Талмуд к Трумо́т 8:15

HALAKHAH: ⁷The text is that of the Leiden ms., the readings are those of the Yerushalmi text in the Bomberg Babli of 1520.“If the Court ruled.” etc. A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions⁸The quotes are correct in the Yerushalmi text of the Babli editio princeps, but the first of the quotes in the Leiden ms. is a misquote, referring to Lev.4:2 instead of 4:27. The basic text is in Sifra Wayyiqra Parašah 7(1), referred to in Babli 2b, discussed in detail Šabbat93a.
Chapter 4 in Lev. treats the purification sacrifices for unintentional sin first by the High Priest (vv. 1–12), then the High Court (13–21), then a chief, identified in Mishnah 3:3 as a king (22–26), and finally by a commoner (27–35). V. 27 reads: If one person of the populace transgresses inadvertently, by acting on one prohibitions of the Eternal, and feels guilt. It is noted that the sentence seems to be unnecessarily wordy. Why does it not say simply, “if somebody inadvertently transgresses a prohibition of the Eternal”? The additional words must have a meaning; they describe restrictions. In Babli Šabbat93a one derives from the insistence that one person commit the sin that a violation of a commandment cannot be prosecuted if committed by two persons acting in common, so that no single person commits a punishable act but the combined result is a clear violation,. Such a violation cannot be atoned for by a purification sacrifice. It also is clear that only acts are punishable.
In the context here the additional terms are interpreted to mean that only a person acting on his own is required to offer a purification sacrifice; this excludes one who is told by a religious authority that his act is permitted.: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable. Everywhere it is said that a restriction after a restriction is an addition, but here it is said, a restriction after a restriction is to reduce? Rebbi Mattaniah said, it is different here since there is written a restriction after a restriction after a restriction⁹It is a generally recognized principle that a double restriction is an addition and a double addition a restriction (Peah 6:9 Note 154, Yebamot 12:1 Note 10, Sotah9:2 Note 63, Roš Haššanah 1:1 56a l.58, Megillah 4:4 75b l.14; Babli Megillah23b, Yoma 43a, Bava qamma 15b, Bava batra 15a, Sanhedrin 15a,44b,66a, Makkot 9b, Ševuot 7b, Menahot 9b,67a, Hulin 132a.) The principle is extended here to read that any even number of restrictions (additions) is an addition (restriction) while any odd number of restrictions (additions) is a restriction (addition); cf. Rashi in Sanhedrin 15a s. v. חמשה..

The rabbis of Caesarea³¹A second version of the position of R. Joḥanan, differing from what was stated earlier., Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the probition of eating if it is written “do not eat”³²The text is incomplete; it refers to the statement of R. Eleazar (Note 11). If the prohibition of food is in the active voice it does not imply prohibition of usufruct. That implies that the passive voice does imply prohibition of usufruct.. The paradigm³³This proves that the passive voice implies prohibition of usufruct; since it is the only such case where the inference is valid according to everybody. The verse is understood [Sifra Ẓaw Pereq 8(5), quoted in Babli Zebaḥim 82a, Yerushalmi Pesaḥim 7:9, fol. 35a] following a punctuation which differs from the masoretic: “Any purification offering, some of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify, in the Sanctuary it shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned.” This is a possible reading since purification offerings can be eaten only in the Sanctuary. Then “Sanctuary” is taken also to refer to the last clause, “(in the sanctuary) in fire it shall be burned.” This excludes all sacred and profane usufruct after purification. for all cases is (Lev. 6:23): “Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned.” Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said (Lev. 7:23): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat,” why has it been said (Lev. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work”? It comes to tell you, even for the work of Heaven¹⁵“But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only you shall not eat it.” This paragraph discusses verses which present a difficulty for R. Eleazar.
In the opinion of the Babli, Pesaḥim 23a, the verse is needed to permit any use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the Sifra(Ẓaw Paraša 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food and not subject to the impurity of food.
In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 33), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.. If one understands what has been said (Lev. 12:16): “But the blood you shall not eat,” why has it been said “you shall pour it on the ground like water”? It comes to tell you, as water prepares, so blood prepares¹⁶“Only the blood you shall not eat; pour it on the ground like water.” The Babli, Pesaḥim 22b, deduces from here that animal blood is a fluid which prepares for impurity only if it is spilled on the ground (cf. Demay 2:3, Note 136). The argument of the Yerushalmi, and an argument that animal blood prepares for impurity in all cases, is in Sifry Deut. 73 and later here, in the second version of Ḥizqiah.. If one understands what has been said (Deut. 14:21) “Do not eat any carcass;” why has it been said “to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it”? To tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat³⁴The resident sojourner, in order to receive the full protection of the law, has only to follow the “precepts of the descendants of Noe”, to abstain from idolatry, murder, incest and adultery, eating limbs torn from living animals, blasphemy, robbery, and anarchy.. If one understands what has been said (Ex. 22:30): “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat,” why has it been said “throw it to the dog”? This you throw to the dog but not profane meat slaughered in the Temple precinct³⁵In the Babli, Pesaḥim 22a, this is quoted as the opinion of R. Meïr. It is forbidden to slaughter anything but sacrifices in the Temple precinct, Lev. 17:4..

