Talmud sobre Avodah Zarah 2:11

What is the difference between the Cohen who burns the Cow and the High Priest on the Day of Atonement? The separation of the first is for purity and his brothers the priests refrain from touching him. The separation of the other is for holiness and his brothers the priests touch him. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers¹⁴Based on the preceding text, one has to read “does not infer” since in the explanation attributed to R. Joḥanan, burning of the Cow is not mentioned. (In the Babli 2a, an argument close to that of Bar Qappara here is attributed to R. Joḥanan, but this should be irrelevant for the study of the Yerushalmi.) from that verse, [it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow¹⁵The separation of the priest who will burn the Cow is purely rabbinical; Tosephta Parah 3:1., one understands it. In the opinion of Bar Qappara who does not infer¹⁶Here one has to read: “who infers.” it from this verse], why does one touch here but not touch there? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that his brothers the priests should not make him impure. [But will he not be impure because of his sprinkling¹⁷Since it is to be presumed that the Cohen selected to burn the Cow was pure, water with ashes from prior Cows will make him impure (Sifry Num. 129). But this impurity is minor, it can be removed by immersion in a miqweh and the following sundown. It is obvious that no sprinkling can be done on the day of the burning.
In fact, a Pharisee Cohen burning the Cow is made impure and has to cleanse himself in a miqweh on the day of the ceremony because of a quarrel with Sadducees, Mishnah Parah 3:7.?] Rebbi Abun said, even Bar Qappara holds that it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow¹⁸Everybody agrees that the rules for the Cohen burning the Cow are purely rabbinical, not accepted by Sadducees, and bar Qappara’s mention of the burning of the Cow is a far-fetched simile, not an authoritative interpretation of the verse..

It has been said elsewhere: the egg from a carrion is of permitted use when similar ones are sold in the market; otherwise it is forbidden, according to the opinion of Shammai; Hillel forbids it in any case. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Shammai allows it because he assumes that the egg was matured before the defect occurred in the animal.
If this is so, why should the permission depend on the suitability of the egg for sale in the market? If this is not the case, one would be allowed to eat even the egg that is still attached to the ovary (an integral part of the carrion and forbidden).
Is it true that Shammai conforms to the latter Mishna and Hillel to the former?

⁶⁴This and the following paragraph have parallels in Avodah Zarah 2:3, fol. 41b. Neither of the two text is without problems. There⁶⁵Mishnah Avodah Zarah 2:3., we have stated: “The following things from Gentiles are forbidden even for usufruct: Wine⁶⁶Since wine might have been used for a Gentile libation, it is forbidden as ancillary to idolatreous practices. Once it is forbidden, it cannot become permitted even if the wine spoils and becomes vinegar., Gentiles’ vinegar which originally was wine, and Hadrianic pottery⁶⁷The Babli (Avodah Zarah 32a) explains that this is very porous pottery which Roman soldiers used to soak in wine and carry with them, so it could be soaked in water and provide a taste of wine. There is no explanation of the term in the Yerushalmi.
Perhaps the word has nothing to do with Adria, Adrianoi in Mysia, or the emperor Hadrian, and should be read הֻדְרִייָני “wine pots”, from Greek ὑδρία, ἡ, “water pot; vessel, wine pot” (Liddel & Scott) (E. G.)..” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah⁶⁸This name tradition, also preserved in Avodah Zarah, is impossible since R. Jeremiah was R. Zeïra’s student. Either the two names should be switched, or the second author is Rav Jeremiah (an unlikely scenario given the difference in time), or it should be “R. Joḥanan” instead of “R. Jeremiah”. The original formulation cannot be recovered.: This is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated: Hadrianic pottery is forbidden even for usufruct⁶⁸This name tradition, also preserved in Avodah Zarah, is impossible since R. Jeremiah was R. Zeïra’s student. Either the two names should be switched, or the second author is Rav Jeremiah (an unlikely scenario given the difference in time), or it should be “R. Joḥanan” instead of “R. Jeremiah”. The original formulation cannot be recovered.. Where do we hold? If one put it into a dish, everybody agrees that it is forbidden⁶⁹Since the forbidden wine will leach out into the dish.. If he sells it excluding the value of libation wine contained in it, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that he put it on top of a dish⁷⁰As a pan-cover..

⁴²He doubts the genuineness of the story. Since Rebbi Joḥanan lived a generation after Rebbi, his ruling has to be followed. Rav returned there and saw them taking things lightly and was restrictive with them. A man went to wash a piece of meat in the river. He forgot it and left. Then he went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying the other one was carried away by the river and it brought another piece of carcass meat in its place. A man was carrying meat while walking on the market. There came a vulture, seized it from his hand, and dropped it off. He came back and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying that it was carrying carcass meat, dropped it and took the other instead.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra¹⁰⁴The better reading is: R. Ḥanania before R. Mana; see the preceding note.: Does it mean, really like his produce? Freeing what would be ṭevel at another place¹⁰⁵It would be a cheap way of tithing to deposit one’s produce with a Gentile and then reclaiming it without taking heave and tithes!? He said to him, for all that is in it¹⁰⁶It is only equal to the Gentile’s produce if it is in it, i. e., if the produce was in order it does not become even demay at the Gentile’s, but it cannot lose its status of either demay or ṭevel.. Rebbi Ḥanina was uselessly opposing Rebbi Aḥa¹⁰⁷As explained above, this might be “R. Mana.”.

The following is obvious: A murderer who broke vessels or otherwise caused damage is liable to pay¹⁰²Since no crime can be punished more than once (Terumot 7:1 Notes 3–73, Ketubot3:1 Note 29; Babli Ketubot 32b, Bava qamma 36a, Makkot 7b, 13b), any damage done during the commission of a crime cannot be recovered from the criminal. Any damage caused before and after the crime has been committed can be recovered. The only question, the subject of the next two sentences, is whether the pursuit of the victim is part of the crime and protects the murderer from damage claims or not.. If he continued to break until he came to the town, Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Hoshaia: One said, he pays, the other said, he does not pay. If the pursuer becomes the pursued, may one save the pursuer through the person of the pursued¹⁰³If the intended victim gets hold of a weapon and turns against the agressor, is there any cause for the uninvolved to act? The question is not answered.? An adult (who became)¹⁰⁴From the following text it seems clear that one has to read: If an adult was pursued by a minor, may one save the adult through the minor’s life? In a parallel text, Šabbat 14 (14d l. 67), the question is attributed to Rav Hisda, mentioned later here also. a minor, may one save the adult through the person of the minor? Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state¹⁰⁵Mishnah Ahilut 7:6. If the life of the mother is endangered during childbirth, the attendants must kill the fetus by cutting it into pieces and removing it. But if head and torso are already outside, so that the baby is breathing on his own, he cannot be killed even if he is endangering his mother’s life. This is a case of a minor pursuing an adult.: “If his head and most of his body were born, one does not touch him, for one does not push aside one life for another.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is different there since you do not know who is killing whom¹⁰⁶Since the life of the baby is equally endangered, one cannot conclude that a minor intent on murder may not be killed by bystanders..