Talmud do Joma 3:5

קְטֹרֶת שֶׁל שַׁחַר הָיְתָה קְרֵבָה בֵּין דָּם לָאֵבָרִים. שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, בֵּין אֵבָרִים לַנְּסָכִים. אִם הָיָה כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל זָקֵן אוֹ אִסְטְנִיס, מְחַמִּין לוֹ חַמִּין וּמְטִילִין לְתוֹךְ הַצּוֹנֵן, כְּדֵי שֶׁתָּפוּג צִנָּתָן:

Kadzidło poranne zostało złożone między krwią a kończynami. [Niezupełnie, ponieważ dowiedzieliśmy się powyżej: „Przyjął krew i pokropił ją. Wszedł, aby zapalić kadzidło, wyregulować lampy i złożyć w ofierze głowę i kończyny”—skąd widać, że kadzidło zostało złożone między krwią a lampami, a nie między krwią a kończynami. Tanna nie przychodzi teraz, aby powiadomić nas o dokładnej kolejności ofiar, ale tylko po to, aby podkreślić, że pokropienie krwią i ofiarowanie kończyn nie następowało jedno po drugim, ponieważ kadzidło interweniowało, jak to zrobiła regulacja lamp po (spaleniu) kadzidła przed złożeniem kończyn.] (Kadzidło) popołudnia (zostało złożone) między kończynami a libacjami. Gdyby arcykapłan był stary lub delikatny, podgrzewaliby mu wodę [w wigilię Jom Kippur] i umieszczali ją w zimnej [zagłębieniu jego mykwy], aby chłód był [nieco] rozproszony. (patrz Bartenura 1: 7)

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin

There⁶⁵Mishnah Baba Batra 8:7., we have stated: “If somebody writes his property over to his sons, he has to write: From today and after death⁶⁶By a positive biblical rule, an inheritance has to be divided evenly among the male heirs (Num. 27:6–11) except that the firstborn male in rabbinic interpretation receives a double portion (Deut. 21:17). If the father wants to distribute his property unevenly, or leave real estate to his daughters, he has to execute a will which has to become valid during his lifetime since nobody can act in law after his death.. Rebbi Yose says, this is unnecessary.” What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? The date of the document is its proof⁶⁷Since everybody knows that a will has to be activated during the testator’s lifetime, the date of the will automatically becomes the date of its validation except if this is disclaimed in the document itself. The same statement is in the Babli, Baba Batra 136a.. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is no condition⁶⁸Perhaps compare Greek ὕστερος “later, subsequent” as in combination τῇ ὑστέρῃ προσβολῇ “later, subsequent, conditions added to a document.” (E. G.) Less likely is a relation between the hapax איסרטה and Arabic شرطة “stipulation, clause” which might be Aramaic שטר, Accadic šeṭrum,šaṭārum “document”.. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts⁶⁹This is a reformulation of the colleague’s statement: R. Yose’s statement about wills is applicable neither to divorces nor to gifts.. Rebbi Ila⁷⁰He disagrees with R. Ze‘ira. said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is irrevocable. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself⁷¹During his lifetime.. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation⁷²If it is a divorce, the wife will be able to marry another man.. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body⁷³The use of prothetic א for אל, על is Babylonian. He wants to prevent his wife from remarrying during his lifetime. Therefore, the mention of “after death” contradicts the statement “from today” and there is no divorce. Rashba (Novellae ad 72b) reads: “the bill of divorce is unclear” (He also reads לְשַׁייֵר לוֹ גוּפָהּ, a better Yerushalmi style). to himself. Rebbi Bibon⁷⁴Rashba reads: R. Bun. [Compare the Latin adjective vivus “alive” as equivalent of חַיִים; cf. also the Roman name Bibulus. (E.G.)] bar Cahana said before Rebbi Ilai, not to reserve her earnings for himself⁷⁵Then the divorce would be absolute and the wife entitled to remarry during her first husband’s lifetime.? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira praised him for this and called him “son of the Torah.”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Poprzedni werset Cały rozdział Następny werset