Talmud do Edujot 5:6

עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל הֵעִיד אַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, עֲקַבְיָא, חֲזֹר בְּךָ בְאַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים שֶׁהָיִיתָ אוֹמֵר וְנַעַשְׂךָ אַב בֵּית דִּין לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר לָהֶן, מוּטָב לִי לְהִקָּרֵא שׁוֹטֶה כָּל יָמַי, וְלֹא לֵעָשׂוֹת שָׁעָה אַחַת רָשָׁע לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ אוֹמְרִים, בִּשְׁבִיל שְׂרָרָה חָזַר בּוֹ. הוּא הָיָה מְטַמֵּא שְׂעַר הַפְּקֻדָּה וְדַם הַיָּרוֹק. וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין. הוּא הָיָה מַתִּיר שְׂעַר בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁנָּשַׁר וְהִנִּיחוֹ בְחַלּוֹן וְאַחַר כָּךְ שְׁחָטוֹ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִים. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אֵין מַשְׁקִין לֹא אֶת הַגִּיֹּרֶת וְלֹא אֶת שִׁפְחָה הַמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מַשְׁקִין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מַעֲשֶׂה בְּכַרְכְּמִית, שִׁפְחָה מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת שֶׁהָיְתָה בִירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְהִשְׁקוּהָ שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן. אָמַר לָהֶם, דֻּגְמָא הִשְׁקוּהָ. וְנִדּוּהוּ, וּמֵת בְּנִדּוּיוֹ, וְסָקְלוּ בֵית דִּין אֶת אֲרוֹנוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם שֶׁעֲקַבְיָא נִתְנַדָּה, שֶׁאֵין עֲזָרָה נִנְעֶלֶת בִּפְנֵי כָל אָדָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל בְּחָכְמָה וּבְיִרְאַת חֵטְא כַּעֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל. וְאֶת מִי נִדּוּ, אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן חֲנוֹךְ, שֶׁפִּקְפֵּק בְּטָהֳרַת יָדָיִם. וּכְשֶׁמֵּת, שָׁלְחוּ בֵית דִּין וְהִנִּיחוּ אֶבֶן עַל אֲרוֹנוֹ. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכָּל הַמִּתְנַדֶּה וּמֵת בְּנִדּוּיוֹ, סוֹקְלִין אֶת אֲרוֹנוֹ:

