Mischna
Mischna

Talmud zu Zevachim 10:5

כָּל הַחַטָּאוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, קוֹדְמוֹת לָאֲשָׁמוֹת, חוּץ מֵאֲשַׁם מְצֹרָע, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בָא עַל יְדֵי הֶכְשֵׁר. כָּל הָאֲשָׁמוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה בָּאִין בְּנֵי שְׁתַּיִם וּבָאִין בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים, חוּץ מֵאֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצֹרָע, שֶׁהֵן בָּאִין בְּנֵי שְׁנָתָן וְאֵינָן בָּאִין בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים:

Alle Chata'ot in der Tora gehen den Ashamim voraus, mit Ausnahme des Asham der Metzora [einer, der durch eine unschöne Hautkrankheit stark unrein geworden ist. Nach der Genesung und Reinigung muss er Opfer bringen, da es ihm erlaubt, Opferfleisch zu essen. Alle Ashamim in der Tora müssen zwei Jahre alt sein und einen Wert von zwei Schekeln haben, mit Ausnahme des Asham eines Nazir und des eines Metzora , da diese ein Jahr alt sind und kein Silber sein müssen Schekel im Wert.

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: “The ram he shall offer, etc.206Num. 6:17.” Why does the verse say, “he shall offer”? Start the procedure with it207In Sifry zuṭa 17, this argument is tannaïtic and attributed to R. Jehudah. It seems that he contrasts the imperfect used for sacrificing the well-being offering with the perfect used for the other offerings, to indicate beginning of an action. In the Babli and Sifry Num. 35, the preferred treatment of the well-being offering is deduced from v. 18.. Rebbi Ḥinena objected before Rebbi Mana208The R. Mana quoted in this Halakhah is neither R. Mana I, of the first, nor R. Mana II, of the fifth generation. Either there exists a third, otherwise unkown, Amora of this name or “Mana” is erroneous for “Yasa”, or “Ze‘ira” is erroneous for “Ezra”.: But is it not written: “He shall offer his flour offering and his libation206Num. 6:17.”? Should he not start with them? How is that? Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If he shaved for any of the three, he satisfied his obligation209Flour offerings and libations are mentioned last in v. 17. They accompany both the well-being offering (v. 17) and the elevation offering, mentioned in v. 16 together with the purification offering which needs neither flour nor wine. It is inferred that the order of the sacrifices is irrelevant.. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Who is the Tanna of: “All purification offerings in the Torah precede the reparation offerings”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion, “all purification offerings in the Torah precede the reparation offerings.210Mishnah Zebaḥim 10:5. No reparation offering is due from the pure nazir.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Vorheriger VersGanzes KapitelNächster Vers