Talmud sur Horayot 3:5

כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל פּוֹרֵם מִלְּמַטָּה, וְהַהֶדְיוֹט מִלְמַעְלָה. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מַקְרִיב אוֹנֵן וְלֹא אוֹכֵל, וְהַהֶדְיוֹט לֹא מַקְרִיב וְלֹא אוֹכֵל:

Le grand prêtre se déchire d'en bas [À la mort d'un de ses parents pour qui il est commandé de déchirer, il se déchire au coin de son vêtement près de ses pieds. (Quant à «et ses vêtements, il ne déchireront pas», le sens est qu'il ne les déchirera pas comme les autres le font)], et le prêtre ordinaire, d'en haut [près de la poitrine, près de l'épaule, comme les autres le font.] Un souverain sacrificateur peut sacrifier quand il est en deuil, mais il ne peut pas manger. [Si quelqu'un, dont l'un des sept proches parents pour qui il est commandé de pleurer, meurt, alors pour le jour entier de la mort, qu'il ait été ou non enterré, il est un "onein" selon la Torah. Et à partir du jour de la mort, tant qu'il n'a pas été enterré, il est un tout au long de la journée selon les rabbins, même après l'enterrement. Et s'il a été enterré le jour de sa mort, alors toute la nuit suivante il est un homme selon les rabbins. Et un souverain sacrificateur qui est un seul peut sacrifier mais ne pas manger [des sacrifices], et un sacrificateur ordinaire ne peut ni sacrifier ni manger. [Car c'est ainsi que nous trouvons avec Aaron, que le jour où Nadav et Avihu (ses fils) sont morts, il a dit (Lévitique 10:19): "Et si j'avais mangé l'offrande pour le péché aujourd'hui, ce serait bon aux yeux du L rd? "—le souci est seulement de manger, pas de sacrifier. Et cela, seulement avec Aaron, qui était un grand prêtre; mais ses fils, qui étaient de simples prêtres, n'avaient pas le droit de manger ni de sacrifier ce jour-là.]

Jerusalem Talmud Demai

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema‘²⁷Dema‘ (a word of unclear etymology, Ex.22:28) describes profane produce mixed with heave, which is unfit for human consumption if heave and food are impure, and is food only for Cohanim and their families if both the heave and the food are pure. It can be put in order only if the amount of heave in the total is less than 1 in 101. Since heave from demay is genuinely holy only in a minority of cases, that heave does not necessarily create dema‘. (Maimonides Maäser 12:4 and R. Abraham ben David ad loc.), not to its origin does not make dema‘. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make dema‘.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: For one who says, it makes dema‘, it makes dema‘; for one who says, it does not make dema‘, it does not make dema‘; this is reasonable²⁸That means, I can understand R. Simeon from Shezur, that we always follow the majority of cases and, therefore, heave from demay cannot create dema‘. I also could understand the position that, once the name of heave was attached to any produce, it must be treated like heave in all respects.. But if one says, in its origin it makes dema‘, not in its origin it does not make dema‘; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rebbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I shall explain the reason²⁹R. Ḥaggai’s standard answer to questions of this type..” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten³⁰Since without tithing, demay may not be eaten by rabbinic ordinance, it should in this respect be treated like heave taken according to Biblical precept.. He who says, it does not make dema‘, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten³¹For other produce, it simply is food of questionable status.. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai³²He declares practice to follow the anonymous Tanna in the baraita.. Rebbi Zeïra said: A case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon from Shezur³³In Babli Ḥulin 75b, both R. Ḥanina and R. Jonathan endorse the ruling of R. Simeon from Shezur as valid practice..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Yoma

¹²³From here on there is a parallel in Horaiot 3:3, Notes 146–188 and Megillah1:12.“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Haggai said, by Moses⁸Since the Chapter starts with God’s commandment to inaugurate the Tabernacle, the mention here of God’s commandment is redundant and may be interpreted as a new commandment for future generations.! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him¹²⁴Lev. 6:12; the offering of the High Priest starting with the day he is anointed for his office. Sifra Ṣaw Parašah 3(3). The singular indicates that only one High Priest can be appointed at one time. This implies that the reserve appointee for the day of Atonement cannot have the status of High Priest unless he actually is needed.. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry¹²⁵He disagrees and holds that while the two could not have been anointed on the same day, they could have been anointed on different days. The rule that the back-up Cohen has lower status is practical, not biblical, as is the entire institution of the back-up..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Gudguedah testified about a deaf-mute girl¹⁴⁰She is presumed not to be able to read and write. Since she has no means of communication with the outside world, she is incompetent in law. She herself could not conclude a marriage valid by biblical standards, but her father can marry her off when underage in a biblically valid marriage. Cf. Yebamot, Mishnah 14:3, Notes 20–24.
“Testified” usually means a statement of practice from Temple times accepted by the Jabneh Academy as binding. who was married off by her father, that she must be divorced by a bill of divorce¹⁴¹Since a divorce is a unilateral act by the husband as long as she is able to receive the bill. An insane woman, who cannot keep her bill of divorce, cannot be divorced., and about an underage girl who was married to a Cohen¹⁴²Even if the father had died and she was married in a rabbinically valid marriage by her mother or brothers, from which she may walk out without formality before she reaches adulthood (cf. Yebamot 1:2, Note 38)., that she may eat heave and her husband inherits from her if she dies, and about a stolen log which was used to build a house¹⁴³In Babylonian versions of the Mishnah, it is added “for the benefit of repentant sinners”, as explained in the Halakhah., that [the owner] has to take the value¹⁴⁴He cannot sue the robber for restitution of the original log., and about a purification sacrifice of a stolen animal¹⁴⁵It is a sinful act to use any stolen or robbed animal as a sacrifice. If such a sacrifice would be declared invalid, no Cohen would volunteer to serve in the Temple for fear of unwittingly committing the sin of eating from an invalid sacrifice. Therefore, a sacrifice can be rejected only if it is known that it was obtained by illegal means. which was not known in public, that it atones because of the order of the altar.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Verset précédent Chapitre complet Verset suivant