Mischna
Mischna

Talmud zu Yoma 5:1

הוֹצִיאוּ לוֹ אֶת הַכַּף וְאֶת הַמַּחְתָּה, וְחָפַן מְלֹא חָפְנָיו וְנָתַן לְתוֹךְ הַכַּף, הַגָּדוֹל לְפִי גָדְלוֹ, וְהַקָּטָן לְפִי קָטְנוֹ, וְכָךְ הָיְתָה מִדָּתָהּ. נָטַל אֶת הַמַּחְתָּה בִּימִינוֹ וְאֶת הַכַּף בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ. הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּהֵיכָל, עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְבֵין שְׁתֵּי הַפָּרֹכוֹת הַמַּבְדִּילוֹת בֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין קֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים, וּבֵינֵיהֶן אַמָּה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, לֹא הָיְתָה שָׁם אֶלָּא פָרֹכֶת אַחַת בִּלְבָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כו), וְהִבְדִּילָה הַפָּרֹכֶת לָכֶם בֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין קֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים. הַחִיצוֹנָה הָיְתָה פְרוּפָה מִן הַדָּרוֹם, וְהַפְּנִימִית מִן הַצָּפוֹן. מְהַלֵּךְ בֵּינֵיהֶן, עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַצָּפוֹן. הִגִּיעַ לַצָּפוֹן, הוֹפֵךְ פָּנָיו לַדָּרוֹם, מְהַלֵּךְ לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ עִם הַפָּרֹכֶת עַד שֶׁהוּא מַגִּיעַ לָאָרוֹן. הִגִּיעַ לָאָרוֹן. נוֹתֵן אֶת הַמַּחְתָּה בֵּין שְׁנֵי הַבַּדִּים. צָבַר אֶת הַקְּטֹרֶת עַל גַּבֵּי גֶחָלִים, וְנִתְמַלֵּא כָל הַבַּיִת כֻּלּוֹ עָשָׁן. יָצָא וּבָא לוֹ בְדֶרֶךְ בֵּית כְּנִיסָתוֹ, וּמִתְפַּלֵּל תְּפִלָּה קְצָרָה בַּבַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן, וְלֹא הָיָה מַאֲרִיךְ בִּתְפִלָּתוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא לְהַבְעִית אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל:

Sie nahmen für ihn [aus der Lishkah der Gefäße] die Kelle und die (Weihrauch-) Pfanne heraus, und er nahm volle Handvoll und legte sie in die Kelle, die im Verhältnis zu seiner Größe größer (Priester) war; der kürzere, relativ zu seinem. Und das war sein Maß. [Wie es draußen gemessen wurde, wurde es auch innen gemessen. Genau wie draußen nahm er volle "Handvoll", buchstäblich nicht in einem Gefäß, und so verschüttete er innen, als er den Weihrauch aus der Kelle in seine Hände verschüttete, ihn nicht mit einem Gefäß, das nach Maß seiner Handvoll hergestellt wurde, sondern in seine Hand selbst.] Er nahm die Kohlenpfanne in die rechte Hand und die Kelle in die linke Hand. Er ging in das Heiligtum, bis er zwischen die beiden Vorhänge kam, die das Heilige vom Allerheiligsten trennten, eine Elle zwischen ihnen. [Weil sie zur Zeit des zweiten Tempels im Zweifel waren, ob die Trennwand zwischen dem Heiligen und dem Allerheiligsten im ersten Tempel, der eine Elle dick war—da sie sich nicht sicher waren, ob diese Elle als das Innere (das Allerheiligste) oder das Äußere (das Heilige) angesehen wurde, machten sie zwei Vorhänge, einen außen, einen innen, eine Elle zwischen ihnen Elle wird als Teilung betrachtet.] R. Yossi sagt: Es gab nur einen Vorhang, der geschrieben steht (2. Mose 26:33): "Und der Vorhang wird für dich zwischen dem Heiligen und dem Allerheiligsten teilen." Der äußere Vorhang wurde von Süden und der innere Vorhang von Norden geschlossen. [Die Rabbiner, die sich von R. Yossi unterscheiden, sagen dies und halten: "Und der Vorhang wird sich für dich teilen usw." allein im Mischkan (dem Wüstenheiligtum) erhalten. ("umklammert" :) Sein Rand war außen verdoppelt und wurde von einem goldenen Verschluss gehalten, so dass er von Süden geöffnet werden konnte.] Er ging zwischen ihnen hin und her [Er trat von dem Verschluss im Süden ein und ging dazwischen sie], bis er den [Verschluss im] Norden erreichte. Als er den Norden erreichte [und das Allerheiligste betrat], wandte er sein Gesicht nach Süden [um zwischen den Polen (der Arche) in der Mitte (des Allerheiligsten) zu wandeln. Denn die Stangen reichten bis zum Vorhang, ein (Stangen-) Ende befand sich im Westen; der andere im Osten; eine (Stange) befindet sich an der Spitze der Arche im Norden; der andere an seiner Spitze im Süden.] Er ging zu seiner Linken mit dem Vorhang. [Wenn einer von Norden nach Süden geht, ist seine Linke nach Osten, und der Vorhang war im Osten, so dass seine Linke " mit dem Vorhang "] bis er die Arche erreichte [der Ort der Arche, nicht die Arche selbst, da es im zweiten Tempel keine Arche gibt]. Er stellte die Kohlenpfanne zwischen die beiden Pole, ließ den Weihrauch auf die Kohlen fallen und Das ganze Haus war mit Rauch gefüllt. Er ging den Weg hinaus, den er betreten hatte [er drehte nicht sein Gesicht, um zu gehen, sondern ging rückwärts hinaus und blickte zur Arche.] Und betete ein kurzes Gebet im Außenhaus (dem Heiligtum) [nämlich: "Möge es dein sein Wille, mein Freund, wenn dieses Jahr heiß ist, lass es regnen, möge das Königreich nicht aus dem Hause Juda gehen, möge dein Volk Israel nicht voneinander abhängig sein, um seinen Lebensunterhalt zu verdienen, noch von anderen; und Mögen die Gebete der Wanderer (damit es nicht regnet) sich nicht vor dir präsentieren. "] Und er würde nicht lange beten, um Israel nicht zu beunruhigen [das befürchten könnte, dass er gestorben ist].

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim

HALAKHAH: 94Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 5. What is gained by redeeming incense with Temple money, which is not profane? Would not Temple property be redeemed by Temple property? What does he do? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana said, he brings coins and redeems them for the building95Both the scribe’s text and that of B are difficult to understand. While it is accepted that the Temple is built as profane building and only sanctified when completed (Babli Me`ilah14a), once it is sacred it cannot be redeemed. If the money is legitimately paid for a sacrificial animal, it belongs to the owner of the animal and is no longer available for Temple use. Tosephta Me`ilah1:23 reads: “A worker who did work for the Temple for a mina or two may not say, give me this cow for a mina or this garment for 50 {denar} since Temple property cannot be redeemed for work but only for coins. What does one do? One takes the wages of the artisans {from the sheqalim} and redeems them on the artisans’ money, gives them to the artisans as their wages; then buys them back from the disbursement of the lodge to pay back the workers for the coins they earlier gave to the Temple.” A similar text seems to be intended here.; brings incense and redeems it for them, and gives it96The incense. to the artisans as their wages. What should be done with those coins? Rebbi says, I am saying that they should be given to the family Garmu and the family Eutinos who were experts in compounding the incense and in making the shew-bread97Cf. Mishnah Yoma3:11.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav <isaac<98Name added from B. said, only if they were due to them beforehand99Since Temple money can only become profane for actual debts incurred by the Temple. Advance payments are not possible.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, what if they were not due beforehand? There came Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One uses them to adorn the altar75It is given to the gift account to buy elevation sacrifices in times when the altar otherwise would have been idle.. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba seems inverted. Here it is questionable for him; there it is obvious for him100How can he ask when he himself teaches the answer which his teacher had given? He does not question that a possible use is to give the money to the gift account; he questions whether this is the only possible use.
The inverse order in B must be a scribal error.. He told him, where it is questionable for him, for Service vessels; where it is obvious for him, to adorn the altar.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot

