Talmud sur Téroumot 8:2
וְכֻלָּם, שֶׁהָיְתָה תְרוּמָה בְתוֹךְ פִּיהֶם, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, יִבְלְעוּ. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, יִפְלֹטוּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, נִטְמֵאתָ וְנִטְמֵאת תְּרוּמָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, יִבְלָע. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, יִפְלֹט. טָמֵא הָיִיתָ וּטְמֵאָה הָיְתָה תְרוּמָה, אוֹ נוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא טֶבֶל, וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ, וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ, אוֹ שֶׁטָּעַם טַעַם פִּשְׁפֵּשׁ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו, הֲרֵי זֶה יִפְלֹט:
Et dans tous ces cas, s'il y avait Terumah dans leur bouche, le rabbin Eliezer dit qu'ils peuvent l'avaler. Le rabbin Yehoshua dit qu'ils doivent le cracher. Si quelqu'un lui dit: «Vous venez de devenir impur et la Terumah vient de devenir impure», le rabbin Eliezer dit qu'il peut l'avaler. Le rabbin Yehoshua dit qu'il doit le cracher. [Si quelqu'un lui dit,] "vous étiez déjà impur et le Terumah était déjà impur", ou si l'on apprenait qu'il s'agissait d'un produit sans dîme ou de Ma'aser Rishon [première dîme, qui doit être donnée au Lévite] dont aucun Terumah [produit consacré pour la consommation sacerdotale] a été pris, ou Ma'aser Sheni [deuxième dîme, qui doit être mangée à Jérusalem] ou Hekdesh [don consacré] qui n'ont pas été rachetés, ou s'il a goûté le goût d'un insecte dans sa bouche , il doit cracher [la Terumah ].
Jerusalem Talmud Horayot
“Both are equal in the office of the day of Atonement,” etc.]189The beginning of the discussion of Mishnah 5 is noted only in B. 190Sifra Emor Parašah 2(7), on Lev. 21:13. Since the High Priest was mentioned in the preceding verses, the pronoun is unnecessary by the rules of grammar. It is added for emphasis; only the High Priest is restricted to marrying a virgin.He, not the king. He, not the chieftain191Since the king was mentioned separately, נָשִׂיא here cannot be identified as the king; it must be a tribal chieftain.. He, to include the priest Anointed for War192Since the rules of the High Priest were tied in Lev. 21:10 to wearing the High Priest’s garments and the Anointed for War is required to wear these when asking the oracle, he is bound by all rules enumerated in vv. 10–15.. A woman in her virginity he shall marry; this excludes an adult whose hymen has atrophied. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon qualify the adult193Lev. 21:14. The parallels in the Babli, Yebamot 59a, Ketubot 97b, identify the first opinion as R. Meïr’s. It is agreed that if a girl is fully grown, the breaking of her hymen may not be noticed by the man.. 194The interpretation of this paragraph depends on whether one considers the texts of L and B as two different texts or that the correct text is that of B, except for the name tradition identical with Terumot 8:2, Notes 29–31, with the text of L badly corrupted. Since in the characterization of the sacrifice, the text of L is certainly corrupt, the second alternative has much to commend itself. In the text itself, the crucial point is whether to read אחר as אַחֵר “another” or אַחַר “after”. Since the text of L, but not that of B, refers to the High Priest, in the absence of a clear solution both texts are presented and explained.
In the text of L one refers to the statement in the Mishnah that an acting High Priest and a deposed one are equal in all but the service of the Day of Atonement. The question is whether the acting High Priest may take the required fist full of incense and the deposed one then may bring the incense to the inner altar and burn it there; or the acting High Priest receive the blood of his sacrifices and the deposed one sprinkle of the blood on the walls of the altar. The question is not asked anywhere else and the positive answer is difficult to accept. Therefore, it is better to accept the text of B, even though it does not refer to the High Priest, as necessary introduction to the following paragraph which does.
That text reads:
Rebbi Isaac asked, does this apply to the remaining actions? He took the fist full and afterwards burned it; he received and afterwards threw it, he burned and afterwards sprinkled? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: They made it like a robbed purification sacrifice which was not publicly known. This implies that if he took the fistful afterwards he burns it, if he received [the blood] afterwards he throws [it on the walls of the altar], he burned [the red cow] he afterwards sprinkles [water with its ashes to purify others].
