Talmud zu Shevuot 3:12

HALAKHAH: ⁷This and the following paragraphs (up to Note 35) are also in Yoma 8:3 (fol. 45a), Ševu‘ot 3:2 (fol. 34b). The parallel discussion in the Babli is Ševu‘ot 22b–23a.“Second Tithe is to be used for eating,” etc. It is to be used for eating, since eating is written regarding it⁸Deut. 14:23.. For drinking, since drinking is included in eating. From where that drinking is included in eating? Rebbi Jonah understood if from the following (Lev. 17:12): “Therefore, I said to the Children of Israel, no person among you may eat blood.” Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, did we not state⁹Tosephta Tahorot 2:5.: “Congealed blood is neither food nor drink”? So we must hold as is¹⁰Fluid blood., and the Torah called it “eating.” But did we not state¹¹Babli Ḥulin 120a, Menaḥot 21a.: “If he mashed the fat¹²The fat of domestic animals which from sacrifices is burned on the altar and from profane meat is forbidden as food. and sipped it, congealed the blood and ate it, he is guilty!” How does Rebbi Jonah explain? It is neither food, to accept the impurity of food, nor drink, to accept the impurity of drinks¹³The Tosephta Tahorot adds explicitly: “If he thought of [the congealed blood] as food, it accepts the impurities of food.” The argument of R. Jonah is not acceptable..

Rebbi Mana understood it²⁵That the Sages and R. Jehudah do not agree about the weight of a person’s disclaimer as against two witnesses to his actions. from the following²⁶Mishnah Keritut 3:1.: “They told him, if he wishes, he says that he did it intentionally.” What can he say for an assigned slave girl²⁷Lev. 19:20–22, the case of a man sleeping with a slave girl assigned as a future wife to another free man. As long as the girl is not totally freed, she cannot marry the man to whom she is assigned. Therefore, her relations with another man are not adultery. A reparation offering is required from the man. This is one of the few cases in which a sacrifice is possible for deliberate sin.? In error²⁸If in the dark he thought that she was his wife., he is obligated; intentionally²⁹This is the case treated by the verse. If he denies the accusation by two witnesses, one cannot take his denial as assertion that he did it but already had remedied the situation., he is obligated! He can tell him, I touched her but did not finish³⁰This is a first explanation: A sacrifice is due only if there was an ejaculation of semen (v. 20). If he took the slave girl to bed but stopped before there was an ejaculation, no sacrifice is due., or as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, I was forced to it by the spell she put on me³¹He disclaims responsibility by reason of temporary insanity caused by the girl’s charms. This is enough to support his disclaimer against even two witnesses.. For a nazir³²Exposed to the impurity of the dead; the case of the Mishnah. what can you say? In error, he is obligated; intentionally, he is obligated; forced, he is obligated! “Suddenly”, to include in error, “suddenly”, to include intentionally³³This is proof that the nazir must bring his sacrifices even if forced. The reference is to Num. 6:9. In all other sources, Sifry Num. 28 [= Num. rabba 10(31)], Babli Keritut 9a, the inference is from the double expression “if a person should die near him suddenly,unexpectedly …” “Suddenly” is taken to refer to accidental impurity, “unexpectedly” to outside force (Sifry) or outside force and intention (Babli).. “There was a condition in my mind that if I should become impure, my nezirut should burst away from me and a new nezirut would fall on me”; in any case he was not obligated to be a nazir until now³⁴Since the vow of nezirut could have been formulated in a way that eliminates the possibility of a sacrifice for impurity, the testimony of the witnesses can be explained away.. (“There was a condition in my mind that if I should become impure, my nezirut should burst away from me and a new nezirut would fall on me”; in any case he was not obligated to be a nazir until now.)³⁵A case of dittography. What do you have in case of an oath³⁶If two witnesses tell a person that he owes a sacrifice because he has violated an oath imposed on him by other people (Lev. 5:1,4). How can he be believed if he denies the accusation?? In error, he is obligated; intentionally, he is obligated³⁷Mishnah Keritut 2:2.! A condition may apply to words³⁸If he undertakes anything, he may add conditions. If others (usually a court of law) impose an oath on him, he swears according to their understanding, rather than his own.; there is no condition for oaths! It follows what Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah: For error, its sacrifice, for intention, its sacrifice. But if he said, I thought that this was no oath, he is free³⁹Here, there may be a case in which no sacrifice can be demanded if the interested party denies their obligation.. Therefore, all these subjects cannot be stated, but the following can be stated⁴⁰In all cases discussed so far, the Sages cannot disagree with R. Jehudah; that is possible only in the cases dealt with in the next paragraph..

