Talmud zu Meilah 3:4
דִּשּׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי וְהַמְּנוֹרָה, לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. הַמַּקְדִּישׁ דִּשּׁוּן בַּתְּחִלָּה, מוֹעֲלִים בּוֹ. תּוֹרִים שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּן, וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה שֶׁעָבַר זְמַנָּן, לֹא נֶהֱנִים וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, תּוֹרִין שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּן, מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה שֶׁעָבַר זְמַנָּן, לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין:
Die Asche, die vom inneren Altar und der Menora weggenommen wird, kann man nicht von ihnen profitieren, aber sie unterliegen nicht der Mila . Wenn jemand die [entfernte] Asche heiligt, wird er der Meila unterworfen . Turteltauben, die ihre Zeit [minderjährig] noch nicht erreicht haben, und Tauben, die ihre Zeit [minderjährig] überschritten haben, können nicht von ihnen profitieren, aber sie unterliegen nicht der meilah . Rabbi Shimon sagt, Turteltauben, die ihre Zeit noch nicht erreicht haben, unterliegen der Mila, aber Tauben, die ihre Zeit vergangen sind, können keinen Nutzen daraus ziehen, aber sie unterliegen nicht der Mila .
Jerusalem Talmud Yoma
HALAKHAH: From where the cleaning of the interior altar90Since in contrast to the exterior altar, removing ashes from the interior incense altar is never mentioned in the Torah.? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He shall throw it next to the altar, to the East, on the place of ashes91Lev. 1:16, referring to the crop of a pigeon brought as elevation offering. Cf. Sifra Wayyiqra1Pereq 9(3).. It is unnecessary92The mention on the place of ashes is not needed to fix the place; it instructs the Cohen where to put the ashes. Babli Meˋilah 12a.. If to designate [the place], it already is written, next to the altar. If to teach you that it should be put to the East of the ramp, it already is written, to the East. Also he explained, next to the altar, next to the altar93The first quote is from Lev. 1:16, the second Lev. 6:3, about the ashes from the exterior altar formally deposited next to the altar. Since this case is explicit the exterior altar, the other is taken implicitly to refer to the interior altar.. Since in one case it is to the East of the ramp, so in the other case it is to the East of the ramp. From where that it is forbidden for usufruct94Mishnah Meˋilah 3:4 states that from the ashes from the interior altar and the candelabrum one may not have usufruct but taking them is not larceny.? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to a pure place95Lev. 6:4. The quote is inappropriate since the verse speaks of the remainder of the ashes on the exterior altar which are transported to a pure place outside the sacred precinct., that its place shall be pure96It seems that here “pure” is taken in the sense of “untouched”.. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, from where that the cleaning of the exterior altar is forbidden for usufruct? The verse says, to the place of ashes, that it be its place forever. From where the cleaning of the interior altar? He shall sprinkle on it91Lev. 1:16, referring to the crop of a pigeon brought as elevation offering. Cf. Sifra Wayyiqra1Pereq 9(3)., he shall burn incense98Ex. 30:7. The quote is incomplete since the argument is a comparison of he shall sprinkle on it, and he shall burn incense on it.. Since sprinkling is on its body99As explained in Halakhah 5:7, the High Priest on the Day of Atonement is commanded to sprinkle blood on the interior altar on it, on the cleaned metal surface directly, not on ashes or unburned incense. The rule is then transferred to everyday’s burning of incense since the same expression is used., also burning incense on its body. From where that the interior altar is forbidden for usufruct? An argument de minore ad majus. If from the exterior altar it is forbidden, so much more from the interior100Since the external altar is accessible to all Cohanim at all times, the internal only to a selected Cohen twice a day..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Yoma
Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth225Since anything given to the Temple for its upkeep is there to be sold and the money used for sacred purposes, the holiness of the dedicated object is transferred to the money while the object reverts to profane status. But meˋilah, larceny committed on sacra, only applies to profane use of sacred objects, not to redemptions (or to use that can be legitimized by redemption.) Therefore the distinction made by R. Simeon is not consistent with our rules.? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money226Mishnah Meˋilah 3:4.. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy