Talmud zu Yoma 3:5

קְטֹרֶת שֶׁל שַׁחַר הָיְתָה קְרֵבָה בֵּין דָּם לָאֵבָרִים. שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, בֵּין אֵבָרִים לַנְּסָכִים. אִם הָיָה כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל זָקֵן אוֹ אִסְטְנִיס, מְחַמִּין לוֹ חַמִּין וּמְטִילִין לְתוֹךְ הַצּוֹנֵן, כְּדֵי שֶׁתָּפוּג צִנָּתָן:

Der Weihrauch des Morgens wurde zwischen Blut und Gliedmaßen angeboten. [Nicht genau, denn wir haben oben erfahren: "Er hat das Blut erhalten und es gespritzt. Er ist hineingegangen, um den Weihrauch zu verbrennen, die Lampen einzustellen und den Kopf und die Gliedmaßen anzubieten."—woher ist zu sehen, dass der Weihrauch zwischen dem Blut und den Lampen und nicht zwischen dem Blut und den Gliedern angeboten wurde. Die Tanna kommt nicht, um uns jetzt über die genaue Reihenfolge der Opfergaben zu informieren, sondern nur um zu betonen, dass das Spritzen des Blutes und das Opfer der Glieder nicht nacheinander kamen, denn der Weihrauch griff ein, ebenso wie die Einstellen der Lampen nach dem (Verbrennen des) Weihrauchs vor dem Opfer der Glieder.] (Der Weihrauch) des Nachmittags (wurde angeboten) zwischen den Gliedern und den Trankopfern. Wenn der Hohepriester alt oder zart wäre, würden sie Wasser für ihn [am Vorabend von Jom Kippur] erhitzen und es in die Kälte [Mulde seiner Mikwe] legen, damit die Kälte [etwas] zerstreut wird. (siehe Bartenura 1: 7)

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin

There⁶⁵Mishnah Baba Batra 8:7., we have stated: “If somebody writes his property over to his sons, he has to write: From today and after death⁶⁶By a positive biblical rule, an inheritance has to be divided evenly among the male heirs (Num. 27:6–11) except that the firstborn male in rabbinic interpretation receives a double portion (Deut. 21:17). If the father wants to distribute his property unevenly, or leave real estate to his daughters, he has to execute a will which has to become valid during his lifetime since nobody can act in law after his death.. Rebbi Yose says, this is unnecessary.” What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? The date of the document is its proof⁶⁷Since everybody knows that a will has to be activated during the testator’s lifetime, the date of the will automatically becomes the date of its validation except if this is disclaimed in the document itself. The same statement is in the Babli, Baba Batra 136a.. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is no condition⁶⁸Perhaps compare Greek ὕστερος “later, subsequent” as in combination τῇ ὑστέρῃ προσβολῇ “later, subsequent, conditions added to a document.” (E. G.) Less likely is a relation between the hapax איסרטה and Arabic شرطة “stipulation, clause” which might be Aramaic שטר, Accadic šeṭrum,šaṭārum “document”.. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts⁶⁹This is a reformulation of the colleague’s statement: R. Yose’s statement about wills is applicable neither to divorces nor to gifts.. Rebbi Ila⁷⁰He disagrees with R. Ze‘ira. said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is irrevocable. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself⁷¹During his lifetime.. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation⁷²If it is a divorce, the wife will be able to marry another man.. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body⁷³The use of prothetic א for אל, על is Babylonian. He wants to prevent his wife from remarrying during his lifetime. Therefore, the mention of “after death” contradicts the statement “from today” and there is no divorce. Rashba (Novellae ad 72b) reads: “the bill of divorce is unclear” (He also reads לְשַׁייֵר לוֹ גוּפָהּ, a better Yerushalmi style). to himself. Rebbi Bibon⁷⁴Rashba reads: R. Bun. [Compare the Latin adjective vivus “alive” as equivalent of חַיִים; cf. also the Roman name Bibulus. (E.G.)] bar Cahana said before Rebbi Ilai, not to reserve her earnings for himself⁷⁵Then the divorce would be absolute and the wife entitled to remarry during her first husband’s lifetime.? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira praised him for this and called him “son of the Torah.”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Vorheriger Vers Ganzes Kapitel Nächster Vers