Akavya ben Mahalalel zeznawał w czterech przypadkach. Powiedzieli mu: Akavya, wycofaj cztery rzeczy, które powiedziałeś, a uczynimy cię naczelnym sędzią Izraela, po czym powiedział: „Lepiej być nazywanym głupkiem przez całe życie i nie być niegodziwym na chwilę przed L rd ", aby nie powiedzieli:" Wycofał się z powodu 'pozycji'. "On uznałby za nieczystego" zdeponowany włos "[bahereth (rodzaj plagi plagi), który" zdeponował "(jak to było) włosy na skórze ciała i po odejściu. Jak w przypadku przynęty z białymi włosami. Jeśli bahereth odszedł i zostawił (tj. "Zdeponował") białe włosy na swoim miejscu, a następnie (bahereth) powrócił—Akavya ben Mehalalel uważa, że jest nieczysty. Odkąd włosy stały się białe w wanience, chociaż ta, która jest teraz, nie jest tą, która uczyniła ją białą, nadal jest on nieczysty.] I (uznał za nieczystą) „zieloną” krew (niddah). ) A mędrcy rządzą nimi czystymi, [jest napisane (Księga Kapłańska 13:10): „… i to (bahereth) uczyniło włosy białymi”—tylko wtedy, gdy zmienił kolor na biały, a nie jego sąsiada. I (Akavya ben Mahalalel) uznał za nieczystą „zieloną” krew niddah, utrzymując ją jako kolor jaskrawego krokusa, jednego z „nieczystych” kolorów, który wyblakł (z czerwieni)]. I pozwoliłby czerpać korzyści dla Coheina z wełny pierworodnego skazanego zwierzęcia, które upadło (na ziemię) i które umieścił na oknie, po czym je zarżnął. A mędrcy tego zabronili. [Bo jeśli pozwolisz mu, by jego wełna spadła (na ziemię) za życia, oni przyjdą opóźnić (ubój) pierworodnego, tak że jego wełna zawsze spadnie, i (także) przyjdą, aby się ściąć i pracować z tym; i zabronione jest ścinanie i praca z nieodpowiednimi konsekrowanymi zwierzętami, jest napisane (Księga Powtórzonego Prawa 12:11): „… będziecie zabijać i jeść mięso”—będziesz zabijał, a nie ścinał. Akavya na to pozwala. Ponieważ bowiem szechita korzysta z (radowania się) wełny, która jest do niej przymocowana, to potem przydaje się również wełna, która została oderwana i umieszczona w oknie.] On powiedziałby: [Szkic soty] nie jest podawany do prozelitki lub wyemancypowanej niewolnicy, [jest napisane (w przysiędze złożonej socie [Lb 5:21]): „Niech Lrd złoży na was przekleństwo i przysięgę pośród waszego ludu”, z wyłączeniem tych, którzy nie są „pośród waszego ludu”]. I mędrcy mówią: Napoją ich. Powiedzieli mu: Był kiedyś taki incydent w Jerozolimie z udziałem uwolnionej służącej Carcamith, a pobór podawali jej Shemaya i Avtalyon !, po czym on (Akavya) powiedział do nich: „Zmusili ją do wypicia lubić!" [tj. zrobili to, ponieważ byli (prozelici) tacy jak ona, a nie dlatego, że takie było prawo. Inna interpretacja: sprawiali wrażenie, że podają jej gorzką wodę do picia, ale tak naprawdę tego nie robili]. I ekskomunikowali go (Akavya), [za osłabienie honoru Szemaji i Awtaljona]. I umarł w stanie ekskomuniki i bet-din ukamienował swoją trumnę. R. Yehudah powiedział: B daj zakazać, aby Akavya był ekskomunikowany. Albowiem (drzwi) azary (dziedzińca świątyni) nie zamknęły się na nikogo w Izraelu [w przeddzień Pesach, kiedy weszli, aby zabić swoje ofiary z Pesach, (tj .: „Kiedy wszedł pierwszy kontyngent, zamknęli drzwi) azary itd. ”)] większy w mądrości i strachu przed grzechem niż Akavya ben Mahalalel. Kogo więc ekskomunikowali? To Elazar ben Chanoch zlekceważył [rabiniczne zarządzenia] mycia rąk. A kiedy umarł, Beth-din wysłał i położył duży kamień na jego trumnie, [świadcząc o ich oddzieleniu się od niego], skąd dowiadujemy się, że jeśli ktoś zostanie ekskomunikowany i umrze w takim stanie, jego trumna zostanie „ukamienowana”.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah

From where that weaves precede presentations¹⁶Mishnah Menaḥot 5:6 states that weave always precedes presentation. One has to wonder about Rashi’s Yerushalmi text since in his commentary to that Mishnah he follows R. Jeremiah.? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: They learned that from the case of the suspected wife¹⁷Since Num. 5:25 clearly prescribes first weave and then presentation.. Rebbi Yose said, the suspected wife is different because of its novelty and one cannot infer from anything that is different because of its novelty¹⁸While not in the tannaïtic rules, this is a generally recognized hermeneutical principle in both Talmudim; cf. Babli Ketubot 45a, Sanhedrin 27a. The novelty status of the suspected wife’s offering is explained in Mishnah 2:1; therefore, procedural instructions for this offering cannot imply similar instructions for the other flour offerings.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya understood it from the following¹⁹Lev. 6:7. This paragraph deals with technicalities of all flour offerings, whether they need weaving or not. Any special ceremony for certain offerings must precede the ceremonies common to all offerings.: “This is the teaching about the flour offering, present.” Where is the weave? It already preceded. Rebbi Yose said, explain it about flour offerings that do not need weaves; you cannot infer anything. Which [verse] says anything? “You shall bring,²⁰Lev. 2:8: “You shall bring the offering made from these to the Eternal; the Cohen shall bring it and present it to the altar.” “These” are flour and olive oil.
The baraita is also quoted in the Babli, Menaḥot 60b.” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that²¹Lev. 2:9.: “He shall lift a fist full”; where is the weave²²Which is prescribed for the offering of the suspected wife in Num.5:25..? It already preceded.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Moed Katan

