Talmud zu Arakhin 8:6

חֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים אֵין לָהֶם פִּדְיוֹן, אֶלָּא נִתָּנִים לַכֹּהֲנִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר, סְתָם חֲרָמִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם כז), כָּל חֵרֶם קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַה'. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, סְתָם חֲרָמִים לַכֹּהֲנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם), כִּשְׂדֵה הַחֵרֶם לַכֹּהֵן תִּהְיֶה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר כָּל חֵרֶם קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַה'. שֶׁהוּא חָל עַל קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְעַל קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים:

Dinge, die für den Gebrauch der Priester verboten sind, können nicht eingelöst werden, sondern sind den Priestern zu geben. Rabbi Judah ben Batera sagt: Dinge, die ohne Spezifikation verboten sind, fallen in den [Fonds für] Tempelreparaturen, wie gesagt wurde: „Jedes verbotene Ding ist dem Herrn am heiligsten“ (3. Mose 27:25). Aber die Weisen sagen: Dinge, die ohne Spezifikation verboten sind, gehen an die Priester, wie gesagt wird: „Als ein Feld, das verboten ist: sein Besitz gehört dem Priester“ (3. Mose 27:21). Wenn ja, warum heißt es dann: „Jedes verbotene Ding ist dem Herrn am heiligsten“? Dies lehrt, dass es [auch] für Kodshai Kodashim gilt [Opfer von höchster Heiligkeit, sie dürfen nur an der nordwestlichen Ecke des Altars geschlachtet und nur innerhalb des Tempelgeländes von männlichen Priestern verzehrt oder vollständig verbrannt werden] und Kodashim Kalim [Opfer von geringerer Heiligkeit, sie können überall im Tempelhof geschlachtet und von den meisten Menschen überall in Jerusalem verzehrt werden].

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim

“But the Sages say, indeterminate heave in Judea is prohibited, in Galilee permitted, since Galileans do not know of Temple heave.” But if they did know it, the indeterminate would be forbidden⁶⁶The meaning of vows has to be determined by popular usage. Since learned people are not supposed to make vows, it is clear that the interpretation of vows depends on the meaning of the words in the vernacular, independent of the place where the vow was made.. “Indeterminate bans in Judea are permitted, in Galilee prohibited, since Galileans do not know of priest’s bans.” But if they did know it, the indeterminate would be permitted. Here you say permitted, but there you say forbidden⁶⁷This is an attempt to explain the rules in legal terminology, without appeal to the vernacular. The indeterminate vow would be a case of doubt; in one case one rules that doubt removes the vow, in the other that it confirms the vow. This is the attitude of the Babli, 19b.. Rebbi Eleazar says, these are statements of two Tannaïm⁶⁸This is the solution of the Babli and Tosephta 1:6 which ascribe the statement on bans to R. Eleazar ben R. Ṣadoq. This solution is appropriate for the Yerushalmi, the Munich and Cambridge mss. of the Babli, and the quotes in many Medieval authors, which ascribe both statements to “the Sages” who would be free to rule in one case with R. Jehudah and in the other with R. Eleazar ben R. Ṣadoq. But in the printed Babli which, together with most independent Mishnah mss., attributes the statement of the Sages to R. Jehudah, the two-Tanna solution, rejected in the Yerushalmi but given in the Babli in the name of the Fourth Century Amora Abbai, is rather forced.. Rebbi Jeremiah said, all is from one Tanna, following the one who said⁶⁹Mishnah Arakhin 8:6, opinion of R. Jehudah ben Bathyra.: “indeterminate bans are for the upkeep of the Temple.” But for the one who said⁷⁰The anonymous Sages. The Babli, Arakhin 29a, states that in the absence of a Temple, bans for the upkeep of the Temple can be redeemed by pennies., “indeterminate bans are for priests,” even in Galilee they would be permitted. In Galilee where they are used to invoke Akhan’s ban⁷¹Jos. 7:25–26, the expression of an absolute and irredeemable prohibition of all use., you have to say forbidden; in Judea where they are not used to invoke Akhan’s ban, you have to say permitted.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Vorheriger Vers Ganzes Kapitel Nächster Vers