MISHNAH: A woman who said, accept my bill of divorce for me, needs two groups of witnesses⁴⁸Since a divorce is a public act it must be executed in front of at least two witnesses. The agent certainly needs two witnesses for the delivery since the woman herself must receive the bill in front of two witnesses. It is only natural that the agent needs two witnesses to legitimize his status (or be appointed by a duly witnessed document.); two who say that she appointed in their presence and two who say that in their presence he received it and tore it up⁴⁹It is not necessary that the bill be torn up after delivery; this clause is added only to show that the divorce is valid even if the document never reaches the wife because it was torn up after delivery. (This has nothing to do with current rabbinic practice to cut up the bill of divorce after delivery in order to prevent outsiders from questioning the validity of the document.), even if the first ones are the latter ones, or one of the first together with one of the latter and a third person is associated with them⁵⁰There do not have to be four different people; there may also be two or three.. A preliminarily married adolescent girl⁵¹Between the ages of 12 years and 12 years and six months; cf. Nedarim 10:1, Note 1. Since she is over 12 years of age, she is able to act in law. But since she is not definitively married, she is still under her father’s authority., or her father, can accept her bill of divorce. Rebbi Jehudah says, no two hands can acquire together; only her father alone can accept her bill of divorce. Any female⁵²This statement is independent of the preceding one; it deals with an insane woman or an underage girl who was definitively married and, therefore, is emancipated from her father’s power. If she is too young to understand the meaning of divorce and the need to keep the document until she has collected all the monies due her, she cannot be divorced and the husband cannot escape the obligation to feed and house her. who cannot take care of her bill of divorce cannot be divorced.
If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is no valid bill until the bill of divorce reaches her hand. Therefore, if the husband wants to retract he can retract since an underage person cannot appoint an agent. But if her father said to [an agent]: Go and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce, if [the husband] wants to retract he cannot retract.⁸⁰This was explained in the preceding Halakhah.

