Talmud sobre Keritot 1:1

שְׁלשִׁים וָשֵׁשׁ כְּרֵתוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. הַבָּא עַל הָאֵם, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת הָאָב, וְעַל הַכַּלָּה, הַבָּא עַל הַזְּכוּר, וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה הַמְבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה עָלֶיהָ, הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו, וְעַל הַנִּדָּה, הַמְגַדֵּף, וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהַנּוֹתֵן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ, וּבַעַל אוֹב, הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְטָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְהַבָּא לַמִּקְדָּשׁ טָמֵא, הָאוֹכֵל חֵלֶב, וְדָם, נוֹתָר, וּפִגּוּל, הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהַמַּעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ, הָאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח, וְהָאוֹכֵל וְהָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, הַמְפַטֵּם אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן, וְהַמְפַטֵּם אֶת הַקְּטֹרֶת, וְהַסָּךְ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה. הַפֶּסַח וְהַמִּילָה בְּמִצְוֹת עֲשֵׂה:

[Existem] trinta e seis atos pelos quais a Torá [prescreve] Karet [excisão nas mãos do Céu. É uma punição para]: Quem tem relações com a mãe, ou com a esposa do pai, ou com a nora, ou com um homem, ou com um animal, ou uma mulher que tem um animal, tem relações com ela, ou alguém que tenha relações com uma mulher e sua filha, ou com uma mulher casada, ou com sua irmã, ou com sua tia paterna, ou com sua tia materna, ou com sua tia materna, ou com a irmã de sua esposa, ou com a esposa de seu irmão, ou com a esposa do irmão de seu pai, ou com um Niddah [uma mulher que menstruou e, portanto, é impura]. [Outros indivíduos sujeitos a Karet são]: alguém que blasfema [amaldiçoa a Deus], ou que adora ídolos, ou que sacrifica seus filhos a Molekh [um tipo de idolatria em que alguém passa seu filho pelo fogo ou entre chamas], ou necromante, ou alguém que viole o Shabat, ou pessoa impura que coma comida consagrada, alguém que entre no templo quando estiver impuro, ou que coma gordura proibida, ou que coma sangue, ou que coma Notar [um sacrifício que se torna impróprio devido a não consumido após o tempo permitido] ou que come Piggul [um sacrifício que se torna impróprio devido à intenção do padre oficiante ao oferecê-lo, consumi-lo após o tempo permitido] ou alguém que sacrifica um sacrifício fora dos [recintos do templo] , ou quem oferece um sacrifício fora dos [recintos do templo], ou que come pão fermentado em Pessach, ou que come Yom Kipur, ou que faz Melakhah [uma atividade construtiva proibida no Shabat e festivais] em Yom Kipur, ou alguém que prepara o óleo [da maneira do óleo da unção do templo], ou quem prepara Ketoret [incenso sagrado oferecido duas vezes por dia no altar de ouro dentro do templo], ou quem unge [a si mesmo] com o óleo da unção. Mandamentos positivos [cuja negligência justifica Karet são]: a oferta da Páscoa e a circuncisão.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim

Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written¹³1Chr. 2:55. The families of counters, dwellers of Yabeṣ. Why does the verse say, counters? Because they formulated the teaching numbers, numbers¹⁴In B: ciphers, ciphers.. “Five shall not lift heave.¹⁵Mishnah Terumot1:1.” “Fifteen women free their co-wives.¹⁶Mishnah Yebamot1:1.” “Thirty-six extirpations in the Torah.¹⁷Mishnah Keritut1:1.” “Thirteen matters about the carcass of a pure bird.¹⁸Mishnah Ṭehorot1:1.” “Four main categories of torts.¹⁹Mishnah Bava Qamma1:1.” “Thirty-nine categories of work.”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin

¹⁴²These two paragraphs are partially corrupt. In a few places, the required corrections are obvious; other passages are not so simple. The text was treated at length by M. Assis לפירושה של סוגיא אחת בירושלמי סנהדרין Sinai 99(1986) pp. 110–127. The parallel in the Babli is 53a–54a. There, we have stated¹⁴³In the Yerushalmi תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן always introduces a Mishnah quote. Already J. N. Epstein in מבוא לנוסח המשנה p. 150 has noted that one should read תַּמָּן תְּנַיִין “there (in Babylonia) one states.” The Babylonian baraita is quoted in the Babli, 53a.: Rebbi Jehudah says, if his mother was not fit for his father, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Therefore, if his mother was fit for his father, he is liable for two. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference. Whether his mother was fit for his father or unfit for his father, he is liable only once. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁴⁴It seems that one has to read “R. Jehudah” since R. Johanan opposes the conclusion of the argument.: Your mother is she, you find him guilty because of his mother; this directs the entire chapter towards his mother¹⁴⁵This is only the end of an argument which can be reconstructed from Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(12). Lev. 18:7 reads: Your father’s nakedness and your mother’s nakedness you shall not uncover; she is your mother, do not uncover her nakedness. The unusual wordiness of the verse has to be explained. Later in the paragraph there is disagreement whether your father’s nakedness refers to homosexual relations or describes a woman other than the mother who had sexual relations with the father. R. Jehudah opts for the first alternative. The mother then is singled out; she is equally forbidden whether she is or ever was his father’s wife or not, just as the father is forbidden whether he ever was married to his mother or not. This excludes any possibility to charge relations with her as father’s wife as a separate crime.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: What caused Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁴⁴It seems that one has to read “R. Jehudah” since R. Johanan opposes the conclusion of the argument. to concentrate on the mother and to leave the father’s wife aside? He told him, for he argues with Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael explained: Your father’s wife’s nakedness¹⁴⁶Obviously one has to read your father’s nakedness (v. 7) instead of a quote from v.8.; the verse refers to the male. Is not his father included in the category of the male¹⁴⁷Since homosexual intercourse also is a capital crime.? Only to make him liable twice, as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his father is doubly liable about him¹⁴⁸Babli 54a; Tosaphot s. v. הבא.. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”¹⁴⁹Mishnah Keritut 1:1 lists 36 separate cases of extirpation; homosexual acts with the father are not listed.? Rebbi Mana said, all denotations of males are one. ¹⁵⁰This text is repeated later as R. Aqiba’s opinion. Since R. Ismael was quoted as opposing this interpretation, it is not his opinion. The text is dittography from the following.Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death¹⁵¹Why is the mother mentioned twice, once in parallel with the father and once separately?. Does Rebbi Aqiba not explain she is your father’s nakedness¹⁵²Lev. 18:8, referring to the stepmother.? There is no difference whether during lifetime or after death. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Your father’s wife’s nakedness¹⁴⁶Obviously one has to read your father’s nakedness (v. 7) instead of a quote from v.8., the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death¹⁵³Dittography from above.. Does not Rebbi Aqiba treat your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness¹⁵⁴M. Assis here sees a lacuna referring to the earlier statement that the mother remains equally forbidden whether or not the father is alive. This is not a necessary inference.? Since your father refers to your father in any capacity¹⁵⁵Whether married, seducer, rapist or paying for sexual services. both for punishment¹⁵⁶Punishment is spelled out in Lev. 20:11, warning in 18:7. and warning, so also your mother refers to one’s mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Is it not reasonable to explain that verse except following Rebbi Jehudah who because he does not accept “his mother who is his father’s wife”¹⁵⁷He rejects the interpretation that the first mention of your mother in v. 7 refers to the father’s wife, the second mention to a mother not married to his father. must explain that your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to your mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one infers from parallel language¹⁵⁸גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה “equal cut” is the transfer of rules from one law to another if identical language was used. The majority opinion accepts inferences from “equal cut” only if (a) there exists a tradition that the words in question were written for this purpose and (b) no other inferences are drawn from the expressions in question (Babli Niddah 22b). Property (b) is meant if an expression is called “free”. The equal cut here is the use of your father’s nakedness both in v.7 and v.8. As we have seen, in v.7 the expression clearly is not “free”. even if it is free only from one side¹⁵⁹M. Assis rightly points out that it is not free even in v.8 since the expression is used to forbid the stepmother after the father’s death.. Rebbi Yudan said to him¹⁶⁰As M. Assis points out, the statement also is quoted in Yoma 8:3 (45a l. 48) where R. Yudan’s statement is an independent remark. Since R. Yudan lived a generation after R. Zeˋira, the Yoma version has to be accepted., this is obvious for Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba infers from parallel language even if it is not free¹⁶¹This statement is unknown to Babylonian sources; the statement of the Babylonian R. Zeˋira is found in the Babli, Šabbat 64a, Niddah 22b..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin

From where the warning about the necromancer? Do not turn to the necromancers³²⁶Lev. 19:31. Here starts the discussion of the second part of the Mishnah.. From where extirpation? A person who would turn to necromancers and mediums³²⁷Lev. 20:6., etc. Punishment from where? A man or woman, impersonating a necromancer or a medium, shall be put to death³²⁸Lev. 20:27.. Why is the medium not mentioned in Keritut³²⁹Mishnah Keritut 1:1 mentions only the necromancer, not the medium.? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because they are taken together in one prohibition, do not turn to the necromancers³³⁰In all pentateuchal verses mentioning אוֹב it is paired with יִדְּעוֹנִי (the verses quoted plus Deut. 18:11). Babli 65b., etc. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because it is a prohibition implied by a positive commandment³³¹Cf. 5:3, Note 73. This formulation does not make any sense, as indicated by R. Zeˋira’s question. It should have been formulated: Because the medium is treated as an appendix to the necromancer. The medium never creates an obligation for a purification offering if one for necromancy already was established; he cannot be mentioned in Keritut_1:1 separately from the necromancer.. Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa: No person except you thought of stating the medium in this way in Keritut. He told him, because as the verse formulated it so the Mishnah formulates it, a necromancer or a medium³³⁰In all pentateuchal verses mentioning אוֹב it is paired with יִדְּעוֹנִי (the verses quoted plus Deut. 18:11). Babli 65b..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Capítulo completo Próximo versículo