean”, he takes the basket off his shoulder and holds it by its edges, and the priest places his hand beneath it and waves it. He then recites from “My father was a fugitive Aramean” until he completes the entire passage. He then deposits the basket by the side of the altar, bow and depart.", 3.7. "Originally all who knew how to recite would recite while those who did not know how to recite, others would read it for them [and they would repeat the words]. But when they refrained from bringing, they decreed that they should read the words to both those who could and those who could not [recite so that they could repeat after them].", 3.8. "The rich would bring their bikkurim in baskets overlaid with silver or gold, while the poor used wicker-baskets of peeled willow-branches, and the baskets and the bikkurim were given to the priest.", |
|
40. Mishnah, Pesahim, 7.3-7.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 109, 183| 7.3. "סָכוֹ בְשֶׁמֶן תְּרוּמָה, אִם חֲבוּרַת כֹּהֲנִים, יֹאכֵלוּ. אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל, אִם חַי הוּא, יְדִיחֶנּוּ. וְאִם צָלִי הוּא, יִקְלֹף אֶת הַחִיצוֹן. סָכוֹ בְשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ דָמִים עַל בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה, שֶׁאֵין פּוֹדִין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִירוּשָׁלָיִם: \n", 7.4. "חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים בָּאִין בְּטֻמְאָה וְאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין בְּטֻמְאָה. הָעֹמֶר, וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וְזִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר, וּשְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים. הַפֶּסַח שֶׁבָּא בְטֻמְאָה, נֶאֱכָל בְּטֻמְאָה, שֶׁלֹּא בָא מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ אֶלָּא לַאֲכִילָה: \n", 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", 7.6. "נִטְמָא קָהָל אוֹ רֻבּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים טְמֵאִים וְהַקָּהָל טְהוֹרִים, יֵעָשֶׂה בְטֻמְאָה. נִטְמָא מִעוּט הַקָּהָל, הַטְּהוֹרִין עוֹשִׂין אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן, וְהַטְּמֵאִין עוֹשִׂין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי: \n", | 7.3. "If he basted it [the pesah] with oil of terumah: If they who registered for it are a company of priests, they may eat [it]. But if Israelites, if it is [still] raw, they may wash it off; if it is roasted, he must pare the outer part. If he anointed it with oil of second tithe, he must not charge its value for the members of the company, because second tithe must not be redeemed in Jerusalem.", 7.4. "Five things [sacrifices] may come in uncleanness, but may not be eaten in uncleanness:the omer, the two loaves, the showbread, the sacrifices of the public peace-offerings, and the goats of new months. The pesah which comes in uncleanness is [also] eaten in uncleanness, for from the very beginning it came for no other purpose but to be eaten.", 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.", 7.6. "If the community or the majority thereof was unclean, or if the priests were unclean and the community clean, they make [the pesah sacrifice] in uncleanness. If a minority of the community were unclean: those who are clean observe the first [Pesah], while those who are unclean observe the second.", |
|
41. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 3.237, 3.255, 20.103, 20.165-20.166, 20.181, 20.205, 20.213 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 180, 181, 186, 196 | 3.237. 1. The law requires, that out of the public expenses a lamb of the first year be killed every day, at the beginning and at the ending of the day; but on the seventh day, which is called the Sabbath, they kill two, and sacrifice them in the same manner. 3.255. 7. However, out of the common charges, baked bread (was set on the table of shew-bread), without leaven, of twenty-four tenth deals of flour, for so much is spent upon this bread; two heaps of these were baked, they were baked the day before the Sabbath, but were brought into the holy place on the morning of the Sabbath, and set upon the holy table, six on a heap, one loaf still standing over against another; 20.103. But now Herod, king of Chalcis, removed Joseph, the son of Camydus, from the high priesthood, and made Aias, the son of Nebedeu, his successor. And now it was that Cumanus came as successor to Tiberius Alexander; 20.165. and as this murder was never avenged, the robbers went up with the greatest security at the festivals after this time; and having weapons concealed in like manner as before, and mingling themselves among the multitude, they slew certain of their own enemies, and were subservient to other men for money; and slew others, not only in remote parts of the city, but in the temple itself also; for they had the boldness to murder men there, without thinking of the impiety of which they were guilty. 20.166. And this seems to me to have been the reason why God, out of his hatred of these men’s wickedness, rejected our city; and as for the temple, he no longer esteemed it sufficiently pure for him to inhabit therein, but brought the Romans upon us, and threw a fire upon the city to purge it; and brought upon us, our wives, and children, slavery, as desirous to make us wiser by our calamities. 20.181. And such was the impudence and boldness that had seized on the high priests, that they had the hardiness to send their servants into the threshing-floors, to take away those tithes that were due to the priests, insomuch that it so fell out that the poorest sort of the priests died for want. To this degree did the violence of the seditious prevail over all right and justice. 20.205. But as for the high priest, Aias he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; 20.213. And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Aias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive. |
|
42. Mishnah, Negaim, 14.1-14.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 178| 14.1. "כֵּיצַד מְטַהֲרִין אֶת הַמְּצֹרָע. הָיָה מֵבִיא פְיָלִי שֶׁל חֶרֶשׂ חֲדָשָׁה וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹכָהּ רְבִיעִית מַיִם חַיִּים, וּמֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי צִפֳּרִים דְּרוֹר. שָׁחַט אֶת אַחַת מֵהֶן עַל כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ וְעַל מַיִם חַיִּים. חָפַר וְקוֹבְרָהּ בְּפָנָיו. נָטַל עֵץ אֶרֶז וְאֵזוֹב וּשְׁנִי תוֹלַעַת וּכְרָכָן בִּשְׁיָרֵי הַלָּשׁוֹן, וְהִקִּיף לָהֶם רָאשֵׁי אֲגַפַּיִם וְרֹאשׁ הַזָּנָב שֶׁל שְׁנִיָּה. טָבַל וְהִזָּה שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים לְאַחַר יָדוֹ שֶׁל מְצֹרָע, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים, עַל מִצְחוֹ. וְכָךְ הָיָה מַזֶּה עַל הַשְּׁקוֹף שֶׁבַּבַּיִת מִבַּחוּץ: \n" 14.2. "בָּא לוֹ לְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת הַצִּפּוֹר הַחַיָּה, אֵינוֹ הוֹפֵךְ פָּנָיו לֹא לַיָּם וְלֹא לָעִיר וְלֹא לַמִּדְבָּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יד), וְשִׁלַּח אֶת הַצִּפֹּר הַחַיָּה אֶל מִחוּץ לָעִיר אֶל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה. בָּא לְגַלֵּחַ אֶת הַמְּצֹרָע, הֶעֱבִיר תַּעַר עַל כָּל בְּשָׂרוֹ, וְכִבֵּס בְּגָדָיו, וְטָבַל, טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא בְּבִיאָה, וַהֲרֵי הוּא מְטַמֵּא כַשֶּׁרֶץ. נִכְנַס לִפְנִים מִן הַחוֹמָה, מְנֻדֶּה מִבֵּיתוֹ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, וְאָסוּר בְּתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה: \n", 14.3. "בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מְגַלֵּחַ תִּגְלַחַת שְׁנִיָּה כַּתִּגְלַחַת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, כִּבֶּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָבַל, טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא כַשֶּׁרֶץ, וַהֲרֵי הוּא טְבוּל יוֹם, אוֹכֵל בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר. הֶעֱרִיב שִׁמְשׁוֹ, אוֹכֵל בַּתְּרוּמָה. הֵבִיא כַפָּרָתוֹ, אוֹכֵל בַּקָּדָשִׁים. נִמְצְאוּ שָׁלשׁ טְהָרוֹת בַּמְּצֹרָע וְשָׁלשׁ טְהָרוֹת בַּיּוֹלֶדֶת: \n", 14.4. "שְׁלשָׁה מְגַלְּחִין וְתִגְלַחְתָּן מִצְוָה, הַנָּזִיר וְהַמְּצֹרָע וְהַלְוִיִּם. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁגִּלְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְתַעַר אוֹ שֶׁשִּׁיְּרוּ שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, לֹא עָשׂוּ כְלוּם: \n", 14.5. "שְׁתֵּי צִפֳּרִים מִצְוָתָן שֶׁיְּהוּ שָׁווֹת בַּמַּרְאֶה וּבַקּוֹמָה וּבַדָּמִים, וּלְקִיחָתָן כְּאֶחָת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָם שָׁווֹת, כְּשֵׁרוֹת. לָקַח אַחַת הַיּוֹם וְאַחַת לְמָחָר, כְּשֵׁרוֹת. שָׁחַט אַחַת מֵהֶן וְנִמְצֵאת שֶׁלֹּא דְרוֹר, יִקַּח זוּג לַשְּׁנִיָּה. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מֻתֶּרֶת בַּאֲכִילָה. שְׁחָטָהּ וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵפָה, יִקַּח זוּג לַשְּׁנִיָּה. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מֻתֶּרֶת בַּהֲנָאָה. נִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם, תָּמוּת הַמִּשְׁתַּלַּחַת. מֵתָה הַמִּשְׁתַּלַּחַת, יִשָּׁפֵךְ הַדָּם: \n", 14.6. "מִצְוַת עֵץ אֶרֶז, אָרְכּוֹ אַמָּה וְעָבְיוֹ כִרְבִיעַ כֶּרַע הַמִּטָּה. אֶחָד לִשְׁנַיִם, וּשְׁנַיִם לְאַרְבָּעָה. מִצְוַת אֵזוֹב, לֹא אֵזוֹב יָוָן, לֹא אֵזוֹב כּוֹחֲלִי, לֹא אֵזוֹב רוֹמִי, לֹא אֵזוֹב מִדְבָּרִית, וְלֹא כָל אֵזוֹב שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ שֵׁם לְוָי: \n", 14.7. "בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי מֵבִיא שָׁלשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת, חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם וְעוֹלָה. וְהַדַּל הָיָה מֵבִיא חַטַּאת הָעוֹף וְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף: \n", 14.8. "בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל הָאָשָׁם, וְסָמַךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו, וּשְׁחָטוֹ, וְקִבְּלוּ שְׁנֵי כֹהֲנִים אֶת דָּמוֹ, אֶחָד בִּכְלִי, וְאֶחָד בַּיָּד. זֶה שֶׁקִּבֵּל בַּכְּלִי, בָּא וּזְרָקוֹ עַל קִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְזֶה שֶׁקִּבֵּל בַּיָּד, בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל הַמְּצֹרָע. וְהַמְּצֹרָע טָבַל בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַמְּצֹרָעִים. בָּא וְעָמַד בְּשַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה: \n", 14.9. "הִכְנִיס רֹאשׁוֹ, וְנָתַן עַל תְּנוּךְ אָזְנוֹ. יָדוֹ, וְנָתַן עַל בֹּהֶן יָדוֹ. רַגְלוֹ, וְנָתַן עַל בֹּהֶן רַגְלוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שְׁלָשְׁתָּם הָיָה מַכְנִיס כְּאֶחָד. אֵין לוֹ בֹּהֶן יָד, בֹּהֶן רֶגֶל, אֹזֶן יְמָנִית, אֵין לוֹ טָהֳרָה עוֹלָמִית. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, נוֹתֵן הוּא עַל מְקוֹמָן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אִם נָתַן עַל שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל, יָצָא: \n", 14.10. "נָטַל מִלֹּג הַשֶּׁמֶן וְיָצַק לְתוֹךְ כַּפּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ. וְאִם יָצַק לְתוֹךְ כַּף עַצְמוֹ, יָצָא. טָבַל וְהִזָּה שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים, עַל כָּל הַזָּיָה טְבִילָה. בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל הַמְּצֹרָע, מְקוֹם שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן אֶת הַדָּם, שָׁם הוּא נוֹתֵן אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יד), עַל מְקוֹם דַּם הָאָשָׁם. וְהַנּוֹתָר מִן הַשֶּׁמֶן אֲשֶׁר עַל כַּף הַכֹּהֵן יִתֵּן עַל רֹאשׁ הַמִּטַּהֵר לְכַפֵּר. אִם נָתַן, כִּפֵּר. וְאִם לֹא נָתַן, לֹא כִפֵּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר, שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה הֵן, בֵּין שֶׁנָּתַן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן, כִּפֵּר, וּמַעֲלִין עָלָיו כְּאִלּוּ לֹא כִפֵּר. חָסַר הַלֹּג עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָצַק, יְמַלְאֶנּוּ. מִשֶּׁיָּצַק, יָבִיא אַחֵר בַּתְּחִלָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, חָסַר הַלֹּג עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן, יְמַלְאֶנּוּ. מִשֶּׁנָּתַן, יָבִיא אַחֵר בַּתְּחִלָּה: \n", | 14.1. "How would they purify a metzora?A new earthenware flask and a quarter of a log of living water was put in it. Two undomesticated birds are also brought. One of these was slaughtered over the earthenware vessel and over the living water. A hole was dug and it was buried in his presence. Cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet wool were taken and bound together with the remaining ends of the strip of wool. Near to these were brought the tips of the wings and the tip of the tail of the second bird. All were dipped together, and sprinkled upon the back of the metzora's hand seven times. Some say that the sprinkling was done upon his forehead. In the same manner one would sprinkle on the lintel of a house from the outside." 14.2. "He now comes to set free the living bird. He does not turn his face towards the sea or towards the city or towards the wilderness, for it is said, \"But he shall let the living bird go out of the city into the open field\" (Leviticus 14:53). He now comes to shave off the hair of the metzora. He passes a razor over the whole of his skin, and he [the metzora] washes his clothes and immerses himself. He is then clean so far as to not convey uncleanness by entrance, but he still conveys uncleanness as does a sheretz. He may enter within the walls [of Jerusalem], but must keep away from his house for seven days, and he is forbidden to have intercourse.", 14.3. "On the seventh day he shaves off his hair a second time in the manner of the first shaving, he washes his garments and immerses himself. He is clean in so far as not to convey uncleanness as a sheretz, but he was still like a tevul yom. He may eat second tithe. After sunset he may eat terumah. After he had brought his offering of atonement, he may also eat sacred things. Thus there are three grades in the purification of a metzora and three grades in the purification of a woman after child birth.", 14.4. "There are three who must shave their hair, and their shaving of it is a commandment: the nazirite, the metzora, and the Levites. If any of these cut their hair but not with a razor, or if they left even two remaining hairs, their act is of no validity.", 14.5. "With regard to the two birds: the commandment is that they be alike in appearance, in size and in price; and they must be purchased at the same time. But even if they are not alike they are valid; And if one was purchased on one day and the other the next they are also valid. If after one of the birds had been slaughtered it was found that it was not wild, a partner must be purchased for the second, and the first may be eaten. If after it had been slaughtered it was found to terefah, a partner must be purchased for the second and the first may be made use of. If the blood had been spilled out, the bird that was to be let go must be left to die. If the one that was to be let go died, the blood must be spilled out.", 14.6. "The mitzvah of the cedarwood is for it to be one cubit in length, and in thickness a quarter of that of the leg of a bed, when one leg is divided into two halves and these two into four. The mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should be neither ezovyon (lavendula) nor blue hyssop nor Roman hyssop nor wild hyssop nor any kind of hyssop that has an accompanying name.", 14.7. "On the eighth day he would bring three beasts: a sin-offering, a guilt-offering and a whole burnt-offering. And a poor man would bring a sin-offering of a bird and a burnt-offering of a bird.", 14.8. "He comes to the guilt-offering and he puts his two hands on it. He then slaughters it. Two priests receive its blood, one in a vessel and the other in his hand. He who received it in the vessel proceeded to sprinkle it on the wall of the altar. The one who received it in his hand would approach the metzora. The metzora had in the meantime immersed himself in the chamber of the metzoraim. He would come and stand at the Nikanor gate. Rabbi Judah says: he did not require immersion.", 14.9. "[The metzora] put in his head inside and [the priest] applied [the blood] to the tip of his ear; [He put in] his hand and [the priest] applied [the blood] to the thumb of his hand. [He put in] his foot and [the priest] applied [the blood] to the big toe of his foot. Rabbi Judah says: he put in all three at the same time. If he had no thumb on his hand or no big toe on his foot or no right ear he could never become clean. Rabbi Eliezer says: [the blood] is applied to the place where they were. Rabbi Shimon says: if he applied it to the left side, the obligation has been fulfilled.", 14.10. "[The priest] then took some [of the contents] of the log of oil and poured it into his colleague's hand; And if he poured it into his own hand, the obligation is fulfilled. He then dipped [his right forefinger] in the oil and sprinkled it seven times towards the Holy of Holies, dipping it for every sprinkling. He then approached the metzora, to the same places that he applied the blood he now applied the oil, as it is said, \"Over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering; 29 and what is left of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed, to make expiation for him before the Lord.\" (Leviticus 14:28-29). If he \"put upon,\" he has made atonement, but if he did not \"put upon,\" he did not make atonement, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yoha ben Nuri says: these are but the remainders of the mitzvah. Whether he \"put upon\" or did not \"put upon,\" atonement is made, only it is accounted to him as if he did not make atonement. If any oil was missing from the log before it was poured out it may be filled up again; if after it was poured out, other oil must be brought anew, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: if any oil was missing from the log before it was applied, it may be filled up; but if after it had been applied, other oil must be brought anew.", |
|
| 43. Seneca The Younger, Phaedra, 34.21, 34.21-35.13, 34.22, 34.23, 34.24, 34.25, 34.26, 34.27, 35.8, 35.9, 35.10, 35.11, 35.12 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 153 |
44. Tosefta, Kippurim, 1.12 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 182, 185| 1.12. "איל קרב באחד עשר כבשי צבור בשמונה שאין עמהן חביתין פר קרב בעשרים וארבעה הראש והרגל שנים אוחזין ברגל ומעלין אותה לגבי מזבח שלשה אוחזין ומקריבין אותה לגבי מזבח בד\"א בקרבנות הצבור אבל קרבנות יחיד כל הרוצה להקריב מקריב מעשה בבניה של מרתה בת בייתוס שהיה אחד מהם נוטל שתי יריכות בשתי אצבעותיו משור לקוח באלף דנרין והיה מהלך עקב בצד גודל ומעלה אותן לגבי מזבח.", | |
|
| 45. Tosefta, Menachot, 13.18-13.22 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 180, 182, 184, 185 |
46. Tosefta, Shevuot, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 182| 1.4. "כל המטמאין שבתורה בין שנטמאו טומאה קלה ובין שנטמאו טומאה חמורה חייבין על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו שנאמר (ויקרא ה׳:ב׳) בכל דבר טמא לרבות כל המטמאין שבתורה או נפש למה נאמר לפי ששלש מצות אמורות בפרשה ב' מפורשות ואחת סתומה תלמוד סתומה מן המפורשה מה מפורשה שבע אף סתומה שבע אפילו אמר לעדים בואו והעידוני שלא נטמאתי ואמרו לו שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות יכול יהו חייבין ת\"ל או נפש דהסיען הכתוב מכלל הטומאות ובא לו לכלל שבועות. או נפש לרבות כל הנפשות אף נפש נשיא ומשיח ר' ירמיה אומר דבר למד מעניינו שנא' (ויקרא ה׳:ז׳) ואם לא תגיע ידו די שה ואומר ואם לא תשיג ידו לשתי וגו' במי שבא לכלל עוני הכתוב מדבר יצא נשיא ומשיח שאין באין לכלל עוני שקדושתן עולמית. בכל [דבר] טמא מה ת\"ל בכל דבר ר\"ע אומר להביא את הנגע שאין טומאה יורדת להן אלא בדבר שר\"ע לא היה דורש כלל ופרט והיה דורש רבויין ומעוטין שכך למד מנחום איש גם זו ר' נתן אומר להביא את הכלים שאין טומאה יורדת להן אלא במחשבה אמר ליה מה ראו כלים למחשבה שר\"ש לא היה דורש רבויין ומעוטין והיה דורש כלל ופרט וכלל או נפש אשר תגע בכל דבר טמא כלל או בנבלת חיה טמאה וגו' פרט או כי יגע בטומאת אדם וגו' כלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט כשהוא אומר לכל טומאתו אשר יטמא בה חזר וכלל אם כלל הראשון אמרינן לאו אלא כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט לומר לך מה הפרט מפורש טמאות המפורשות מן התורה יצא עדר גמלין ועדר רחילין ומכונות חיה ועוף ששכנו טמאות דאין מפורש מן התורה ר' נתן אומר טומאת גאיות ולא טומאת קדושה יצא השורף את הפרה ופרים המשלח את השעיר שהן טומאות קדושות. אין לי אלא בהמה חיה ועוף טהורין בהמה חיה ועוף טמאין מנין ת\"ל או בנבלת שרץ טמא אמר ר' יאשיה וכי יש בשרץ טמא וטהור אלא כשם שחלקתה בין שרץ טמא לטהור כך בין בהמה וחיה לא תחלוק בין טמאין לטהורין אין לי אלא בכולן בכזית מנין ת\"ל בנבלת חיה טמאה מה ת\"ל טמאה להביא את כזית. א\"ר שמעון מה ראו לומר בבהמה חיה בכזית טמא ובשרץ בכעדשה אלא בהמה וחיה תחלת ברייתן כזית. שרץ תחלת ברייתן כעדשה.", | |
|
47. Mishnah, Temurah, 2.1, 6.1-6.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 183, 193, 194| 2.1. "יֵשׁ בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד מַה שֶּׁאֵין בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר, וְיֵשׁ בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר מַה שֶּׁאֵין בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד. שֶׁקָּרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד עוֹשִׂים תְּמוּרָה, וְקָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר אֵינָם עוֹשִׂים תְּמוּרָה. קָרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד נוֹהֲגִין בִּזְכָרִים וּבִנְקֵבוֹת, וְקָרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר אֵינָן נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בִזְכָרִים. קָרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד חַיָּבִין בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן וּבְאַחֲרָיוּת נִסְכֵּיהֶם, וְקָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר אֵין חַיָּבִין לֹא בְאַחֲרָיוּתָן וְלֹא בְאַחֲרָיוּת נִסְכֵּיהֶן, אֲבָל חַיָּבִין בְּאַחֲרָיוּת נִסְכֵּיהֶן מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הַזָּבַח. יֵשׁ בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר מַה שֶּׁאֵין בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד. שֶׁקָּרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר דּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְאֶת הַטֻּמְאָה, וְקָרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד אֵינָן דּוֹחִים לֹא אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְלֹא אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וַהֲלֹא חֲבִתֵּי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וּפַר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, קָרְבַּן יָחִיד וְדוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְאֶת הַטֻּמְאָה. אֶלָּא שֶׁזְּמַנָּן קָבוּעַ: \n", 6.1. "כָּל הָאֲסוּרִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אוֹסְרִים כָּל שֶׁהֵן. הָרוֹבֵעַ, וְהַנִּרְבָּע, וְהַמֻּקְצֶה, וְהַנֶּעֱבָד, וְאֶתְנָן, וּמְחִיר, וְהַכִּלְאַיִם, וְהַטְּרֵפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דֹפֶן. אֵיזֶה הוּא מֻקְצֶה. הַמֻּקְצֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. הוּא אָסוּר, וּמַה שֶּׁעָלָיו מֻתָּר. אֵיזֶהוּ נֶעֱבָד. כֹּל שֶׁעוֹבְדִין אוֹתוֹ. הוּא וּמַה שֶּׁעָלָיו אָסוּר. זֶה וָזֶה מֻתָּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה: \n", 6.2. "אֵיזֶהוּ אֶתְנָן. הָאוֹמֵר לְזוֹנָה, הֵא לִיךְ טָלֶה זֶה בִשְׂכָרֵךְ, אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, כֻּלָּן אֲסוּרִין. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ, הֵא לְךָ טָלֶה זֶה וְתָלִין שִׁפְחָתְךָ אֵצֶל עַבְדִּי, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ אֶתְנָן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֶתְנָן: \n", 6.3. "אֵיזֶה הוּא מְחִיר כֶּלֶב. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ, הֵא לְךָ טָלֶה זֶה תַּחַת כֶּלֶב זֶה. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי שֻׁתָּפִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ, אֶחָד נָטַל עֲשָׂרָה, וְאֶחָד נָטַל תִּשְׁעָה וָכֶלֶב, שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הַכֶּלֶב, אֲסוּרִים, שֶׁעִם הַכֶּלֶב, מֻתָּרִים. אֶתְנַן כֶּלֶב וּמְחִיר זוֹנָה, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג), שְׁנַיִם, וְלֹא אַרְבָּעָה. וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן מֻתָּרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) הֵן, וְלֹא וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן: \n", 6.4. "נָתַן לָהּ כְּסָפִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. יֵינוֹת, שְׁמָנִים, וּסְלָתוֹת, וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ קָרֵב עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, אָסוּר. נָתַן לָהּ מֻקְדָּשִׁין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. עוֹפוֹת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין, מָה אִם הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין, שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶם, אֵין אֶתְנָן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶם, עוֹפוֹת, שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן, אֵינוֹ בַדִּין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אֶתְנָן וּמְחִיר חָל עֲלֵיהֶן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שם), לְכָל נֶדֶר, לְהָבִיא אֶת הָעוֹף: \n", | 2.1. "There are [laws relating] to the sacrifices of an individual which do not apply to congregational sacrifices and [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals. For sacrifices of an individual can make a substitute whereas congregational sacrifices cannot make a substitute; Sacrifices of an individual can be either males or females, whereas congregational sacrifices can be only males. For sacrifices of an individual the owner is responsible for them and their libations, whereas for congregational sacrifices they are not liable for them or for their libations, although they are liable for their libations once the sacrifice has been offered. There are [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals: For congregational sacrifices override Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity, whereas sacrifices of individuals do not override the Shabbat or [the laws] of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir said: but do not the griddle cakes of a high priest and the bull for Yom Hakippurim which are sacrifices of individuals and yet override the Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity? The matter therefore depends on [whether] the time [for the offering up] is fixed.", 6.1. "All [animals] forbidden for the altar render [others] unfit however few there are. [These are the animals forbidden for the altar]: An animal which had sexual relations with [a woman] or [an animal] that had sexual relations [with a man], an animal set aside (muktzeh) [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped (ne’evad) [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through a caesarean section,What is meant by muktzeh? That which has been set aside for idolatrous use. It [the animal itself] is forbidden, but what is upon it, is permitted. And what is meant by ne'evad? That which has been used for idolatry. Both it [the animal itself] and that which is upon it, are forbidden. In both cases the animal may be eaten.", 6.2. "What is meant by “a prostitute’s fee”?If one says to a prostitute, “Take this lamb as your fee,” even if there are a hundred lambs, they are all forbidden [for the altar]. If one says to his fellow: Here is a lamb and have your female slave sleep with my servant, Rabbi Meir says: it [the lamb] is not regarded as a prostitute’s fee. But the sages say: it is regarded as a prostitute’s fee.", 6.3. "What is meant by the “price of a dog”?If one says to his fellow, here is this lamb instead of [this] dog. And similarly if two partners divided [an estate] and one took ten lambs and the other nine and a dog, all those taken in place of the dog are forbidden [for the altar], but those taken with a dog are valid [for the altar]. An animal that is the fee of a dog and the price of a prostitute are permitted [for the altar], since it says: “[For] both [of these]” (Deuteronomy 23:19): both’ but not four. Their offspring are permitted [for the altar since it says]: “[Both of these]” implying they but not their offspring.", 6.4. "If he gave her [a prostitute] money, it is permitted [for use for the altar.] [But if he gave her] wine, oil, flour and anything similar which is offered on the altar, it is forbidden for the altar. If he gave her dedicated [animals] they are permitted [for the altar]. If he gave her birds [of hullin] they are disqualified. For one might have reasoned [as follows]: if in the case of dedicated animals, where a blemish disqualifies them, [the law] of [the prostitute’s] fee and price [of a dog] does not apply to them, in the case of birds, where a blemish does not disqualify, is it not all the more reason that the law of [the prostitute’s] fee and the price [of a dog] should not apply? Scripture says, “For any vow,” (Deuteronomy 23:19) this includes a bird.", |
