Talmud do Edujot 4:5

כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵין לוֹ חֹמֶשׁ וְאֵין לוֹ בִעוּר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, יֶשׁ לוֹ חֹמֶשׁ וְיֶשׁ לוֹ בִעוּר. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, יֶשׁ לוֹ פֶרֶט וְיֶשׁ לוֹ עוֹלְלוֹת, וְהָעֲנִיִּים פּוֹדִים לְעַצְמָן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, כֻּלּוֹ לַגָּת:

Kerem revai (winnica w czwartym roku), [która wymaga odkupienia, jeśli chce spożywać jej owoce poza Jerozolimą (i to samo dotyczy każdego drzewa owocowego)] —Beth Shammai mówi: Nie wymaga chomeszu (dodania jednej piątej jego wartości), [nie jest napisane o tym w Torze, że należy dodać piątą część, tak jak jest napisane w odniesieniu do drugiej dziesięciny]; i nie wymaga usunięcia [z domu w przeddzień święta Pesach czwartego i siódmego roku, kiedy zdejmuje dziesięcinę, a mianowicie. (Księga Powtórzonego Prawa 26:13): „Usunąłem z domu rzecz świętą (ma'aser sheni i neta revai) (zob. Kapłańska 27:30 i 19:24).”] A Beth Hillel mówi: To wymaga chomeszu i wymaga usunięcia. [Beth Hillel wyprowadza to (przez tożsamość) „święty” - „święty” od ma'aser—Tak jak ma'aser wymaga chomesh i usunięcia, tak kerem revai wymaga chomesh i usunięcia; i Beth Shammai nie wywodzi tego stamtąd.] Beth Shammai mówią: To [kerem revai] podlega peret (zbieraniu pojedynczych [upadłych] winogron przez biednych) i poddaje się oleloth (zbieraniu pojedynczych [upadłych] ] bukiety przez ubogich), [ponieważ są uważane za chullin (nie święte) re właściciela]; a ubodzy wykupują dla siebie (pereta i oleloth, które zebrali) i jedzą ich na swoich miejscach i przynoszą ich (wykup) pieniądze do Jerozolimy.] A Bet-Hillel mówi: Wszyscy idą do tłoczni, [ bo wywodzą się (kerem revai) od ma'aser i uważają, że ma'aser sheni jest uważany za świętego właściciela. Dlatego biedni nie mają w tym udziału. Właściciele wyciskają oliwki razem z resztą winogron i przynoszą wszystko do Jerozolimy.]

Jerusalem Talmud Peah

MISHNAH: A vineyard in its fourth year⁹⁹It is forbidden to harvest a newly planted vineyard the first three years. In the fourth year, the grapes can be harvested but they (or the wine produced from them) must be brought to the Temple and be consumed in Jerusalem in a festive manner (Lev.19:23–24). If there is too much to be taken on a journey, it may be redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem. The House of Hillel compare the yield of the fourth year to the Second Tithe that also has to be eaten in Jerusalem, since produce of the Second Tithe that is redeemed is subject to a surcharge of one fifth (from above, 25% from below). There are two kinds of removal the vineyard of the fourth year may be subject to; if it is compared to the Second Tithe it must be removed from the house at the end of the third and sixth years of every Sabbatical period; if the produce was that of a Sabbatical year, one may take it but only as long as wild animals find similar food on the field (in this case, in other unharvested vineyards) and it must be removed by being consumed before that time. The House of Shammai consider the yield of the fourth year as profane food, subject only to what is expressly spelled out in the verse.
The argument of the House of Hillel, that the verse compares the vineyard in its fourth year to the Second Tithe, is given in Babli Qiddušin 54b, Sifra Qedošim Parašah 3 #8., the House of Shammai say, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal; but the House of Hillel say, it is. The House of Shammai say, it is subject to single berries and gleanings¹⁰⁰As any other profane food. and the poor redeem for themselves, but the House of Hillel say, all goes to the winepress¹⁰¹Since the second tithe is not subject to any gifts to the poor, neither is the yield of the fourth year..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers¹⁸⁶They dispute the validity of Mishnaiot 1–4. The schools of Hillel and Shammai existed for about 100 years in the first Century C. E. The Babli (17a) dates the public permission of the co-wives to the brothers to the short time of ascendancy of the House of Shammai shortly before the outbreak of the revolt against the Romans., but the House of Hillel forbid. If they took ḥalîṣah, the House of Shammai disqualify them for the priesthood¹⁸⁷A divorcee is forbidden to a Cohen (Lev. 21:7) and ḥalîṣah is the equivalent of a divorce (Mishnah 2:4). but the House of Hillel declare them qualified¹⁸⁸Since the marriage is impossible, so is the corresponding divorce. Lev. 21:7 prohibits the marriage of a Cohen with “a woman divorced from her husband”, but not a woman divorced from a non-husband.. If they entered levirate, the House of Shammai declare them qualified¹⁸⁹The children are legitimate. For the House of Hillel the children are bastards and excluded from endogamous marriage. but the House of Hillel as disqualified. Even though these forbid and those permit, these declare disqualified and those qualified, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel nor the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai. Regarding all purities and impurities which these were declaring as pure and those as impure¹⁹⁰The differences in the interpretation of laws of purity are noted in the sixth order of the Mishnah., these did not refrain to process pure foods with the help of those¹⁹¹They lent one another pure vessels..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Poprzedni werset Cały rozdział Następny werset