Talmud sobre Zevahim 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:

Todos los chata'ot en la Torá preceden a los Ashamim excepto el Asham de la Metzora [uno que se volvió severamente impuro por una enfermedad cutánea desagradable. Al recuperarse y purificarse, debe traer ofrendas], ya que se trata de permitirle [comer carne de sacrificio]. Todos los Ashamim en la Torá deben tener dos años [carneros] y tener [dos] shekels de plata en valor, excepto el Asham de un Nazir y el de un Metzora , ya que esos tienen un año y no necesitan ser [dos] de plata shekels en valor.

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

Versículo anterior Capítulo completo Versículo siguiente