|
48. Tosefta, Shekalim, 2.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 191| 2.14. "אלו הן הממונין שהיו במקדש יוחנן בן גודגדא על נעילת שערים בן טוטפת על המפתחות בן דופאי על הלולב בן ארזא על הדוכן בנימין על התנורין שמואל על החביתין ובן מקליט על המלח בן פלח על העצים.", | |
|
| 49. Palestinian Talmud, Yoma, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 179 |
| 50. Palestinian Talmud, Taanit, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 51. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 190 |
| 52. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 147, 261 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 194, 195 |
| 53. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 161, 131 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 178, 179 |
54. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 21.9, 35.10 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 179, 189| 21.9. דָּבָר אַחֵר, בְּזֹאת יָבֹא אַהֲרֹן, רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי אוֹמֵר בְּזֹאת, הַכָּתוּב מְבַשְּׂרוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַי אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת וְעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים, וְכִי עָלָה עַל דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁאַהֲרֹן חַי אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת וְעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים, אֶלָּא מִקְדָּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן עַל יְדֵי שֶׁשִּׁמְשׁוּ בּוֹ בֶּאֱמוּנָה, שִׁמְשׁוּ בּוֹ שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר כֹּהֲנִים, הוּא וּבְנוֹ וּבֶן בְּנוֹ. מִקְדָּשׁ שֵׁנִי עַל שֶׁהָיוּ נוֹטְלִין אוֹתָהּ בְּדָמִים, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁהָיוּ הוֹרְגִין זֶה אֶת זֶה בִּכְשָׁפִים, שִׁמְשׁוּ שְׁמוֹנִים כֹּהֲנִים וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שְׁמוֹנִים וּשְׁנַיִם [ויש אומרים שמונים ושלשה], וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שְׁמוֹנִים וְאַרְבָּעָה [ויש אומרים שמונים וחמשה] וּמֵהֶן שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁחָזְרוּ לִהְיוֹת מַשְׂכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ בְּדָמִים הָיוּ שְׁנוֹתֵיהֶן מִתְקַצְּרוֹת. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁשָּׁלַח בְּיַד בְּנוֹ שְׁתֵּי מִדּוֹת שֶׁל כֶּסֶף מְלֵאוֹת כֶּסֶף וּמְחוֹקֵיהֶן כֶּסֶף, וְעָמַד אֶחָד וְשָׁלַח בְּיַד בְּנוֹ שְׁתֵּי מִדּוֹת שֶׁל זָהָב מְלֵאוֹת זָהָב וּמְחוֹקֵיהוֹן זָהָב, אָמְרוּ כָּפָה סְיָח אֶת הַמְּנוֹרָה. רַבִּי אַחָא הֲוֵי קָרֵי עֲלֵיהֶן (משלי י, כז): יִרְאַת ה' תּוֹסִיף יָמִים, אֵלּוּ שֶׁשִּׁמְשׁוּ בְּמִקְדָּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן, (משלי י, כז): וּשְׁנוֹת רְשָׁעִים תִּקְצֹרְנָה, אֵלּוּ שֶׁשִּׁמְשׁוּ בְּבַיִת שֵׁנִי. | |
|
| 55. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 189 |
56. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 185| 3a. קשיא דרבי מאיר אדרבי מאיר תרי תנאי אליבא דרבי מאיר,קשיא דרבי אליעזר אדרבי אליעזר,תרי תנאי אליבא דרבי אליעזר ואיבעית אימא רישא לאו רבי אליעזר היא:,עד סוף האשמורה:,מאי קסבר רבי אליעזר אי קסבר שלש משמרות הוי הלילה לימא עד ארבע שעות ואי קסבר ארבע משמרות הוי הלילה לימא עד שלש שעות,לעולם קסבר שלש משמרות הוי הלילה והא קא משמע לן דאיכא משמרות ברקיע ואיכא משמרות בארעא דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר שלש משמרות הוי הלילה ועל כל משמר ומשמר יושב הקדוש ברוך הוא ושואג כארי שנאמר ה' ממרום ישאג וממעון קדשו יתן קולו שאוג ישאג על נוהו,וסימן לדבר משמרה ראשונה חמור נוער שניה כלבים צועקים שלישית תינוק יונק משדי אמו ואשה מספרת עם בעלה.,מאי קא חשיב רבי אליעזר אי תחלת משמרות קא חשיב תחלת משמרה ראשונה סימנא למה לי אורתא הוא אי סוף משמרות קא חשיב סוף משמרה אחרונה למה לי סימנא יממא הוא,אלא חשיב סוף משמרה ראשונה ותחלת משמרה אחרונה ואמצעית דאמצעיתא ואיבעית אימא כולהו סוף משמרות קא חשיב וכי תימא אחרונה לא צריך,למאי נפקא מינה למיקרי קריאת שמע למאן דגני בבית אפל ולא ידע זמן קריאת שמע אימת כיון דאשה מספרת עם בעלה ותינוק יונק משדי אמו ליקום וליקרי.,אמר רב יצחק בר שמואל משמיה דרב ג' משמרות הוי הלילה ועל כל משמר ומשמר יושב הקדוש ברוך הוא ושואג כארי ואומר אוי לבנים שבעונותיהם החרבתי את ביתי ושרפתי את היכלי והגליתים לבין אומות העולם:,תניא אמר רבי יוסי פעם אחת הייתי מהלך בדרך ונכנסתי לחורבה אחת מחורבות ירושלים להתפלל בא אליהו זכור לטוב ושמר לי על הפתח (והמתין לי) עד שסיימתי תפלתי לאחר שסיימתי תפלתי אמר לי שלום עליך רבי ואמרתי לו שלום עליך רבי ומורי ואמר לי בני מפני מה נכנסת לחורבה זו אמרתי לו להתפלל ואמר לי היה לך להתפלל בדרך ואמרתי לו מתיירא הייתי שמא יפסיקו בי עוברי דרכים ואמר לי היה לך להתפלל תפלה קצרה,באותה שעה למדתי ממנו שלשה דברים למדתי שאין נכנסין לחורבה ולמדתי שמתפללין בדרך ולמדתי שהמתפלל בדרך מתפלל תפלה קצרה,ואמר לי בני מה קול שמעת בחורבה זו ואמרתי לו שמעתי בת קול שמנהמת כיונה ואומרת אוי לבנים שבעונותיהם החרבתי את ביתי ושרפתי את היכלי והגליתים לבין האומות ואמר לי חייך וחיי ראשך לא שעה זו בלבד אומרת כך אלא בכל יום ויום שלש פעמים אומרת כך ולא זו בלבד אלא בשעה שישראל נכנסין לבתי כנסיות ולבתי מדרשות ועונין יהא שמיה הגדול מבורך הקדוש ברוך הוא מנענע ראשו ואומר אשרי המלך שמקלסין אותו בביתו כך מה לו לאב שהגלה את בניו ואוי להם לבנים שגלו מעל שולחן אביהם:,תנו רבנן מפני שלשה דברים אין נכנסין לחורבה מפני חשד מפני המפולת ומפני המזיקין. מפני חשד ותיפוק ליה משום מפולת | 3a. The previous baraita cited Rabbi Meir’s opinion that the time for the recitation of i Shema /i begins when the priests immerse before partaking of their i teruma /i . In the i Tosefta /i , it was taught that Rabbi Meir holds that one begins to recite i Shema /i from when people enter to eat their meal on Shabbat eve. One opinion of b Rabbi Meir /b seems to b contradict /b another opinion of b Rabbi Meir /b . The Gemara responds: b Two i tanna’im /i , /b students of Rabbi Meir, expressed different opinions b in accordance with Rabbi Meir’s /b opinion.,So too, the opinion b of Rabbi Eliezer /b cited in the mishna b contradicts /b the opinion b of Rabbi Eliezer /b cited in the i baraita /i . In the mishna, Rabbi Eliezer holds that the time for the recitation of i Shema /i begins with the emergence of the stars: From the time when the priests enter to partake of their i teruma /i , while in the i baraita /i , he states that the time for the recitation of i Shema /i begins when the day becomes sanctified on the eve of Shabbat.,The Gemara responds: There are two possible resolutions to the apparent contradiction in Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion. Either b two /b i tanna’im /i expressed different opinions b in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer’s /b opinion, b or if you wish, say /b instead that b the first clause /b of the mishna, according to which we begin to recite i Shema /i when the priests enter to partake of their i teruma /i , b is not /b actually b Rabbi Eliezer’s /b opinion. Only the second half of the statement: Until the end of the first watch, was stated by Rabbi Eliezer.,In the mishna, we learned that Rabbi Eliezer establishes that one may recite the evening i Shema /i b until the end of the first watch. /b These watches are mentioned in the Bible as segments of the night, but it must be established: Into precisely how many segments is the night divided, three or four? Moreover, why does Rabbi Eliezer employ such inexact parameters rather than a more precise definition of time ( i Tosefot HaRosh /i )?, b What does Rabbi Eliezer /b actually b hold? If he holds that the night consists of three watches, let him say /b explicitly that one recites the evening i Shema /i b until the fourth hour. If he holds that the night consists of four watches, let him say /b explicitly b until the third hour. /b ,The Gemara responds: b Actually, /b Rabbi Eliezer b holds that the night consists of three watches, /b and he employs this particular language of watches b in order to teach us: There are watches in heaven and there are watches on earth; /b just as our night is divided into watches, so too is the night in the upper worlds. b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Eliezer says: The night consists of three watches, and over each and every watch, the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and roars like a lion /b in pain over the destruction of the Temple. This imagery is derived from a reference in the Bible, b as it is stated: “The Lord roars [ i yishag /i ] from on high, from His holy dwelling He makes His voice heard. He roars mightily /b [ b i shaog yishag /i /b ] b over His dwelling place, /b He cries out like those who tread grapes, against all the inhabitants of the earth” (Jeremiah 25:30). The three instances of the root i shin-alef-gimmel /i in this verse correspond to the three watches of the night., b And signs of /b the transition between each of b these /b watches in the upper world can be sensed in this world: In b the first watch, the donkey brays; /b in b the second, dogs bark; /b and in b the third /b people begin to rise, b a baby nurses from its mother’s breast and a wife converses with her husband. /b ,With regard to these earthly manifestations of the three heavenly watches as established in the i baraita /i , the Gemara asks: b What did Rabbi Eliezer enumerate? If /b he b enumerated the beginning of the watch, why do I need a sign for the beginning of the first watch? It is /b when b evening /b begins; an additional sign is superfluous. b If he enumerated the end of the watches, why do I need a sign for the end of the last watch? It is /b when b day /b begins; an additional sign is similarly superfluous.,The Gemara answers: b Rather, he enumerated /b the signs for b the end of the first watch and the beginning of the last watch, /b both of which require a sign, as well as b the middle of the middle /b watch. b And if you wish, say /b instead: b He enumerated the ends of all /b of the watches. b And if you say /b that a sign indicating the end of the b final /b watch b is unnecessary /b because it is day, nevertheless, that sign is useful., b What is the practical ramification /b of this sign? It is relevant b to one who recites /b i Shema /i b while lying in a dark house, /b who cannot see the dawn and b who does not know when the time for reciting i Shema /i /b arrives. That person is provided with a sign that b when a woman speaks with her husband and a baby nurses from its mother’s breast, /b the final watch of the night has ended and b he must rise and recite /b i Shema /i ., b Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel said in the name of Rav: The night consists of three watches, and over each and every watch the Holy One, Blessed be He sits and roars like a lion, /b because the Temple service was connected to the changing of these watches ( i Tosefot HaRosh /i ), b and says: “Woe to Me, that due to their sins I destroyed My house, burned My Temple and exiled them among the nations of the world.” /b ,Incidental to the mention of the elevated significance of the night watches, the Gemara cites a related story: b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yosei said: I was once walking along the road when I entered /b the b ruins /b of an old, abandoned building b among the ruins of Jerusalem /b in order b to pray. /b I noticed that b Elijah, of blessed memory, came and guarded the entrance for me and waited at the entrance until I finished my prayer. When I finished praying /b and exited the ruin, Elijah b said to me, /b deferentially as one would address a Rabbi: b Greetings to you, my Rabbi. I answered him: Greetings to you, my Rabbi, my teacher. And /b Elijah b said to me: My son, why did you enter this ruin? I said to him: /b In order b to pray. And /b Elijah b said to me: You should have prayed on the road. And I said to him: /b I was unable to pray along the road, because b I was afraid that I might be interrupted by travelers /b and would be unable to focus. Elijah b said to me: You should have recited the abbreviated prayer /b instituted for just such circumstances.,Rabbi Yosei concluded: b At that time, /b from that brief exchange, b I learned from him, three things: I learned that one may not enter a ruin; and I learned /b that one need not enter a building to pray, but b he may pray along the road; and I learned that one who prays along the road recites an abbreviated prayer /b so that he may maintain his focus., b And /b after this introduction, Elijah b said to me: What voice did you hear in that ruin? /b br b I responded: I heard a Heavenly voice, /b like an echo of that roar of the Holy One, Blessed be He (Maharsha), b cooing like a dove and saying: Woe to the children, due to whose sins I destroyed My house, burned My Temple, and exiled them among the nations. /b br b And /b Elijah b said to me: /b By b your life and by your head, not only /b did that voice b cry out in that moment, but it cries out three times each and every day. Moreover, /b any time that God’s greatness is evoked, such as b when Israel enters synagogues and study halls and answers /b in the i kaddish /i prayer, b May His great name be blessed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, shakes His head and says: Happy is the king who is thus praised in his house. /b When the Temple stood, this praise was recited there, but now: b How /b great is the pain of b the father who exiled his children, and woe to the children who were exiled from their father’s table, /b as their pain only adds to that of their father (Rabbi Shem Tov ibn Shaprut)., b The Sages taught, for three reasons one may not enter a ruin: Because of suspicion /b of prostitution, b because /b the ruin is liable to b collapse, /b and b because of demons. /b Three separate reasons seem extraneous, so the Gemara asks: Why was the reason b because of suspicion /b necessary? b Let this /b i halakha /i b be derived because of collapse. /b |
|
57. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 195| 69b. עד דהוי מומר לעבודת כוכבים,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ליתן רשות ולבטל רשות וכדתניא ישראל מומר משמר שבתו בשוק מבטל רשות שאינו משמר שבתו בשוק אינו מבטל רשות,מפני שאמרו ישראל נוטל רשות ונותן רשות ובנכרי עד שישכיר כיצד אומר לו רשותי קנויה לך רשותי מבוטלת לך קנה ואין צריך לזכות,רב אשי אמר האי תנא הוא דחמירא עליה שבת כע"ז,כדתניא (ויקרא א, ב) מכם ולא כולכם פרט למומר מכם בכם חלקתי ולא באומות,מן הבהמה להביא בני אדם הדומין לבהמה מכאן אמרו מקבלין קרבנות מפושעי ישראל כדי שיחזרו בתשובה חוץ מן המומר והמנסך יין והמחלל שבתות בפרהסיא,הא גופא קשיא אמרת מכם ולא כולכם להוציא את המומר והדר תני מקבלין קרבנות מפושעי ישראל הא לא קשיא רישא במומר לכל התורה כולה מציעתא במומר לדבר אחד,אימא סיפא חוץ מן המומר והמנסך יין האי מומר היכי דמי אי מומר לכל התורה היינו רישא אי לדבר אחד קשיא מציעתא,אלא לאו הכי קאמר חוץ מן המומר לנסך ולחלל שבתות בפרהסיא אלמא ע"ז ושבת כי הדדי נינהו שמע מינה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אנשי חצר ששכח אחד מהן ולא עירב ביתו אסור מלהכניס ומלהוציא לו ולהם ושלהם מותרין לו ולהם נתנו לו רשותן הוא מותר והן אסורין,היו שנים אוסרין זה על זה שאחד נותן רשות ונוטל רשות שנים נותנין רשות ואין נוטלין רשות,מאימתי נותנין רשות ב"ש אומרים מבעוד יום וב"ה אומרים משחשיכה מי שנתן רשותו והוציא בין בשוגג בין במזיד ה"ז אוסר דברי ר' מאיר ר' יהודה אומר במזיד אוסר בשוגג אינו אוסר:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ביתו הוא דאסור הא חצירו שריא,היכי דמי אי דבטיל ביתו אמאי אסור אי דלא בטיל חצירו אמאי שריא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שביטל רשות חצירו ולא ביטל רשות ביתו וקא סברי רבנן המבטל רשות חצירו רשות ביתו לא ביטל דדייר איניש בבית בלא חצר,ושלהן מותר לו ולהן מאי טעמא דהוי אורח לגבייהו:,נתנו לו רשותן הוא מותר והן אסורין: ונהוי אינהו לגביה כי אורחין חד לגבי חמשה הוי אורח חמשה לגבי חד לא הוי אורח,ש"מ מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטלין,הכי קאמר נתנו לו רשותן מעיקרא הוא מותר והן אסורין:,היו שנים אוסרין זה על זה פשיטא לא צריכא דהדר חד מינייהו ובטיל ליה לחבריה מהו דתימא לישתרי קמ"ל דכיון דבעידנא דבטיל לא הוה ליה שריותא בהאי חצר:,שאחד נותן רשות הא תו למה לי אי נותן תנינא אי נוטל תנינא,סיפא איצטריכא ליה שנים נותנין רשות הא נמי פשיטא מהו דתימא | 69b. b unless he is an apostate with regard to idolatry. /b As long as he has not worshipped idols, his transgression of a single prohibition does not put him under suspicion of transgressing the rest of the Torah., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b Rav Huna was not attempting to offer a broad definition of an apostate, but was rather referring to the specific issue of b giving /b away b rights or renouncing rights /b in a domain with regard to the i halakhot /i of i eiruvin /i . b And as it was taught /b in the following i Tosefta /i : b An apostate Jew, /b if he b observes his Shabbat in the marketplace, /b i.e., in public, b he may renounce /b his b rights /b in a domain like a regular Jew, but if he b does not observe his Shabbat in the marketplace, he may not renounce /b his b rights /b in a domain, as he is no longer considered a Jew in this regard.,This distinction is significant b due to /b the fact b that /b the Sages b said: A Jew may receive rights and give /b away b rights /b in a domain through a mere statement of renunciation, b but with regard to a gentile /b it is not so, as he may not transfer his rights to others or renounce them in a domain b unless he /b actually b rents /b it b out. How so? /b A Jew b may say to /b his fellow: b May my rights /b in this domain b be acquired by you, /b or b May my rights /b in this domain b be renounced to you, /b and his fellow thereby b acquires /b those rights, b and it is not necessary that he take possession of it /b through a formal mode of acquisition., b Rav Ashi said: /b Rav Huna’s statement that a Jew who desecrates Shabbat in public is an apostate is indeed a general statement, as he is no longer considered a Jew in any sense. In accordance with the opinion of which i tanna /i did he make that statement? b It /b is in accordance with the opinion of b this i tanna /i , for whom Shabbat is as severe as idolatry, /b and therefore one who desecrates Shabbat is treated like an idol worshipper., b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of the cattle, of the herd, or of the flock” (Leviticus 1:2). The i baraita /i expounds: b “of you,” /b i.e., some of you, but b not all of you /b may bring an offering – b to the exclusion of an apostate. “of you” /b additionally serves to emphasize that b among you, /b the children of Israel, b I distinguish /b between those who observe the Torah and are fit to bring an offering, and those who are not fit, b but not among the nations, /b i.e., in regard to the other nations, even those who do not fulfill the precepts binding upon them may offer their sacrifices., b “of the cattle” /b is expounded as follows: b To include people who are similar to animals /b in their disdain for the proper behavior of man, i.e., that the wicked too may offer sacrifices. b From here /b the Sages b stated: We accept /b voluntary b sacrifices from Jewish transgressors, in order /b to enable them b to repent, apart from the apostate, one who pours wine libations /b as part of idol worship, b and one who desecrates Shabbat in public, /b from whom we do not accept sacrifices without their complete repentance.,The Gemara expresses surprise: b This /b i baraita /i b itself is difficult, /b i.e., it contains an internal contradiction: b You /b first b said: “of you,” but not all of you, to the exclusion of an apostate; and then you taught: We accept sacrifices from Jewish transgressors. /b The Gemara answers: b This is not difficult, /b as it can be explained as follows: b The first clause /b refers b to an apostate with regard to the entire Torah, /b whose sacrifices are not accepted, whereas b the middle clause /b speaks b of an apostate with regard to one matter /b alone, whose sacrifices are indeed accepted.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, b say /b an explanation of b the last clause /b of the mishna: b Apart from the apostate and one who pours wine libations /b to idolatry, and one who desecrates Shabbat in public. b This apostate, what are the circumstances /b indicating his status? b If /b it refers to b an apostate with regard to the entire Torah, this is /b the same as b the first clause. /b And b if /b it refers to b an apostate with regard to /b only b one thing, the middle clause /b of the i baraita /i is b difficult, /b for it states that we accept sacrifices from such an apostate., b Rather, is it not /b true b that this is /b what b it is saying: Apart from the apostate with regard to pouring wine libations /b to idolatry b and desecrating Shabbat in public? /b Although they transgress only one matter, this transgression is so serious that they are considered apostates with regard to the entire Torah. b It is apparent /b from here that b idolatry and Shabbat are equivalent, /b which indicates that there is a i tanna /i who considers public Shabbat desecration as severe a transgression as idolatry. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, b learn from this /b that it is so., strong MISHNA: /strong b If one of the residents of a courtyard forgot and did not participate in an i eiruv /i /b with the other residents before Shabbat, and on Shabbat he renounced his rights in the courtyard to the other residents, b his house is prohibited /b both b to him, /b who forgot to establish an i eiruv /i , b and to them, /b the other residents, b to bring in /b objects from the courtyard to his house b or to take /b them b out /b from his house into the courtyard. b But their /b houses b are permitted /b both b to him and to them, /b for taking objects out into the courtyard and for bringing them in. b If they gave /b away b their rights /b in the courtyard b to him, /b i.e., if they renounced their rights in his favor, b he is permitted /b to carry from his house into the courtyard, b but they are prohibited /b from doing so., b If two /b residents of the courtyard forgot to establish an i eiruv /i , and the others renounced their rights in the courtyard in their favor, b they prohibit one another. /b In this scenario, the courtyard would belong to both of them, but each individual house remains the domain of its owner. It would therefore be prohibited for each of these residents to carry into the courtyard. b For one /b resident b may give away and receive rights /b in a domain, whereas b two /b residents b may /b only b give away rights /b in a domain, b but they may not receive rights /b in a domain. Since they did not establish an i eiruv /i , it is unreasonable for the other residents of the courtyard to give away their rights in the domain, as the two who are prohibited because they did not participate in the i eiruv /i render it prohibited for each other to carry.,The mishna poses a general question: b When may one give /b away b rights /b in a domain? b Beit Shammai say: While it is still day, /b i.e., before the onset of Shabbat; b and Beit Hillel say: Even after nightfall, /b when it is already Shabbat. The mishna cites another dispute: If b one gave away his rights /b in his courtyard to the other residents of the courtyard, renouncing them after having forgotten to establish an i eiruv /i with them the previous day, b and /b then b he carried /b something b out /b from his house into the courtyard – b whether unwittingly, /b forgetting that he had renounced his rights, b or intentionally, he /b renders carrying b prohibited /b for all the residents of the courtyard, for his action cancels his renunciation; this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If he acted b intentionally, he /b renders carrying b prohibited; /b but if he acted b unwittingly, he does not /b render carrying b prohibited. