Talmud zu Chagigah 2:11

MISHNAH: For heave and First Fruits one incurs the penalty of death¹Eating them in impurity is a deadly sin. or a fine of a fifth²If misappropriated, the restitution must be 125% of what was taken; cf. Terumot 6, Note 1.; they are forbidden to lay persons, are Cohen’s property³They might be traded from one Cohen to another and a Cohen may use them as gifts to marry a wife since, even if she was a lay person before, she becomes a member of the Cohen’s family by marriage and may eat heave and First Fruits., may be lifted by one in 100, need washing of the hands⁴By rabbinic practice, hands are always impure in the second degree unless washed and watched after cleansing. Since heave and First Fruits can become impure in the third degree, touching heave or First Fruits with unwashed hands makes them unusable. and sundown⁵An impure person who cleansed himself by immersion in a miqweh is no longer impure, but he becomes pure for hallowed food only at sundown, cf. Terumot 5, Note 68.. This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe⁶First tithe of which heave of the tithe was taken is totally profane..

HALAKHAH: “He who was impure,” etc. Impure by a corpse⁵Num. 9:10., I not only have impure by a corpse, from where forced or in error? The verse says, every man, [it added]⁶Babli 93a.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated, impure by a corpse is not equal to a far-away trip, nor is a far-away trip equal to impure by a corpse, what is common to them⁷This is the third hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael. Sifry Num. 69, Tosephta 8:2 (in the name of R. Aqiba); Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 9:10. is that he did not make the First and shall make the Second; also I am adding those forced or in error who did not make the First that they shall make the Second. Intentional from where? Rebbi Zeˋira said, but the man, to add the one acting intentionally⁸Num. 9:13: But the man who was pure.
This contradicts the position of R. Aqiba in the Tosephta, that both those impure by a corpse and those on a far trip are prevented from making the First Pesaḥ and therefore the third hermeneutical principle excludes the one who intentionally omitted the First even though he was pure and not far away. Cf. Babli 93a/b.. We have stated; “if in error or by force;” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “if in error, or by force, or intentional.⁹Tosephta 8:1.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this, “because these are not liable for extirpation but those are liable for extirpation;” who is subject to extirpation if not intentional?

HALAKHAH: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man²Lev. 22:4. The verse excludes impure persons from sanctified food. The inclusive “every man” implies that every man of the descendents of Aaron is included among the prospective eaters of heave since every man is exluded when impure. Verse 7 notes that after immersion in water he may eat the sanctified food after sundown; this refers to heave which does not require a prior purification sacrifice.”, to include the uncircumcised³Quoted in the Babli (70a, 71a, 74a) and Sifra Emor Pereq 4(18) in the name of R. Aqiba. He takes the emphatic expression “every man” to mean that in addition to the persons excluded in the text there must be some category of excluded persons not mentioned in the text.. Or “every man” to include the mourner⁴The mourner during the period between the death of a relative and his burial, who is excluded from all religious duties except the care for the burial. As R. Hila points out at the end, the exclusion of the mourner is mentioned only in the declaration of tithes (Deut. 26:14), which implies that even the Israel farmer may not eat his sanctified food (the Second Tithe) while in mourning. From there, it is inferred that the Cohen certainly is disabled during his mourning.? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified [food]⁵Lev. 22:10: “No outsider (a non-priestly Jew; cf. Num. 18:4) shall eat sanctified [food], a Cohen’s sojourner (foreign worker) and hireling shall not eat sanctified [food].” The verse clearly disqualifies persons because of their intrinsic status, not because of a temporary disability. Sifra Emor Pereq4(16) also classifies the bastard as an outsider.”. I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce⁶In the Babli 71a, “I did not forbid because of mourning” which is immediately corrected to “say: not lack of circumcision.” One may not correct the Yerushalmi text according to the first version of the Babli (done by most commentators and the editors of the Zhitomir/Wilna text), since not only the principle of lectio difficilior but also the next sentence in the text, and the parallel discussion in the Babli preclude such an approach. It is clear from the start that both the uncircumcised and the mourner are forbidden heave, and the entire discussion is one of hermeneutics. No temporary disabilities have any place in the interpretation of vv. 10–13. The question is only whether the rather arbitrary approach of R. Aqiba has any justification.. The reddish Rebbi Tiufa⁷A Galilean Amora of the fourth generation; his name appears also as Ṭaifa. His sobriquet may mean that he was a redhead. asked before Rebbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes⁸It is the general method of R. Aqiba to analyze verses for expressions of inclusion and exclusion. The expression in 22:4: אִישׁ אִישׁ “man, man” (translated as “every man”) implies that some man is included in the set of persons excluded from heave who is not mentioned in the verse. On the other hand, if the verse had simply read אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב the same meaning as in the actual verse אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן והוּא צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב could have been expressed in correct grammar with one less word. This is taken as an exclusion, “only if he be a leper or sick with gonorrhea”, which decreases the size of the excluded set. The verse deals only with temporary disabilities. The verse 22:10 dealing with permanent disabilities has no exclusion. It is therefore acceptable to include a permanently disabled person in the excluded set and to exclude from that set an additional temporarily disabled person., I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated⁹Sifra Emor Pereq 4(18). In the Babli (70a) and the Mekhilta deR. Ismael, Bo (ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 54), the argument is presented in the name of R. Eliezer, adding to the arguments of B. Z. Wacholder [The date of the Mekhilta de-R. Ishmael, HUCA 39(1968) 117–144] about the dependence of that Mekhilta on the Babli.: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover¹⁰Ex. 12:45. and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave¹¹Lev. 22:10.. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised¹²An application of the principle of גזרה שוה, R. Ismael’s rule 2: One word found in two different laws which in neither of them are needed for the understanding of the law, are written to permit the transfer of rules from one to the other.. Rebbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner¹³However, Mishnah Pesaḥim8:8, explained in Pesaḥim [Yerushalmi 8:8 (fol. 36b), Babli 92a] states that the mourner is excluded by biblical decree only from services during daytime. This means that the mourner (as long as he is not impure) is admitted to the Passover meal. R. Haggai attempts to discredit R. Ismael’s approach.. Rebbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph¹⁴While the argument of R. Hila is almost understandable, this sentence is not. Neither in the laws of Passover nor in those of heave is the word תחת used. The Babli, in a somewhat similar discussion (71a, 74a) discusses the seemingly superfluous inclusion of three expressions “ממנו” in the laws of the Passover sacrifice offered in Egypt (Ex. 12:9,10). The argument there is not applicable here. All R. Hila seems to say is that one does not derive laws not touched upon in Ex. 22:43–50 from there.. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category¹⁵The sexless is excluded from sacrifices since he probably is a male with an ingrown penis and therefore uncircumcised. The hermaphrodite is circumcised and accepted. His inclusion here has to be rated an editorial or scribal error since “sexless and hermaphrodite” is a frequently occurring combination. (A priest hermaphrodite is excluded from the sacrifices reserved for men and admitted to those open to women; Tosephta 10:2.). The mourner comes from second tithe⁴The mourner during the period between the death of a relative and his burial, who is excluded from all religious duties except the care for the burial. As R. Hila points out at the end, the exclusion of the mourner is mentioned only in the declaration of tithes (Deut. 26:14), which implies that even the Israel farmer may not eat his sanctified food (the Second Tithe) while in mourning. From there, it is inferred that the Cohen certainly is disabled during his mourning..

HALAKHAH: “In a place where one was used to work,” etc. It is written, there you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening³Deut. 16:6.. Not only he, from where his agent? The verse says, and you shall cook and you shall eat⁴Deut. 16:7. Since the Pesaḥ sacrifice must be eaten in a group (Ex. 12:3–4), the singular in these verses cannot mean that the slaughter has to be done by the eater; this is proof that it may be delegated.. Why does the verse say, there you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening? It is not in order that he should be occupied by his work while his sacrifice is offered⁵The singular is interpreted that even if the sacrifice is presented by an agent, the owner still has to behave as if he himself were present.. As what was stated⁶The first sentence is a quote from Megillat Taˋanit. The entire text is copied in Ḥagigah 2:4., “therefore anybody who has an obligation for wood and first fruits. He who says, I am taking upon me [to bring] wood for the altar and logs for the arrangement⁷The arrangement of the firewood on the altar. on that day is forbidden funeral orations, and fasting, and working.”

What is the difference between the Cohen who burns the Cow and the High Priest on the Day of Atonement? The separation of the first is for purity and his brothers the priests refrain from touching him. The separation of the other is for holiness and his brothers the priests touch him. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers¹⁴Based on the preceding text, one has to read “does not infer” since in the explanation attributed to R. Joḥanan, burning of the Cow is not mentioned. (In the Babli 2a, an argument close to that of Bar Qappara here is attributed to R. Joḥanan, but this should be irrelevant for the study of the Yerushalmi.) from that verse, [it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow¹⁵The separation of the priest who will burn the Cow is purely rabbinical; Tosephta Parah 3:1., one understands it. In the opinion of Bar Qappara who does not infer¹⁶Here one has to read: “who infers.” it from this verse], why does one touch here but not touch there? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that his brothers the priests should not make him impure. [But will he not be impure because of his sprinkling¹⁷Since it is to be presumed that the Cohen selected to burn the Cow was pure, water with ashes from prior Cows will make him impure (Sifry Num. 129). But this impurity is minor, it can be removed by immersion in a miqweh and the following sundown. It is obvious that no sprinkling can be done on the day of the burning.
In fact, a Pharisee Cohen burning the Cow is made impure and has to cleanse himself in a miqweh on the day of the ceremony because of a quarrel with Sadducees, Mishnah Parah 3:7.?] Rebbi Abun said, even Bar Qappara holds that it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow¹⁸Everybody agrees that the rules for the Cohen burning the Cow are purely rabbinical, not accepted by Sadducees, and bar Qappara’s mention of the burning of the Cow is a far-fetched simile, not an authoritative interpretation of the verse..

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Every day¹⁸⁴Of the seven days of preparation. the High Priest dresses in his robes¹⁸⁵The eight garments prescribed for the High Priest., comes, and sacrifices the daily morning sacrifice. If there are vows or voluntary sacrifices¹⁸⁶The legal difference between a vow and a voluntary offering, which also needs dedication, is that a vow is formulated as a personal obligation, “I am taking upon me the obligation to offer such and such a sacrifice.” In that case, if the animal selected for the sacrifice becomes disqualified for any reason, the maker of the vow has to bring a replacement. A voluntary offering is a dedication, “this animal shall be such-and-such a sacrifice.” If the animal becomes disqualified, no replacement is due., he offers them. Then he goes to his house, and returns to bring the daily evening sacrifice, and comes to stay overnight in the Palhedrin lodge. Rebbi Uqba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He did this only on Sabbath and holidays¹⁸⁷He seems to imply every Sabbath and holiday during the year, including New Year’s Day and the Sabbath preceding the day of Atonement..

