Talmud su Yoma 5:9

HALAKHAH: ⁹⁴Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 5. What is gained by redeeming incense with Temple money, which is not profane? Would not Temple property be redeemed by Temple property? What does he do? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana said, he brings coins and redeems them for the building⁹⁵Both the scribe’s text and that of B are difficult to understand. While it is accepted that the Temple is built as profane building and only sanctified when completed (Babli Me`ilah14a), once it is sacred it cannot be redeemed. If the money is legitimately paid for a sacrificial animal, it belongs to the owner of the animal and is no longer available for Temple use. Tosephta Me`ilah1:23 reads: “A worker who did work for the Temple for a mina or two may not say, give me this cow for a mina or this garment for 50 {denar} since Temple property cannot be redeemed for work but only for coins. What does one do? One takes the wages of the artisans {from the sheqalim} and redeems them on the artisans’ money, gives them to the artisans as their wages; then buys them back from the disbursement of the lodge to pay back the workers for the coins they earlier gave to the Temple.” A similar text seems to be intended here.; brings incense and redeems it for them, and gives it⁹⁶The incense. to the artisans as their wages. What should be done with those coins? Rebbi says, I am saying that they should be given to the family Garmu and the family Eutinos who were experts in compounding the incense and in making the shew-bread⁹⁷Cf. Mishnah Yoma3:11.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav <isaac<⁹⁸Name added from B. said, only if they were due to them beforehand⁹⁹Since Temple money can only become profane for actual debts incurred by the Temple. Advance payments are not possible.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked, what if they were not due beforehand? There came Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One uses them to adorn the altar⁷⁵It is given to the gift account to buy elevation sacrifices in times when the altar otherwise would have been idle.. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba seems inverted. Here it is questionable for him; there it is obvious for him¹⁰⁰How can he ask when he himself teaches the answer which his teacher had given? He does not question that a possible use is to give the money to the gift account; he questions whether this is the only possible use.
The inverse order in B must be a scribal error.. He told him, where it is questionable for him, for Service vessels; where it is obvious for him, to adorn the altar.

There, we have stated: “They removed the cup and the censer for him”⁷⁰Mishnah Yoma.5:1. The reference really is to the end of that Mishnah: “The High Priest takes the censer in his right hand and the cup in the left hand.” In general there is a rule that all priestly service in the Temple has to be performed with the right hand only. The left hand has to be used here to make it possible for the High Priest to enter the Holiest of Holies only once. On that it is noted (Yoma5:2, 42b l. 52) that if he went twice, using only his right hand, the service is valid. Nevertheless, it is sinful to enter the Temple building more often than necessary. About this the paragraph here is then copied in Yoma.. About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last? The colleagues say, about the last. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, enter, and you say about the last? But we must hold about the first⁷¹Since the first entry is necessary in any case, the High Priest cannot be faulted for the first entry even if he only carries the censer..

If he is still there⁶³Here starts the discussion of the Mishnah. What is the situation of the person who vowed in the cemetery to be a nazir., Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about everything for every possible leaving,⁶⁴R. Joḥanan holds that the vow becomes effective the moment it is uttered. Then the nazir is informed that he has to leave the cemetery immediately (and refrain from wine and shaving). If he does not obey, he can be repeatedly warned and the disregard of every warning is a new, punishable offence. and he is whipped. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not accept [warning] unless he leaves⁶⁵He holds that the vow becomes effective only when the nazir leaves the cemetery. Then also the warning becomes relevant for him and he can be punished if he returns to the cemetery. and returns. Rebbi Abba said: So did Rebbi Joḥanan answer Rebbi Eleazar: Is it not written, “he shall not come” and “he may not defile himself”⁶⁶If Num. 6:6, there is a general prohibition, “to any dead person he shall not come.” In v. 7, there is a particular prohibition; for close relatives “he may not be defiled.” R. Joḥanan interprets this to mean: even in a case where he does not defile himself, because he was defiled before he made the vow, he violates the separate prohibition of v. 6.? He said to him, if they warned him because of “he shall not come”, he is whipped; because of “he shall not defile himself” he is not whipped⁶⁷He reads the verses as they are written. The nazir can be warned, and is whipped, for an active coming to corpses. But nobody can be whipped for a prohibition formulated in the passive voice.. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating, as we have stated there⁶⁸Mishnah Šebuot 2:3. A person who comes to the Temple precinct and belatedly remembers that he is impure, has to leave immediately. If he tarries long enough for an act of prostration, he is punished.: “If he prostrated himself or stayed there long enough to prostrate himself.” Rebbi Mattaniah said, we thought that was where they do disagree? About lashes, but not about a sacrifice. Since Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating⁶⁹Where the main thrust of the entire Chapter in the Mishnah is the obligation to bring a sacrifice to purify himself from the inadvertent sin., that means that lashes and sacrifices are one and the same. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A nazir who drank wine the entire day is guilty only once.⁷⁰Mishnah 6:4. This presupposes that he was warned only once.” He explains it, that his throat was never empty⁷¹If the nazir actually never stopped drinking the entire day, he could not have been warned more than once. The Mishnah is irrelevant for the statement that separate warnings imply separate punishments.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he was defiling himself for the dead the entire day, he is guilty only once⁷⁰Mishnah 6:4. This presupposes that he was warned only once..” He explains it about one who waits before every leaving, who is whipped⁷²He explains the Mishnah, if there was only one warning. But if he was warned repeatedly, each action represents a new offense. (Whether tarrying plays a role in this case remains an open question in the Babli, Šebuot 17a.). A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Cohen was standing in a cemetery⁷³Legitimately, when burying a close relative. and they were handing another corpse to him, could he accept? The verse says, “the husband shall be defiled for his family⁷⁴Lev. 21:4. The verse really reads: “The husband shall not be defiled for his family, to be profaned,” meaning that the Cohen cannot defile himself for a wife he was forbidden to marry. This implies that he can be defiled only for the benefit of his legal family..” If he accepted it, I could think that he was guilty. The verse says, “to be profaned”. One who adds impurity to the impurity; that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity⁷⁵If he already is impure, touching another corpse does not change his status. (In the Babli, the Babylonian authorities disagree, 42b.). Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Neḥemiah said, “to be profaned”, that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity, lest he say, because I became defiled for my father I may go and collect the bones of X. “To be profaned”, at the time of death; Rebbi said, also “in their death.⁷⁶Num. 6:7 prohibits the nazir from being defiled for his close relatives “in their death”, meaning that he does not have to leave the house when they lie dying, but only after they are dead. The same baraita is quoted in the Babli, 43a.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree⁷⁷The authorities disagreeing with Rebbi require the nazir to leave the house when they lie dying.. It follows that Rebbi Simeon bar Abba follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. When Simeon bar Abba was dying, he said, this should be taken out here, that should be taken out there⁷⁸To avoid that vessels become impure at his death..

It was stated¹⁹⁸Tosephta 7:19.: Rebbi Eleazar¹⁹⁹In the Babli in all cases: R. Eliezer. This reading also in the Tosephta, except the Erfurt ms. The reading of the Yerushalmi is superior since R. Eliezer would have to precede R. Jehudah, his student’s son. said, also the people from the Sharon did not return since they have to rebuild two times in a Sabbatical period. Also the High Priest was praying for them²⁰⁰In the Holiest of Holies. This prayer is mentioned in all liturgical compositions for the musaf prayer of the Day of Atonement. on the Day of Atonement that their houses should not become their graves.