“Both are equal in the office of the day of Atonement,” etc.]¹⁸⁹The beginning of the discussion of Mishnah 5 is noted only in B. ¹⁹⁰Sifra Emor Parašah 2(7), on Lev. 21:13. Since the High Priest was mentioned in the preceding verses, the pronoun is unnecessary by the rules of grammar. It is added for emphasis; only the High Priest is restricted to marrying a virgin.He, not the king. He, not the chieftain¹⁹¹Since the king was mentioned separately, נָשִׂיא here cannot be identified as the king; it must be a tribal chieftain.. He, to include the priest Anointed for War¹⁹²Since the rules of the High Priest were tied in Lev. 21:10 to wearing the High Priest’s garments and the Anointed for War is required to wear these when asking the oracle, he is bound by all rules enumerated in vv. 10–15.. A woman in her virginity he shall marry; this excludes an adult whose hymen has atrophied. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon qualify the adult¹⁹³Lev. 21:14. The parallels in the Babli, Yebamot 59a, Ketubot 97b, identify the first opinion as R. Meïr’s. It is agreed that if a girl is fully grown, the breaking of her hymen may not be noticed by the man.. ¹⁹⁴The interpretation of this paragraph depends on whether one considers the texts of L and B as two different texts or that the correct text is that of B, except for the name tradition identical with Terumot 8:2, Notes 29–31, with the text of L badly corrupted. Since in the characterization of the sacrifice, the text of L is certainly corrupt, the second alternative has much to commend itself. In the text itself, the crucial point is whether to read אחר as אַחֵר “another” or אַחַר “after”. Since the text of L, but not that of B, refers to the High Priest, in the absence of a clear solution both texts are presented and explained.
In the text of L one refers to the statement in the Mishnah that an acting High Priest and a deposed one are equal in all but the service of the Day of Atonement. The question is whether the acting High Priest may take the required fist full of incense and the deposed one then may bring the incense to the inner altar and burn it there; or the acting High Priest receive the blood of his sacrifices and the deposed one sprinkle of the blood on the walls of the altar. The question is not asked anywhere else and the positive answer is difficult to accept. Therefore, it is better to accept the text of B, even though it does not refer to the High Priest, as necessary introduction to the following paragraph which does.
That text reads:
Rebbi Isaac asked, does this apply to the remaining actions? He took the fist full and afterwards burned it; he received and afterwards threw it, he burned and afterwards sprinkled? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: They made it like a robbed purification sacrifice which was not publicly known. This implies that if he took the fistful afterwards he burns it, if he received [the blood] afterwards he throws [it on the walls of the altar], he burned [the red cow] he afterwards sprinkles [water with its ashes to purify others].
As explained in Terumot, the question is asked about a Cohen who is informed that he is disbarred from the priesthood because of his birth from a woman forbidden to priests when he had completed one sacral action which by necessity must be followed by a different one. The answer is that the desecrated son of a Cohen who innocently started officiating may officiate to the end even though in the future he will be barred from officiating. Rebbi Isaac asked, are these things so in all other things? He takes the fist full and the other burns it; he receives and the other throws, he burns and the other sprinkles? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: They made it like a (great) [robbed]¹⁹⁵The reference is to Mishnah Gittin 5:5, as explained in Terumot. The text of L is in parentheses, the correct text in brackets is from B. The point of the argument is missing here in both texts, that the purification offering is acceptable (i., e., that the Temple authorities are prohibited from inquiring into the way the offerer acquired his animal.) purification sacrifice which was not publicly known. This implies that he takes the fistful and the other burns it, he receives and the other throws, he burns and the other sprinkles. ¹⁹⁶Terumot 8:2, Notes 32–33,40. If the High Priest after his elevation was found to be desecrated by his birth and thereby is removed, is this considered to be his death as far as the Sanctuary is concerned and releases any homicide sentenced during his tenure of office from the city of refuge or is his tenure as High Priest erased from the annals of the Sanctuary (Makkot 2:10–11)? No answer is given here; the first eventuality is chosen in Terumot.Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi: Rebbi Isaac asked. If he was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman having received ḥaliṣah, how do you treat him? [As if]¹⁹⁷Text of B. he had died and the homicide might return to his home town or should he be treated as one whose trial had been concluded without a High Priest and he never can leave from there?

