משנה
משנה

תלמוד על שבועות 1:13

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat

MISHNAH: There are two [kinds] of transport on the Sabbath which are four [kinds] inside, and two [kinds] which are four [kinds] outside1On the Sabbath it is forbidden to move any load from a private to the public domain (or for a distance of at least 4 cubits in the public domain.) Inside a private domain there are no restrictions unless the article may not be moved at all. While any transport between domains is forbidden, it is a prosecutable offense only if there is a completed action, i. e., one person lifted the item up, transported it, and put it down. This applies both to transport from the private domain to the public one (“inside”) and vice versa (“outside”). In each case, the transport may be effectuated either by the person inside or the person outside (in which case the person is prosecutable but the person standing in the other domain is not involved) or it may be taken up by one person, taken over while moving by another person who then puts it down. In this case both participants have sinned but are not prosecutable. The possible cases are enumerated in Mishnaiot 1–4. “Liable” and “not liable” refer both to the possibility of prosecution for intentional Sabbath desecration and the obligation of a purification sacrifice in the case of unintentional infraction.. How is this? The poor man stands outside and the householder inside. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and delivered into the householder’s hand or took something from it and brought it outside, the poor man is liable but the householder is not liable.
If the householder stretched out his hand outside and delivered into the poor man’s hand or took something from it and brought it inside, the householder is liable but the poor man is not liable.
If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and the householder took from it or gave into it and he then took it out, neither is liable.
If the householder stretched out his hand outside and the poor man took from it or gave into it and he then took it in, neither is liable.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot

22Here one returns to a discussion of the theme of the Tractate, viz., the obligation of the High Court, as representatives of the people, to offer a purification sacrifice for a wrong ruling as described in Lev. 4:13–21.
It is sinful to bring an animal into the Temple precinct which is not dedicated as a sacrifice. For voluntary offerings this presents no problem; one simply has to dedicate them when bringing. But for obligatory offerings it implies that a sacrifice may be presented only if all conditions which make it obligatory are actually fulfilled.
They only are liable23To bring the sacrifice. for something24An official ruling by the Court. that was clear to them and then covered from them25They forgot either a precedent or their own ruling.. What is the reason? something was hidden26Lev. 4:13. An erring High Priest (Lev. 4:1–12) or ruler (22–26) have to offer a sacrifice if they err inadvertently; the condition that a ruling must have been forgotten is introduced only for the Court., something that was clear to them and then hidden from them. 27There is no problem with the explanation just given. One tries to connect the statement with a discussion about similar rules regarding sacrifices due for violations of either Temple purity or oaths (Lev. 5:1–13), where the same condition in mentioned in Lev. 5:2,3,4. R. Ismael and R. Aqiba differ in Ševuot 1:2 about the interpretation of the verses, but not about the actual rules. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael who said, it became hidden from him, therefore he had known, and he knew28Lev. 5:4: …an oath which a man would utter without thinking, it became hidden from him, and he knew and realized his guilt, these are two knowledges29One when he uttered the oath and one when he remembered it, separated by a period of oblivion.. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba who said, it became hidden, it became hidden, two times30R. Aqiba and R. Ismael actually are not differing in their interpretations; only R. Aqiba argues about violations of Temple purity (Lev. 5:2–3) where in both verses oblivion is mentioned but not remembering. However, in Babylonian sources [Ševuot 14b, Keritut 19a, Sifra Wayyiqra 2, Pereq 12(7)], R. Ismael is reported to read one about oblivion the impurity and the second oblivion about being in the Temple., therefore he had knowledge at the beginning and knowledge at the end and oblivion in between, 31Returning to our topic, Note 22. something that was clear to them and then hidden from them.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Yoma

A positive commandment, even if he did not repent. A prohibition? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, only if he repented176While the Mishnah in Rav Jehudah’s interpretation treats positive commandments and simple prohibitions in parallel, there is a difference between the two kinds of sins. The non-performance of a positive commandment is atoned for even without repentance while the atoning for breaching simple prohibitions requires repentance.. If one said, “the elevation offering does not atone,177The biblical text does not indicate for which kind of sin an elevation offering does atone but Lev. 1:4 indicates that it atones. The next paragraph will investigate for which sins it is atoning.” does the elevation offering not atone? It atones even against his will. But if he said, “it is impossible that the elevation offering atone for me,” it does not atone against his will178In the prior formulation, it was simply a false statement. But if somebody said, I am opting out, the atoning power of sacrifices shall not be valid for me, what he offers would be profane. If there is no offering, there cannot be atonement.. If one said, “the Day of Atonement does not atone,” It atones. “I cannot accept179The scribe wrote איפשי, “it is impossible for me”, which Galilean form the corrector did not recognize (and which the scribe himself in the preceding sentence exchanged for the Babylonian form), and added אי, for Babylonian אִי אֶפְשִׁי, meaning the same. that it atone for me,” it atones against his will180Since he brings the offering on his own initiative, if it is not brought for atoning it does not atone. But the Day of Atonement is given by God; it is not up to man to say what it can or cannot do. Babli, Keritut 7a.. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Hillel said, it is not up to a person to tell the King, “you are no king.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
פסוק קודםפרק מלאפסוק הבא