As explained in Terumot, the question is asked about a Cohen who is informed that he is disbarred from the priesthood because of his birth from a woman forbidden to priests when he had completed one sacral action which by necessity must be followed by a different one. The answer is that the desecrated son of a Cohen who innocently started officiating may officiate to the end even though in the future he will be barred from officiating. Rebbi Isaac asked, are these things so in all other things? He takes the fist full and the other burns it; he receives and the other throws, he burns and the other sprinkles? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: They made it like a (great) [robbed]195The reference is to Mishnah Gittin 5:5, as explained in Terumot. The text of L is in parentheses, the correct text in brackets is from B. The point of the argument is missing here in both texts, that the purification offering is acceptable (i., e., that the Temple authorities are prohibited from inquiring into the way the offerer acquired his animal.) purification sacrifice which was not publicly known. This implies that he takes the fistful and the other burns it, he receives and the other throws, he burns and the other sprinkles. 196Terumot 8:2, Notes 32–33,40. If the High Priest after his elevation was found to be desecrated by his birth and thereby is removed, is this considered to be his death as far as the Sanctuary is concerned and releases any homicide sentenced during his tenure of office from the city of refuge or is his tenure as High Priest erased from the annals of the Sanctuary (Makkot 2:10–11)? No answer is given here; the first eventuality is chosen in Terumot.Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi: Rebbi Isaac asked. If he was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman having received ḥaliṣah, how do you treat him? [As if]197Text of B. he had died and the homicide might return to his home town or should he be treated as one whose trial had been concluded without a High Priest and he never can leave from there?
In the text of L one refers to the statement in the Mishnah that an acting High Priest and a deposed one are equal in all but the service of the Day of Atonement. The question is whether the acting High Priest may take the required fist full of incense and the deposed one then may bring the incense to the inner altar and burn it there; or the acting High Priest receive the blood of his sacrifices and the deposed one sprinkle of the blood on the walls of the altar. The question is not asked anywhere else and the positive answer is difficult to accept. Therefore, it is better to accept the text of B, even though it does not refer to the High Priest, as necessary introduction to the following paragraph which does.
That text reads:
Rebbi Isaac asked, does this apply to the remaining actions? He took the fist full and afterwards burned it; he received and afterwards threw it, he burned and afterwards sprinkled? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: They made it like a robbed purification sacrifice which was not publicly known. This implies that if he took the fistful afterwards he burns it, if he received [the blood] afterwards he throws [it on the walls of the altar], he burned [the red cow] he afterwards sprinkles [water with its ashes to purify others].
As explained in Terumot, the question is asked about a Cohen who is informed that he is disbarred from the priesthood because of his birth from a woman forbidden to priests when he had completed one sacral action which by necessity must be followed by a different one. The answer is that the desecrated son of a Cohen who innocently started officiating may officiate to the end even though in the future he will be barred from officiating. Rebbi Isaac asked, are these things so in all other things? He takes the fist full and the other burns it; he receives and the other throws, he burns and the other sprinkles? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: They made it like a (great) [robbed]195The reference is to Mishnah Gittin 5:5, as explained in Terumot. The text of L is in parentheses, the correct text in brackets is from B. The point of the argument is missing here in both texts, that the purification offering is acceptable (i., e., that the Temple authorities are prohibited from inquiring into the way the offerer acquired his animal.) purification sacrifice which was not publicly known. This implies that he takes the fistful and the other burns it, he receives and the other throws, he burns and the other sprinkles. 196Terumot 8:2, Notes 32–33,40. If the High Priest after his elevation was found to be desecrated by his birth and thereby is removed, is this considered to be his death as far as the Sanctuary is concerned and releases any homicide sentenced during his tenure of office from the city of refuge or is his tenure as High Priest erased from the annals of the Sanctuary (Makkot 2:10–11)? No answer is given here; the first eventuality is chosen in Terumot.Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi: Rebbi Isaac asked. If he was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman having received ḥaliṣah, how do you treat him? [As if]197Text of B. he had died and the homicide might return to his home town or should he be treated as one whose trial had been concluded without a High Priest and he never can leave from there?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy