Talmud sobre Zevahim 1:13

⁶⁶The story of this dispute should be compared with the Babli version, Berakhot 27b, where R. Joshua’s profession is given as a charcoal burner. Since Rabban Gamliel in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple insisted not only on uniformity of practice but also of doctrine (and in this was successful in eliminating Sadduceeism) and R. Joshua was known for his dislike of public quarrels, Rabban Gamliel thought that he was taking little risk in provoking a quarrel. It happened that one student came and asked Rebbi Joshua: What is about evening prayer? He said to him: It is voluntary. He asked Rabban Gamliel: What is about evening prayer? He said to him: It is obligatory. He said to him: But Rebbi Joshua told me that it was voluntary. He said to him: Tomorrow, when I enter the assembly hall, stand up and ask me about this practice. The next day, this student stood up and asked Rabban Gamliel: What is about evening prayer? He said to him: It is obligatory. He said to him: But Rebbi Joshua told me that it was voluntary. Rabban Gamliel said to Rebbi Joshua: Are you the one who says it is voluntary? He answered him: No. He said to him: Stand up on your feet so that they may testify against you. Then Rabban Gamliel was sitting down and lecturing while Rebbi Joshua was standing up until the people started talking and said to Rebbi Ḥuṣpit the interpreter: Send the people home. They said to Rebbi Zenon the ḥazan: Start⁶⁷The ḥazan was not only the reader in congregational prayers, but also the general organizer of religious affairs. In outlying communities he was the ritual slaughterer and the conduit through whom questions of religious practice were addressed to the Academies. Here it seems that he had to recite the prayer at the end of a study which it was customary to start with a Bible verse and that the people spontaneously chose one which was a curse on the speaker.! He said: Start! All the people stood up and said to him: Certainly, on whom did your evil not pass always⁶⁸Nah. 3:19.? They immediately appointed Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah to the Yeshivah when he was 16 years old; his head became all white. Rebbi Aqiba sat and was sad; he said, not that he is a greater Torah scholar than I am, but he comes from a greater family than I do; hail to the man whose forefathers created merit for him, hail to the man who has a peg to hang on to. What was Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s peg? He was the tenth generation after Ezra⁶⁹Also he was very rich and could afford the expenses of representing the Jewish population before the Roman government.. How many seats were there? Rebbi Jacob ben Sisi said: Eighty seats were there of accomplished scholars, not to count those standing behind the railing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said 300 were there, not to count those standing behind the railing. As we have stated there⁷⁰Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:3.: “On the day Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah was appointed to the Academy.” There we have stated⁷¹Mishnah Ketubot 4:6.: “This inference did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah present before the Sages at the vineyard of Jabneh.” Was there a vineyard? It means that the scholars sat there in rows like vines in a vineyard. Rabban Gamliel went immediately to pacify each one in his house. He came to Rebbi Joshua and found him occupied with the making of needles. He asked him: This is how you earn your living? He answered him: Until now you did not know? Woe to the generation whose caretaker you are! He said to him: I humble myself before you. They sent a washerman to Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, but some say that it was Rebbi Aqiba. He told him: The sprinkler, son of a sprinkler, should sprinkle. Should anyone who is neither a sprinkler nor the son of a sprinkler say to the sprinkler: your water is water from a cave and your ashes are ashes from a fireplace? He said to him: You made your peace with him! I and you shall go in the morning to Rabban Gamliel’s door. Nevertheless they did not remove him from his dignity but made him head of the court.

It happened that one student came and asked Rebbi Joshua: What is about evening prayer? He said to him: It is voluntary. He asked Rabban Gamliel: What is about evening prayer? He said to him: It is obligatory. He said to him: But Rebbi Joshua told me that it was voluntary. He said to him: Tomorrow, when I enter the assembly hall, stand up and ask me about this practice. The next day, this student stood up and asked Rabban Gamliel: What is about evening prayer? He said to him: It is obligatory. He said to him: But Rebbi Joshua told me that it was voluntary. Rabban Gamliel said to Rebbi Joshua: Are you the one who says it is voluntary? He answered him: No¹¹⁴Since Rabban Gamliel went to great lengths to insist on uniformity, not only of practice, but also of doctrine, Rebbi Joshua, the most important member of the generation preceding Rabban Gamliel, did not want to start a quarrel.. He said to him: Stand up on your feet so that they may testify against you. Then Rabban Gamliel was sitting down and lecturing while Rebbi Joshua was standing up until the people started talking and said to Rebbi Ḥuẓpit the interpreter¹¹⁵The “Amora” of Rabban Gamliel, one of the “Ten Martyrs”.: Send the people home. They said to Rebbi Zenon the ḥazan¹¹⁶The ḥazan was not only the reader in congregational prayers, but also the general organizer of religious affairs. In outlying communities he was the ritual slaughterer and the conduit through whom questions of religious practice were addressed to the Academies. Here it seems that he had to recite the prayer at the end of a study session discussed in the next Halakhah, that it was customary to start with a Bible verse and that the people spontaneously chose one which was a curse on the speaker.: Start! He said: Start! All the people stood up and said to him (Nahum 3:19): “Certainly, on whom did your evil not pass always?” They went and appointed¹¹⁷In the Yerushalmi, “appoint” (מנה) is the equivalent of the Babli’s “ordain” (סמך). Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah was ordained the same day he was appointed head of the Synhedrion. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah to the Yeshivah when he was 16 years old¹¹⁸In pre-war Poland, that was the usual age for sĕmikha. (In the Babli, the age is given as 18 years.) The difficulty of this age determination is discussed at length by the author in The Scholar’s Haggadah, p. 265–266.; his head became all white. Rebbi Aqiba sat and was sad; he said, not that he is a greater Torah scholar than I am, but he comes from a greater family than I do; hail to the man whose forefathers created merit for him, hail to the man who has a peg to hang on to. What was Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s peg? He was the tenth generation after Ezra¹¹⁹His family was of equal rank with that of the Patriarch. In the Rome manuscript, there is an addition that he alone was as rich as the Patriarch (and, hence, had the money to deal with the Roman government).. How many seats were there¹²⁰This insertion is more detailed in the Babli (28a), where the question is discussed how many seats were added when, with the deposition of Rabban Gamliel, also his elitistic exclusionary policies of admission to the Yeshivah were scrapped. The insertion is Amoraïc, as is shown by the names of the authorities and the quotes from the Mishnah. The previous paragraph and the following one are Tannaïtic.? Rebbi Jacob ben Sisi¹²¹A Galilean Amora of the fourth generation, contemporary of the Amora R. Yose, older than R. Yose ben R. Abun. said: Eighty seats were there of accomplished scholars, not to count those standing behind the railing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said 300 were there, not to count those standing behind the railing. As we have stated there (Mishnah Zebaḥim 1:3) “On the day Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah was appointed to the Academy.”¹²²In the tradition of the Babli, all of tractate Idiut was presented on that day. There (Mishnah Ketubot 4:6) we have stated: “This inference did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah present before the sages at the vineyard of Jabneh.” Was there a vineyard? It means that the scholars sat there in rows like vines in a vineyard. Rabban Gamliel went immediately to pacify each one in his house. He came to Rebbi Joshua and found him occupied with the making of needles¹²³In the Babli, his profession is given as charcoal-burner.. He asked him: This is how you earn your living? He answered him: Until now you did not know? Woe to the generation whose caretaker you are! He said to him: I humble myself before you. They sent a washerman to Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, but some say that it was Rebbi Aqiba. He told him: The sprinkler, son of a sprinkler, should sprinkle. Should anyone who is neither a sprinkler nor the son of a sprinkler say to the sprinkler: your water is water from a cave and your ashes are ashes from a fireplace¹²⁴The argument is taken from the ritual of the ashes of the red heifer. The ashes have to be given into “living” water, drawn from a stream. Sprinkling the water was not a reserved profession, but it may be assumed that the care of the ashes, and supervision of the cleansing ritual, was in the hands of the priests, of whom R. Eleazar ben Azariah was one. Hence, it was intimated to him that just as a non-Cohen should not presume upon his duties, so an outsider should not presume upon the duties of the Patriarch.? He said to him: You made your peace with him! I and you shall go in the morning to Rabban Gamliel’s door. Nevertheless they did not remove him from his dignity but made him head of the court.

Rebbi Simlai came to Rebbi Jonathan¹¹⁶Babli 62b. R. Simlai became famous as a preacher. K and the Medieval sources add that he was too young to be taught these matters.. He said to him, teach me homiletics. He answered him, I have a tradition from my forefathers not to teach homiletics either to a Babylonian or to a Southerner, since they are gross in spirit and have little learning. And you are from Nahardea and live in the South. He said to him, tell me this one thing, what is the difference between “for its purpose and not for its purpose” and “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”¹¹⁷Why is the former disqualified and the latter qualified.? He answered him, “for its purpose and not for its purpose”, the disqualification is intrinsic. “For those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”, the disqualification is of others. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, you cannot pick out the disqualified from the qualified. [“For those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”, you can pick out the disqualified from the qualified.]^118aThe corrector’s addition is justified by K, which reads “you can’t” instead of “you can. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all sacrifices¹¹⁸Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1: “All sacrifices, except Pesaḥ and purification offerings, which were slaughtered not for their purpose are qualified but do not relieve their owners from their obligations.”; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to the Pesaḥ.