Do the House of Shammai hold that “hands” are for profane food⁹⁷Given the explanation of the House of Hillel, they seem to presuppose that the secondary impurity of hands has a Biblical root. This is incredible.? Explain it either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or following Rebbi Eleazar, son of Rebbi Ẓadoq. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar as it has been stated⁹⁸Tosephta Tahorot 1:6 in the reading of Rabbenu Simson of Sens. In the printed editions and the Vienna manuscript, the reading is “hands are of primary impurity for sacrifices.” That reading is rejected by R. David Pardo in his commentary on the Tosephta. The statement is quoted several times in the Yerushalmi and also in Babli Ḥulin 33b. The interpretation here is that profane food can become impure only from the source of impurity or primary impurity. Hence, unwashed hands must be of primary impurity in order to influence profane food. In contrast, terumah becomes unusable if it was in contact with secondary impurity; hence, primary impurity causes the same result for profane food as secondary impurity for terumah. This seems to be the opinion of Maimonides (הלכוֹת אבוֹת הטוּמאה יא׃טו), who often is influenced by the Yerushalmi, also in Ḥulin; it is incompatible with Rashi’s interpretation of the text in Ḥulin. There it is stated that hands can become primarily impure only if held into the windows of a house afflicted with leprosy. That would not make a good reason for the House of Shammai.: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are primarily impure for profane food and secondarily for terumah.” Or following Rebbi Eleazar, son of Rebbi Ẓadoq, as we have stated there⁹⁹Mishnah Ṭahorot 2:8, quoted in Babli Ḥagigah 20a, Ḥulin 35b. Profane food can receive only primary impurity. Terumah can receive both primary and secondary impurity; the third stage is called “unusable” since it cannot be eaten, but it does not transmit the impurity further. Sacrifices become impure also in a tertiary way; only the fourth stage is “unusable.”: “Profane food that was prepared under the rules of purity of sacrifices is still profane food. Rebbi Eleazar, the son of Rebbi Ẓadoq said, it is like terumah becoming impure in two stages and unusable in a third.”

HALAKHAH: ⁵⁶This Halakhah also appears as Ḥagigah2:3 (ח). The House of Shammai say, irregular leaning-on was permitted. But the House of Hillel say, irregular leaning-on was not permitted. What is irregular leaning-on? From the day before. Rebbi Ze`ira said, everybody agrees that he did not fulfill his obligation regarding the reparation offering of a sufferer from skin disease if he leaned on the day before⁵⁷While the ritual of rehabilitating the healed sufferer from skin disease nowhere explicitly requires leaning on the sacrifice, it is written there (Lev. 14:13) that “the reparation sacrifice follows the rules of the purification sacrifice”, and for the latter (Lev. 4) it is written repeatedly “he leans-on and he slaughters”, implying first that leaning on is required and second that the two actions have to be close in time.; he fulfilled his obligation with voluntary well-being offerings for which he leaned on the day before⁵⁸Since these are sacrifices in satisfaction of a voluntary vow, no fixed time table is given here.. Where do they disagree? The festival well-being offerings⁵⁹These are religious obligations, not voluntary vows. As well-being offerings they have no fixed time table (but they cannot be brought before the holiday), as obligatory offerings at fixed times, on the holidays of pilgrimage, they are more like the offering of the healed sufferer from skin disease whose sacrifice is required on the eighth day of his procedure.. The House of Shammai treat them like voluntary well-being offerings; the House of Hillel treat them like the reparation offering of a sufferer from skin disease. Rebbi Yasa said, that what you are saying, he did not fulfill his obligation regarding the reparation offering of a sufferer from skin disease if he leaned on the day before, {only} on time. If its time has passed it becomes like voluntary well-being offerings⁶⁰If the eighth day has passed, the sacrifice can be brought at any time. This emphasizes that the essential point in the disagreement is the role of the fixed time frame for the festival offerings..

Quel est le motif de R. Eliézer? Comme le blasphémateur, après être lapidé doit être pendu, de même on pendra tous les condamnés à la lapidation. Les autres sages au contraire disent: la Bible prescrit la pendaison pour le blasphémateur seul, parce qu’il touche à la question essentielle du culte (à la croyance en Dieu); aussi cette nouvelle pénalité est seulement applicable aux criminels de cet ordre (soit l’idolâtre outre le blasphémateur) –¹⁷³Tout le reste du est traduit (Hagiga 2, 2)..