Талмуд к Эруви ́н 6:12

HALAKHAH: “On three occasions,” etc. One understands from three things. One understands that the bystanders (pray) [fast]⁵Here it seems that the corrector’s text [in brackets] is correct. The argument is that the recitation of the priestly blessing is a sacral act and as such forbidden to Cohanim under the influence of alcohol (Lev. 10:8–11). Since they have to recite the blessing late in the afternoon, they could not have drunk any alcohol during the day and therefore would not have eaten either., and that they pray⁶In a technical sense, “to pray” means “to recite the Amidah prayer”. In a synagogue setting the priests recite the blessing only during the reader’s recitation of the Amidah. four times, and lifting of the hands is not during nighttime, only during daytime⁷Since there is no priestly blessing during evening prayers (whose status in Mishnaic times was not well defined.). Could one not lift his hands without praying? We find prayer without lifting of hands; we do not find lifting of hands without prayer⁸Outside the Temple. The priestly blessing during synagogue service is a strictly pharisaic institution; it seems from the Manual of Discipline that at least at Qumran the priests only recited poetic allusions to the biblical priestly blessing.. It was stated, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr⁹Tosephta 3:1. In this text, the opponents of R. Meïr only admit priestly blessing during the two morning services. This is compatible with the scribe’s text in this paragraph.. ¹⁰Babli 26b. Copied in Eruvin 6, Note 102. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr¹¹In Eruvin one follows R. Meïr that eruv for courtyards and participation for alleys must be separate acts, Chapter 6, Note 99; in Megillah 2:1, Note 62, he requires that the Esther scroll has to be read from beginning to end; Babli 72a. These rules are popular usage, not rabbinic decrees..

HALAKHAH: “The excess of sheqalim is profane,” etc. Rebbi Yasa⁸¹While all sources have “R. Yose”, the reading must be R. Yasa, a Babylonian early enough to have visited Samuel’s academy. The name is spelled correctly at the end of the Halakhah. said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to gift⁸²Since the monies were set aside for the sheqel and “a promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual” (Mishnah Qiddušin1:6), they are Temple property. Since they are not sheqalim they must be given to the Temple account into which all Temple monies not otherwise specified are collected.. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea⁸³If this refers to the daily offering of the High priest and the High priest had died, then the monies cannot be used in the Temple since possibly they were not dedicated; they cannot be used as profane since possibly they were dedicated. They have to be destroyed.. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to gift. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan⁸⁴The reading of B is “disagrees with both of them”.: “The excess of sheqalim is profane The excess of a tenth of an ephah, the excess of nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, the nests of female sufferers from flux, the nests of women after childbirth, or purification offerings, or reparation offerings, the excesses are gift.”. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explains it as excess from the tenth of an ephah of the purification offering of any one in Israel⁸⁵This seems to be required by the wording of the Mishnah, which decrees that the excess of monies for the tenth of an ephah is Temple property but allows only excess of purification or reparation sacrifices to be so taken. The High Priest’s flour offering is neither of these; therefore the Mishnah cannot include it.
The reading of B implies that R. Eleazar identifies that tenth of an ephah as the High Priest’s offering..

Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: practice follows Rebbi Meïr who says, all of it⁶²Babli 18b,19a.. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr<sup>63</sup>Eruvin Chapter 6, Note 102. In eruvin one follows R. Meïr that eruv for courtyards and participation for alleys must be separate acts; in Ta`aniot that on a public fast day the priestly blessing is given three times. Babli Eruvin 72a. These rules are popular usage, not rabbinic decrees..

Rav Ḥisda said, a nazir’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. Rebbi Yose said, that is correct. You cannot sacrifice it by itself since bread cannot be brought alone. You cannot sacrifice it together with another nazir’s since no nazir sacrifices without bread¹⁰¹While several flour offerings are described in Lev. 2, none is authorized for bread alone. Nowhere do we find a procedure to redeem sacrificial bread.. Therefore, it was necessary to say that a nazir’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. They wanted to say, the same rule applies to his leftover bread as to his leftover wine offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, his leftover wine offering is most holy¹⁰²Halakhah 5, Note 81.; it should be given to the gift account. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Samuel, Rav Ḥisda, and Rebbi Eleazar, all three said the same. Rav Ḥisda, as quoted here. Samuel, as Rebbi Yasa said,¹⁰²Halakhah 5, Note 81. when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel: If he designated his sheqel and died? He said, it should be given as gift. Rebbi Eleazar: ¹⁰³Halakhah 5, Note 83. the leftover of his tenth of an ephah: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one should bring it to the Dead Sea; Rebbi Eleazar said, it should be given to the gift account..

“One puts an eruv in an old house.” Rebbi Abin said, the Mishnah speaks of a prior dweller²³¹Not the house is offended if the eruv is removed from it but the owner of the house. Therefore, if there is a new owner in an old house, one may move the location of the eruv. The statement is copied in Eruvin 6, 23d 1.40..