Talmud zu Keritot 3:4

יֵשׁ אוֹכֵל אֲכִילָה אַחַת וְחַיָּב עָלֶיהָ אַרְבַּע חַטָּאוֹת וְאָשָׁם אֶחָד. טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַחֵלֶב, וְהָיָה נוֹתָר, מִן מֻקְדָּשִׁים, וּבְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אִם הָיְתָה שַׁבָּת וְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְפִיו, חַיָּב. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵינוֹ מִן הַשֵּׁם:

Es ist [ein Fall , in dem] ein , die einen einzelnen [Akt] tut essen kann bis zu vier haftbar gemacht wird chata'ot und einem Asham [ein Opfer Schuld zu lindern gebracht]: [Wenn] eine unreine Person verboten Fett gegessen , das war Notar aus ein Opfer, und es war Jom Kippur. Rabbi Meir sagt: Wenn es am Schabbat war und er es in seinem Mund ausgeführt hat, ist er [einem weiteren Chatat ] verpflichtet. Aber sie [die Weisen] sagten zu ihm: Das ist nicht in der gleichen Kategorie [der Sünde, kein Essverstoß].

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat

There⁶⁰Mishnah Keritut 3:4., we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was a Sabbath and he carried it out⁶¹As noted before, a purification offering is possible only for transgressions punishable at least by extirpation. The Mishnah gives an example that a single act may trigger the obligation of 4 purification and one reparation offerings. An impure person who eats a piece of well-being offering (Lev. 7:20) which is fat (v.25) and more than 2 days old (v. 18) on the Day of Atonement (23:29). For the illicit use of a sanctum a reparation sacrifice is due (5:15–16). R. Meïr adds that if the day also was a Sabbath and the person would take the piece in a private domain, carry it out and eat it in the public domain, an additional purification offering is needed.
The text and R. Yudan’s explanation make it clear that the Yerushalmi does not read with some Babli sources “carried it out in his mouth.”. They told him, it is not the category⁶²The five sacrifices are due for eating one piece; the Sabbath infraction would be for carrying. S. Liebermann explains אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם as “is not simultaneous.”.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down⁶³Eating may also be done while walking; the Sabbath infraction becomes a liability only when the motion stopped.. Who is “they said to him”? Rebbi Yose⁶⁴There is no other reference to the fact that the objection to R. Meïr originates with the Tanna R. Yose.! The argument of Rebbi Yose is inverted. There, he does not consider the person walking equal to one who was putting down but here he is considering the person walking equal to one who was putting down⁶⁵This argument may support Liebermann’s interpretation. Since for R. Yose a person walking is considered stopping at every place, the Sabbath infraction and the desecration of the sacrifice are simultaneous.! Rebbi Yudan said, explain it that he was laying on the threshold⁶⁶An Accadic word (askuppum). The word describes not only the threshold but also the stairs leading from the road to the house. [Also cf. Latin scapus “post or newel of a circular staircase; main stile of a door on which it hinges” (E. G.)] partially inside, his mouth outside, when he stretched out his hand, took it, and ate it. Then he did not walk⁶⁷If the piece of fat was lying inside the private domain, the Sabbath violation did not involve any movement of his body; the reference to R. Yose’s opinion about transporting on the Sabbath is irrelevant, as is the explanation given in the preceding sentence. The difference in the status of the required sacrifices is as indicated in Note 62..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Vorheriger Vers Ganzes Kapitel Nächster Vers