HALAKHAH: Why? ⁶⁴This is a partial copy, in places completed by the corrector for the Venice edition and indicated by brackets, of a text in Maˋaser Šeni 2:1 (Notes 7–35), also partially reproduced in Ševuot 3:2 (Notes 26–36). It is clear that the original is in Maˋuser Šeni since the last paragraph has no connection with the rules of the Day of Atonement. Drinking is subsumed under eating but eating is not subsumed under drinking. From where that drinking is subsumed under eating? Rebbi Jonah understood if from the following: Therefore, I told the Children of Israel, none of you shall eat blood⁶⁵Lev. 17:12.. Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, was it not stated that congealed blood is neither food nor drink? But we hold, as it is. And the Torah called it eating. And was it not stated: If one liquefied fat and drank it, or congealed blood and ate it, [if there is the volume of an olive] he is liable. What does Rebbi Jonah do with this? It is not food to become impure in the impurity of food, or fluid to become impure in the impurity of fluids. Rebbi Jonah changed and understood if from the following:: You shall spend the money for anything you desire⁶⁶Deut. 14:26.. Where do we hold? If about one who gives the taste of wine into a cooked dish, is that not spoiling the taste of the wine? [But we hold as it is and the Torah called it “eating.”] The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain if about orzaraya and gomnany⁶⁷Maˋaser Šeni 2:1, Note 16. The first word may denote cedar resin (J. Levy) or a derivative of אוֹרֶז “rice”. The readings for the second word, גמרייה, גמזוזיניה, גומננייא show that the scribe did not know what to do with it; it may be a derivative of “gum” (gummi, κόμμι) (E. G.) used in the preparation of liquors., since anything that is ancillary to food is like food.

¹²²Essentially the same text is in Nedarim 3:2 (fol. 37d) and Ševuot 3:9 (fol. 34d). Both Yerushalmi mss. agree here on the text. Therefore, the other texts may be used to instruct the text here but not to correct it. These are Cilician grits, these are square¹²³In Tosephta 3:15: “These are Cilician grits: square algosin.” The last word is otherwise unknown. Lieberman prefers the reading of the quote from the Yerushalmi in Arukh,s.v. קלקי אילו גסין המרובעים׃ “these are the fat square ones.”. It was stated¹²⁴Tosephta 3:15.: “Rabban Gamliel says, there is nothing square from the six days of Creation.” Rebbi Berekhiah objected: Did we not state¹²⁵Mishnah Nega‘im 6:1. In Ševuot3:9, the Mishnah is quoted in its entirety. This is necessary to understand R. Bisna’s statement: “The body of a baheret {a form of skin disease, Lev. 13:18–23} is like a Cilician grit square. The width of a grit is nine lentils, the width of each lentil is four hair-widths; this makes 36 hair-widths.”: “The body of baheret is like a square Cilician grit.” Rebbi Bisna¹²⁶A fourth generation Amora, student of R. Ila. said, that¹²⁷The text of the Mishnah, Note 125 R. Bisna takes the expression “square” in the classical mathematical sense, “determination of the surface area”. The Mishnah requires the minimal surface area of a lesion to be (36)² (hairwidth)². If the expression did not have its mathematical sense, the numerical indication would be superfluous. “That” in this sentence is the second sentence of the Mishnah. in itself says that there is no square. Why did we state that? That he should square it. But there are noxious insects¹²⁸In Nedarim הכנעה “lice”.! They are full of knots. But there is the bunch of pila¹²⁹In Nedarimארכובא דיעלה “the knee of the mountain goat.” In Ševuot עניבה דפילא. This probably is the correct form of the unintelligible word אביבא “springtime” written here; it has been translated. פילא is פילא III in Levy’s Dictionary, a spice, not פילא II “elephant” nor פילא I “cleft”. Since in general the deviations of the two mss. of the Yerushalmi Zeraïm are not very frequent, it seems that both are derived from the same Vorlage.! It is round below. Some want to say, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel spoke only about animals. It was stated so: There is square in foods, there is no square in animals.