Mishnah
Mishnah

Related sur Arakhin 8:5

הַמַּחֲרִים בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ, עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים, וּשְׂדֵה מִקְנָתוֹ, אֵינָן מֻחְרָמִים, שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מַחֲרִים דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם אֵינָן מַחֲרִימִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, הַכֹּהֲנִים אֵינָן מַחֲרִימִין, שֶׁהַחֲרָמִים שֶׁלָּהֶם. הַלְוִיִּם מַחֲרִימִים, שֶׁאֵין הַחֲרָמִים שֶׁלָּהֶן. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, נִרְאִים דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה), כִּי אֲחֻזַּת עוֹלָם הוּא לָהֶם, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּמִטַּלְטְלִים, שֶׁאֵין הַחֲרָמִים שֶׁלָּהֶם:

Si l'on proscrit son fils ou sa fille, ou son esclave hébreu ou sa femme esclave, ou son champ [acquis par achat], ils ne sont pas considérés [valablement] proscrits, car on ne peut proscrire quelque chose qui ne lui appartient pas. Les prêtres et les lévites ne peuvent pas proscrire [leurs biens] - [ce sont] les paroles de Rabbi Juda; Rabbi Shimon dit: les prêtres ne peuvent pas proscrire, parce que les choses proscrites leur appartiennent, mais les Lévites peuvent proscrire, parce que les choses interdites ne leur appartiennent pas. Rabbi dit: les paroles de Rabbi Judah semblent acceptables dans les cas de biens immobiliers comme il est dit: «Car c'est leur possession perpétuelle» (Lévitique 25:34) et les paroles de Rabbi Shimon semblent acceptables dans les cas de biens meubles, car les choses interdites ne leur incombent pas.

Radak on Judges

Shall be offered by me as an offering The opinion of our rabbis of blessed memory regarding this is known, and my lord and father, that the explanation of "shall be offered by me", the vav [ו] is disjunctive, with the same function as "or". And it can be explained as follows: "And it will be for God," i.e. sanctified [הקדש], if it is unsuitable for a burnt offering. Or it "shall be offered by me as a burnt offering," if it is suitable for a burnt offering. And similar to this, the vav of "He who strikes his father or [ו] his mother" (Exodus 25:15) signifies "or". And it is well explained, and so it seems to me from the verse, for it is not death, because the verse would say "And I will weep for my life" -- rather, [she will weep] that she has not known a man [because in fact the verse says "I will weep for my maidenhood" (Judges 11:37)]. And that which it also says, "he did to her as he had vowed to do" (Judges 11:39), and it does not say "He offered her as a burnt offering." This shows us that she was celibate/separated, and this is what he had vowed -- that she should be for God. This seems to me to be according to the plain meaning of the verses, and the words of our rabbis of blessed memory; if they [the words] were accepted into their hands as an acceptance, it is our duty to accept them [?].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Verset précédentChapitre completVerset suivant