Мишна
Мишна

Талмуд к Трумо́т 3:7

וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁיִּקְדְּמוּ הַבִּכּוּרִים לַתְּרוּמָה, זֶה קָרוּי תְּרוּמָה וְרֵאשִׁית, וְזֶה קָרוּי תְּרוּמָה וְרֵאשִׁית, אֶלָּא יִקְדְּמוּ בִכּוּרִים, שֶׁהֵן בִּכּוּרִים לַכֹּל. וּתְרוּמָה לָרִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁהִיא רֵאשִׁית. וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן לַשֵּׁנִי, שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ רֵאשִׁית:

Откуда [мы получаем], что [откладывание] Бикурима должно предшествовать Теруме , поскольку он называется « Терума » и «первый», а другой [также] называется « Терума » и «первый»? Скорее Bikurim имеют приоритет, так как они являются первыми плодами всех продуктов. А Терума предшествует Маасеру Ришону, потому что его называют «первым». А Маасер Ришон предшествует Маасеру Шени, потому что он включает в себя то, что называется «первым» [ Терумат Маасер ].

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir

There28Mishnah Menaḥot 12:2., we have stated: “If somebody says, ‘I undertake [to bring] on a pan29A cereal offering fried in oil on a flat clay pan, Lev. 2:5–6.’ and he brought in a deep vessel30A cereal offering cooked in boiling oil in a deep clay vessel, Lev. 2:7., in a deep vessel and he brought on a pan.31“What he brought is acceptable but he did not fulfill his vow.”” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is the House of Shammai’s32Why should a flour offering be acceptable if it was not properly dedicated? Since it is forbidden to bring profane food into the Temple precinct (Deut. 12:26), the House of Hillel should hold that an offering which does not fulfill the specification of the donor’s vow has to be rejected by the officiating priests. But for the House of Shammai, who hold that a dedication is always valid, even if made in error, the nonconforming offering is not profane., since the House of Shammai say, “dedication in error is dedication.” Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yose33Since R. Yose was R. Ze‘ira’s student’s student, one has to read: R. Yasa (Assi).: Why do we not explain it according to everybody, if he said, “I said, on a pan”?34If the person who made the vow agrees that the present offering does not satisfy his vow, there is no reason why it should not be accepted as a separate offering. But if he said, “I undertake [to bring] on a pan,” and then he changed his mind35Immediately. and said, “in a deep vessel”, he fulfilled his duty. Rebbi Ḥanina36It seems that one has to read “R. Ḥinena”. and Rebbi Yasa came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he said, “I undertake [to bring] on a pan or in a deep vessel,” turned around35Immediately. and said, “on a pan”, and turned around and said, “in a deep vessel”?37Since he demonstrates that he did not make up his mind, do we hold him to his last statement or can he satisfy his vow with any of the kinds mentioned as possibilities? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Hama in the name of Rebbi Yose: He determines even orally38This is an independent statement. From the Mishnah in Menaḥot it follows that the donor’s statement determines the kind of cereal sacrifice he is required to bring, even if as yet he owes no flour.. They thought to say, even holidays determine39If he vows the sacrifice for a holiday, he cannot satisfy his vow on a workday., even vessels determine40If he vowed a cereal sacrifice without specifying its kind and then put the flour into one of the acceptable vessels without saying a word, the vessel determines the kind of offering he vowed and he cannot change it any longer..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Предыдущий стихПолная главаСледующий стих