There, we have stated⁴⁶Mishnah Idiut 5:6.: “Whom did they excommunicate? Eleazar ben Hannad who questioned the purity of hands⁴⁷The secondary impurity of hands which is purely rabbinical and whose rules cannot be harmonized with biblical rules of impurity. It seems that he denied the impurity of hands of people whose body was not impure..” This implies that one who questions even one of the words of the Sopherim⁴⁸Non-biblical but pre-rabbinic. needs excommunication. There, we have stated: “They⁴⁹Aqabia ben Mehallalel denied that a freedwoman could be subject to the soṭah ritual and held that Shemaya and Abtalyon, the heads of a Synhedrion in early Roman times, staged an imitation ritual for a freedwoman suspected of infidelity. One may assume that this is influenced by the Roman prejudice against libertinae. Babli Berakhot 19a. let her drink dikma.” What is dikma? An imitation⁵⁰Parsing the word as Aramaic דִ-כְמָה “which is like it.”. “They excommunicated him, he died in his excommunication, and the Court stoned his coffin. To teach you that one stones the coffin of anybody dying in his excommunication.” This implies that anybody insulting an Elder, even after his death, needs to be excommunicated⁵¹Since he insulted the memory of Shamaya and Abtalyon.. In the days of Rebbi Ze`ira they were excommunicating and readmitting⁵²In the days of rising Christianity they tried to follow the received rules of excommunication but blunt its effects by immediately cancelling the act.. (He said to them, no.) [Rebbi La said to them:] Now one excommunicates and now one readmits? They took up the matter and voted, when he changes his opinion one readmits them⁵³They decided that it was better not to re-admit christianizing Jews..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Yoma

The priest shall atone who was anointed¹⁴⁴Lev. 16:32. The problem is the legitimacy of a priest appointed ad hoc as High Priest to conduct the service of the Day of Atonement for which common priests are disqualified. Sifra Aḥara Mot Pereq 8((4–5).. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed; with the anointing oil. From where the one clothed in multiple garb¹⁴⁵The High Priest in Second Temple times who was not anointed since the anointing oil prepared by Moses was lost.? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed¹⁴⁶In an emergency of the Day of Atonement where no formal session of a court can be held. Even when anointing oil was available, simple investiture was enough.? The verse says, the priest shall atone¹⁴⁷Since it does not stress “the High Priest”, it follows that any priest can be appointed to fill the office.. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth¹⁴⁸It does not need the laying on of hands nor a document of appointment. (Tosaphot 12b s, v. כהן).. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court for Israel.¹⁴⁹Mishnah Idiut 5:6. The oral promise was irrevocable.
Here end the parallels in Horaiot and Megillah.”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot

The priest shall atone who was anointed¹⁸³Lev. 16:32. The problem is the legitimacy of a priest appointed ad hoc as High Priest to conduct the service of the Day of Atonement for which common priests are disqualified.. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where [to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed;]¹⁸⁴From B and the parallels in Yoma (ו) and Megillah (מ) (Note 170). The first 30 verses of the Chapter mention Aaron exclusively. not only the anointed with the anointing oil; from where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed¹⁸⁵In an emergency of the Day of Atonement where no formal session of a court can be held. Even when anointing oils was available, simple investiture ws enough.? The verse says, the priest shall atone¹⁸⁶Since it does not stress “the High Priest”, it follows that any priest can be appointed to fill the office.. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth¹⁸⁷It does not need the laying on of hands nor a document of appointment. (Tosaphot Yoma 12b s,v. כהן).. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court for Israel.¹⁸⁸Mishnah Idiut 5:6. The oral promise was irrevocable.
Here end the parallels in Yoma and Megillah.”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah

“Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will make them stumble in the future.” Would you not hinder the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated²⁷⁹Cf. Mo`ed qatan 3:1, Ta`aniot3:12.. Rebbi Jehudah the baker²⁸⁰This attribution seems to be correct and the quote in the Babli 22a has to be corrected accordingly. said, Heaven forbid that Rebbi Aqiba was excommunicated; but it was the head of Gader²⁸¹This name was introduced into the text by the corrector from the Babli. In the ms. ג()ר was written by the scribe; the middle letter was erased by the corrector and replaced by ד. Therefore the name certainly is incorrect, also because talmudic Gadara is on the East side of Lake Genezareth, far from the road to Jabneh. Therefore most likely the name is Gezer, a district capital on the road from Lydda to Jabneh. In the Babli one has to read גֶדֶֿר, with dh indistinguishable in sound from z. (Places Haggedera, Gederotaim, Gederot mentioned Jos. 15:37.41.); Rabban Gamliel sent and removed him from his headship.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah

“The teaching about jealousies¹⁸⁸Num. 5:29. The text seems to be a composition of two different texts. In Sifry zuṭa [also similarly in Num. rabba 5(51)] one reads: “‘This is the teaching about jealousies’; the jealous husband may express his jealousy in Shiloh and in the Eternal House (cf. Note 120). I could think, also at a local altar? The verse says: This.” The argument is obsolete since it is generally accepted doctrine that after the building of the Temple no local altar was permitted. The question arose since v. 15 requires the husband to bring his wife to the Cohen, perhaps not necessarily to the Tabernacle. But since the dust has to be taken from the floor of the Sanctuary, an altar without Sanctuary is excluded. The special emphasis of this indicates that no substitute for the Tabernacle is acceptable.”. This is a teaching of the Temple. ¹⁸⁹In the Babli, 18b, the text of this baraita reads: “‘This is the teaching about jealousies’, which teaches that a woman drinks and repeats {from the several jealousies}. Rebbi Jehudah says this {a singular}, a woman does not drink and repeat. Rebbi Jehudah said, Neḥemiah the ditch-digger testified before Rebbi Aqiba that a woman drinks and repeats and we accepted his testimony from two husbands but not from one husband. But the Sages say that a woman does not drink and repeat whether from one husband or from two husbands.” The Babli has a complicated explanation to harmonize the anonymous first source (which has to represent the opinion of the majority, the Sages) with the contradictory statement at the end. The text of Num. rabba 5(51), is clearly an explanation of the position of the Babli. A woman does not drink and repeat. Rebbi Jehudah said, Neḥemiah the ditch-digger testified before Rebbi Aqiba that a woman drinks and repeats. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain. From one husband a woman does not drink and repeat, from two husbands a woman drinks and repeats. But the Sages say she drinks and repeats¹⁹⁰In the Rome ms: “A woman does not drink and repeat.” This text, which eliminates the disagreement with the Babli, is in contradiction to the following. whether from one husband or from two husbands. Korkemit shall prove it, who drank and repeated and did it a third time from one husband before Shemaia and Abtalyon¹⁹¹In Mishnah Idiut 5:6 she is called Karkemit the libertine (the freedwoman). It is unclear whether at the end there is a difference between the two Talmudim since it is not stated whether Korkemit was repeatedly accused of relations with the same man..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah

There, we have stated¹⁹²Mishnah Idiut 5:6: “He (Aqabia ben Mehallalel) said: One does not make the proselyte or the freedwoman drink, but the Sages say, one makes her drink.”: “One does not make the proselyte drink, etc. But the Sages say, one makes her drink.” Where do we hold? If about an Israel who married a proselyte, it already is written¹⁹³Num. 5:12. The text is addressed to all Jewish men.: “The sons of Israel” (not proselytes)¹⁹⁴This text is an intrusion from the later statement but is also found in Num. rabba 9(34). The text quoted by R. Abraham ben David of Posquières (Ravad) in his commentary to Idiut has the order inverted and then the clause makes sense: אִם בְּגֵר שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. כְּבָר כְּתִיב. בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. לֹא גֵרִים. אִם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּשָׂא גִיּוֹרֶת. כְּבָר כְּתִיב וְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן. “If about a proselyte who married a Jewish girl, it already is written: ‘The sons of Israel’, not proselytes. If about an Israel who married a proselyte, it already is written: ‘The man has to bring his wife to the Cohen.’ ” Ravad declares his text to be difficult; the Babli, 26a, explicitly rejects the inference from “the sons of Israel”.. If about a proselyte who married a Jewish girl, it already is written¹⁹⁵Num. 5:15. Any Jewish man is included, even if he is not the son of an Israel.: “The man has to bring his wife to the Cohen.” But we must hold about a proselyte who married a proselyte. What is the reason of Rebbi Aqiba¹⁹⁶This is clearly in error; it must be Aqabia, not Aqiba; correctly in the text quoted by Ravad and in Num. rabba. Aqabia had no rabbinic title.? “The children of Israel”, not proselytes. What is the reason of the Sages? “You shall say to them¹⁹⁷Num. 5:12; the text is addressed to everybody who has to hear the commandments, including the proselytes; argument approved in the Babli, 26a.”, to add everything written in that paragraph. What is written in that paragraph? “A man slept with her”. His¹⁹⁸In Ravad’s text: Another man’s lying … lying with her makes her forbidden, then her husband declares his jealousy and makes her drink.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah

The priest shall atone who was anointed⁴⁵⁸Lev. 16:32. The problem is the legitimacy of a priest appointed ad hoc as High Priest to conduct the service of the Day of Atonement for which common priests are disqualified.. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where to include another priest⁴⁵⁹The first 30 verses of the Chapter mention Aaron exclusively.? The verse says, who was anointed; not only the anointed with the anointing oil; from where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed⁴⁶⁰In an emergency of the Day of Atonement where no formal session of a court can be held. Even when anointing oil was available, simple investiture was enough.? The verse says, the priest shall atone⁴⁶¹Since it does not stress “the High Priest”, it follows that any priest can be appointed to fill the office.. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth⁴⁶²It does not need the laying on of hands nor a document of appointment. (Tosaphot Yoma 12b s, v. כהן).. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court.⁴⁶³Mishnah Idiut 5:6. The oral promise was irrevocable.”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Poprzedni werset Cały rozdział Następny werset