Talmud zu Eduyot 4:5

כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵין לוֹ חֹמֶשׁ וְאֵין לוֹ בִעוּר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, יֶשׁ לוֹ חֹמֶשׁ וְיֶשׁ לוֹ בִעוּר. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, יֶשׁ לוֹ פֶרֶט וְיֶשׁ לוֹ עוֹלְלוֹת, וְהָעֲנִיִּים פּוֹדִים לְעַצְמָן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, כֻּלּוֹ לַגָּת:

Kerem revai (ein Weinberg in seinem vierten Jahr), [der eine Erlösung erfordert, wenn er seine Früchte außerhalb Jerusalems essen möchte (und das gilt auch für jeden Obstbaum)] —Beth Shammai sagt: Es erfordert kein Chomesh (die Hinzufügung eines Fünftels seines Wertes) [es wird nicht in der Thora geschrieben, dass ein Fünftel hinzugefügt werden soll, wie es in Bezug auf den zweiten Zehnten geschrieben ist]; und es erfordert keine Entfernung [aus dem Haus am Vorabend von Pesach des vierten und siebten Jahres, wenn er den Zehnten entfernt, nämlich. (5. Mose 26:13): "Ich habe das Heilige (ma'aser sheni und neta revai) (siehe 3. Mose 27:30 und 19:24) aus dem Haus entfernt."] Und Beth Hillel sagt: Es erfordert ein Chomesh und es muss entfernt werden. [Beth Hillel leitet es (durch Identität) "heilig" - "heilig" von ma'aser ab—So wie Ma'aser ein Chomesh und eine Entfernung erfordert, so erfordert Zerem Revai ein Chomesh und eine Entfernung. und Beth Shammai leiten es nicht von dort ab.] Beth Shammai sagt: Es unterliegt dem Peret (dem Nehmen einzelner [gefallener] Trauben durch die Armen) und dem Oleloth (dem Nehmen einzelner [gefallener]) ] Trauben von den Armen), [denn sie gelten als chullin (nicht heilig) als Besitzer]; und die Armen erlösen für sich selbst (das Peret und das Oleloth, das sie gepflückt haben) und essen sie an ihren Orten und bringen ihre (Erlösungs-) Gelder nach Jerusalem.] Und Beth Hillel sagt: Sie alle gehen zur Weinpresse, [ denn sie leiten sich von ma'aser ab (kerem revai) und halten fest, dass ma'aser sheni als heilig für den Besitzer gilt. Deshalb haben die Armen keinen Anteil daran. Und die Besitzer drücken die Olelim zusammen mit den restlichen Trauben und bringen alles nach Jerusalem.]

Jerusalem Talmud Peah

MISHNAH: A vineyard in its fourth year⁹⁹It is forbidden to harvest a newly planted vineyard the first three years. In the fourth year, the grapes can be harvested but they (or the wine produced from them) must be brought to the Temple and be consumed in Jerusalem in a festive manner (Lev.19:23–24). If there is too much to be taken on a journey, it may be redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem. The House of Hillel compare the yield of the fourth year to the Second Tithe that also has to be eaten in Jerusalem, since produce of the Second Tithe that is redeemed is subject to a surcharge of one fifth (from above, 25% from below). There are two kinds of removal the vineyard of the fourth year may be subject to; if it is compared to the Second Tithe it must be removed from the house at the end of the third and sixth years of every Sabbatical period; if the produce was that of a Sabbatical year, one may take it but only as long as wild animals find similar food on the field (in this case, in other unharvested vineyards) and it must be removed by being consumed before that time. The House of Shammai consider the yield of the fourth year as profane food, subject only to what is expressly spelled out in the verse.
The argument of the House of Hillel, that the verse compares the vineyard in its fourth year to the Second Tithe, is given in Babli Qiddušin 54b, Sifra Qedošim Parašah 3 #8., the House of Shammai say, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal; but the House of Hillel say, it is. The House of Shammai say, it is subject to single berries and gleanings¹⁰⁰As any other profane food. and the poor redeem for themselves, but the House of Hillel say, all goes to the winepress¹⁰¹Since the second tithe is not subject to any gifts to the poor, neither is the yield of the fourth year..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers¹⁸⁶They dispute the validity of Mishnaiot 1–4. The schools of Hillel and Shammai existed for about 100 years in the first Century C. E. The Babli (17a) dates the public permission of the co-wives to the brothers to the short time of ascendancy of the House of Shammai shortly before the outbreak of the revolt against the Romans., but the House of Hillel forbid. If they took ḥalîṣah, the House of Shammai disqualify them for the priesthood¹⁸⁷A divorcee is forbidden to a Cohen (Lev. 21:7) and ḥalîṣah is the equivalent of a divorce (Mishnah 2:4). but the House of Hillel declare them qualified¹⁸⁸Since the marriage is impossible, so is the corresponding divorce. Lev. 21:7 prohibits the marriage of a Cohen with “a woman divorced from her husband”, but not a woman divorced from a non-husband.. If they entered levirate, the House of Shammai declare them qualified¹⁸⁹The children are legitimate. For the House of Hillel the children are bastards and excluded from endogamous marriage. but the House of Hillel as disqualified. Even though these forbid and those permit, these declare disqualified and those qualified, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel nor the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai. Regarding all purities and impurities which these were declaring as pure and those as impure¹⁹⁰The differences in the interpretation of laws of purity are noted in the sixth order of the Mishnah., these did not refrain to process pure foods with the help of those¹⁹¹They lent one another pure vessels..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Vorheriger Vers Ganzes Kapitel Nächster Vers