Talmud do Sota 5:1

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ, כָּךְ הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה) וּבָאוּ, וּבָאוּ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל, כָּךְ אֲסוּרָה לַבּוֹעֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) נִטְמְאָה, וְנִטְמָאָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, כָּךְ הָיָה דוֹרֵשׁ זְכַרְיָה בֶן הַקַּצָּב. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵי פְעָמִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה אִם נִטְמְאָה נִטְמָאָה, אֶחָד לַבַּעַל וְאֶחָד לַבּוֹעֵל:

Jak woda dotknie jej [kobiety], tak samo woda dotknie go [mężczyzny], jak jest powiedziane (Lb 5:22, 5:27) „i wejdzie”, „i wejdzie” ( Liczb 5:22, 5:27) .Tak jak ona jest zakazana mężowi, tak też jest zabroniona dla rogacza, jak mówi: „jest zbezczeszczona”, „jest zbezczeszczona” (Liczb 5:27, 5:29 ) To są słowa rabina Akiwy. Rabin Yehoshua mówi, że tak wyjaśnił rabin Zachariasz ben HaKatzav. Rebbi mówi, że dwa razy jest to powiedziane w sekcji: „jeśli jest skalana”, „jest zbezczeszczona”, jeden za męża, a drugi za rogacza.

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, “of a subject,” not the entire subject. Rebbi Hila said, “of the commandments”, not entire commandments¹⁰³In Lev. 4:13, R. Hizqiah reads דָּבָר וְנֶעֱלַם as וְנֶעֱלַם מִדָּבָר, presupposing a script which does not differentiate between regular and final mem. R. Hila’s comment is really unnecessary since מִכָּל־מִצְוֹת already means “of any commandments” but not entire commandments. In all situations, prefix mem is read as partitive, some but not all; cf. Nazir 5:4 Note 105.. ¹⁰⁴The following text also is found in Sotah 5:1, explained in Notes 8–10, Nazir5:1 Note 56. Is that written? As Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from the beginning of the paragraph to its end. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. You have to pour oil on it, it is a flour offering, to include all flour offerings for pouring¹⁰⁵Sifra Wayyiqra 1 Pereq 12 on Lev.2:6. The ms. text follows the argument of Sifra while B reproduces the text of Sotah and Nazir. The argument of Sifra has no connection with the theories of RR. Johanan and Jeremiah; it is a straightforward reading of the verse. Since it is stated that one has to pour oil on the bread crumbs because it is a flour-offering, it follows that a flour-offering requires pouring oil over it unless it be explicitly excluded as in the purification offering of v. 5:11..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Cały rozdział Następny werset