There, we have stated: “They removed the cup and the censer for him”70Mishnah Yoma.5:1. The reference really is to the end of that Mishnah: “The High Priest takes the censer in his right hand and the cup in the left hand.” In general there is a rule that all priestly service in the Temple has to be performed with the right hand only. The left hand has to be used here to make it possible for the High Priest to enter the Holiest of Holies only once. On that it is noted (Yoma5:2, 42b l. 52) that if he went twice, using only his right hand, the service is valid. Nevertheless, it is sinful to enter the Temple building more often than necessary. About this the paragraph here is then copied in Yoma.. About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last? The colleagues say, about the last. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, enter, and you say about the last? But we must hold about the first71Since the first entry is necessary in any case, the High Priest cannot be faulted for the first entry even if he only carries the censer..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir

If he is still there63Here starts the discussion of the Mishnah. What is the situation of the person who vowed in the cemetery to be a nazir., Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about everything for every possible leaving,64R. Joḥanan holds that the vow becomes effective the moment it is uttered. Then the nazir is informed that he has to leave the cemetery immediately (and refrain from wine and shaving). If he does not obey, he can be repeatedly warned and the disregard of every warning is a new, punishable offence. and he is whipped. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not accept [warning] unless he leaves65He holds that the vow becomes effective only when the nazir leaves the cemetery. Then also the warning becomes relevant for him and he can be punished if he returns to the cemetery. and returns. Rebbi Abba said: So did Rebbi Joḥanan answer Rebbi Eleazar: Is it not written, “he shall not come” and “he may not defile himself”66If Num. 6:6, there is a general prohibition, “to any dead person he shall not come.” In v. 7, there is a particular prohibition; for close relatives “he may not be defiled.” R. Joḥanan interprets this to mean: even in a case where he does not defile himself, because he was defiled before he made the vow, he violates the separate prohibition of v. 6.? He said to him, if they warned him because of “he shall not come”, he is whipped; because of “he shall not defile himself” he is not whipped67He reads the verses as they are written. The nazir can be warned, and is whipped, for an active coming to corpses. But nobody can be whipped for a prohibition formulated in the passive voice.. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating, as we have stated there68Mishnah Šebuot 2:3. A person who comes to the Temple precinct and belatedly remembers that he is impure, has to leave immediately. If he tarries long enough for an act of prostration, he is punished.: “If he prostrated himself or stayed there long enough to prostrate himself.” Rebbi Mattaniah said, we thought that was where they do disagree? About lashes, but not about a sacrifice. Since Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating69Where the main thrust of the entire Chapter in the Mishnah is the obligation to bring a sacrifice to purify himself from the inadvertent sin., that means that lashes and sacrifices are one and the same. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A nazir who drank wine the entire day is guilty only once.70Mishnah 6:4. This presupposes that he was warned only once.” He explains it, that his throat was never empty71If the nazir actually never stopped drinking the entire day, he could not have been warned more than once. The Mishnah is irrelevant for the statement that separate warnings imply separate punishments.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he was defiling himself for the dead the entire day, he is guilty only once70Mishnah 6:4. This presupposes that he was warned only once..” He explains it about one who waits before every leaving, who is whipped72He explains the Mishnah, if there was only one warning. But if he was warned repeatedly, each action represents a new offense. (Whether tarrying plays a role in this case remains an open question in the Babli, Šebuot 17a.). A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Cohen was standing in a cemetery73Legitimately, when burying a close relative. and they were handing another corpse to him, could he accept? The verse says, “the husband shall be defiled for his family74Lev. 21:4. The verse really reads: “The husband shall not be defiled for his family, to be profaned,” meaning that the Cohen cannot defile himself for a wife he was forbidden to marry. This implies that he can be defiled only for the benefit of his legal family..” If he accepted it, I could think that he was guilty. The verse says, “to be profaned”. One who adds impurity to the impurity; that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity75If he already is impure, touching another corpse does not change his status. (In the Babli, the Babylonian authorities disagree, 42b.). Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Neḥemiah said, “to be profaned”, that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity, lest he say, because I became defiled for my father I may go and collect the bones of X. “To be profaned”, at the time of death; Rebbi said, also “in their death.76Num. 6:7 prohibits the nazir from being defiled for his close relatives “in their death”, meaning that he does not have to leave the house when they lie dying, but only after they are dead. The same baraita is quoted in the Babli, 43a.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree77The authorities disagreeing with Rebbi require the nazir to leave the house when they lie dying.. It follows that Rebbi Simeon bar Abba follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. When Simeon bar Abba was dying, he said, this should be taken out here, that should be taken out there78To avoid that vessels become impure at his death..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ganzes KapitelNächster Vers