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara first analyzes the language of the mishna. It states: It is prohibited to bring in objects from the courtyard to his house and to take them out from his house into the courtyard. It can be inferred from this that b it is carrying /b to and from b his house /b that b is prohibited, but carrying /b to and from b his /b share of the b courtyard is permitted /b to the other residents of the courtyard.,The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances /b where this ruling applies? b If /b the resident who forgot to establish an i eiruv /i b renounced /b his rights, b why is his house /b rendered b prohibited? /b And b if he did not renounce /b his rights, b why is his courtyard permitted? /b The Gemara explains: b With what are we dealing here? /b We are dealing b with /b a special case, b where he renounced his rights in his courtyard /b to the others b but did not renounce his rights in his house /b to them. b And the Rabbis hold that one who renounces his rights in his courtyard has not renounced his rights in his house, /b as it is common b for people to reside in a house without a courtyard. /b ,The Gemara proceeds in its analysis of the mishna: It states that carrying in and out of b their /b houses b is permitted for him and for them. /b The Gemara poses a question: b What is the reason /b that their houses are permitted to him? The Gemara answers: b For he is /b regarded b like a guest of theirs, /b i.e., he is subordinate to them and may carry wherever they may do so.,We learned in the mishna: b If /b the other residents b gave /b away b their rights /b in the courtyard b to him, he is permitted /b to carry from his house into the courtyard, b but they are prohibited /b from doing so. The Gemara asks: b But let them, /b the ones who renounced their rights in the courtyard, b be /b regarded as b guests of his, /b which would enable them to carry as well. The Gemara answers: b One vis-à-vis five is /b considered b a guest, /b whereas b five /b or more b vis-à-vis one are not /b ordinarily viewed as b guests. /b ,The Gemara attempts to draw another inference from the wording of the mishna: Shall we not b learn from this, /b from the order of events in the mishna, that b one may renounce /b his rights in favor of another when he needs it, b and then /b the latter b may renounce /b his rights in favor of the former when he needs it? For the mishna first describes a case in which the one who forgot to establish an i eiruv /i renounces his rights in favor of the others, at which stage they may use the courtyard, and then afterward recounts that the other residents renounce their rights in favor of the one who forgot to establish an i eiruv /i , leaving it permitted for him and prohibited for them.,The Gemara answers: No proof can be brought from here, for b this is /b what the mishna b is saying: If they gave away their rights /b in the courtyard b to him at the outset, /b it is b permitted /b for b him and /b it is b prohibited for them. /b In other words, this is not a continuation of the previous clause, but a separate case.,We learned in the mishna: b If two /b residents of a courtyard forgot to establish an i eiruv /i , and the others renounced their rights in the courtyard in their favor, b they /b render b one another prohibited /b from carrying. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn’t this b obvious? /b What novel teaching is stated here? The Gemara answers: b No, /b this ruling b is necessary /b in a case where the others renounced their rights in the courtyard in favor of the pair, and b one of them then renounced /b his rights b in favor of the other. Lest you say let it /b now b be permitted /b for him to carry, the mishna b teaches us /b that b since at the time of his renunciation /b it was b not permitted /b for him to carry b in that courtyard, /b he may not renounce his rights either. Therefore, his renunciation is ineffective, and they are both prohibited from carrying.,The mishna explains: b For one /b resident b may give away /b and receive b rights /b in a domain. The Gemara poses a question: b Why /b do b I /b need b this further /b explanation? This ruling can be deduced from the previous cases: b If /b the mishna wishes to teach the i halakha /i with regard to b giving /b away rights, b we /b already b learned /b that one person may give away his rights in a domain, and b if /b it wishes to teach the i halakha /i with regard to b receiving /b rights, b we /b already b learned /b it as well, so why the repetition?,The Gemara answers: b He needed /b it due to the ruling in b the latter clause, /b which includes the novel teaching that b two /b residents b may give away rights /b in a domain. The Gemara again wonders: But b this /b i halakha /i b as well, /b that even multiple residents may give away their rights in a domain, is b obvious. /b The Gemara answers: This was stated b lest you say: /b |
|
58. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 184, 191, 192| 55b. ומה טעם אמרו נודעה אינה מכפרת שלא יאמרו מזבח אוכל גזילות,בשלמא לעולא היינו דקתני חטאת אלא לרב יהודה מאי איריא חטאת אפי' עולה נמי,לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא עולה דכליל היא אלא אפי' חטאת נמי דחלב ודם הוא דסליק לגבי מזבח ואידך כהנים אכלי ליה אפי' הכי גזור שלא יאמרו מזבח אוכל גזילות,תנן על חטאת הגזולה שלא נודעה לרבים שהיא מכפרת מפני תיקון המזבח בשלמא לעולא ניחא אלא לרב יהודה איפכא מיבעי ליה,הכי נמי קאמר לא נודעה מכפרת נודעה אינה מכפרת מפני תיקון המזבח,מתיב רבא גנב והקדיש ואחר כך טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי כפל ואינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה ותני עלה בחוץ כי האי גוונא ענוש כרת ואי אמרת יאוש כדי לא קני כרת מאי עבידתיה,אמר רב שיזבי כרת מדבריהם אחיכו עליה כרת מדבריהם מי איכא אמר להו רבא גברא רבה אמר מילתא לא תחוכו עלה כרת שעל ידי דבריהן באתה לו אוקמוה רבנן ברשותיה כי היכי דליחייב עלה,אמר רבא הא וודאי קא מיבעיא לי כי אוקמוה רבנן ברשותיה משעת גניבה או משעת הקדישה למאי נפקא מינה לגיזותיה וולדותיה מאי הדר אמר רבא מסתברא משעת הקדישה שלא יהא חוטא נשכר:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big לא היה סיקריקון ביהודה בהרוגי מלחמה מהרוגי המלחמה ואילך יש בה סיקריקון כיצד לקח מסיקריקון וחזר ולקח מבעל הבית מקחו בטל מבעל הבית וחזר ולקח מסיקריקון מקחו קיים,לקח מן האיש וחזר ולקח מן האשה מקחו בטל מן האשה וחזר ולקח מן האיש מקחו קיים זו משנה ראשונה,ב"ד של אחריהם אמרו הלוקח מסיקריקון נותן לבעלים רביע אימתי בזמן שאין בידן ליקח אבל יש בידן ליקח הן קודמין לכל אדם,רבי הושיב בית דין ונמנו שאם שהתה בפני סיקריקון שנים עשר חדש כל הקודם ליקח זכה אבל נותן לבעלים רביע:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big השתא בהרוגי המלחמה לא היה בה סיקריקון מהרוגי מלחמה ואילך יש בה סיקריקון,אמר רב יהודה לא דנו בה דין סיקריקון קאמר דאמר רבי אסי ג' גזירות גזרו גזרתא קמייתא כל דלא קטיל ליקטלוהו מציעתא כל דקטיל לייתי ארבע זוזי בתרייתא כל דקטיל ליקטלוהו הלכך קמייתא ומציעתא כיון דקטלי אגב אונסיה גמר ומקני,בתרייתא אמרי האידנא לישקול למחר תבענא ליה בדינא:,אמר רבי יוחנן מאי דכתיב (משלי כח, יד) אשרי אדם מפחד תמיד ומקשה לבו יפול ברעה אקמצא ובר קמצא חרוב ירושלים אתרנגולא ותרנגולתא חרוב טור מלכא אשקא דריספק חרוב ביתר,אקמצא ובר קמצא חרוב ירושלים דההוא גברא דרחמיה קמצא ובעל דבביה בר קמצא עבד סעודתא אמר ליה לשמעיה זיל אייתי לי קמצא אזל אייתי ליה בר קמצא,אתא אשכחיה דהוה יתיב אמר ליה מכדי ההוא גברא בעל דבבא דההוא גברא הוא מאי בעית הכא קום פוק אמר ליה הואיל ואתאי שבקן ויהיבנא לך דמי מה דאכילנא ושתינא | 55b. b And what is the reason /b that the Sages b said /b that if b it is known /b that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, b it does not effect atonement? /b It is so that people b not say /b that b the altar consumes stolen property. /b ,The Gemara attempts to clarify the two explanations. b Granted, /b according to the opinion of b Ulla, /b that the concern stems from the fact that the priests will be distraught, b this is the reason that /b the i tanna /i b teaches /b the i halakha /i with regard to b a sin-offering: /b The priests partake of the meat of a sin-offering. If they find out that they ate an animal that was forbidden to them, i.e., an offering slaughtered counter to i halakha /i , they are likely to become distraught. b But according to /b the opinion of b Rav Yehuda, /b that the concern is about the honor of the altar, b why /b does the mishna mention b specifically /b the case of b a sin-offering; /b shouldn’t the same concern apply to b a burnt-offering, as well, /b as it too is burned on the alter?,The Gemara answers: The mishna b is speaking /b utilizing the style of: b It is not necessary, /b and the mishna should be understood as follows: b It is not necessary /b to teach the i halakha /i in the case of b a burnt-offering, which is entirely /b consumed on the altar. In that case, people will certainly say that the altar consumes stolen property. b But even /b in the case of b a sin-offering, where /b only b the fat and the blood go up /b to be consumed b on the altar and the rest is consumed by the priests, even so they issued a decree /b and said that the stolen sin-offering does not effect atonement, b so /b that people b should not say /b that b the altar consumes stolen property. /b ,The Gemara further clarifies the two understandings: b We learned /b in the mishna: Rabbi Yoḥa ben Gudgeda testified b about a sin-offering that /b had been obtained b through robbery /b but b that is not publicly known /b to have been obtained in that manner, and said b that it effects atonement /b for the robber who sacrifices it, b for the benefit of the altar. Granted, according to /b the opinion of b Ulla, /b it b works out well, /b as he understands that the Sages instituted that if it was not publicly known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does effect atonement. b But according to /b the opinion of b Rav Yehuda, it should have /b stated just b the opposite, /b namely, that if it was publicly known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does not effect atonement.,The Gemara answers: b That is also what /b the mishna b is saying: /b If b it is not known /b that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, b it effects atonement, /b but if this b is known, it does not effect atonement, for the benefit of the altar. /b , b Rava raises an objection /b from what was learned in a mishna ( i Bava Kamma /i 74a): If b one stole /b an animal b and consecrated /b it, b and afterward he slaughtered or sold /b it, b he pays double payment /b like a thief (see Exodus 22:3), b but he does not pay fourfold or fivefold payment, /b as one must ordinarily pay when he slaughters or sells an ox or a sheep that he stole from another person (Exodus 21:37). b And it is taught /b in a i baraita /i b with regard to /b this mishna: If one slaughtered an animal b outside /b the Temple b in a case like this, /b he is b punishable by i karet /i /b for having sacrificed an offering outside the Temple. b And if you say /b that the owner’s b despair /b of recovering an item that was stolen from him b does not by itself /b enable the thief to b acquire /b the stolen item, b what is the relevance of /b mentioning b i karet /i ? /b The punishment of i karet /i should not apply, as the thief cannot consecrate an animal that does not belong to him., b Rav Sheizevi said: /b This means that he is liable to receive b i karet /i by rabbinic law. /b Those who heard this b laughed at him. Is there /b such a thing as b i karet /i by rabbinic law? Rava said to them: A great man has spoken, do not laugh at him. /b What Rav Sheizevi means is b i karet /i that comes to him through the words /b of the Sages, who declared that the thief’s consecration is valid. It is b the Sages /b who b placed /b the animal b in his possession, so that he would become liable for it. /b , b Rava said: /b Although I agree with Rav Sheizevi, b this /b matter b is certainly a dilemma for me. When the Sages placed /b the animal b in his possession, /b did they do so b from the time of the theft or from the time of the consecration? What is the difference /b between these possibilities? There is a difference b with regard to its wool and with regard to its offspring. /b If the animal was placed in his possession from the time of the theft, the wool that it grows and the offspring that it births are his, and he is not required to return them to the animal’s owner. But if the animal becomes his only when he consecrates it, he is required to return them. b What /b is the i halakha /i ? b Rava then said, /b in answer to his own question: b It stands to reason /b that the Sages placed the animal in his possession b from the time of the consecration. /b This is b so that the sinner not profit /b from his crime. Otherwise, the thief would benefit from the rabbinic decree that was instituted to increase his liability., strong MISHNA: /strong The law of b Sicarii [ i Sikarikon /i ] did not /b apply b in Judea in the /b time that b people were being killed in the war. From /b the time that b people were being killed in the war and onward, /b the law of b Sicarii did /b apply b there. What /b is this law of Sicarii? If b one /b first b purchased /b land b from a Sicarius, /b who extorted the field from its prior owners with threats, b and /b afterward the buyer b returned and purchased /b the same field a second time b from the /b prior b landowner, his purchase is void. /b The prior owner of the field can say that he did not actually mean to sell him the field. By contrast, if he first acquired the field b from the /b prior b owner and /b afterward b he returned and purchased /b the same field b from a Sicarius, his purchase stands. /b ,Similarly, if b one /b first b purchased from the husband /b the rights to use a field belonging to his wife, b and /b afterward b he returned and purchased /b the same field b from the wife, /b so that if the husband were to predecease or divorce her, the purchaser would then own it fully, b his purchase is void. /b The woman can claim that she did not wish to quarrel with her husband and to object to the transaction but that in truth she did not agree to the sale. By contrast, if he first acquired the field b from the wife, and /b afterward b he returned and purchased /b the same field b from the husband, his purchase stands. This /b is the b initial /b version of this b mishna. /b ,Later, b the court of those /b who came b after /b the Sages who composed that mishna b said: /b With regard to b one who purchased /b a field b from a Sicarius, he must give the /b prior b owner one-fourth /b of the field’s value. b When /b does this apply? b At a time when /b the prior owner b is unable to purchase /b the field himself. b But if he is able to purchase /b it himself, b he precedes anyone /b else., b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi later b convened a court, and they counted /b their votes and determined b that if /b the field b remained before, /b i.e., in the possession of, b the Sicarius /b for b twelve months, whoever first purchases /b the field b acquires possession /b of it, b but he must give the /b prior b owner one-fourth /b of the field’s value., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara challenges the mishna’s assertion that the law of Sicarii did not apply in Judea in the time that people were being killed in the war: b Now /b if b in /b the time that b people were being killed in the war, there were no Sicarii /b stealing land, is it possible that b from /b the time that b people were being killed in the war and onward there were Sicarii? /b , b Rav Yehuda said: /b The mishna b is saying /b that in the time that people were being killed in the war b they did not apply the law of Sicarii, /b but rather they would confirm the purchases of land made from the Sicarii. The reason for this is in accordance with what b Rabbi Asi said: /b The gentile authorities b issued three decrees /b during and in the aftermath of the war that ended in the destruction of the Temple. The b first decree /b was that b anyone who does not kill /b a Jew b should /b himself b be killed. /b The b second /b decree was that b anyone who kills /b a Jew b should pay four dinars /b as a fine. The b last /b decree was that b anyone who kills /b a Jew b should /b himself b be killed. Therefore, /b during the time of the b first and second /b decrees, the time when people were being killed in the war, b since /b the gentile b would kill /b Jews, then the owner of the field, b owing to the danger /b posed to his life, b would fully transfer ownership /b of his field to the Sicarius.,Then, during the time of b the last /b decree, after the time when people were being killed in the war, anybody whose field was stolen by a Sicarius would b say /b to himself: b Now let him take /b the field; b tomorrow I will claim it from him in court. /b Although the gentile had the advantage and could force the owner to give him the field, the assumption is that the owner did not fully transfer possession of the field to him, as he thought that he would still be able to recover it in court.,§ Apropos the war that led to the destruction of the Second Temple, the Gemara examines several aspects of the destruction of that Temple in greater detail: b Rabbi Yoḥa said: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “Happy is the man who fears always, but he who hardens his heart shall fall into mischief” /b (Proverbs 28:14)? b Jerusalem was destroyed on account of Kamtza and bar Kamtza. /b The place known as b the King’s Mountain was destroyed on account of a rooster and a hen. /b The city of b Beitar was destroyed on account of a shaft from a chariot [ i rispak /i ]. /b ,The Gemara explains: b Jerusalem was destroyed on account of Kamtza and bar Kamtza. /b This is b as /b there was b a certain man whose friend /b was named b Kamtza and whose enemy /b was named b bar Kamtza. He /b once b made /b a large b feast /b and b said to his servant: Go bring me /b my friend b Kamtza. /b The servant b went /b and mistakenly b brought him /b his enemy b bar Kamtza. /b ,The man who was hosting the feast b came and found /b bar Kamtza b sitting /b at the feast. The host b said to /b bar Kamtza. b That man is the enemy [ i ba’al devava /i ] of that man, /b that is, you are my enemy. b What /b then b do you want here? Arise /b and b leave. /b Bar Kamtza b said to him: Since I have /b already b come, let me stay and I will give you money /b for b whatever I eat and drink. /b Just do not embarrass me by sending me out. |
|
59. Babylonian Talmud, Keritot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 180, 181| 28a. לכבשתו והעני הואיל ונדחה ידחה,אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה בעלי חיים נדחים וקדושת דמים נדחה,ודחוי מעיקרא הוי דחוי,מתיב רב עוקבא בר חמא המפריש נקבה לפסחו קודם הפסח תרעה עד שתסתאב ותמכר ויביא בדמיה פסח ילדה זכר ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויביא בדמיו פסח,ר"ש אומר הוא עצמו יקרב פסח ש"מ בעלי חיים אינם נדחים,אמרי דבי רבי אושעיא כי אמרינן לרבנן דר"ש ס"ל בעלי חיים אינן נדחין,והגרלה אינה מעכבת דתניא מת אחד מהן מביא חבירו שלא בהגרלה דברי ר"ש,אלמא קסבר בעלי חיים אינן נידחין והגרלה אינה מעכבת,אמר רב חסדא אין הקינין מתפרשות אלא אי בלקיחת בעלים אי בעשיית כהן,אמר רב שימי בר אשי מאי טעמא דרב חסדא דכתיב (ויקרא יב, ח) ולקחה שתי תורים וגו' (ויקרא טו, ל) ועשה הכהן וגו' או בלקיחת בעלים או בעשיית כהן,מיתיבי (ויקרא טז, ט) ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטאת ואין כהן עושה חטאת,שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה במקום שלא קידש הגורל קידש השם מקום שיקדש הגורל אינו דין שיקדש השם,ת"ל ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטאת,קתני שם דומיא דגורל מה גורל לאו בלקיחה ולאו בעשייה אף השם נמי לאו בלקיחה ולאו בעשייה,אמר רב ה"ק ומה במקום שלא קידש הגורל בלקיחת בעלים ובעשיית הכהן קידש השם אי בלקיחת בעלים אי בעשיית כהן כאן שיקדש הגורל שלא בלקיחה ושלא בעשייה אינו דין שיקדש השם אי בלקיחה אי בעשייה,ת"ל ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטאת,מיתיבי מטמא מקדש עני שהפריש מעות לקינו והעשיר,אמר אלו לחטאתי ואלו לעולתי מוסיף ומביא חובתו מדמי חטאתו ואין מוסיף ומביא מדמי עולתו,והא הכא דליכא לא לקיחה ולא עשייה וקתני מביא חובתו מדמי חטאתו ולא מדמי עולתו,א"ר ששת ותסברא מתניתא מתקנתא היא דקתני והעשיר והא"ר אלעזר א"ר אושעיא מטמא מקדש עשיר שהביא קרבן עני לא יצא,אלא מאי אית לך למימר שכבר אמר משעת ענייתו ה"נ שכבר אמר משעת הפרשתו,ולר' חגא א"ר אושעיא דאמר יצא מאי איכא למימר תני ואח"כ לקח ואמר,מיתיבי מצורע עני שהביא קרבן עשיר יצא עשיר שהביא קרבן עני לא יצא תיובתא דר' חגא א"ר אושעיא,אמר לך שאני גבי מצורע דמיעט רחמנא (ויקרא יד, ב) זאת,אי הכי אפילו מצורע עני נמי שהביא קרבן עשיר לא יצא לאיי הא אהדריה קרא תורת והתניא תורת לרבות מצורע עני שהביא קרבן עשיר יצא יכול אפילו עשיר שהביא קרבן עני שיצא תלמוד לומר זאת,ולילף מיניה אמר קרא (ויקרא יד, כא) ואם דל הוא ואין ידו משגת מצורע הוא דעשיר שהביא קרבן עני הוא דלא יצא אבל מטמא מקדש עשיר שהביא קרבן עני יצא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ר"ש אומר כבשים קודמין את העזים בכל מקום יכול מפני שהן מובחרים מהם ת"ל (ויקרא ד, לב) ואם כבש יביא קרבנו לחטאת מלמד ששניהם שקולין,תורין קודמין לבני יונה בכל מקום יכול מפני שהן מובחרים מהן תלמוד לומר ((ויקרא יב, ו) תור ובני) יונה או תור לחטאת מלמד ששניהם שקולין,האב קודם לאם בכל מקום יכול מפני שכיבוד האב קודם על כיבוד האם ת"ל (ויקרא יט, ג) איש אמו ואביו תיראו מלמד ששניהם שקולין אבל אמרו חכמים האב קודם לאם בכל מקום מפני שהוא ואמו חייבין בכבוד אביו,וכן בתלמוד תורה אם זכה הבן לפני הרב הרב קודם את האב בכל מקום מפני שהוא ואביו חייבין בכבוד רבו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר ד' צווחות צווחה עזרה צווחה אחת הוציאו מיכן בני עלי חפני ופנחס שטימאו את ההיכל,צווחה שניה פתחו שערים ויכנס יוחנן בן נדבאי תלמידו של פינקאי וימלא כרסו מקדשי שמים אמרו על בן נדבאי שהיה אוכל ארבע סאה גוזלות | 28a. instead b of a female lamb, and he /b then b became poorer, /b a bird pair is now the appropriate offering for him. Nevertheless, b since /b his offering b was disqualified /b at the outset because at that time he was obligated to bring a female lamb, b it is /b permanently b disqualified. /b , b Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: /b One can b conclude from this /b ruling b three /b i halakhot /i . b Conclude from it /b that b consecrated living animals can be /b permanently b disqualified /b even if the animal is unblemished, as is the case with regard to this pair of birds. b And /b conclude from it that when there is b sanctity /b that inheres in an animal’s b value, /b where the consecrated item will not be sacrificed as an offering, it can be b disqualified. /b When he was wealthy and designated the bird pair as his offering, the two birds were consecrated only with sanctity that inheres in their value because they were unfit for sacrifice, and yet the birds were permanently disqualified., b And /b finally, conclude from this that b a disqualification at the outset, /b when the animal is initially consecrated, b is /b considered a permanent b disqualification. /b Not only is an animal that was initially fit to be sacrificed and was later disqualified permanently disqualified, but even in a case such as this, where the birds were unfit for sacrifice from the beginning, the disqualification is permanent., b Rav Ukva bar Ḥama raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Temura /i 2:3): With regard to b one who designates a female /b animal b for his Paschal offering before Passover, /b since the Paschal offering must be a male it is left to b graze until it becomes blemished, /b at which point b it is sold and one brings a Paschal offering with the money /b received from its sale. Similarly, if this animal b gave birth to a male /b animal, the offspring is left to b graze until it becomes blemished, /b at which point b it is sold and one brings a Paschal offering with the money /b received from its sale., b Rabbi Shimon says: /b It is not necessary to sell the offspring in such a case, as the offspring b itself is sacrificed /b as b a Paschal offering. Conclude from this /b statement of Rabbi Shimon that b consecrated living animals are not /b permanently b disqualified, /b as the mother was unfit to be a Paschal offering and yet the offspring, which is an extension of the mother’s sanctity, is fit for sacrifice., b The school of Rabbi Oshaya say: When we say /b that consecrated living animals can be permanently disqualified, this applies b according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who maintain that the offspring is not sacrificed. Nevertheless, it is correct b that Rabbi Shimon holds /b that consecrated b living animals are not /b permanently b disqualified. /b , b And /b Rabbi Shimon likewise maintains b that /b the b drawing /b of the lots for the two goats on Yom Kippur to decide which goat is designated as a sacrifice and which is designated as the scapegoat, b is not indispensable. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : If b one of /b the goats b died /b following their designation, one b brings another /b goat instead of it, and it is designated b without drawing /b lots. The surviving goat is still used for the purpose for which it was designated by the lot; this is b the statement of Rabbi Shimon. /b , b Evidently, Rabbi Shimon holds: /b Consecrated b living animals are not /b permanently b disqualified. /b Although the surviving goat was disqualified when the other goat died, it is once again fit when a new goat is designated as its partner. b And /b Rabbi Shimon also holds that the b drawing /b of the lots b is not indispensable, /b as the new goat was designated without drawing lots.,§ b Rav Ḥisda says: Nests, /b i.e., pairs of birds, b are designated, /b one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering, b only /b in the following manner: b Either /b by the b owner /b at the time b of purchase or, /b if the owner did not designate the birds at that stage, by the b priest /b at the time b of sacrifice. /b , b Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: What is the reason of Rav Ḥisda? As it is written /b with regard to the offering of a woman after childbirth: b “And she shall purchase two doves /b or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering” (Leviticus 12:8). And with regard to the offering of a leper it is written: b “And the priest shall sacrifice /b the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering” (Leviticus 15:30). Together, these verses indicate that one bird is designated as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering b either /b by the b owner /b at the time b of purchase or /b by the b priest /b at the time b of sacrifice. /b ,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i in the i Sifra /i that discusses the drawing of lots for the two goats of Yom Kippur. The verse states: “Aaron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, b and he shall sacrifice it for a sin offering” /b (Leviticus 16:9). This teaches that the drawing of b the lot renders it a sin offering, but /b verbally designating b the name /b of the goat b does not render it a sin offering, and /b likewise the act of the b priest, /b placing the lot on the goat, b does not render it a sin offering. /b ,A verse is required to teach this i halakha /i , b as /b one b might /b have come to the opposite conclusion: b Could this not /b be derived through an i a fortiori /i b inference, /b as follows: b And if in a case where /b the drawing of b a lot does not sanctify /b an animal with a specific designation, e.g., a woman after childbirth, who cannot determine by lot the status of the two birds she must bring, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering, nevertheless, in such a case a verbal designation of b the name does sanctify /b with a specific designation; b is it not logical /b in b a case where /b the drawing of b a lot sanctifies /b an animal with a specific designation, i.e., the two goats of Yom Kippur, b that /b verbally designating b the name /b should b sanctify /b it with a specific designation?,The i baraita /i concludes: Therefore b the verse states, /b with regard to one of the two goats of Yom Kippur: b “He shall sacrifice it for a sin offering,” /b to teach that the drawing of b the lot renders it a sin offering, but /b verbally designating b the name /b of the goat b does not render it a sin offering. /b ,The Gemara explains the objection: The i baraita /i b teaches /b that verbally designating the b name /b of an offering b is similar to /b drawing b a lot. /b If so, one can reason as follows: b Just as /b the drawing of b a lot /b is b not /b performed b at /b the time of b purchase nor at /b the time of b sacrifice, so too /b verbal designation of b the name also /b does b not /b have to be performed b at /b the time of b purchase nor at /b the time of b sacrifice. /b This contradicts the opinion of Rav Ḥisda., b Rav said /b that b this /b is what the i baraita /i b is saying: And if in a place where /b the drawing of b a lot, /b either by the b owner /b at the time b of purchase or /b by the b priest /b at the time b of sacrifice, does not sanctify /b an animal with a specific designation, and nevertheless a verbal designation of b the name, either /b by the b owner /b at the time b of purchase or /b by the b priest /b at the time b of sacrifice, does sanctify /b it with a specific designation; b here, /b with regard to the two goats, b where /b the drawing of b a lot /b that does b not /b take place b at /b the time of b purchase nor at /b the time of b sacrifice sanctifies /b the animal with a specific designation, b is it not logical that /b verbally designating b the name, either at /b the time of b purchase or at /b the time of b sacrifice, /b should b sanctify /b it with a specific designation?,Therefore, b the verse states: “He shall sacrifice it for a sin offering,” /b to teach that drawing b the lot renders it a sin offering, but /b verbally designating b the name /b of the goat b does not render it a sin offering. /b ,The Gemara b raises /b another b objection /b to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda from a i baraita /i : In the case of b a poor person who defiles the Temple, /b i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, b who designated money for his nest, /b as he is required to bring one bird as a sin offering and another bird as a burnt offering, b and he /b then b became wealthier, /b he is now obligated to bring a female lamb or goat as a sin offering.,If he was unaware that he is no longer obligated to bring a pair of birds, and he b says: This /b money b is for my sin offering and this /b money b is for my burnt offering, /b which is an error, as he is not obligated to bring a burnt offering, b he adds /b more money b and brings his obligation /b of a lamb or goat for his sin offering b from /b the b money /b designated b for his sin offering. But he may not add /b more money b and bring his obligation /b of a sin offering b from /b the b money /b designated b for his burnt offering, /b as one may not use money that is designated for a burnt offering for the purchase of a sin offering.,The Gemara explains the objection: b But here, /b the i baraita /i is dealing with a case where he said: This money is for my sin offering and that money is for my burnt offering, which means that he designated the money at a stage b that was not /b the time of b purchase nor /b the time of b sacrifice; and /b yet the i baraita /i b teaches /b that the designation is established and therefore b he brings his obligation /b of a sin offering b from /b the b money /b designated for b a sin offering but not from /b the b money /b designated for b a burnt offering. /b , b Rav Sheshet said: And can you understand /b that b this i baraita /i is properly /b explained, i.e., the i baraita /i as it stands is difficult, b as it teaches: He became wealthier /b and said: This money is for my sin offering and this money is for my burnt offering. b But /b this is difficult, as b doesn’t Rabbi Elazar say /b that b Rabbi Oshaya says: A wealthy person who defiles the Temple, /b i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, b who brought /b the b offering /b of b a poor person /b to atone for his transgression has b not fulfilled /b his obligation. Since he cannot fulfill his obligation with that offering, how can his designation permanently establish the status of the money?, b Rather, what have you to say? /b You must say that the i baraita /i is referring to a case b where he already said: /b This money is for my sin offering and this money is for my burnt offering, b at the time /b when b he was poor. So too, /b it is referring to a case b where he already said /b it even earlier, b at the time /b when b he designated /b the money, and therefore there is no difficulty for Rav Ḥisda.,The Gemara asks: b But according to Rabbi Ḥagga, /b who b says /b that b Rabbi Oshaya says /b that a wealthy person who brings the offering of a poor person has b fulfilled /b his obligation, b what can be said? /b According to this opinion, there is no inherent difficulty in the i baraita /i that necessitates Rav Sheshet’s interpretation, and therefore that i baraita /i apparently contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s ruling. The Gemara answers that one should b teach /b the i baraita /i as follows: b And after /b he became wealthier, b he purchased /b animals b and said /b at the time of purchase: This is designated as my sin offering and this as my burnt offering.,With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Ḥagga in the case of a wealthy person who brings the offering of a poor person, the Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : b A poor leper who brought the offering of a wealthy person /b has b fulfilled /b his obligation. By contrast, b a wealthy /b leper b who brought the offering of a poor person /b has b not fulfilled /b his obligation. This is apparently b a conclusive refutation of /b the opinion b that Rabbi Ḥagga /b says that b Rabbi Oshaya says. /b ,The Gemara explains that Rabbi Ḥagga could have b said to you: /b The i halakha /i b is different with regard to /b a wealthy b leper, as the Merciful One excluded /b the possibility of a wealthy person bringing the offering of a poor person in the verse: b “This /b shall be the law of the leper” (Leviticus 14:2). The emphasis of “this” teaches that a leper fulfills his obligation only with the appropriate offering.,The Gemara objects: b If so, /b that this i halakha /i is derived from a verse, then b even /b in the case of b a poor leper who brings the offering of a wealthy person as well, /b he should b not fulfill /b his obligation. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: This is b not so, /b as b the verse returned /b to state: “This shall be b the law /b of the leper,” which includes a leper who brings an inappropriate offering. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that the phrase b “the law /b of the leper” serves b to include a poor leper who brought the offering of a wealthy person, /b that he b has fulfilled /b his obligation. One b might /b have thought that b even /b in the case of b a wealthy /b leper b who brought the offering of a poor person, he /b has b fulfilled /b his obligation. Therefore, b the verse states: “This /b shall be the law.”,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But /b why not b derive /b a principle b from that /b verse that with regard to any sliding-scale offering, a wealthy person who brings a poor person’s offering has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara answers: With regard to a leper b the verse states: “And if he is poor and cannot afford” /b (Leviticus 14:21). The emphasis of “he” teaches that b it is /b only with regard to b a leper that a wealthy person who brought a poor person’s offering /b has b not fulfilled /b his obligation. b But /b in the case of b one who defiles the Temple, /b i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, b a wealthy person who brought a poor person’s offering /b has b fulfilled /b his obligation., strong MISHNA: /strong b Rabbi Shimon says: Lambs precede goats /b almost b everywhere /b in the Torah that they are both mentioned, as in the verse: “You shall take it from the lambs or from the goats” (Exodus 12:5). One b might /b have thought that it is b due to /b the fact b that /b sheep b are more select than /b goats. Therefore, b the verse states: /b “And he shall bring for his offering a goat” (Leviticus 4:28), after which it is written: b “And if he bring a lamb as his offering for a sin offering” /b (Leviticus 4:32), which b teaches that both of them are equal. /b ,Similarly, b doves precede pigeons /b almost b everywhere /b in the Torah, as in the verse: “And he shall bring his guilt offering…two doves, or two pigeons” (Leviticus 5:7). One b might /b have thought that it is b due to /b the fact b that /b doves b are more select than /b pigeons. Therefore, b the verse states: “And a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering” /b (Leviticus 12:6), with the usual order reversed, which b teaches that both of them are equal. /b ,Likewise, mention of b the father precedes /b that of b the mother /b almost b everywhere /b in the Torah, as in the verse: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12). One b might /b have thought that it is b due to /b the fact b that the honor of the father takes precedence over the honor of the mother. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “Every man shall fear his mother and his father” /b (Leviticus 19:3), with the order reversed, which b teaches that both of them are equal. But the Sages said: /b Honor of b the father takes precedence over /b honor of b the mother everywhere, due to /b the fact b that /b both the son b and his mother are obligated in the honor of his father. /b , b And likewise with regard to Torah study, if the son was privileged /b to acquire most of his Torah knowledge from studying b before the teacher, /b honor of b the teacher takes precedence over /b honor of b the father, due to /b the fact b that /b both the son b and his father are obligated in the honor of his teacher, /b as everyone is obligated in the honor of Torah scholars., strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the mishna’s discussion of lambs and goats, b the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The Temple b courtyard cried four cries. The first cry /b was: b Remove Ḥofni and Pineḥas the sons of Eli /b the priest b from here, as they have rendered the Sanctuary /b in Shiloh b impure /b (see I Samuel 4:13–22)., b The second cry /b was: b Open /b the b gates, and let Yoḥa ben Nedavai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly with /b meat of b offerings /b consecrated to b Heaven, /b as he is worthy to eat offerings. b They said about ben Nedavai that he would eat four i se’a /i of doves /b |
|
60. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 188 | 104b. b I ask, what /b is the i halakha /i ? Does b the man /b who vowed to bring eleven i log /i b intend /b to bring an amount of wine corresponding to that which is brought in association with an offering b of two bulls, /b i.e., twelve i log /i , b and until he accumulates that /b amount, the libation b is not brought? Or perhaps he intends /b to bring an amount equal to that associated b with two rams and one lamb, /b i.e., four for each ram and three for the lamb, totaling eleven. b Do we say /b that he intended to bring b two /b libations associated b with one type, /b i.e., a ram, b and one /b libation associated b with another type, /b i.e., a lamb, b or not? What /b is the i halakha /i ? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma b shall stand /b unresolved., strong MISHNA: /strong b One may pledge /b to bring independent libations of b wine, but one may not pledge oil /b alone; this is b the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon says: One may pledge oil /b as well., b Rabbi Tarfon said: Just as we found that wine comes /b as b an obligation and comes /b as b a gift offering /b independent of any offering, b so too, /b we find b that oil comes /b as b an obligation and comes /b as b a gift /b offering. b Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you said /b that this is true b with regard to wine, as /b it is b sacrificed with its obligatory /b offering b by itself, shall you /b also b say /b that this is also the case b with regard to oil, which is never sacrificed with its obligatory /b offering b by itself but only /b mixed with the flour?,The mishna concludes with a ruling concerning a voluntary meal offering: b Two /b people b do not pledge /b a meal offering of b a tenth /b of an ephah as partners, b but they may pledge a burnt offering and a peace offering. And /b they may pledge to bring even b an individual bird, /b not only a pair., strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva about whether one can pledge oil, b Rava said: From the statements of both of them, we learn /b that b a person may pledge a meal offering /b like those brought b with the libations /b that accompany animal offerings every day.,The Gemara asks: Isn’t that b obvious? /b The Gemara explains: It needed to be said, b lest you say /b that b the Merciful One revealed /b the nature of b a voluntary meal offering /b (see Leviticus, chapter 2). Perhaps only b those five meal offerings /b detailed there are b indeed /b brought as voluntary offerings, but any b additional /b types, such as a meal offering brought with libations, are b not. /b Rava therefore b teaches us /b that b these matters /b in the Torah apply only b where /b his pledge of a meal offering was b unspecified, but where he specified /b that the oil and flour about which he vows should be brought in the manner of a meal offering with libations, then b he has specified, /b and the vow takes effect.,§ The mishna stated that b two /b people b do not pledge /b a tenth of an ephah together. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason? If we say /b that it is b because it is written: /b “And when an individual b brings /b a meal offering” (Leviticus 2:1), in the singular, that is not a proof, as with regard to b a burnt offering as well, it is written /b in the singular: “When any man of you b brings /b an offering” (Leviticus 1:2). Nevertheless, two people may bring a burnt offering together, as stated in the mishna., b Rather, what is the reason /b that b a burnt offering /b is brought by two people? The reason is b that it is written /b in second person plural: “These you shall offer…beside b your burnt offerings [ i le’oloteikhem /i ], /b or your meal offerings, or your drink offerings, or your peace offerings” (Numbers 29:39). The Gemara points out: With regard to b a meal offering, /b it is b also written /b in the plural: b “Your meal offerings [ i leminḥoteikhem /i ].” Rather, /b the reason that one may not bring a meal offering as a partnership is b because it is written: /b “And when b an individual /b brings a meal offering” (Leviticus 2:1), indicating that only one individual may offer it, but not two together., b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b states /b an explanation of the following verse: “Anyone b that brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their free-will offerings that they sacrifice to the Lord” /b (Leviticus 22:18). It is evident from the use of the plural in the second part of the verse that b any /b offering can b be brought in a partnership, and the verse excludes only a meal offering /b from this principle, b as it is stated: /b “And when b an individual /b brings a meal offering.”,The Gemara cites another comment about the fact that the Torah introduces the voluntary meal offering by emphasizing that it is brought by an individual. b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: For what /b reason b is the meal offering different /b from other offerings in b that /b the term b “an individual [ i nefesh /i ]” is stated with regard to it? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Whose practice /b is it b to bring a meal offering? /b It is that of a b poor /b individual; and b I will ascribe him /b credit b as if he offered up his soul [ i nafsho /i ] in front of Me. /b ,§ The Gemara cites another comment made by Rabbi Yitzḥak about meal offerings. b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is /b the reason that the b meal offering is differentiated /b from other offerings in b that /b the Torah b stated these five types of preparations with oil /b with regard to it? The five types of voluntary meal offerings are: A meal offering of fine flour, a meal offering in a shallow pan, a meal offering in a deep pan, a meal offering of loaves baked in an oven, and a meal offering of wafers baked in an oven. All are brought with oil. This can be explained by b a parable of a flesh-and-blood king whose friend made a festive meal for him, but /b the king b knows that /b the friend b is poor. /b The king b said to him: Make for me /b foods b from five types of fried /b dishes, b so that I may benefit from you. /b ,, strong MISHNA: /strong One who says: b It /b is incumbent b upon me /b to bring b a tenth /b of an ephah for a meal offering, b must bring /b a meal offering of b one /b -tenth. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring b tenths /b of an ephah, b he must bring two /b -tenths, as that is the minimum plural amount. If he says: b I specified /b several tenths of an ephah b but I do not know which /b number b I specified, he must bring sixty-tenths, /b as that is the maximum amount of a meal offering. The flour beyond the amount that he actually specified is rendered a voluntary meal offering.,If one says: b It /b is incumbent b upon me /b to bring b a meal offering, he may bring whichever /b meal offering b that he wishes, /b i.e., the fine-flour meal offering, the shallow-pan or deep-pan meal offering, or the meal offering baked in an oven in the form of loaves or wafers. b Rabbi Yehuda says: He must bring the fine-flour meal offering, as it is the /b most b notable of the meal offerings. /b ,If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring b a meal offering, or: /b It is incumbent upon me to bring b a type of meal offering, he must bring one /b meal offering. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring b meal offerings, or: /b It is incumbent upon me to bring b meal offerings of /b a certain b type, he must bring two. /b If he says: b I specified /b a meal offering b but I do not know which /b meal offering b I specified, he must bring all five /b types of meal offerings.,If one says: b I specified a meal offering of tenths /b of an ephah b but I do not know how many /b tenths b I specified, he must bring /b a meal offering of b sixty-tenths /b of an ephah. b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b His obligation is satisfied only when b he brings meal offerings of /b all sizes, in increments of b tenths /b of an ephah, ranging b from one /b -tenth of an ephah b to sixty /b -tenths, for a total of sixty meal offerings with a total volume of 1,830 tenths of an ephah, or 183 ephahs. He fulfills his vow with one of the meal offerings, and the rest are rendered voluntary meal offerings., strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a tenth of an ephah for a meal offering, must bring a meal offering of a tenth. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this b obvious? /b Why is it necessary to teach this in the mishna? The Gemara answers that it b was necessary /b for the mishna to mention this case as a preamble to the following i halakha /i , that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring b tenths /b of an ephah he must b bring two /b -tenths. The Gemara asks: Isn’t b this also obvious? /b The Gemara answers: b It was necessary /b to teach that the b minimum /b amount that the word b tenths /b is used in reference to is b two /b -tenths.,§ The mishna teaches that if one says: b I specified /b several tenths of an ephah b but I do not know what /b number b I specified, he must bring sixty-tenths. /b The Gemara asks: b Who /b is the i tanna /i who b taught /b this?, b Ḥizkiyya said: /b This statement is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi mentioned at the end of the mishna. b As if /b it was the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b didn’t he say /b that such a person b must bring meal offerings of /b all sizes, in increments of b tenths /b of an ephah, ranging b from one /b -tenth of an ephah b to sixty /b -tenths?, b And Rabbi Yoḥa /b disagreed and b said: You /b may b even say /b that this statement is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, because the case at the end of the mishna is a case where one specified that he would bring the tenths of an ephah in a single vessel. In such a case Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that one must bring sixty different amounts in sixty different vessels. By contrast, the former case in the mishna is one b where /b the person b says: I specified /b several b tenths /b of an ephah b but I did not establish /b that b they /b must be brought b in /b one b vessel. /b In such a case all agree b that he must bring sixty-tenths /b of an ephah b in sixty vessels, /b a tenth in each vessel.,§ The mishna teaches that if one says: b It /b is incumbent b upon me /b to bring b a meal offering, /b the first i tanna /i holds b he may bring whichever /b meal offering b he wishes, /b whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he must bring the fine-flour meal offering, as it is the most notable of the meal offerings. b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : Rabbi Yehuda says that he must bring the fine-flour meal offering, b since /b in the passage of the Torah that discusses the meal offering (Leviticus, chapter 2) b the verse opens with /b the fine-flour meal offering b first, /b mentioning it before the other meal offerings.,The Gemara challenges: b If that is so, one who says: It /b is incumbent b upon me /b to bring b a burnt offering, /b without specifying which type of animal, b must bring a young bull /b as his burnt offering, b since the verse opens with it /b |
|
61. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 185| 119b. מהדר אזוזי זוזי דרבנן א"ל במטותא מינייכו לא תחללוניה,אמר רבא ואיתימא ר' יהושע בן לוי אפי' יחיד המתפלל בע"ש צריך לומר ויכולו דאמר רב המנונא כל המתפלל בע"ש ואומר ויכולו מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו נעשה שותף להקב"ה במעשה בראשית שנאמר ויכולו אל תקרי ויכולו אלא ויכלו אמר רבי אלעזר מניין שהדיבור כמעשה שנאמר (תהלים לג, ו) בדבר ה' שמים נעשו,אמר רב חסדא אמר מר עוקבא כל המתפלל בע"ש ואומר ויכולו שני מלאכי השרת המלוין לו לאדם מניחין ידיהן על ראשו ואומרים לו (ישעיהו ו, ז) וסר עונך וחטאתך תכופר תניא ר' יוסי בר יהודה אומר שני מלאכי השרת מלוין לו לאדם בע"ש מבית הכנסת לביתו אחד טוב ואחד רע וכשבא לביתו ומצא נר דלוק ושלחן ערוך ומטתו מוצעת מלאך טוב אומר יהי רצון שתהא לשבת אחרת כך ומלאך רע עונה אמן בעל כרחו ואם לאו מלאך רע אומר יהי רצון שתהא לשבת אחרת כך ומלאך טוב עונה אמן בעל כרחו,אמר ר' אלעזר לעולם יסדר אדם שלחנו בע"ש אע"פ שאינו צריך אלא לכזית ואמר ר' חנינא לעולם יסדר אדם שלחנו במוצאי שבת אע"פ שאינו צריך אלא לכזית חמין במוצאי שבת מלוגמא פת חמה במוצאי שבת מלוגמא ר' אבהו הוה עבדין ליה באפוקי שבתא עיגלא תילתא הוה אכיל מיניה כולייתא כי גדל אבימי בריה א"ל למה לך לאפסודי כולי האי נשבוק כולייתא ממעלי שבתא שבקוהו ואתא אריא אכליה,אריב"ל כל העונה אמן יהא שמיה רבא מברך בכל כחו קורעין לו גזר דינו שנאמר (שופטים ה, ב) בפרוע פרעות בישראל בהתנדב עם ברכו ה' מ"ט בפרוע פרעות משום דברכו ה' רבי חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן אפילו יש בו שמץ של עבודה זרה מוחלין לו כתיב הכא בפרוע פרעות וכתיב התם (שמות לב, כה) כי פרוע הוא אמר ריש לקיש כל העונה אמן בכל כחו פותחין לו שערי ג"ע שנאמר (ישעיהו כו, ב) פתחו שערים ויבא גוי צדיק שומר אמונים אל תיקרי שומר אמונים אלא שאומרים אמן מאי אמן א"ר חנינא אל מלך נאמן,א"ר יהודה בריה דרב שמואל משמיה דרב אין הדליקה מצויה אלא במקום שיש חילול שבת שנאמר (ירמיהו יז, כז) ואם לא תשמעו אלי לקדש את יום השבת ולבלתי שאת משא וגו' והצתי אש בשעריה ואכלה ארמנות ירושלים ולא תכבה מאי ולא תכבה אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק בשעה שאין בני אדם מצויין לכבותה אמר אביי לא חרבה ירושלים אלא בשביל שחללו בה את השבת שנאמר (יחזקאל כב, כו) ומשבתותי העלימו עיניהם ואחל בתוכם,אמר ר' אבהו לא חרבה ירושלים אלא בשביל שביטלו ק"ש שחרית וערבית שנאמר (ישעיהו ה, יא) הוי משכימי בבקר שכר ירדפו וגו' וכתיב (ישעיהו ה, יב) והיה כנור ונבל תוף וחליל ויין משתיהם ואת פועל ה' לא יביטו וכתיב (ישעיהו ה, יג) לכן גלה עמי מבלי דעת,אמר רב המנונא לא חרבה ירושלים אלא בשביל שביטלו בה תינוקות של בית רבן שנאמר (ירמיהו ו, יא) שפוך על עולל בחוץ וגו' מה טעם שפוך משום דעולל בחוץ אמר עולא לא חרבה ירושלים אלא מפני שלא היה להם בושת פנים זה מזה שנאמר (ירמיהו ו, טו) הובישו כי תועבה עשו גם בוש לא יבושו וגו' אמר ר' יצחק לא חרבה ירושלים אלא בשביל שהושוו קטן וגדול שנאמר (ישעיהו כד, ב) והיה כעם ככהן וכתיב בתריה הבוק תבוק הארץ,אמר רב עמרם בריה דר"ש בר אבא א"ר שמעון בר אבא א"ר חנינא לא חרבה ירושלים אלא בשביל שלא הוכיחו זה את זה שנאמר (איכה א, ו) היו שריה כאילים לא מצאו מרעה מה איל זה ראשו של זה בצד זנבו של זה אף ישראל שבאותו הדור כבשו פניהם בקרקע ולא הוכיחו זה את זה א"ר יהודה לא חרבה ירושלים אלא בשביל שביזו בה ת"ח שנאמר (דברי הימים ב לו, טז) ויהיו מלעיבים במלאכי האלהים ובוזים דבריו ומתעתעים בנביאיו עד עלות חמת ה' בעמו עד [ל] אין מרפא מאי עד לאין מרפא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל המבזה ת"ח אין לו רפואה למכתו,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מאי דכתיב (דברי הימים א טז, כב) אל תגעו במשיחי ובנביאי אל תרעו אל תגעו במשיחי אלו תינוקות של בית רבן ובנביאי אל תרעו אלו ת"ח אמר ריש לקיש משום רבי יהודה נשיאה אין העולם מתקיים אלא בשביל הבל תינוקות של בית רבן א"ל רב פפא לאביי דידי ודידך מאי א"ל אינו דומה הבל שיש בו חטא להבל שאין בו חטא ואמר ריש לקיש משום ר"י נשיאה אין מבטלין תינוקות של בית רבן אפי' לבנין בית המקדש ואמר ר"ל לר"י נשיאה כך מקובלני מאבותי ואמרי לה מאבותיך כל עיר שאין בה תינוקות של בית רבן מחריבין אותה רבינא אמר מחרימין אותה,ואמר רבא לא חרבה ירושלים אלא בשביל שפסקו ממנה אנשי אמנה שנאמר (ירמיהו ה, א) שוטטו בחוצות ירושלים וראו נא [ודעו ובקשו ברחובותיה אם תמצאו איש] (אם יש איש) עושה משפט מבקש אמונה ואסלח לה איני והאמר רב קטינא אפי' בשעת כשלונה של ירושלים לא פסקו ממנה אנשי אמנה שנאמר (ישעיהו ג, ו) כי יתפש איש באחיו בית אביו (לאמר) שמלה לכה קצין תהיה לנו דברים שבני אדם מתכסין בהן כשמלה ישנן בידיך והמכשלה הזאת תחת ידך | 119b. b would seek pairs of Sages /b engaged in conversation on Shabbat and b said to them: Please do not desecrate /b Shabbat by failing to delight in Shabbat., b Rava said, and some say /b it was b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi /b who said: b Even an individual who prays on Shabbat evening must recite /b the passage: “And the heavens and the earth b were finished [ i vaykhullu /i ]” /b (Genesis 2:1–3), b as Rav Hamnuna said: Anyone who prays on Shabbat evening and recites /b the passage of b vaykhullu, the verse ascribed him /b credit b as if he became a partner with the Holy One, Blessed be He, in the act of Creation. As it is stated: /b “And the heavens and the earth b were finished [ i vaykhullu /i ].” Do not read /b it as: b Were finished [ i vaykhullu /i ]; rather, /b as: b They finished [ i vaykhallu /i ]. /b It is considered as though the Holy One, Blessed be He, and the individual who says this become partners and completed the work together. b Rabbi Elazar said: From where /b is it derived b that speech is like action? As it is stated: “By the word of God the heavens were made, /b and all of their hosts by the breath of His mouth” (Psalms 33:6)., b Rav Ḥisda said /b that b Mar Ukva said: One who prays on Shabbat evening and recites i vaykhullu /i , the two ministering angels who accompany the person /b at all times b place their hands on his head and say to him: “And your iniquity has passed, and your sin has been atoned” /b (Isaiah 6:7). b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Two ministering angels accompany a person on Shabbat evening from the synagogue to his home, one good /b angel b and one evil /b angel. b And when /b he b reaches his home and finds a lamp burning and a table set and his bed made, the good angel says: May it be /b Your b will that it shall be like this for another Shabbat. And the evil angel answers against his will: Amen. And if /b the person’s home is b not /b prepared for Shabbat in that manner, b the evil angel says: May it be /b Your b will that it shall be so for another Shabbat, and the good angel answers against his will: Amen. /b , b Rabbi Elazar said: A person should always set his table on Shabbat eve /b with all the preparations for an important feast, b even if he only needs /b the table set for b an olive-bulk /b of food. b And Rabbi Ḥanina said: A person should always set his table at the conclusion of Shabbat, /b Saturday night, for a feast in deference to the Shabbat that passed, b even if he only needs /b the table set for b an olive-bulk /b of food. And with regard to the meal at the conclusion of Shabbat, they said: b Hot water after Shabbat /b is a b remedy [ i melugma /i ], warm bread at the conclusion of Shabbat /b is a b remedy. /b The Gemara relates: b They would prepare for Rabbi Abbahu at the conclusion of Shabbat a third-born calf, /b and b he would eat /b one b kidney from it. When his son Avimi grew up, /b he b said to /b his father: b Why do you waste so much? Let us leave a kidney over from Shabbat eve, /b and you will not need to slaughter an entire calf for that purpose. Indeed, b they left /b the calf and did not slaughter it, b and a lion came and ate it. /b This teaches that one should not be miserly when it comes to honoring Shabbat.,Apropos the reward for honoring Shabbat, the Gemara cites statements about the reward for answering amen. b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said /b that b anyone who answers: Amen, may His great name be blessed, /b wholeheartedly, b with all his might, /b they b rip his sentence, as it is stated: “When punishments are annulled in Israel, when the people offer themselves, bless the Lord” /b (Judges 5:2). b What is the reason for when punishments are annulled? Because /b the Jewish people b blessed God. /b When one recites: Amen, may His great name be blessed, and blesses God, his punishment is annulled. b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba /b said that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even /b if b one has within him a trace of idolatry, /b when he answers amen b he is forgiven. It is written here, /b in the verse above: b “When punishments [ i pera’ot /i ] are annulled.” And it is written there, /b with regard to the sin of the Golden Calf: “And Moses saw b that /b the nation b was wild [ i paru’a /i ], /b for Aaron had let them loose for anyone who might rise against them” (Exodus 32:25). Even one with the wildness of idolatry is forgiven. b Reish Lakish said: One who answers amen with all his strength, they open the gates of the Garden of Eden before him, as it is stated: “Open the gates, and a righteous nation shall come who keeps the faith” /b (Isaiah 26:2). b Do not read: Who keeps [ i shomer /i ] the faith [ i emunim /i ], but rather: Who say [ i she’omerim /i ] amen. What /b is the allusion of the word b i amen /i ? Rabbi Ḥanina said: /b It is an acronym of the words: b God, faithful King [ i El Melekh ne’eman /i ]. /b , b Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel, said in the name of Rav: Fire is only found in a place where there is desecration of Shabbat, as it is stated: “And if you do not heed Me to sanctify the day of Shabbat, and to refrain from carrying burdens /b and come to the gates of Jerusalem on the day of Shabbat, b and I will light a fire in its gates and it will consume the palaces of Jerusalem and it will not be extinguished” /b (Jeremiah 17:27). The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of: b And it will not be extinguished? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b Fire will break out b at a time when people are not found to extinguish it. Abaye said: Jerusalem was destroyed only because people desecrated the Shabbat in it, as it is stated: “And from My i Shabbatot /i they averted their eyes, and I was profaned among them” /b (Ezekiel 22:26). Several punishments were decreed to befall Jerusalem as punishment for this transgression.,The Gemara suggests additional reasons for the destruction of Jerusalem. br b Rabbi Abbahu said: Jerusalem was destroyed only because /b its citizens intentionally b omitted recitation of i Shema /i morning and evening, as it is stated: “Woe to those who rise early in the morning and pursue the drink /b and are aflame from wine until late in the evening” (Isaiah 5:11). b And it is written /b in the continuation of that passage: b “And their drinking parties have lyre and lute, drum and flute and wine, and they do not look upon the actions of God, /b and they do not see His hands’ creations” (Isaiah 5:12). This means that in the morning and evening, when the Jews should have been reciting i Shema /i , they were drinking wine and liquor. b And it is written /b in that passage: b “Therefore My nation is being exiled for its ignorance; /b its honor will die of hunger and its multitudes will be parched with thirst” (Isaiah 5:13)., b Rav Hamnuna said: Jerusalem was destroyed only because schoolchildren there were interrupted /b from studying Torah, b as it is stated: /b “And I am filled with the wrath of God, I cannot contain it, b pour it onto the infants in the street /b and onto the gathering of youths together, for men and women alike will be captured, the elderly along with those of advanced years” (Jeremiah 6:11). Rav Hamnuna explains: b What is the reason that /b the wrath is b poured? /b It is b because infants are outside /b in the streets and are not studying Torah. br b Ulla said: Jerusalem was destroyed only because people had no shame before each other, as it is stated: “They acted shamefully; they have performed abominations, yet they neither were ashamed /b nor did they know humiliation. Therefore, they will fall among the fallen, they will fail at the time that I punish them, said God” (Jeremiah 6:15). br b Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Jerusalem was destroyed only because /b its b small and /b the b great /b citizens b were equated. /b They did not properly value the prominent leaders of their generation, b as it is stated: “And the common people were like the priest, /b the slave like his master, the maidservant like her mistress, the buyer like the seller, the lender like the borrower, the creditor like the one indebted to him” (Isaiah 24:2). b And it is written afterward: “The land shall be utterly desolate /b and completely plundered, for God has said this” (Isaiah 24:3)., b Rav Amram, son /b of b Rabbi Shimon bar Abba, said /b that b Rabbi Shimon bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Ḥanina said: Jerusalem was destroyed only because the people did not rebuke one another, as it is stated: “Her ministers were like stags that found no pasture, /b and they walked without strength before their pursuer” (Lamentations 1:6). b Just as this stag /b turns b its head toward the other’s tail /b when it grazes, and each one feeds on its own, b so too, the Jewish people in that generation lowered their faces to the ground and did not rebuke one another. /b br b Rabbi Yehuda said: Jerusalem was destroyed only because they disparaged the Torah scholars in it, as it is stated: “And they mocked the messengers of God and disdained His words and taunted His prophets, until the wrath of God arose against His people, until it could not be healed” /b (II Chronicles 36:16). b What /b is the meaning of: b Until it could not be healed? Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: /b It means that b anyone who disparages Torah scholars cannot be healed from his wound. /b , b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “Do not touch My anointed ones and do My prophets no harm” /b (I Chronicles 16:22)? b “Do not touch My anointed ones,” these are the schoolchildren, /b who are as precious and important as kings and priests (Maharsha); b “and do not harm My prophets,” these are Torah scholars. Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: The world only exists because of the breath, /b i.e., reciting Torah, b of schoolchildren. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: My /b Torah study b and yours, what /b is its status? Why is the Torah study of adults worth less? He b said to him: The breath /b of adults, b which is /b tainted by b sin, is not similar to the breath /b of children, b which is not /b tainted by b sin. And Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: One may not interrupt schoolchildren /b from studying Torah, b even in order to build the Temple. And Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: I have received from my ancestors, and some say /b that he said to him: I have received b from your ancestors as follows: Any city in which there are no schoolchildren /b studying Torah, they b destroy it. Ravina said: /b They leave b it desolate. /b , b And Rava said: Jerusalem was destroyed only because there were no more trustworthy people there, as it is stated: “Roam about the streets of Jerusalem and see, and search its plazas, if you can find a person, who acts justly, who seeks integrity, that I should forgive it” /b (Jeremiah 5:1). The Gemara asks: b Is that so? Didn’t Rav Ketina say: Even at the time of Jerusalem’s failure, trustworthy people did not cease there, as it is stated: “For a man will grab his brother of his father’s house and say: You have a garment. Come be a chief over us /b and let this ruin be under your care” (Isaiah 3:6)? b Things that people use to cover up like a garment, /b secrets, b are in your hands /b and you know about them. Therefore, you should be a leader of the community. And that which is stated: b “And let this ruin be under your care,” /b meaning: |
|
62. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 189| 23a. בעתם בלילי רביעיות ובלילי שבתות,שכן מצינו בימי שמעון בן שטח שירדו להם גשמים בלילי רביעיות ובלילי שבתות עד שנעשו חטים ככליות ושעורים כגרעיני זיתים ועדשים כדינרי זהב וצררו מהם דוגמא לדורות להודיע כמה החטא גורם שנאמר (ירמיהו ה, כה) עונותיכם הטו אלה וחטאתיכם מנעו הטוב מכם,וכן מצינו בימי הורדוס שהיו עוסקין בבנין בהמ"ק והיו יורדין גשמים בלילה למחר נשבה הרוח ונתפזרו העבים וזרחה החמה ויצאו העם למלאכתן וידעו שמלאכת שמים בידיהם:,מעשה ששלחו לחוני המעגל וכו': ת"ר פעם אחת יצא רוב אדר ולא ירדו גשמים שלחו לחוני המעגל התפלל וירדו גשמים התפלל ולא ירדו גשמים עג עוגה ועמד בתוכה כדרך שעשה חבקוק הנביא שנאמר (חבקוק ב, א) על משמרתי אעמדה ואתיצבה על מצור וגו',אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם בניך שמו פניהם עלי שאני כבן בית לפניך נשבע אני בשמך הגדול שאיני זז מכאן עד שתרחם על בניך התחילו גשמים מנטפין אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי ראינוך ולא נמות כמדומין אנו שאין גשמים יורדין אלא להתיר שבועתך,אמר לא כך שאלתי אלא גשמי בורות שיחין ומערות ירדו בזעף עד שכל טפה וטפה כמלא פי חבית ושיערו חכמים שאין טפה פחותה מלוג אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי ראינוך ולא נמות כמדומין אנו שאין גשמים יורדין אלא לאבד העולם,אמר לפניו לא כך שאלתי אלא גשמי רצון ברכה ונדבה ירדו כתיקנן עד שעלו כל העם להר הבית מפני הגשמים אמרו לו רבי כשם שהתפללת שירדו כך התפלל וילכו להם אמר להם כך מקובלני שאין מתפללין על רוב הטובה,אעפ"כ הביאו לי פר הודאה הביאו לו פר הודאה סמך שתי ידיו עליו ואמר לפניו רבש"ע עמך ישראל שהוצאת ממצרים אינן יכולין לא ברוב טובה ולא ברוב פורענות כעסת עליהם אינן יכולין לעמוד השפעת עליהם טובה אינן יכולין לעמוד יהי רצון מלפניך שיפסקו הגשמים ויהא ריוח בעולם מיד נשבה הרוח ונתפזרו העבים וזרחה החמה ויצאו העם לשדה והביאו להם כמהין ופטריות,שלח לו שמעון בן שטח אלמלא חוני אתה גוזרני עליך נידוי שאילו שנים כשני אליהו שמפתחות גשמים בידו של אליהו לא נמצא שם שמים מתחלל על ידך,אבל מה אעשה לך שאתה מתחטא לפני המקום ועושה לך רצונך כבן שמתחטא על אביו ועושה לו רצונו ואומר לו אבא הוליכני לרחצני בחמין שטפני בצונן תן לי אגוזים שקדים אפרסקים ורמונים ונותן לו ועליך הכתוב אומר (משלי כג, כה) ישמח אביך ואמך ותגל יולדתך,תנו רבנן מה שלחו בני לשכת הגזית לחוני המעגל (איוב כב, כח) ותגזר אומר ויקם לך ועל דרכיך נגה אור,ותגזר אומר אתה גזרת מלמטה והקדוש ברוך הוא מקיים מאמרך מלמעלה ועל דרכיך נגה אור דור שהיה אפל הארת בתפלתך,כי השפילו ותאמר גוה דור שהיה שפל הגבהתו בתפלתך ושח עינים יושיע דור ששח בעונו הושעתו בתפלתך ימלט אי נקי דור שלא היה נקי מלטתו בתפלתך ונמלט בבור כפיך מלטתו במעשה ידיך הברורין,אמר ר' יוחנן כל ימיו של אותו צדיק היה מצטער על מקרא זה (תהלים קכו, א) שיר המעלות בשוב ה' את שיבת ציון היינו כחולמים אמר מי איכא דניים שבעין שנין בחלמא,יומא חד הוה אזל באורחא חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה נטע חרובא אמר ליה האי עד כמה שנין טעין אמר ליה עד שבעין שנין אמר ליה פשיטא לך דחיית שבעין שנין אמר ליה האי [גברא] עלמא בחרובא אשכחתיה כי היכי דשתלי לי אבהתי שתלי נמי לבראי,יתיב קא כריך ריפתא אתא ליה שינתא נים אהדרא ליה משוניתא איכסי מעינא ונים שבעין שנין כי קם חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה קא מלקט מינייהו אמר ליה את הוא דשתלתיה א"ל בר בריה אנא אמר ליה שמע מינה דניימי שבעין שנין חזא לחמריה דאתיילידא ליה רמכי רמכי,אזל לביתיה אמר להו בריה דחוני המעגל מי קיים אמרו ליה בריה ליתא בר בריה איתא אמר להו אנא חוני המעגל לא הימנוהו אזל לבית המדרש שמעינהו לרבנן דקאמרי נהירן שמעתתין כבשני חוני המעגל דכי הוי עייל לבית מדרשא כל קושיא דהוו להו לרבנן הוה מפרק להו אמר להו אנא ניהו לא הימנוהו ולא עבדי ליה יקרא כדמבעי ליה חלש דעתיה בעי רחמי ומית אמר רבא היינו דאמרי אינשי או חברותא או מיתותא,אבא חלקיה בר בריה דחוני המעגל הוה וכי מצטריך עלמא למיטרא הוו משדרי רבנן לגביה ובעי רחמי ואתי מיטרא זימנא חדא איצטריך עלמא למיטרא שדור רבנן זוגא דרבנן לגביה למבעי רחמי דניתי מיטרא אזול לביתיה ולא אשכחוהו אזול בדברא ואשכחוהו דהוה קא רפיק יהבו ליה שלמא | 23a. b “In their season” /b means b on Wednesday eves, /b i.e., Tuesday nights, b and on Shabbat eves, /b i.e., Friday nights, because at these times people are not out in the streets, either due to fear of demonic forces that were thought to wander on Tuesday nights or due to the sanctity of Shabbat., b As we found /b in b the days of Shimon ben Shetaḥ that rain /b invariably b fell for them on Wednesday eves and on Shabbat eves, until wheat grew /b as big b as kidneys, and barley /b as big b as olive pits, and lentils as golden dinars. And they tied /b up some b of /b these crops as b an example [ i dugma /i ] for /b future b generations, to convey /b to them b how much /b damage b sin causes, as it is stated: /b “The Lord our God, Who gives rain, the former rain and the latter rain, in its season that keeps for us the appointed weeks of the harvest. b Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withheld the good from you” /b (Jeremiah 5:24–25)., b And we likewise found /b that b in the days of Herod /b that b they were occupied in the building of the Temple, and rain would fall at night. And the next day the wind would blow, the clouds would disperse, the sun would shine, and the people would go out to their work. And /b as rain would fall only at a time when it would not interfere with their labor, the nation b knew /b that b the work of Heaven /b was being performed b by their hands. /b ,§ The mishna taught: b An incident /b occurred in b which /b the people b sent /b a message b to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel. /b This event is related in greater detail in the following i baraita /i . b The Sages taught: Once, most of /b the month of b Adar had passed but rain had /b still b not fallen. They sent /b this message b to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: Pray, and rain will fall. He prayed, but no rain fell. He drew a circle /b in the dust b and stood inside it, in the manner that the prophet Habakkuk did, as it is stated: “And I will stand upon my watch and set myself upon the tower, /b and I will look out to see what He will say to me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved” (Habakkuk 2:1). This verse is taken to mean that Habakkuk fashioned a kind of prison for himself where he sat.,Ḥoni b said before /b God: b Master of the Universe, Your children have turned their faces toward me, as I am like a member of Your household. /b Therefore, b I take an oath by Your great name that I will not move from here until you have mercy upon Your children /b and answer their prayers for rain. b Rain began to trickle /b down, but only in small droplets. b His students said to him: Rabbi, we have seen /b that b you /b can perform great wonders, b but /b this quantity of rain is not enough to ensure that b we will not die. It appears to us that /b a small amount of b rain is falling only /b to enable you b to dissolve your oath, /b but it is not nearly enough to save us.,Ḥoni b said /b to God: b I did not ask for this, but /b for b rain to /b fill the b cisterns, ditches, and caves. /b Rain b began to fall furiously, until each and every drop /b was as big b as the mouth of a barrel, and the Sages estimated that no drop was less than a i log /i /b in size. b His students said to him: Rabbi, we have seen /b that b you /b can call on God to perform miracles b and we will not die, /b but now b it appears to us that rain is falling only to destroy the world. /b ,Ḥoni again b said before /b God: b I did not ask for this /b harmful rain either, b but /b for b rain of benevolence, blessing, and generosity. /b Subsequently, the rains b fell in their standard manner, until all of the people /b sought higher ground and b ascended to the Temple Mount due to the rain. They said to him: Rabbi, just as you prayed that /b the rains b should fall, so too, pray that they should stop. He said to them: This is /b the tradition that b I received, that one does not pray over an excess of good. /b ,Ḥoni continued: b Nevertheless, bring me a bull. /b I will sacrifice it as b a thanks-offering /b and pray at the same time. b They brought him a bull /b for b a thanks-offering. He placed his two hands on its /b head b and said before /b God: b Master of the Universe, Your nation Israel, whom You brought out of Egypt, cannot /b bear b either an excess of good or an excess of punishment. You grew angry with them /b and withheld rain, b and they are unable to bear /b it. b You bestowed upon them /b too much b good, and they were /b also b unable to bear /b it. b May it be Your will that the rain stop and that there be relief for the world. Immediately, the wind blew, the clouds dispersed, the sun shone, and everyone went out to the fields and gathered for themselves truffles and mushrooms /b that had sprouted in the strong rain., b Shimon ben Shetaḥ relayed to /b Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: b If you were not Ḥoni, I would have decreed ostracism upon you. For were /b these b years like the years of Elijah, when the keys of rain /b were entrusted b in Elijah’s hands, /b and he swore it would not rain, b wouldn’t the name of Heaven have been desecrated by your /b oath not to leave the circle until it rained? Once you have pronounced this oath, either yours or Elijah’s must be falsified., b However, what can I do to you, as you nag God and He does your bidding, like a son who nags his father and /b his father b does his bidding. And /b the son b says to /b his father: b Father, take me to be bathed in hot water; wash me with cold water; give me nuts, almonds, peaches, and pomegranates. And /b his father b gives him. About you, the verse states: “Your father and mother will be glad and she who bore you will rejoice” /b (Proverbs 23:25)., b The Sages taught: What /b message did b the members of the Chamber of the Hewn Stone, /b the Great Sanhedrin, b send to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel? /b About you, the verse states: b “You shall also decree a matter, and it shall be established for you; and the light shall shine upon your ways. /b When they cast down, you will say: There is lifting up, for He saves the humble person. He will deliver the one who is not innocent and he will be delivered through the cleanness of your hands” (Job 22:28–30).,They interpreted: b “You shall also decree a matter”; you, /b Ḥoni, b decree from below, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, fulfills your statement from above. “And the light shall shine upon your ways”; a generation that was in darkness, you have illuminated /b it b with your prayer. /b , b “When they cast down, you will say: There is lifting up”; a generation that was cast down, you lifted it up with your prayer. “For He saves the humble person”; a generation that was humble in its transgression, you saved it through your prayer. “He will deliver the one who is not innocent”; a generation that was not innocent, you have delivered it through your prayer. “And he will be delivered through the cleanness of your hands”; you have delivered /b an undeserving generation b through the clean work of your hands. /b ,§ The Gemara relates another story about Ḥoni HaMe’aggel. b Rabbi Yoḥa said: All the days /b of the life b of that righteous man, /b Ḥoni, b he was distressed over /b the meaning of b this verse: “A song of Ascents: When the Lord brought back those who returned to Zion, we were like those who dream” /b (Psalms 126:1). b He said /b to himself: b Is there /b really a person b who can sleep and dream for seventy years? /b How is it possible to compare the seventy-year exile in Babylonia to a dream?, b One day, he was walking along the road /b when b he saw a certain man planting a carob tree. /b Ḥoni b said to him: This /b tree, b after how many years /b will it b bear /b fruit? The man b said to him: /b It will not produce fruit b until seventy years /b have passed. Ḥoni b said to him: Is it obvious to you that you will live seventy years, /b that you expect to benefit from this tree? b He said to him: That man /b himself b found a world /b full b of carob trees. Just as my ancestors planted for me, I too am planting for my descendants. /b ,Ḥoni b sat and ate bread. Sleep overcame him and he slept. A cliff formed around him, and he disappeared from sight and slept for seventy years. When he awoke, he saw a certain man gathering /b carobs from that tree. Ḥoni b said to him: /b Are b you the one who planted /b this tree? The man b said to him: I am his son’s son. /b Ḥoni b said to him: /b I can b learn from this that I /b have b slept for seventy years, /b and indeed b he saw that his donkey had sired several herds /b during those many years.,Ḥoni b went home and said to /b the members of the household: b Is the son of Ḥoni HaMe’aggel alive? They said to him: His son is no /b longer with us, but b his son’s son is /b alive. b He said to them: I am Ḥoni HaMe’aggel. They did not believe him. He went to the study hall, /b where he b heard the Sages say /b about one scholar: b His i halakhot /i are as enlightening /b and as clear b as in the years of Ḥoni HaMe’aggel, for when /b Ḥoni HaMe’aggel b would enter the study hall he would resolve for the Sages any difficulty they had. /b Ḥoni b said to them: I am he, but they did not believe him and did not pay him proper respect. /b Ḥoni b became very upset, prayed for mercy, and died. Rava said: This /b explains the folk saying b that people say: Either friendship or death, /b as one who has no friends is better off dead.,§ The Gemara relates another story, this time about Ḥoni HaMe’aggel’s descendants, who were also renowned for their righteous deeds. b Abba Ḥilkiyya was the son of Ḥoni HaMe’aggel’s son. And when the world was in need of rain they would send Sages to him, and he would pray for mercy, and rain would fall. Once the world was in need of rain, /b and b the Sages sent a pair of Sages to him /b so b that he would pray for mercy and rain would fall. They went to his house but they did not find him /b there. b They went to the field and found him hoeing /b the ground. b They greeted him, /b |
|
