Talmud zu Kelim 1:4

“The `omer<sup>1</sup>The offering of barley grain on the 16th of Nisan to permit consumption of grain from the new harvest; Lev. 23:9–14., and the Two Breads<sup>2</sup>The two leavened breads on Pentecost, Lev. 23:17.., and the shew-bread.” The Mishnah<sup>19</sup>The part of the Mishnah which states that the watchmen over grain for the `omer are paid from public funds. If it were possible to import the grain during a sabbatical year, the expense would be unnecessary and therefore forbidden. is Rebbi Ismael’s, since Rebbi Ismael said, the `omer is not brought from Syria<sup>20</sup>Syria in matters of religious law is the area which was part of David’s empire but not permanently settled by one of the Twelve Tribes. The rules of the Land do not apply biblically but the land is not ritually impure. Therefore grain for use in the Temple could be bought from there.. There, we have stated:<sup>21</sup>Mishnah Menaḥot8:1. The sacrifices referred to are offerings of flour and wine. “All private and public sacrifices come from the Land and from outside the Land, from new or old [grain], except for `omer and the Two Breads, which only come from new grain²²This is not obvious since the `omer permits the profane use of new grain also from outside the Land and the Two Breads permit the use of new wheat in the Tabernacle which according to the Mishnah includes wheat imported from Syria. While the Mishnah states that grain is acceptable from outside the Land, this refers to grain from outside the Land on both sides of the Jordan and Syria only if it remained impervious to the impurity of Gentile lands (i. e., if it was guarded from any contact with water or fluids whose status is like water in this respect.) and from the Land.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, this is Rebbi Ismael’s, since Rebbi Ismael said, the `omer is not brought from Syria²³And certainly not from impure lands.. There, we have stated²⁴Mishnah Kelim1:6.: “There are ten levels of holiness. The Land of Israel is holier than other lands; and what is its holiness? That one brings from it the `omer, first fruits, and the Two Breads, which cannot be from other lands.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, this is Rebbi Ismael’s, since Rebbi Ismael said, the `omer is not brought from Syria. There, we have stated²⁵Mishnah Ševi`it1:5.: “Rebbi Ismael says, since sowing is a voluntary act, also harvesting is a voluntary act. This excludes harvesting the `omer, which is a commandment²⁶This refers to Ex. 34:21: Six days you may work but on the Seventh Day you must rest, from ploughing and harvesting you must rest. According to R. Ismael while this forbids any optional harvesting on the Sabbath, it implies that harvesting required by a religious commandment must be performed on the Sabbath. (Cf. Ševi`it Chapter 1, Notes 43 and 2.)
ג adds here the one-sentence Halakhah Ševi`it1:5 (Note 44)..” Who is the Tanna of “the watchmen for aftergrowth in the sabbatical year take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge”? Rebbi Ismael²⁰Syria in matters of religious law is the area which was part of David’s empire but not permanently settled by one of the Twelve Tribes. The rules of the Land do not apply biblically but the land is not ritually impure. Therefore grain for use in the Temple could be bought from there.. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. If one would not find in Syria,.one would bring from the aftergrowth in the Land of Israel²⁷While not needed every year, in a year of drought in Syria it might be obvious that one has to look for any available grain in the Land.. Could one sow from the start for the `omer<sup>28</sup>Since the verse Lev. 25:3 introducing the Sabbatical year combines sowing and harvesting, one could make the point that only voluntary sowing in a Sabbatical is forbidden, therefore obligatory sowing leading to obligatory harvesting is permitted.? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana, would he not take the fistful for leftovers than cannot be eaten<sup>29</sup>Only a fistful of the grain brought for the `omer(a tenth of an ephah, about 3.8 l) is burned on the altar, the leftover has to be consumed by the priests in the Sanctuary. But produce sown in a Sabbatical is forbidden; the leftover of the flour could not be consumed.? He said to him, it has a status like the five kinds which can be brought in impurity but may not be eaten in impurity³⁰The leftover has to be burned. The same would happen if all available grain and all available personnel were impure, Mishnah Pesaḥim7:4..

“They shall fall away, for his vow of nazir is impure.¹⁷⁹Num. 6:12.” From here that the days of impurity fall away¹⁸⁰The days of certified skin disease cannot count as days of nezirut even though the sufferer from skin disease is also required to let his hair grow.. Then should he invalidate¹⁸¹The Mishnah states that a nazir who develops skin disease simply waits until he is healed and then finishes his count. Why does he not start anew as in the case of impurity of the dead?? He invalidates only the days of [impurity of] the dead¹⁸²The biblical law is quite clear that only the impurity of the dead makes him lose the earlier days of his count.. Why should they not be counted? If you say that days in which he causes [impurity to] couch and seat are counted, days in which he does not cause [impurity to] couch and seat are certainly counted¹⁸³Mishnah Kelim 1:4 states that the impurity of the sufferer from skin disease is more severe than the impurity of the female sufferer from flux. For the latter, it is stated explicitly (Lev. 15:26) that any couch and any seat used by her becomes a source of original impurity. No direct biblical source exists for declaring the sufferer from skin disease to cause this kind of impurity; it is derived indirectly in Sifra Meṣora‘ Parashah 2(6). This derivation is accepted at face value by Maimonides both in his Mishnah Commentary (Kelim 1:4) and in his Code (Turn‘at Ṣara‘at 10:11). The commentators of the Babli (Rashi, Pesaḥim 67b s. v. זב, Ravad, Commentary to Sifra) have difficulties in accepting the Sifra since it seems to contradict the Babli Pesaḥim 67b, but a student of the Yerushalmi does not have to consider this, in particular since Ravad does not object to Maimonides’s ruling in his Code. For impurity there is no difference between a sufferer from skin disease in quarantine and one positively declared infirm (Mishnah Megillah 1:7, Nega‘im 8:8).
The argument given here refers to Mishnah Nega‘im 14:2 which states that the healed sufferer from skin disease in his days of counting, between the preliminary and the definitive purification, is free from all severe impurities and does not cause more impurity than a dead reptile (the slightest of impurities, Mishnah Kelim 1:1). It does not seem to make any sense to accept the days of the severely impure quarantined but not to accept the slightly impure counting sufferer from skin disease (cf. Note 144).! What did you see to say that they are not counted? Rebbi []¹⁸⁴There are no sources which would permit filling in the lacuna. said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “For a wild growth of his head’s hair”¹⁸⁵Num. 6:5.. Days of hair growth are counted, days preparing for shaving¹⁸⁶For the final purification of the sufferer from skin disease. are not counted. So far in his days of counting; in the days of his definite status? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “Please do not let her be like a corpse¹⁸⁷Num. 12:12, speaking of Miriam who was punished for calumniating Moses by becoming a clear sufferer from skin disease (v. 10), not a case of quarantine..” Since the days of a corpse are not counted, the days of quarantine are not counted. A student quoted this saying cf Rebbi Joḥanan’s before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who did not accept it. He said to him: Here, you call it quarantine, but there, you want to call it absolute; you cannot do that. For Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Please do not let her be like a corpse; let her be quarantined¹⁸⁸Num. 12:14..” Just as the days of the dead are seven, so the days of quarantine are seven¹⁸⁹While the case of Miriam was clearly not one of quarantine, the verse treats it as such by (1) calling her exclusion from the camp “quarantine” and (2) exempting her from the cleansing ritual which is required of the absolute sufferer but not the quarantined (Mishnah Megillah 1:8, Nega‘im 8:8). The verse cannot be applied to the absolute sufferer..