Rebbi Yose said, from that of Rebbi Eleazar one may deduce two [conclusions]. Since Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah if he slaughtered it for those who eat it, but it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it. But it is disqualified if from the start he slaughtered for those who eat it and it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it¹¹⁵It seems that R. Eleazar interprets the Mishnah that the sacrifice is qualified if the slaughterer intended it for the entire group, without inquiring whether all members of the group were entitled to eat or able to consume a minimum. If then it turned out that some members were barred or unable to participate, there was no false intent and the sacrifice is qualified. But if from the start there was explicit intent to include incapable or disqualified persons, the intent was disqualifying (S. Liebermann).. Then its disqualification is of others and you can pick out the disqualified from the qualified, and you are saying so? But it must be the following, “for its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all sacrifices¹¹⁸Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1: “All sacrifices, except Pesaḥ and purification offerings, which were slaughtered not for their purpose are qualified but do not relieve their owners from their obligations.”; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to the Pesaḥ¹¹⁹Of all the arguments of R. Jonathan, only the last is valid.. Rebbi Abin said, there are others. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all services¹²⁰Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:4: The sacrifice becomes disqualified [by wrong intent] in four cases: For slaughter, for reception of the blood, for carrying the blood to the altar, for pouring the blood.; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to slaughtering.

Rebbi Yose said, from that of Rebbi Eleazar one may deduce two [conclusions]. Since Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah if he slaughtered it for those who eat it, but it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it. But it is disqualified if from the start he slaughtered for those who eat it and it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it¹¹⁵It seems that R. Eleazar interprets the Mishnah that the sacrifice is qualified if the slaughterer intended it for the entire group, without inquiring whether all members of the group were entitled to eat or able to consume a minimum. If then it turned out that some members were barred or unable to participate, there was no false intent and the sacrifice is qualified. But if from the start there was explicit intent to include incapable or disqualified persons, the intent was disqualifying (S. Liebermann).. Then its disqualification is of others and you can pick out the disqualified from the qualified, and you are saying so? But it must be the following, “for its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all sacrifices¹¹⁸Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1: “All sacrifices, except Pesaḥ and purification offerings, which were slaughtered not for their purpose are qualified but do not relieve their owners from their obligations.”; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to the Pesaḥ¹¹⁹Of all the arguments of R. Jonathan, only the last is valid.. Rebbi Abin said, there are others. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all services¹²⁰Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:4: The sacrifice becomes disqualified [by wrong intent] in four cases: For slaughter, for reception of the blood, for carrying the blood to the altar, for pouring the blood.; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to slaughtering.

Rebbi Eleazar said, sisters are not preliminarily married but in the case of purification sacrifices it atoned¹⁵⁹If a person simultaneously slaughters two purification sacrifices for one transgression, he has fulfilled his obligation. (Mishnah Me‘ilah 1:2 describes this situation: A person dedicated an animal as purification sacrifice. Then this animal was lost, another was dedicated as replacement, and then the first one was found before the second was sacrificed. Each of the animals becomes the replacement of the other.) This statement is nontrivial since as a general rule an animal dedicated as purification sacrifice but whose owner then used another animal for the same purpose can no longer be used for anything.. How is that? If one slaughtered two purification offerings for one transgression¹⁶⁰Simultaneously., the altar selects that which is appropriate¹⁶¹Expression of Mishnah Zebaḥim9:1. Since both sacrifices have equal standing, there is no reason to prefer one to the other. Only selected parts of the purification offering are given to the altar; the remainder of the meat has to be eaten by the priest (Lev. 6:17–23).; both are forbidden to be eaten¹⁶²The priests are commanded to eat the meat of the animal which effects the purification. But in this case it is impossible to determine which animal effects the purification.. If one slaughtered two reparation offerings for one damage, the altar selects that which is appropriate; both are forbidden to be eaten¹⁶³The rules of reparation sacrifices follow those of purification sacrifices; Lev. 7:7.. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the first¹⁶⁴This deals with a separate case, that the animals were slaughtered one after the other. one was slaughtered not for its purpose but the second for its purpose, it did atone since the first, which was not for its purpose, becomes acceptable only through the purpose stated later¹⁶⁵Mishnah Zebaḥim 1:1 states that both purification and Passover sacrifices which were slaughtered not for their stated purpose are invalid and cannot be offered to the altar. Normally, a purification offering which is invalidated at the time of slaughter is burned outside the Temple precinct and another sacrifice is required independent of the first. But if the second sacrifice is slaughtered correctly immediately after the first, when its flesh is still in the Temple precinct, then the correct slaughter of the second rehabilitates the first, both sacrifices have their selected parts offered on the altar, and both are forbidden as food to the priests.. But if the first was slaughtered for its purpose but the second not for its purpose: if the first atoned for what may the second atone? For impurity which occured between the first and the second¹⁶⁶This answer makes more sense in Šebuot 1:4 (33b 1.4) where the relative merit of the purification sacrifices on New Year’s day are discussed, one required for the New Moon and one for the holiday. If one sacrifice purifies, what is the use of the second? To atone for impurities which might have occurred in the meantime. In the case discussed here, the second sacrifice is invalid and useless.. But for Passover sacrifices it did not atone¹⁶⁷The Passover sacrifice does not atone. He holds that people who bring a Passover sacrifice which cannot be eaten did not fulfill their duty, Mishnah Pesaḥim7:4. since the Passover sacrifice is only for the meat to be eaten. This does not follow Rebbi Nathan since Rebbi Nathan said, one fulfills one’s duty by sprinkling [the blood] without eating¹⁶⁸Pesahim 7:5 (34b 1. 45), Babli 78b..