63. Babylonian Talmud, Temurah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 193| 28a. מתני׳ big strongכל /strong /big האסורין לגבי מזבח אוסרין בכל שהן הרובע והנרבע והמוקצה והנעבד והאתנן ומחיר והכלאים והטרפה ויוצא דופן,איזהו מוקצה המוקצה לעבודת כוכבים הוא אסור ומה שעליו מותר ואיזהו הנעבד כל שעובדין אותו הוא ומה שעליו אסור וזה וזה מותר באכילה, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר מר אוסרין בכל שהן דלא בטלי ברובא תנינא כל הקדשים שנתערבו בחטאות מתות או בשור הנסקל אפי' אחד ברבוא ימותו,וקשיא לן מאי קאמר,הכי קתני נתערבו בהן מחטאות מתות או שור הנסקל אפילו ברבוא ימותו,איצטריך ס"ד אמינא התם הוא דאיסורי הנאה אבל הכא דלאו איסורי הנאה אימא ליבטל ברובא קמ"ל,ורובע ונרבע נמי תנינא נתערבו רובע ונרבע ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויביא בדמי יפה שבהן מאותו המין,אמר רב כהנא אמריתה לשמעתא קמיה דרב שימי בר אשי אמר לי חדא בחולין וחדא בקדשים,וצריכי דאי אשמועינן גבי קדשים משום דמאיסי אבל גבי חולין אימא ליבטלי,ובחולין נמי תנינא ואלו אסורין ואוסרין בכל שהן יין נסך ועבודת כוכבים וציפרי מצורע ועורות לבובין,ושיער נזיר ופטר חמור ובשר בחלב ושור הנסקל ועגלה ערופה וחולין שנשחטו בעזרה [ושעיר המשתלח] הרי אלו אסורין ואוסרין בכל שהן,צריכי דאי אשמעינן התם (דאיסורי הנאה דלא בטלי אבל הכא ליבטלי),ואי אשמועינן הכא דלגבוה דמאיס אבל להדיוט אימא איסורי הנאה ליבטלו ברובא קמ"ל,ורובע ונרבע מנלן דאסירי לגבוה דתנו רבנן (ויקרא א, ב) מן הבהמה להוציא רובע ונרבע,והלא דין הוא ומה בעל מום שלא נתעבדה בה עבירה פסול לגבי מזבח רובע ונרבע שנעבדה בהן עבירה אינו דין שאסורין לגבי מזבח,חורש בשור וחמור יוכיח שנתעבדה בו עבירה ומותר לגבי מזבח,מה לחורש בשור וחמור שאין חייבין מיתה תאמר ברובע ונרבע שחייבין מיתה,טול לך מה שהבאתה הרי שנתעבדה בהן עבירה בשני עדים,נעבדה בהן עבירה על פי עד אחד או על פי הבעלים מנין,אמר רבי שמעון אני דן ומה בעל מום שאין התראת שני עדים פוסלתו מאכילה הודאת עד אחד פוסלתו מהקרבה ברובע ונרבע שהודאת שני עדים פוסלתו מאכילה אינו דין שהודאת עד אחד פוסלתו מהקרבה,ת"ל מן הבהמה להוציא רובע ונרבע והא אתיא מדינא (לא אתיא) | 28a. strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to b all /b animals b whose /b sacrifice b on the altar is prohibited, /b if they are intermingled with animals whose sacrifice is permitted, b they prohibit /b the entire mixture of animals b in any amount, /b regardless of the ratio of permitted to prohibited animals. These are the animals whose sacrifice is prohibited: b An animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, and the set-aside, and one /b that b was worshipped, and /b an animal that was given as b payment /b to a prostitute b or /b as the b price /b of a dog, b or /b an animal crossbred from a mixture of b diverse kinds, or an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [ i tereifa /i ], or /b an animal b born by caesarean section. /b , b Which is the /b animal that is b set-aside? /b It is an animal b that is set aside for idol worship. /b The animal b itself is prohibited, but that which is upon it, /b e.g., its jewelry and garments, b is permitted /b to be sold in order to purchase an animal to be sacrificed. b And which is /b the animal that b was worshipped? /b It is b any /b animal b that /b a person b worships /b as an object of idol worship. In this case, the sacrifice of both the animal b itself and /b an animal purchased using the money from the sale of b that which is upon it is prohibited. And the consumption of both this, /b the animal designated for idol worship, b and that, /b the animal worshipped, b is permitted. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b The Master said /b in the mishna, with regard to all animals whose sacrifice on the altar is prohibited, that if they are intermingled with animals whose sacrifice is permitted, they b prohibit /b the entire mixture b in any amount. /b This teaches b that they are not nullified by a majority. /b This is difficult, as b we /b already b learn /b this in a mishna ( i Zevaḥim /i 70b): b All the sacrificial /b animals b that were intermingled with /b an animal from which deriving benefit is prohibited, e.g., b sin offerings /b that were disqualified and left to b die, or /b if they were intermingled b with an ox that is /b sentenced to be b stoned, even /b if the ratio is b one in ten thousand, /b deriving benefit from them all is prohibited and b they must /b all b die. /b , b And /b the use of the word “even” in the phrase: Even one in ten thousand, was b difficult for us: What is it saying? /b This word indicates that the novelty of the mishna’s ruling is that even if one permitted animal was intermingled with ten thousand prohibited animals they are all prohibited. Yet, this is less of a novelty than in the reverse case, since if in a situation where a minority of prohibited items became intermingled with a majority of permitted animals they are all prohibited, all the more so when the prohibited items are the majority.,And we explained that b this /b is what the i tanna /i b is teaching: /b With regard to animals that are fit for the altar, if there was b intermingled with them /b an animal from which deriving benefit is prohibited, e.g., one b of /b the five b sin offerings that /b are left to b die /b if they are rendered disqualified, b or /b if they were intermingled b with an ox that is /b sentenced to be b stoned, even /b if one prohibited animal was intermingled b in ten thousand /b permitted animals, deriving benefit from them is prohibited b and they must /b all b die. /b If so, the i halakha /i of the mishna here was already taught in tractate i Zevaḥim /i . Why, then, is its repetition necessary here?,The Gemara answers that it b was necessary, /b as it might b enter your mind to say /b that this i halakha /i applies only b there, /b with regard to the specific examples mentioned in the mishna in i Zevaḥim /i , b as /b the five sin offerings that are condemned to die and an ox that is sentenced to be stoned are b items from which /b deriving b benefit is prohibited. But here, where /b the animals are b not items from which /b deriving b benefit is prohibited, /b but are merely prohibited to be sacrificed, you might b say: Let them be nullified by a majority /b of permitted animals. Therefore, the mishna b teaches us /b that even animals that are merely prohibited to be sacrificed prohibit other animals in any amount.,The Gemara asks: b But we /b already b learn /b in a mishna ( i Zevaḥim /i 71a) the i halakha /i of b an animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, /b and the other examples listed in the mishna here b as well: /b If sacrificial animals b were intermingled /b with b an animal that copulated with a person, or /b with b an animal that was the object of bestiality, /b or with the set-aside, with the animal worshipped, or with one of the other animals mentioned here, b they shall graze until they become unfit /b for sacrifice b and /b then b sold, and /b from the money received the owner b shall bring /b another offering b with the monetary value of /b the b higher-quality /b animal b among them from the same species /b as the offering with which they were intermingled. This indicates that even in the case of an animal that may not be sacrificed, but from which one may derive benefit, it nevertheless renders other animals prohibited when intermingled., b Rav Kahana said: I said this i halakha /i before Rav Shimi bar Ashi, /b and he b said to me /b that it was necessary for the mishna here to repeat this ruling. The reason is that b one /b mishna is referring to a case b where /b the previously fit animals became intermingled while they were still b non-sacred, /b and their owners subsequently consecrated them. b And the other /b mishna in i Zevaḥim /i is referring to a situation b where /b they became intermingled when they were already b consecrated, /b as can be inferred from the opening phrase of that mishna: All the offerings ( i Zevaḥim /i 70b), which indicates that they are already offerings.,The Gemara adds: b And /b both i mishnayot /i b are necessary, as had /b the i tanna /i b taught us /b this i halakha /i only b with regard to sacrificial /b animals, one might say that the reason is b because /b they are b repulsive, /b i.e., when the sacrificial animals became intermingled with the other animals they were immediately disqualified from being sacrificed on the altar. b But with regard to /b animals that became intermingled when they were still b non-sacred, /b at which stage they are not considered repulsive to the altar, as the altar does not yet have a claim to them, one might b say: Let them be nullified /b in the mixture, after which all the animals could be dedicated to the altar. Therefore, the mishna here teaches that even if the animals became intermingled when they were non-sacred, nevertheless the entire mixture is prohibited.,The Gemara asks: b But we also learn /b this i halakha /i , that the entire mixture is prohibited b with regard to non-sacred /b items, in another mishna ( i Avoda Zara /i 74a): b And these are /b items that are b prohibited /b in themselves b and /b that b deem /b other items b prohibited /b if they became intermingled with them b in any amount: Wine /b used for b a libation /b in idol worship, b and /b an object of b idol worship, and birds /b for the purification b of a leper /b (see Leviticus 14:1–6), b and hides /b with a tear opposite b the heart, /b a sign of the practice of sacrificing hearts of live animals for idol worship., b And /b in addition, b the /b shaved-off b hair of a nazirite /b (Numbers 6:18); b and a firstborn donkey /b (Exodus 13:13); b and meat /b that was cooked b in milk /b (Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21), b and an ox that is /b to be b stoned; and a heifer whose neck is broken /b as part of the ritual performed when a murder victim’s body is found outside a town, and it is not known who caused his death (Deuteronomy 21:1–9); b and non-sacred /b meat from an animal b that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, and the scapegoat /b of Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:7–10), all of b these /b are b prohibited /b in themselves b and they deem /b mixtures b prohibited in any amount. /b ,Once again the Gemara answers that both i mishnayot /i b are necessary, as had /b the i tanna /i b taught us /b this i halakha /i only b there, /b in tractate i Avoda Zara /i , one would have said that it is only in that case, b where they are /b items b from which /b deriving b benefit is prohibited, that they are not nullified; but here, let them be nullified. /b , b And had /b the i tanna /i b taught us /b this i halakha /i only b here, /b I would have said that the mixture is prohibited in this case, b as /b this mishna is dealing with offerings b that /b have been rendered b repulsive to the Most High. But /b with regard b to /b use by b an ordinary person [ i hedyot /i ], say: Let /b these other b items from which /b deriving b benefit is prohibited be nullified by a majority. /b Therefore, the mishna in i Avoda Zara /i b teaches us /b that even items not designated for use upon the altar render other items prohibited, and are not nullified by a majority.,§ The mishna’s list of disqualified animals includes b an animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality. /b The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive b that /b these animals b are prohibited /b as offerings b to the Most High? /b The Gemara answers that this is b as the Sages taught /b with regard to the verse: “You shall bring your offering from the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock” (Leviticus 1:2). The limitation indicated by the phrase b “from the cattle” /b serves b to exclude an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality /b from eligibility as an offering.,The Gemara objects: That claim requires elucidation, as b couldn’t this /b be derived through an i a fortiori /i b inference: And if a blemished /b animal, b with which no transgression was committed, is disqualified from the altar, /b with regard to b an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, with which a transgression was committed, is it not logical that they /b should be b prohibited /b to be sacrificed b on the altar? /b ,The Gemara explains: The case of one who violates the prohibition of b plowing with an ox and a donkey /b together (Deuteronomy 22:10) b shall prove /b that the above claim is invalid. This is a case b where a transgression was committed with /b the ox, b and /b yet it is b permitted /b to sacrifice it b upon the altar. /b ,The Gemara rejects this response: b What /b is notable b about /b the prohibition of one who b plows with an ox and a donkey? /b It is notable b in that one is not liable to die /b for this violation, and therefore it is logical that this ox is not prohibited to be sacrificed. Will b you say /b the same b with regard to /b the prohibitions of b an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, where /b the person involved b is liable to die? /b Therefore, the animals should be prohibited to be sacrificed on the altar.,The Gemara explains that this claim is indeed valid, and therefore you should b retract from that which you cited /b as a refutation of the i a fortiori /i inference. In other words, one can learn by i a fortiori /i inference that an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality cannot be used as offerings. Nevertheless, this is applicable only to those animals b with which a transgression was committed /b that was seen b by two witnesses, /b and the transgressor was therefore liable to death by the court, as in this case the proof from one who plows with an ox and a donkey is invalid, as explained in the previous paragraph., b From where /b is it derived that the same applies if b a transgression was committed with them on the basis of /b the testimony of b one witness or on the basis of /b the admission of b the owners? /b For this purpose, the interpretation of the phrase “from the cattle” is necessary., b Rabbi Shimon says: I infer /b an i a fortiori /i inference in the following manner: b And if a blemished /b animal, concerning b which the testimony of two witnesses does not disqualify it from being eaten /b by an ordinary person, and nevertheless b the admission of one witness, /b i.e., the Sage who rules that its blemish disqualifies it for the altar, b disqualifies it from sacrifice, with regard to an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, /b concerning b which the admission of two witnesses disqualifies it from being eaten /b by an ordinary person, b is it not logical that the admission of one witness /b should b disqualify it from sacrifice? /b ,Therefore, b the verse states: “From the cattle,” to exclude an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality /b from eligibility as offerings. The Gemara asks: b But /b why is this derivation necessary? This i halakha /i was just b inferred through /b an i a fortiori /i b inference /b , by Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara explains that in fact the i halakha /i of an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality b cannot be inferred /b by i a fortiori /i inference according to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon. |
|
64. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 179| 61a. קברי עובדי כוכבים אינן מטמאין באהל שנא' (יחזקאל לד, לא) ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם אתם קרויין אדם ואין העובדי כוכבים קרויין אדם,מיתיבי (במדבר לא, מ) ונפש אדם ששה עשר אלף משום בהמה,(יונה ד, יא) אשר יש בה הרבה משתים עשרה רבוא אדם אשר לא ידע בין ימינו לשמאלו (ובהמה רבה) משום בהמה,(במדבר לא, יט) כל הורג נפש וכל נוגע בחלל תתחטאו דלמא איקטיל חד מישראל ורבנן לא נפקד ממנו איש ור' שמעון בן יוחי לא נפקד ממנו איש לעבירה,רבינא אמר נהי דמעטינהו קרא מאטמויי באהל דכתיב (במדבר יט, יד) אדם כי ימות באהל ממגע ומשא מי מעטינהו קרא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אירס את האלמנה ונתמנה להיות כהן גדול יכנוס ומעשה ביהושע בן גמלא שקדש את מרתא בת ביתוס ומנהו המלך להיות כה"ג וכנסה שומרת יבם שנפלה לפני כהן הדיוט ונתמנה להיות כה"ג אע"פ שעשה בה מאמר הרי זה לא יכנוס:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר מנין שאם אירס את האלמנה ונתמנה להיות כהן גדול שיכנוס ת"ל (ויקרא כא, יד) יקח אשה א"ה שומרת יבם נמי אשה ולא יבמה:,מעשה ביהושע וכו': מנהו אין נתמנה לא אמר רב יוסף קטיר קחזינא הכא דאמר רב אסי תרקבא דדינרי עיילה ליה מרתא בת ביתוס לינאי מלכא עד דמוקי ליה ליהושע בן גמלא בכהני רברבי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כהן גדול שמת אחיו חולץ ולא מייבם:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big קא פסיק ותני לא שנא מן האירוסין ולא שנא מן הנשואין בשלמא מן הנשואין עשה ולא תעשה הוא ואין עשה דוחה ל"ת ועשה אלא מן האירוסין יבא עשה וידחה את לא תעשה,גזירה ביאה ראשונה אטו ביאה שניה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כהן הדיוט לא ישא אילונית אלא א"כ יש לו אשה ובנים רבי יהודה אומר אע"פ שיש לו אשה ובנים לא ישא אילונית שהיא זונה האמורה בתורה וחכמים אומרים אין זונה אלא גיורת ומשוחררת ושנבעלה בעילת זנות:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big א"ל ריש גלותא לרב הונא מ"ט משום פריה ורביה אפריה ורביה כהנים הוא דמפקדי וישראל לא מפקדי אמר ליה משום דקא בעי למיתני סיפא רבי יהודה אומר אע"פ שיש לו אשה | 61a. b The graves of gentiles do not render /b items b impure though a tent, as it is stated: “And you My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are men [ i adam /i ]” /b (Ezekiel 34:31), from which it is derived that b you, /b the Jewish people, b are called men [ i adam /i ] but gentiles are not called men [ i adam /i ]. /b Since the Torah introduces the i halakha /i of ritual impurity of a tent with the words: “When a man [ i adam /i ] dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14), this i halakha /i applies only to corpses of Jews but not those of gentiles.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b based upon the verse with regard to captives taken during the war against Midian: b “And the persons [ i nefesh adam /i ] were sixteen thousand” /b (Numbers 31:40), which indicates that gentiles are also referred to as i adam /i . The Gemara answers: They are given this title b due to /b the need to distinguish the people taken captive from the b animals /b that were taken as spoils of war.,The Gemara raises another difficulty based upon a verse with regard to the city of Nineveh: b “Wherein are more than one hundred and twenty thousand men [ i adam /i ] that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand, and also much cattle” /b (Jonah 4:11). The Gemara answers: There, too, the gentiles are given this title b due to /b the need to distinguish them from the b animals /b mentioned in the verse.,The Gemara continues to question Rabbi Shimon’s ruling based upon a verse pertaining to the war against Midian: b “Whoever has killed anyone, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves” /b (Numbers 31:19). This indicates that gentile corpses convey ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: b Perhaps a Jew was killed, /b and the concern was for impurity caused by his corpse. b And the Rabbis /b reply that the verse attests: b “Not one man of us is missing” /b (Numbers 31:49). No Jewish soldiers fell in battle, and therefore the concern for impurity must have been due to the corpses of gentiles. b And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai /b responds: The intent of that verse is that b not one man of us is missing /b due to b transgression, /b i.e., none of them sinned., b Ravina said /b that the explanation above is unnecessary: b Granted, the verse excluded /b gentiles b from rendering /b items b impure through a tent, as it is written: “When a man [ i adam /i ] dies in a tent” /b (Numbers 19:14); but b did the verse exclude them from /b rendering items impure via b touching and carrying? /b Since gentile corpses convey impurity in these ways, they could have rendered impure the Jews involved in the war with Midian, even according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai., strong MISHNA: /strong If a priest b betrothed a widow and was /b subsequently b appointed to be High Priest, he may marry /b her. b And /b there was b an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla, who betrothed Marta bat Baitos, /b a widow, b and the king /b subsequently b appointed him to be High Priest, and /b he nevertheless b married her. /b Conversely, in the case of b a widow waiting for her i yavam /i who happened before a common priest, /b i.e., the priest was her i yavam /i , b and he was /b subsequently b appointed to be High Priest, /b then b even if he /b had already b performed levirate betrothal with her, he may not marry her, /b because she is a widow., strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught: From where /b is it derived b that if /b a priest b betrothed a widow and was /b subsequently b appointed to be High Priest, that he may marry /b her? b The verse states: “Shall he take for a wife” /b (Leviticus 21:14), an inclusive phrase that indicates that he may marry her in this situation despite the general prohibition for a High Priest to marry a widow. The Gemara asks: b If so, a widow waiting for her i yavam /i /b should b also /b be permitted to a High Priest. The Gemara answers: The word b “wife” /b indicates that this does b not /b include b a i yevama /i , /b who was not initially his wife but his brother’s.,The mishna related b an incident with Yehoshua /b ben Gamla. The Gemara notes that the mishna states that the king b appointed him, yes, /b but b not /b that he b was /b worthy of being b appointed. Rav Yosef said: I see a conspiracy here, /b as this was clearly not a proper appointment by the priests and the Sanhedrin but rather a political appointment, b as Rav Asi said: Marta bat Baitos brought /b a vessel the size of b a half- i se’a /i [ i tarkav /i ] /b full b of dinars to King Yannai until he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla High Priest. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong b A High Priest whose brother died /b without children b performs i ḥalitza /i and he does not perform levirate marriage, /b as he may not marry a widow., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara comments: The mishna b teaches /b this i halakha /i b categorically, /b indicating that b it is no different /b if she is his brother’s widow b from betrothal, and it is no different /b if she is his widow b from marriage. /b The Gemara analyzes this i halakha /i : b Granted, /b she is forbidden to him if she was widowed b from marriage, as, /b if he were to marry her, b it /b would be a violation of both the b positive mitzva /b that the High Priest marry a virgin b and /b the b prohibition /b for him to marry a widow. b And a positive mitzva, /b i.e., levirate marriage, b does not override a prohibition and a positive /b mitzva together. b However, /b if she was a widow b from betrothal /b and is therefore still a virgin, b the positive mitzva /b of levirate marriage b should come and override the prohibition /b for a High Priest to marry a widow.,The Gemara answers: By Torah law, levirate marriage is permitted in this case. However, there is a rabbinic b decree /b prohibiting their b first /b act of b intercourse due to /b their b second /b act of b intercourse. /b After they have engaged in intercourse once, they have fulfilled the mitzva of levirate marriage, and any subsequent act of intercourse would constitute a violation of the prohibition without the fulfillment of a mitzva., strong MISHNA: /strong b A common priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman [ i aylonit /i ], /b who is incapable of bearing children, b unless he /b already b has a wife and children. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even /b if b he has a wife and children, he may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman, as she is the i zona /i /b about whom it is b stated in the Torah /b that a priest may not marry her. Intercourse with her is considered a licentious act because she is incapable of bearing children. b And the Rabbis say: The only /b women in the category of b i zona /i , /b who are therefore forbidden to a priest, are b a female convert, a freed /b maidservant, b and /b any woman b who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse /b with a man she is prohibited from marrying., strong GEMARA: /strong b The Exilarch said to Rav Huna: What is the reason /b for the i halakha /i that a priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman? It is b because /b he is obligated to fulfill the mitzva to b be fruitful and multiply. Is it /b only b priests who were commanded to be fruitful and multiply, but Israelites were not commanded? /b Why does the mishna specify that a priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman? Rav Huna b said to him: /b This i halakha /i does in fact apply even to Israelites, and the i tanna /i mentions priests b because he wants to teach /b it in a way that would parallel b the latter clause /b of the mishna, which states that b Rabbi Yehuda says: Even /b if b he has a wife /b |
|
65. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 178, 179, 189| 18a. ומאי ארבע או חמש לרבנן דאמרי נכנס נוטל שש ויוצא נוטל שש ושכר הגפת דלתות לא משתים עשרה בעי מיפלג בציר חדא מפלגא חמש שקיל,לר' יהודה דאמר נכנס נוטל שבע שתים בשכר הגפת דלתות ויוצא נוטל חמש מעשר בעי מיפלג בציר חדא מפלגא ושקיל ארבע,רבא אמר כולה רבי היא וסבר לה כר' יהודה ואלא מאי ארבע הא חמש בעי למשקל,לא קשיא הא דאיכא משמר המתעכב הא דליכא משמר המתעכב,אי איכא משמר המתעכב משמנה בעי למפלג ושקיל ארבע אי ליכא משמר המתעכב מעשר בעי למפלג ושקיל חמש,אי הכי מאי רבי אומר לעולם חמש קשיא, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מסרו לו זקנים מזקני בית דין וקורין לפניו בסדר היום ואומרים לו אישי כהן גדול קרא אתה בפיך שמא שכחת או שמא לא למדת ערב יום כפורים שחרית מעמידין אותו בשער מזרח ומעבירין לפניו פרים ואילים וכבשים כדי שיהא מכיר ורגיל בעבודה כל שבעת הימים לא היו מונעין ממנו מאכל ומשתה ערב יוה"כ עם חשיכה לא היו מניחין אותו לאכול הרבה מפני שהמאכל מביא את השינה, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big בשלמא שמא שכח לחיי אלא שמא לא למד מי מוקמינן כי האי גוונא,והתניא (ויקרא כא, י) והכהן הגדול מאחיו שיהא גדול מאחיו בכח בנוי בחכמה ובעושר אחרים אומרים מנין שאם אין לו שאחיו הכהנים מגדלין אותו ת"ל והכהן הגדול מאחיו גדלהו משל אחיו,אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא כאן במקדש ראשון כאן במקדש שני דאמר ר' אסי תרקבא דדינרי עיילא ליה מרתא בת בייתוס לינאי מלכא על דאוקמיה ליהושע בן גמלא בכהני רברבי,ערב יום הכפורים שחרית וכו' תנא אף השעירים ותנא דידן מאי טעמא לא תנא שעירים כיון דעל חטא קא אתו חלשא דעתיה,אי הכי פר נמי על חטא הוא דאתי פר כיון דעליו ועל אחיו הכהנים הוא דאתי באחיו הכהנים אי איכא איניש דאית ביה מילתא מידע ידע ליה ומהדר ליה בתשובה בכולהו ישראל לא ידע,אמר רבינא היינו דאמרי אינשי אי בר אחתיך דיילא הוי חזי בשוקא קמיה לא תחליף,כל שבעת הימים לא היו מונעין וכו' תניא רבי יהודה בן נקוסא אומר מאכילין אותו סלתות וביצים כדי למסמסו אמרו לו כל שכן שאתה מביאו לידי חימום,תניא סומכוס אמר משום ר' מאיר אין מאכילין אותו לא אב"י ואמרי לה לא אבב"י ויש אומרים אף לא יין לבן לא אב"י לא אתרוג ולא ביצים ולא יין ישן ואמרי לה לא אבב"י לא אתרוג ולא ביצים ולא בשר שמן ולא יין ישן ויש אומרים אף לא יין לבן מפני שהיין לבן מביא את האדם לידי טומאה,תנו רבנן זב תולין לו במאכל וכל מיני מאכל אלעזר בן פנחס אומר משום רבי יהודה בן בתירא אין מאכילין אותו לא חגב"י ולא גב"ם ולא כל דברים המביאין לידי טומאה לא חגב"י לא חלב ולא גבינה ולא ביצה ולא יין ולא גב"ם מי גריסין של פול ובשר שמן ומרייס,ולא כל דברים המביאין לידי טומאה לאתויי מאי לאתויי הא דת"ר חמשה דברים מביאים את האדם לידי טומאה ואלו הן השום | 18a. b And what /b is the meaning of b four or five; /b i.e., when does the High Priest take four loaves and when does he take five? According b to the Rabbis, who say: /b The priestly watch that is b incoming /b on Shabbat b takes six /b of the loaves, b and /b the b outgoing /b watch b takes six, and /b the incoming watch receives b no /b greater portion as b payment for closing the doors, /b it is b from twelve /b loaves that the High Priest b must divide /b and take his share, but he receives b half /b of the loaves b less one, /b meaning that b he takes five. /b According to the Rabbis, the High Priest receives less than half; however, since it is inappropriate to give him a piece of a loaf, less than half is five whole loaves.,According b to Rabbi Yehuda, who said: /b The priestly watch that is b incoming /b on Shabbat b takes seven /b of the loaves, b two /b of which b are payment for closing the doors; /b and the b outgoing /b watch b takes five /b loaves, it is b from ten /b that b he must divide /b the loaves. Those two of the twelve loaves are a separate payment and are not factored into the tally of those designated for distribution. b Subtract one from half /b of that total, as subtracting less than one loaf would lead to a situation where the High Priest receives a piece of a loaf, which is inappropriate. b And /b therefore, the High Priest b takes four. /b , b Rava said /b that the i baraita /i should be explained differently. The b entire /b i baraita /i b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b and he holds /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda /b that only ten loaves are divided. b Rather, what /b then is the meaning of the statement that the High Priest takes b four /b loaves? According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, b doesn’t he need to take five? /b ,The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult. This /b i halakha /i that the High Priest takes four loaves is in a case b where there is a watch that is detained. /b When the start of a Festival occurs on a Sunday night and one of the priestly watches was forced to arrive before Shabbat to ensure that they would arrive in time for the Festival; or, alternatively, if the Festival ended on a Thursday and one of the priestly watches was detained until the conclusion of Shabbat and only then departed, that priestly watch takes two loaves. b That /b i halakha /i that the High Priest takes five loaves is in a case b where there is not a watch that is detained, /b and the shewbread in divided only between the watch that concludes its service that Shabbat and the watch that begins its service that Shabbat., b If there is a watch that is detained, /b that detained watch takes two loaves, and the outgoing watch takes two loaves as payment for closing the doors. Therefore, it is b from eight /b that the High Priest b must divide /b the loaves, and he b takes four. If there is not a watch that is detained, /b it is b from ten /b that b he must divide /b the loaves and the High Priest b takes five. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If so, /b that even the middle statement of the i baraita /i is attributed to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and it is referring to a watch that is detained, b what /b is the meaning of the last clause in the i baraita /i : b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b The High Priest b always /b takes b five /b loaves? That statement indicates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with the middle clause, while according to Rava’s interpretation Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that in certain circumstances the High Priest takes only four loaves. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is b difficult /b to reconcile Rava’s interpretation with the language of the i baraita /i ., strong MISHNA: /strong The Sages b provided /b the High Priest b with Elders /b selected b from the Elders of the court, and they /b would b read before him the order /b of the service b of the day /b of Yom Kippur. b And they /b would b say to him: My Master, High Priest. Read /b the order of the service b with your own mouth, /b as b perhaps you forgot /b this reading b or perhaps you did not learn /b to read. b On Yom Kippur eve /b in the b morning, /b the Elders b stand him at /b the b eastern gate /b of the courtyard b and pass before him bulls and rams and sheep so that he will be familiar /b with the animals b and /b grow b accustomed to the service, /b as these were the animals sacrificed on Yom Kippur. Throughout b all the seven days /b that the High Priest was in the i Parhedrin /i chamber, b they would not withhold from him /b any b food or drink /b that he desired. However, b on Yom Kippur eve at nightfall, they would not allow him to eat a great deal because food induces sleep /b and they did not allow him to sleep, as will be explained., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara wonders about the depiction in the mishna of the Elders questioning the High Priest as to whether he forgot this reading or perhaps did not learn to read. b Granted, perhaps he forgot, /b that is b fine, /b as it is conceivable that he is not accustomed to reading the Torah and might have forgotten this portion. b However, /b is it conceivable that b perhaps /b the High Priest b did not learn /b to read? b Do we appoint /b a High Priest b of that sort /b who never learned the Bible?, b But wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that it is stated: b “And the priest who is greater than his brethren” /b (Leviticus 21:10); this teaches b that he /b must b be greater than his /b priestly b brethren in strength, in beauty, in wisdom, and in wealth. i Aḥerim /i say: /b Wealth is not a prerequisite for selecting a High Priest, but b from where /b is it derived b that if he does not have /b property of his own b that his brethren the priests elevate him /b and render him wealthy from their own property? b The verse states: “And the priest who is greater [ i haggadol /i ] than his brethren”; elevate him [ i gaddelehu /i ] from /b the property b of his brethren. /b In any event, there is a consensus that wisdom is a prerequisite for his selection., b Rav Yosef said: /b This is b not difficult. There, /b the i baraita /i that lists wisdom among the attributes of the High Priest is referring to b the First Temple, /b where this i halakha /i was observed and the High Priests possessed those attributes listed. b Here, /b the mishna is referring to b the Second Temple, /b where this i halakha /i was not observed, so a situation where the High Priest was not well-versed in the Bible was conceivable. b As Rav Asi said: /b The wealthy b Marta, daughter of Baitos, brought a half- i se’a /i of dinars in to King Yannai for /b the fact b that he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla as High Priest. /b This is an example of the appointment of High Priests by means of bribery and gifts. Since that was the practice, a totally ignorant High Priest could have been appointed.,§ It was taught in the mishna: b On Yom Kippur eve /b in the b morning, /b the elders pass different animals before the High Priest. A i tanna /i b taught /b in the i Tosefta /i : b Even goats /b were brought before him. The Gemara asks: b And the i tanna /i /b of b our /b mishna, b what is the reason /b that b he did not teach /b that b goats /b were among the animals that passed before the High Priest? The Gemara answers: b Since /b goats b come /b as atonement b for sins, /b passing them before the High Priest will evoke transgressions and he will b become distraught. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If so, a bull /b should not be passed before him, b as it too comes /b to atone b for sin. /b The Gemara answers that there is a difference in the case of b a bull, since /b it is to atone b for his /b sins b and for /b the sins of b his brethren the priests that it comes; among his brethren the priests, if there is a person who has a /b sinful b matter, /b the High Priest b would know /b about it b and /b lead b him back to /b the path of righteousness b through repentance. /b Therefore, passing a bull before the High Priest will not render him distraught, as it will merely remind him of his responsibility toward his priestly brethren. On the other hand, b with regard to the entire Jewish people, he does not know /b of their sinful matters and is unable to facilitate their repentance. Passing goats before the High Priest will evoke their sins as well as his inability to correct the situation, leaving him distraught.,Apropos the High Priest being privy to the sinful behavior of his fellow priests, b Ravina said /b that b this /b explains the folk saying b that people say: If /b the beloved b son of your /b beloved b sister becomes a policeman [ i dayyala /i ], see /b to it that b in the marketplace you do not pass before him. /b Be wary of him because he knows your sins.,§ We learned in the mishna: Throughout b all the seven days /b that the High Priest was in the i Parhedrin /i chamber, b they would not withhold /b from him any food or drink that he desired. b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda ben Nekosa says: /b On Yom Kippur eve b they feed him fine flour and eggs in order to loosen his /b bowels, so that he will not need to relieve himself on Yom Kippur. b They said to /b Rabbi Yehuda ben Nekosa: In feeding him those foods, b all the more so that you bring him to a state of arousal. /b Feeding him those foods is antithetical to the efforts to prevent the High Priest from becoming impure, as they are liable to cause him to experience a seminal emission., b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Sumakhos said in the name of Rabbi Meir: One does not feed him /b foods represented by the acrostic: b i Alef /i , i beit /i , i yod /i ; and some say /b that one does b not /b feed him foods represented by the acrostic: b i Alef /i , i beit /i , i beit /i , i yod /i ; and some say neither /b does one feed him b white wine. /b The Gemara elaborates: b Not i alef /i , i beit /i , i yod /i /b means b neither i etrog /i , nor eggs [ i beitzim /i ], nor old wine [ i yayin /i ]. And some say: Not i alef /i , i beit /i , i beit /i , i yod /i /b means b neither i etrog /i , nor eggs [ i beitzim /i ], nor fatty meat [ i basar /i ], nor old wine [ i yayin /i ]. And some say neither /b does one feed him b white wine because white wine brings /b a b man to /b the b impurity /b of a seminal emission.,Similarly, b the Sages taught: /b If a man experienced an emission that could render him b a i zav /i , one attributes /b the emission not to his being a i zav /i but perhaps to a different cause, e.g., b to food, or to all kinds of food, /b i.e., he may have eaten too much food, which could have caused the emission. b Elazar ben Pineḥas says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: /b During the days that a i zav /i is examining himself to determine whether or not he is impure, b one feeds him neither /b foods represented by the acrostic: b i Ḥet /i , i gimmel /i , i beit /i , i yod /i , nor /b foods represented by the acrostic: b i Gimmel /i , i beit /i , i mem /i , nor any /b food b items that /b might b bring him to impurity /b caused by an emission. The Gemara explains: b Not i ḥet /i , i gimmel /i , i beit /i , i yod /i /b means b neither milk [ i ḥalav /i ], nor cheese [ i gevina /i ], nor egg [ i beitza /i ], nor wine [ i yayin /i ]. And not i gimmel /i , i beit /i , i mem /i /b means b neither soup of pounded beans [ i mei gerisin /i ], nor fatty meat [ i basar /i ], nor /b small b fish /b pickled b in brine [ i muryas /i ]. /b ,The Gemara asks about the phrase: b Nor any /b food b items that /b might b bring him to impurity; what does it /b come b to include? It /b comes b to include that which the Sages taught: Five /b food b items bring /b a b man to /b a state of b impurity /b due to emission. b And these are: Garlic, /b |
|
66. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 180, 181, 182| 57a. נימא תלתא תנאי הוו לא תרי תנאי הוו ותנא קמא דר' שמעון היינו ר' יוסי ותנא קמא דר' יוסי היינו ר' שמעון ומאי אף אקמייתא,ת"ר בן בוהיין נתן פיאה לירק ובא אביו ומצאן לעניים שהיו טעונין ירק ועומדין על פתח הגינה אמר להם בני השליכו מעליכם ואני נותן לכם כפליים במעושר לא מפני שעיני צרה אלא מפני שאמרו חכמים אין נותנין פיאה לירק,למה ליה למימרא להו לא מפני שעיני צרה כי היכי דלא לימרו דחויי קא מדחי לן,ת"ר בראשונה היו מניחין עורות קדשים בלשכת בית הפרוה לערב היו מחלקין אותן לאנשי בית אב והיו בעלי זרועות נוטלין אותן בזרוע התקינו שיהיו מחלקין אותן מערב שבת לע"ש דאתיין כולהו משמרות ושקלן בהדדי,ועדיין היו גדולי כהונה נוטלין אותן בזרוע עמדו בעלים והקדישום לשמים,אמרו לא היו ימים מועטים עד שחיפו את ההיכל כולו בטבלאות של זהב שהן אמה על אמה כעובי דינר זהב ולרגל היו מקפלין אותן ומניחין אותן על גב מעלה בהר הבית כדי שיהו עולי רגלים רואין שמלאכתם נאה ואין בה דלם,תנא אבא שאול אומר קורות של שקמה היו ביריחו והיו בעלי זרועות נוטלין אותן בזרוע עמדו בעלים והקדישום לשמים,עליהם ועל כיוצא בהם אמר אבא שאול בן בטנית משום אבא יוסף בן חנין אוי לי מבית בייתוס אוי לי מאלתן אוי לי מבית חנין אוי לי מלחישתן אוי לי מבית קתרוס אוי לי מקולמוסן אוי לי מבית ישמעאל בן פיאכי אוי לי מאגרופן שהם כהנים גדולים ובניהן גיזברין וחתניהם אמרכלין ועבדיהן חובטין את העם במקלות,תנו רבנן ארבע צווחות צוחה עזרה ראשונה צאו מכאן בני עלי שטימאו היכל ה' ועוד צווחה צא מיכן יששכר איש כפר ברקאי שמכבד את עצמו ומחלל קדשי שמים דהוה כריך ידיה בשיראי ועביד עבודה,ועוד צווחה העזרה שאו שערים ראשיכם ויכנס ישמעאל בן פיאכי תלמידו של פנחס וישמש בכהונה גדולה ועוד צווחה העזרה שאו שערים ראשיכם ויכנס יוחנן בן נרבאי תלמידו של פנקאי וימלא כריסו מקדשי שמים,אמרו עליו על יוחנן בן נרבאי שהיה אוכל ג' מאות עגלים ושותה ג' מאות גרבי יין ואוכל ארבעים סאה גוזלות בקינוח סעודה אמרו כל ימיו של יוחנן בן נרבאי לא נמצא נותר במקדש מאי סלקא ביה ביששכר איש כפר ברקאי אמרי מלכא ומלכתא הוו יתבי מלכא אמר גדיא יאי ומלכתא אמרה אימרא יאי אמרו מאן מוכח כהן גדול דקא מסיק קרבנות כל יומא אתא איהו | 57a. b Let us say /b that b there are three i tanna’im /i /b who dispute this point: The two unattributed opinions, each of which is referring to two vegetables, and the opinion common to Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon that includes all three vegetables. The Gemara rejects this: b No, there are /b only b two i tanna’im /i /b who dispute the point, b and the first i tanna /i /b whose opinion appears before the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon is Rabbi Yosei. And the first i tanna /i /b whose opinion appears before the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei is Rabbi Shimon. And what /b is the meaning of the word b even /b in both their statements? They agree with regard to b the first /b vegetable, turnips; however, they disagree with regard to the second, and replace it with another vegetable.,The Gemara cites an episode from the i Tosefta /i . b The Sages taught: The son /b of a man named b Bohayan designated /b for the poor b the /b produce in the b corner /b in a garden b of vegetables, and his father /b Bohayan b found the poor laden /b with b vegetables and standing at the opening of the garden /b on their way out. b He said to them: My sons, cast /b the vegetables that you have gathered b from upon yourselves and I will give you twice /b the amount in b tithed /b produce, and you will be no worse off. b Not because I begrudge /b you what you have taken. b Rather, it is because the Sages say: One does not designate /b for the poor b the /b produce in the b corner /b in a garden b of vegetables. /b Therefore, the vegetables that you took require tithing.,The Gemara asks: b Why /b was it necessary b for him to say to them: Not because I begrudge /b you what you have taken? It would have been sufficient to offer them tithed produce. The Gemara answers that he said it b so they would not say: He is putting us off, /b taking what we collected now, but later he will not fulfill his commitment.,Apropos the people of Jericho, the Gemara relates that powerful people would steal wood from them. b The Sages taught: Initially, /b the priests b would place the hides /b that were flayed from animals b consecrated /b as offerings of the most sacred order, which were given to the priests, b in the Parva chamber. In the evening, they would distribute them to the members of the family /b of priests serving in the Temple that day. b And the powerful /b priests among them would b take them by force /b before they could be distributed. The Rabbis b decreed that they would distribute them each Shabbat eve, /b because then b all the /b families of both priestly b watches came and took /b their part b together. /b All the families from both the watch that was beginning its service and the one ending its service were together when they divided the hides. The powerful priests were unable to take the hides by force., b Yet still the prominent priests /b by virtue of their lineage b would take them by force. /b Due to their prominence, the members of the rest of the watch dared not challenge them. When they realized that there was no equitable distribution, b the owners /b of the sacrifices ( i Me’iri /i ) b arose and consecrated /b the hides b to Heaven /b so the priests could not take them.,The Sages b said: Not a few days passed before they had plated the entire sanctuary with golden tablets /b with the proceeds from the redemption and sale of the hides. These plates b were one cubit by one cubit and as thick as a golden dinar. And /b when the people assembled b for the /b Festival b pilgrimage they would remove /b the tablets b and place them on a stair of the Temple Mount so that the pilgrims would see that the craftsmanship /b of the tablets b was beautiful and without flaw [ i dalam /i ]. /b Afterward they replaced the tablets in the Sanctuary., b It was /b similarly b taught /b that b Abba Shaul says: There were sycamore tree trunks in Jericho, and powerful people would take them /b from their owners b by force. The owners stood and consecrated /b these trunks b to Heaven. /b It was with regard to these trunks and the branches that grew from them that the residents of Jericho acted against the will of the Sages., b With regard to /b the prominent priests b and those like them, Abba Shaul ben Batnit said in the name of Abba Yosef ben Ḥanin: Woe is me due to /b the High Priests of b the house of Baitos, woe is me due to their clubs. Woe is me due to /b the High Priests of b the house of Ḥanin; woe is me due to their whispers /b and the rumors they spread. b Woe is me due to /b the High Priests of b the house of Katros; woe is me due to their pens /b that they use to write lies. b Woe is me due to /b the servants of the High Priests of b the house of Yishmael ben Piakhi; woe is me due to their fists. /b The power of these households stemmed from the fact b that /b the fathers b were High Priests, and their sons were /b the Temple b treasurers, and their sons-in-law were /b Temple b overseers [ i amarkalin /i ]. And their servants strike the people with clubs, /b and otherwise act inappropriately.,Apropos the critique of several prominent priests, the Gemara relates that b the Sages taught: /b The people in b the /b Temple b courtyard /b all b cried four cries, /b as they were in agreement over various issues ( i Pardes Rimonim /i ). The b first /b cry was: b Leave here, sons of Eli, who defiled God’s Sanctuary /b (see I Samuel 2:22). Subsequently the priesthood was transferred to the house of Zadok. b And an additional cry: Leave here, Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai, who honors himself and desecrates /b the items b consecrated /b to b Heaven. /b Due to his delicate nature and his disrespect for the Temple service, he would b wrap /b his hands b in silk [ i shirai /i ] and perform the service. /b This would invalidate the service because the silk was an interposition between his hands and the Temple vessels. Furthermore, his conduct demeaned the Temple service, as he demonstrated that he was unwilling to dirty his hands for it., b And /b the people in b the /b Temple b courtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and let /b the righteous b Yishmael ben Piakhi, the student of Pinehas /b ben Elazar the priest, b enter and serve as High Priest, /b although the members of this family were violent. b And /b the people in b the /b Temple b courtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and let Yoḥa ben Narbbai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly with /b meat b of offerings /b consecrated to b Heaven, /b as he is worthy to eat offerings., b They said about Yoḥa ben Narbbai that he /b and his household b would eat three hundred calves, and drink three hundred jugs of wine, and eat forty i se’a /i of doves for dessert. They said: /b Throughout b all the days of Yoḥa ben Narbbai there was no leftover /b sacrificial meat b in the Temple, /b as he would make certain that someone ate it. The Gemara asks: b What /b ultimately b happened to Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai? They said: The king and the queen were sitting /b and talking. b The king said /b that b goat /b meat b is better /b food, b and the queen said lamb /b meat is b better /b food. b They said: Who can prove /b which one of us is correct? b The High Priest /b can, b as he offers sacrifices all day /b and tastes their meat. The High Priest had the right to take a portion from any sacrifice offered in the Temple, and therefore was well acquainted with the tastes of different meat. Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai b came, /b and when they asked him this question, |
|
67. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 188| 2b. כולהו כרבה לא אמרי ההוא ידיעה לדורות היא,כרבי זירא נמי לא אמרי ההוא לימות המשיח הוא דכתיב,ור' זירא א"כ לימא קרא וחופה תהיה לצל יומם ומאי וסוכה תהיה לצל יומם שמעת מינה תרתי,כרבא נמי לא אמרי משום קושיא דאביי,כמאן אזלא הא דאמר ר' יאשיה אמר רב מחלוקת בשאין דפנות מגיעות לסכך אבל דפנות מגיעות לסכך אפילו למעלה מעשרים אמה כשרה כמאן,כרבה דאמר משום דלא שלטא בה עינא וכיון דדפנות מגיעות לסכך משלט שלטא בה עינא,כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רב הונא אמר רב מחלוקת בשאין בה אלא ארבע אמות על ארבע אמות אבל יש בה יותר מארבע אמות על ארבע אמות אפי' למעלה מעשרים אמה כשרה כמאן,כרבי זירא דאמר משום צל הוא וכיון דרויחא איכא צל סוכה,כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רב חנן בר רבה אמר רב מחלוקת בשאינה מחזקת אלא כדי ראשו ורובו ושולחנו אבל מחזקת יותר מכדי ראשו ורובו ושולחנו אפי' למעלה מעשרים אמה כשרה כמאן דלא כחד,בשלמא דרבי יאשיה פליגא אדרב הונא ורב חנן בר רבה דאינהו קא יהבי שעורא במשכא ואיהו לא קא יהיב שעורא במשכא,אלא רב הונא ורב חנן בר רבה נימא בהכשר סוכה קמיפלגי דמר סבר הכשר סוכה בארבע אמות ומר סבר הכשר סוכה במחזקת ראשו ורובו ושולחנו,לא דכולי עלמא הכשר סוכה ראשו ורובו ושולחנו והכא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר במחזקת ראשו ורובו ושולחנו פליגי אבל יותר מראשו ורובו ושולחנו ד"ה כשרה,ומר סבר מראשו ורובו ושולחנו עד ד' אמות פליגי אבל יותר מד' אמות דברי הכל כשרה,מיתיבי סוכה שהיא גבוהה למעלה מעשרים אמה פסולה ורבי יהודה מכשיר עד ארבעים וחמשים אמה,אמר רבי יהודה מעשה בהילני המלכה בלוד שהיתה סוכתה גבוהה מעשרים אמה והיו זקנים נכנסין ויוצאין לשם ולא אמרו לה דבר אמרו לו משם ראייה אשה היתה ופטורה מן הסוכה אמר להן והלא שבעה בנים הוו לה ועוד כל מעשיה לא עשתה אלא על פי חכמים,למה לי למיתני ועוד כל מעשיה לא עשתה אלא על פי חכמים,הכי קאמר להו כי תאמרו בנים קטנים היו וקטנים פטורין מן הסוכה כיון דשבעה הוו אי אפשר דלא הוי בהו חד שאינו צריך לאמו,וכי תימרו קטן שאינו צריך לאמו מדרבנן הוא דמיחייב ואיהי בדרבנן לא משגחה ת"ש ועוד כל מעשיה לא עשתה אלא ע"פ חכמים,בשלמא למ"ד בשאין דפנות מגיעות לסכך מחלוקת דרכה של מלכה לישב בסוכה שאין דפנות מגיעות לסכך | 2b. The Gemara explains why each of the Sages cited his own source and did not accept the sources cited by the others. b All of them, /b Rabbi Zeira and Rava, b did not say /b that the fact that a i sukka /i more than twenty cubits high is unfit is derived from the verse: “So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in i sukkot /i when I took them out of the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 23:43), b as /b did b Rabba, /b because in their opinion b that /b verse does not mandate one to be aware that he is sitting in a i sukka /i ; rather, it mandates b knowledge for /b future b generations /b of the exodus from Egypt.,Similarly, b they, /b Rabba and Rava, b also did not say /b that it is derived from the verse: “And there shall be a i sukka /i for shade in the daytime from the heat” (Isaiah 4:6), b as /b did b Rabbi Zeira, /b because in their opinion b it is /b with regard b to the messianic era that this /b verse b is written. /b It means that God will be a shield and a shelter for the Jewish people; it is not referring to the structure of a i sukka /i .,The Gemara asks: b And Rabbi Zeira, /b how would he respond to this objection? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Zeira could say: b If /b it is b so /b that the verse is merely a metaphor, b let the verse say: And there shall be a canopy for shade in the daytime from the heat, /b which is the term used in the previous verse. b And what is /b the meaning of: b “And there shall be a i sukka /i for shade in the daytime from the heat”? Learn from it two /b matters: One is the plain meaning of the verse, that God will be a canopy of glory for the Jewish people, and the second is that the essence of a i sukka /i is to have the roofing provide shade., b They, /b Rabba and Rabbi Zeira, b also did not say /b that it is derived from the verse: “In i sukkot /i shall you reside seven days” (Leviticus 23:42), b as did Rava, due to the difficulty /b raised by b Abaye /b with regard to a i sukka /i with steel partitions. Since there is a weakness in each of the sources, it is understandable why the other Sages did not accept it.,§ The Gemara asks: b In accordance with whose /b opinion b is that which Rabbi Yoshiya said /b that b Rav said: /b The b dispute /b between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the fitness of a i sukka /i more than twenty cubits high is specifically b in /b a case b where the walls /b of the i sukka /i b do not reach /b up to b the roofing; however, /b in a case where b the walls /b of the i sukka /i b reach /b up to b the roofing, /b the Rabbis concede that b even /b if the roofing is b more than twenty cubits high, it is fit. In accordance with whose /b opinion is it?,It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabba, who says /b that the reason that a i sukka /i that high is unfit is b because the eye does not /b automatically b catch sight of /b the roofing. b And since the walls /b of the i sukka /i b reach the roofing, the eye catches sight /b of the roofing, as the person will follow the walls all the way up to the roofing despite their considerable height. However, if the roofing is not contiguous with the top of the walls, a person does not notice it without a concerted effort.,The Gemara asks: b In accordance with whose /b opinion b is that which Rav Huna said /b that b Rav said: /b The b dispute /b between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the fitness of a i sukka /i more than twenty cubits high is specifically b in /b a case b where there is not /b an area of b four cubits by four cubits in /b the i sukka /i ; b however, /b in a case where b there is /b an area of b more than four cubits by four cubits in /b the i sukka /i , the Rabbis concede that b even /b if the roofing is b more than twenty cubits high, it is fit. In accordance with whose /b opinion is it?,It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Zeira, who says that /b a i sukka /i that high is unfit b due to /b the b shade /b that is provided by the walls and not by the roofing; b and since /b the i sukka /i in this case b is spacious /b and has a large area, b there is shade from the /b roofing of the b i sukka /i /b and not only from the walls.,The Gemara asks: b In accordance with whose /b opinion b is that which Rav Ḥa bar Rabba said /b that b Rav said: /b The b dispute /b between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the fitness of a i sukka /i more than twenty cubits high is specifically b in /b a case b where /b the i sukka /i is b only /b large b enough /b to b hold one’s head, most of his /b body, b and his table, /b as, if the i sukka /i were smaller, it would not qualify as a i sukka /i ; b however, /b in a case where b it /b is sufficiently large to b hold more than one’s head, most of his /b body, b and his table, even if it is more than twenty cubits high, it is fit. In accordance with whose /b opinion is it? It is b not in accordance with /b the opinion b of /b any b one /b of them. This statement cannot be explained according to any of the rationales for the fact that a i sukka /i more than twenty cubits high is unfit.,With regard to the three aforementioned i halakhot /i , the Gemara notes: b Granted, /b the statement b of Rabbi Yoshiya differs from /b the statements b of Rav Huna and Rav Ḥa bar Rabba, as they are providing the measure of the extent /b of the i sukka /i b while he is not providing a measure. /b In Rabbi Yoshiya’s opinion, the i halakha /i is based on whether the top of the walls reach the roofing, which indicates a fundamentally different understanding of the issue of a i sukka /i more than twenty cubits high., b However, /b in terms of b Rav Huna and Rav Ḥa bar Rabba, let us say that /b it is b with regard to /b the minimum size required for b fitness of a i sukka /i /b that b they disagree; as /b one b Sage, /b Rav Huna, b holds: /b The minimum size required for b fitness of a i sukka /i is four /b by four b cubits, and /b the other b Sage, /b Rav Ḥa bar Rabba, b holds: /b The minimum size required for b fitness of a i sukka /i is /b one b that holds one’s head, and most of his /b body, b and his table. /b ,The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b No, /b there is no need to explain their dispute that way, b as /b it could be explained that b everyone, /b i.e., Rav Huna and Rav Ḥa bar Rabba, b agrees /b that b the /b minimum size required for b fitness of a i sukka /i is /b one b that holds one’s head, and most of his /b body, b and his table. And here, /b it is b with regard to this /b that b they disagree: /b One b Sage, /b Rav Ḥa bar Rabba, b holds that /b Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis b disagree /b only with regard to a i sukka /i more than twenty cubits high in a case b where /b it b holds the person’s head, and most of his /b body, b and his table. However, /b in a case where it is b larger than /b one that holds b one’s head, and most of his /b body, b and his table, everyone agrees /b that the i sukka /i is fit regardless of its height., b And /b one b Sage, /b Rav Huna, b holds /b that it is with regard to a i sukka /i that ranges in size b from /b one b that holds one’s head, and most of his /b body, b and his table up to /b one b that is four /b by four b cubits /b that b they disagree; however, /b if the i sukka /i is b more than four /b by four b cubits, everyone agrees /b that it is b fit. /b ,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : b A i sukka /i that is more than twenty cubits high is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda deems /b a i sukka /i b fit /b even if it is b up to forty or fifty cubits /b high., b Rabbi Yehuda said: /b There was b an incident involving Queen Helene in Lod where her i sukka /i was more than twenty cubits high, and the Elders were entering and exiting /b the i sukka /i b and did not say anything to her /b about the i sukka /i not being fit. br The Rabbis b said to him: /b Is there b proof from there? She was, /b after all, b a woman and /b therefore b exempt from the /b mitzva of b i sukka /i . /b Consequently, the fact that her i sukka /i was not fit did not warrant a comment from the Elders. br Rabbi Yehuda b said to them /b in response: b Didn’t she have seven sons /b and therefore require a fit i sukka /i ? b And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with /b the directives of b the Sages. /b ,Before analyzing the objection being raised from the i baraita /i , the Gemara seeks to understand its content. b Why do I /b need Rabbi Yehuda b to teach: And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with /b the directives of b the Sages? /b His first contention was sufficient.,The Gemara answers that b this is what /b Rabbi Yehuda b is saying to them: If you say /b that Helene’s sons b were minor sons and minors are exempt from the /b mitzva of b i sukka /i , /b and that is why the Elders said nothing; b since they were seven /b sons, then b it is not possible that there was not /b at least b one among them who no longer needed his mother /b to look after him. The i halakha /i is that a minor who no longer needs his mother has reached the age of training and is required to fulfill the mitzva of i sukka /i by rabbinic law. Even if she gave birth to them in consecutive years, the oldest would be seven years old, and at that age a child does not need his mother to constantly look after him., b And if you say /b that b a child who no longer needs his mother is obligated /b in the mitzva of i sukka /i only b by rabbinic law, and Queen Helene did not observe rabbinic law, come /b and b hear /b that which Rabbi Yehuda said: b And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with /b the directives of b the Sages. /b ,The Gemara explores the statements of the i amora’im /i who quoted Rav in light of this i baraita /i . b Granted, according to the one, /b Rabbi Yoshiya, b who said that /b it is specifically b in /b a case b where the walls /b of the i sukka /i b do not reach /b up to b the roofing /b that there is a b dispute /b between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, the i baraita /i can be explained as dealing with a i sukka /i of that type, as b it is customary for a queen to reside in a i sukka /i in which the walls do not reach /b up to b the roofing, /b |
|
68. Babylonian Talmud, Arakhin, None (6th cent. CE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 191| 11b. על עסקי קול רב אשי אמר מהכא (דה"ב ה, יג) ויהי כאחד למחצצרים ולמשוררים להשמיע קול אחד,רבי יונתן אמר מהכא (במדבר יח, ג) ולא ימותו גם הם גם אתם מה אתם בעבודת מזבח אף הם בעבודת מזבח,תניא נמי הכי ולא ימותו גם הם גם אתם אתם בשלהם והם בשלכם במיתה הם בשלהם אינן במיתה אלא באזהרה,אמר אביי נקיטינן משורר ששיער בשל חבירו במיתה שנאמר (במדבר ג, לח) והחונים לפני המשכן קדמה לפני אהל מועד וגו' והזר הקרב יומת מאי זר אילימא זר ממש הכתיב חדא זימנא אלא לאו זר דאותה עבודה:,מיתיבי משורר ששיער ומשוער ששורר אינן במיתה אלא באזהרה,תנאי היא דתניא מעשה בר' יהושע בר חנניה שהלך לסייע בהגפת דלתות אצל ר' יוחנן בן גודגדא אמר לו בני חזור לאחוריך שאתה מן המשוררים ולא מן המשוערים,מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר מיתה היא וגזרו בה רבנן ומ"ס אזהרה היא ולא גזרו בה,דכ"ע אזהרה היא מר סבר מסייע גזרו ביה רבנן ומר סבר לא גזרו ביה רבנן,בעי רבי אבין עולת נדבת ציבור טעונה שירה או אינה טעונה שירה {במדבר י } עולותיכם אמר רחמנא אחת עולת חובה ואחת עולת נדבה או דלמא עולותיכם דכולהו ישראל קאמר רחמנא,ת"ש (דה"ב כט, כז) ויאמר חזקיהו להעלות העולה (על המזבח) ובעת החל העולה החל שיר ה' והחצוצרות ע"י כלי (שיר) דוד מלך ישראל האי שירה מאי עבידתה אילימא דעולת חובה ל"ל אימלוכי אלא לאו דעולת נדבה,א"ר יוסף לא עולת ראש חודש הוה וקא מיבעיא להו מי הוקבע ר"ח בזמנו דליקרב או לא,אמר ליה אביי ומי מצית אמרת הכי והכתיב (דה"ב כט, יז) ביום ששה עשר לחדש הראשון וגו' ויאמר חזקיהו להעלות העולה (על המזבח),אלא אמר רמי בריה דרב ייבא כבש הבא עם העומר קמיבעיא להו מי קבע ר"ח בזמנו דליקריב או לא,מתקיף לה רב אויא וליחזי פסח היכי עביד מצה היכי אכיל,אלא אמר רב אשי מידי דהוה אשליחא דציבורא דממליך השתא דאתית להכי אפילו תימא עולת חובה מידי דהוה אשליחא דציבורא דממליך,ת"ש רבי יוסי אומר מגלגלין זכות ליום זכאי וחובה ליום חייב,אמרו כשחרב הבית בראשונה אותו היום תשעה באב היה ומוצאי שבת היה ומוצאי שביעית היתה ומשמרתו של יהויריב היתה והיו כהנים ולוים עומדים על דוכנן ואומרים שירה ומה שירה אמרו (תהלים צד, כג) וישב עליהם את אונם וברעתם יצמיתם ולא הספיקו לומר יצמיתם ה' אלהינו עד שבאו אויבים וכבשום וכן בשניה,האי שירה מאי עבידתיה אילימא דעולת חובה מי הואי בי"ז בתמוז בטל התמיד אלא לאו דעולת נדבה,ותסברא מ"ש דעולת חובה דלא הואי ומ"ש דעולת נדבה דהואי הא לא קשיא בן בקר אקראי בעלמא הוא דאיתרמיא להו,אמר רבא ואיתימא רב אשי ותסברא שירה דיומיה (תהלים כד, א) לה' הארץ ומלואה וישב עליהם את אונם בשיר דארבעה בשבת הוא אלא אילייא בעלמא הוא דנפל להו בפומייהו,והא עומדין על דוכנן קתני כדר"ל דאמר אומר שלא על הקרבן אי הכי בעולת נדבה נמי לימא נפיק מינה חורבא,מאי הוה עלה ת"ש דתני רב מרי בריה דרב כהנא (במדבר י, י) על עולותיכם ועל זבחי שלמיכם,מה עולה קודש קדשים אף שלמים קודש קדשים ומה שלמים קבוע להם זמן אף עולה קבוע לה זמן: | 11b. This indicates that God responded to Moses, who was a Levite, by commanding him b about matters /b pertaining to the b voice, /b i.e., that the Levites must accompany the sacrifices with song. b Rav Ashi says /b that the obligation for the Levites to sing in the Temple is derived b from here: “It came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound /b to be heard in praising and thanking the Lord” (II Chronicles 5:13). This indicates that just as there is a requirement for trumpets to be sounded during the sacrifice of communal offerings (see Numbers 10:10), there is likewise a requirement for the Levites to sing., b Rabbi Yonatan says /b that the requirement for the Levites to sing in the Temple is derived b from here: /b The Torah commands the priests with regard to the Levites: “They shall not come near the altar, b that they die not, neither they nor you” /b (Numbers 18:3). The verse equates the Levites with the priests, indicating that b just as you, /b the priests, are obligated b to /b perform the b service /b on the b altar, so too they, /b the Levites, are obligated b to /b perform b a service /b pertaining to the b altar, /b i.e., the song that accompanies the offerings.,A derivation of i halakhot /i based on the comparison between priests and Levites in b this /b verse b is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : It is stated: b “That they die not, neither they nor you.” /b This indicates that if b you, /b the priests, perform b their /b duties, i.e., the Levites’ duties, b or they, /b the Levites, perform b yours, /b e.g., the sacrificial rites, the perpetrator is liable b to /b receive b death /b at the hand of Heaven. But if b they, /b the Levites, perform a function that belongs to a different group of Levites, but is nevertheless a duty of b theirs, /b i.e., the Levites in general, e.g., if Levites assigned to open and close the gates of the Temple decide instead to sing, b they are not /b punished b with death; rather, /b they have merely violated b a prohibition. /b , b Abaye said: We hold /b that a Levite designated to serve as b a singer who /b instead b served in another /b Levite’s position b as a gatekeeper /b is liable to be put b to death, as it is stated: “And those that were to pitch tent before the Tabernacle eastward, before the Tent of Meeting /b toward the sunrising, were Moses and Aaron and his sons, keeping the charge of the Sanctuary, for the charge of the children of Israel; b and the stranger that drew near was to be put to death” /b (Numbers 3:38). b What is /b the meaning of the term b “stranger” /b in this verse? b If we say /b it is referring to b an actual stranger, /b i.e., a non-Levite, b isn’t it written /b already on b another occasion /b that he is liable to be put to death (see Numbers 3:10)? b Rather, /b this is b not /b its meaning; instead, it is referring to one who is a Levite but is b a stranger to that service. /b ,The Gemara b raises an objection /b to Abaye’s statement from a i baraita /i : b A singer who served as a gatekeeper and a gatekeeper who sang are not /b punished b with death; rather, /b they have merely violated b a prohibition. /b ,The Gemara explains that this matter b is /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i , as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : There was b an incident involving Rabbi Yehoshua bar Ḥaya, /b a Levite, b who went to Rabbi Yoḥa ben Gudgeda, /b also a Levite, in order b to assist in closing /b the b doors /b of the Temple. Rabbi Yoḥa ben Gudgeda b said to him: My son, go back, as you are among the singers and not among the gatekeepers. /b ,The Gemara analyzes the i baraita /i : b What, is it not /b the case that these two Levite Sages b disagree about this, that /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Gudgeda, b holds /b that if a Levite who is a singer closes the gate by himself, b it is /b a prohibition punishable by b death, and /b therefore b the Sages decreed /b that a Levite who is a singer should not even assist the gatekeepers in closing the gates; b and /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Yehoshua bar Ḥaya, b holds /b that b it is a prohibition /b that is not punishable by death, b and /b therefore the Sages b did not decree /b that a Levite who is a singer should not assist the gatekeepers in closing the gates?,The Gemara responds: No, that is not necessarily the correct analysis of the i baraita /i . Rather, b everyone /b agrees that one Levite performing another Levite’s task by himself is b a prohibition /b that is not punishable by death. One b Sage holds /b that b the Sages /b nevertheless b decreed /b that a Levite who is a singer should not even b assist /b the gatekeepers, b and /b one b Sage holds /b that b the Sages did not decree /b that a Levite who is a singer should not assist the gatekeepers in closing the gates.,§ b Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma: /b Does b a communal voluntary burnt offering require /b an accompanying b song or /b does it b not require song? /b He explains the two sides of the dilemma: b The Merciful One states /b in the Torah: “You shall blow with the trumpets b over your burnt offerings” /b (Numbers 10:10). Does the term “burnt offerings” include b both an obligatory burnt offering and a voluntary burnt offering, or perhaps the Merciful One is saying /b that the trumpets and song must accompany b the burnt offerings of the entire Jewish people, /b i.e., they must be burnt offerings that are an obligation of the people?,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from a verse: b “And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar, and when the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord began also, and the trumpets, together with the instruments of David king of Israel /b …And Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praises unto the Lord” (II Chronicles 29:27–30). The Gemara analyzes the description of this service: b This song, what was its purpose? If we say that /b it accompanied b an obligatory burnt offering /b that was brought on that day, b why /b did they have b to seek authorization /b from Hezekiah? Why did Hezekiah need to issue a specific command that they should accompany this offering with song? b Rather, is it not /b the case b that /b this song served to accompany b the voluntary burnt offering /b that Hezekiah brought on that day?, b Rav Yosef said: No, /b that day was a New Moon, and b it was the /b additional b burnt offering of the New Moon, /b an obligatory burnt offering, that was accompanied by the song. As for the need for Hezekiah’s approval, the explanation is as follows: It was the thirtieth day following the previous New Moon, b and they were asking /b him b if the /b current b New Moon was established in its time, /b i.e., on that day, so b that /b the burnt offering of the New Moon should b be sacrificed, or /b if the New Moon had b not /b been declared on that day. Hezekiah clarified that the court had declared the New Moon, and therefore they should sacrifice the offering., b Abaye said to /b Rav Yosef: b And how can you say /b that that day was the New Moon? b Isn’t it written: “On the sixteenth day of the first month” /b (II Chronicles 29:17), and later, in that context, it states: b “And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar”? /b , b Rather, Rami, son of Rav Yeiva, said: /b The question b they were asking /b Hezekiah referred to the obligatory, communal burnt offering b lamb that comes with the i omer /i , /b i.e., the barley offering brought on the sixteenth of the first month, Nisan. They asked: b Was the New Moon /b of Nisan b established in its /b correct b time, /b which means b that /b it is now in fact the sixteenth of Nisan and the i omer /i offering and the lamb brought with it should b be sacrificed, or /b was it b not /b really the sixteenth of Nisan?, b Rav Avya objects to this /b explanation: How is it possible that they were unsure whether it was the sixteenth of Nisan? b Let them see how the Paschal offering was performed /b on the fourteenth of Nisan and b how i matza /i was eaten /b the following night. The day of the sixteenth of Nisan could easily be determined from when those mitzvot were performed., b Rather, Rav Ashi said: /b They asked permission from Hezekiah before sacrificing the lamb that comes with the i omer /i offering, b just as it is with /b regard to b a prayer leader, who, /b as a gesture of respect, b asks permission /b from the congregation before leading them in prayer. Likewise, the people asked permission from Hezekiah as a formal gesture of respect, not because they required his advice. The Gemara notes: b Now that you have arrived at this /b explanation, b you /b may b even say /b that it was a common b obligatory burnt offering, /b e.g., the daily offering, and they asked permission of Hezekiah before sacrificing it, b just as it is with /b regard to b a prayer leader, who asks permission /b from the congregation before leading it in prayer.,The Gemara has still not proven whether or not a communal voluntary burnt offering must be accompanied with song. The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from the following i baraita /i . b Rabbi Yosei says: A fortunate /b matter b is brought about on an auspicious day, and a deleterious /b matter b on an inauspicious day. /b ,As the Sages b said: When the Temple was destroyed for the first /b time, b that day was the Ninth of Av, /b a date on which several calamities had already occurred; b and it was the conclusion of Shabbat, /b i.e., it was on the day after Shabbat, a Sunday; b and it was the year after a Sabbatical /b Year; b and it was the week of the priestly watch of Jehoiarib; and the priests and Levites were standing on their platform and singing song. And what song were they singing? /b They were singing the verse: b “And He brought upon them their own iniquity, and He will cut them off in their own evil” /b (Psalms 94:23). b And they did not manage to recite /b the end of that verse: b “The Lord our God will cut them off,” before gentiles came and conquered them. And likewise, /b the same happened b when the Second /b Temple was destroyed.,The Gemara analyzes the i baraita /i : b This song, what was its purpose? If we say that /b it accompanied b an obligatory burnt offering, was there /b any obligatory communal burnt offering sacrificed at that time? b The daily offering had /b already b ceased /b to be sacrificed, due to a lack of animals, b on the seventeenth of Tammuz, /b three weeks before the Ninth of Av. b Rather, is it not /b correct to say b that /b this song accompanied b a voluntary burnt offering? /b ,The Gemara asks: b And can you understand /b this to be the case? b What is different about an obligatory burnt offering, which was not /b sacrificed at this time because they did not have animals to bring, b and what is different about a voluntary burnt offering, that it was /b sacrificed? Just as there were no animals available for obligatory offerings, there were none available for voluntary burnt offerings either. The Gemara answers: b That /b is b not difficult. A young bull, /b which cannot be sacrificed as the daily offering, for which lambs are required, b happened to come into their /b possession b merely by coincidence, /b and they sacrificed it as a voluntary burnt offering. This indicates that the Levites are required to sing as an accompaniment to the sacrifice of a communal voluntary burnt offering., b Rava said, and some say Rav Ashi /b said: b And /b how can b you understand /b the description of the destruction cited in the i baraita /i ? b The song of the day /b for Sunday, which is when the i baraita /i says that the Temple was destroyed, is the psalm that begins: b “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof” /b (Psalms 24:1). And yet the verse that the i baraita /i says that the Levites were singing, b “And He brought upon them their own iniquity,” is in the song for Wednesday, /b not the song for Sunday. b Rather, it was merely /b a portentous b lamentation /b [ b i eiliyya /i /b ] b that came into their mouths, /b not an actual song recited over an offering.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in the i baraita /i that the Levites were b standing on their platform /b near the altar, which is where they stood when they sang to accompany offerings? The Gemara answers: This can be explained b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Reish Lakish, who says: /b The Levites are permitted to b recite /b songs on the platform even when it is b not for an offering. /b The Gemara asks: b If so, /b if the Levites may recite songs on the platform at will, b let /b them b also recite /b a song b for a voluntary burnt offering, /b even if it is not required. The Gemara answers: That could b result in a mishap, /b as the Levites might assume that just as singing for a voluntary burnt offering is optional, so too singing for an obligatory burnt offering is also optional.,The question of whether a song must be recited for a communal voluntary burnt offering has still not been resolved. The Gemara asks: b What came of it, /b i.e., what is the resolution to that question? The Gemara responds: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof, b as Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, teaches /b that the verse: “You shall blow with the trumpets b over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings” /b (Numbers 10:10), juxtaposes burnt offerings to peace offerings, which indicates that there is a relevant comparison between them with regard to the sounding of trumpets, and, by extension, to song.,There are two conclusions that are to be drawn from this comparison: b Just as /b the b burnt offering is an offering of the most sacred order, so too, /b the b peace offering /b that must be accompanied by song is one that is b an offering of the most sacred order, /b and the only peace offering of this kind is the lambs that are brought together with the two loaves on i Shavuot /i . b And just as /b this b peace offering has a set time /b when it must be brought, b so too, /b the b burnt offering /b that must be accompanied by song is one that b has a set time, /b which excludes voluntary burnt offerings. Consequently, voluntary burnt offerings are not accompanied by song. |
|
| 69. Dead Sea Scrolls, Yitro, 9 Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 177 |
| 70. Anon., Sifre Zuta Numbers, 15.3 Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 190 |
| 71. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q159, 2.6-2.7 Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 196 |
| 72. Anon., Bahodesh, 9 Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 177 |
| 73. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q277, 1 Tagged with subjects: •ritual impurity, of temple, at qumran Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 154 |
| 74. Anon., Megillat Taanit (Lichtenstein), 1 Tagged with subjects: •ritual purity, of temple, according to rabbis Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 196, 197 |