MISHNAH: The following Gentile properties are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct: Wine¹⁵¹One may assume that the Gentile before drinking the wine made a libation to the gods. If done for a full barrel, it makes all the wine in the barrel forbidden as חֶרֶם (Deut. 13:18) which biblically is forbidden for all usufruct., and vinegar which originally was wine¹⁵²Even though it is no longer wine and cannot be used for libations, since it remains usable the original prohibition is not removed., and Hadrianic pottery,¹⁵³Very porous earthenware which is soaked in wine to absorb it. It is taken on caravan trips to give a taste of wine to water taken on the trip. and heart-removed skins¹⁵⁴Skins of the belly which show that the heart was removed before the animal was skinned. This is done only in pagan rituals; the animal including any parts not used in pagan worship is חֶרֶם.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if the tear is circular they are forbidden, oblong permitted. Meat brought into a pagan Temple is permitted but what leaves is forbidden because it is sacrifice to the dead, the words of Rebbi Aqiba¹⁵⁵The expression “sacrifice to the dead” is from Ps. 106:26; it describes all pagan sacrifices.. It is forbidden to trade with those who go to ugliness¹⁵⁶This is the meaning of the word in other contexts. The meaning here is not uncontested, cf. Notes 220 ff..

In error for heave and intentional for leavened matter, in error for heave and intentional for nazir, in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement. If one explains it with two things, it is fine. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹⁷⁴This text is copied from Ketubot 3:1 (after Note 33); there is a somewhat defective copy in Terumot 7:1, Notes 47–51.
The disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish referred to here is not the one quoted earlier, but the one discussed in Ketubot and Terumot, whether a criminal conviction precludes monetary claims arising from the same case or not. If one holds that with one action two different laws have been broken, each infraction is punished according to its separate rules and everybody agrees that for heave he has to pay. But if one holds that for one action there can be only one punishment, he has to pay only following R. Joḥanan..

MISHNAH: From a fig tree standing in a courtyard¹³⁰If the figs are collected for eating raw, their processing is completed with picking and the courtyard obligates for heave and tithes., one may eat one by one and if he took them together he is obligated. Rebbi Simeon says, one in his right hand, one in his left hand, and one in his mouth¹³¹If no two figs are simultaneously in a hand or in a vessel, they are not “taken together.”. If he climbed to the top of the tree¹³²Then he is no longer in the courtyard. The top of the tree is supposed to be more than 10 handbreadths above the ground; cf. Kilaim 6, Note 31. he may fill the fold of his toga¹³³Hebrew חיק “bosom” is used as an equivalent of Latin sinus, ūs, m., which in addition to “bosom” also means “fold, pocket, purse” (E. G.). and eat.
From a vine planted in a courtyard one may take an entire bunch; the same holds for a pomegranate and a watermelon, the words of Rebbi Ṭarphon. Rebbi Aqiba says, he takes single grape berries, single seeds of a pomegranate, and picks¹⁴⁵Enough for one bite; cf. Mishnah 2:6, Note 109. from the watermelon. Of coriander sown in the courtyard¹⁴⁶The restriction does not apply to coriander growing as a weed. For the other three spice plants mentioned, it is enough that they be guarded as valuable plants even if they started as weeds and were not sown by the owners of the courtyard; cf. Ševiїt 7:7, Note 51; 8 Mishnah 1. he snips off leaf by leaf and eats; when he takes them together they are obligated. Calamint, hyssop, and thyme in the courtyard are obligated if they are guarded.
If a fig tree was standing in a courtyard but its crown was hanging over a vegetable garden, one eats¹⁴⁸Standing in the unwalled garden and picking the fruit there, as explained in the Mishnah. as usual and is free. If it was standing in a vegetable garden but its crown was hanging over a courtyard, one eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated. If it was standing in the Land and hanging over outside the Land or standing outside the Land and hanging over the Land, everything is determined by the stem. For houses of walled cities¹⁴⁹Which can be bought back by the seller only during the first year of the sale, Lev. 25:29–30. The rule given there for houses is extended to trees growing in the city., everything is determined by the stem. For cities of refuge¹⁵⁰Num. 35. If the homicide reaches the crown of a tree whose stem is inside 2000 cubits from the wall of a city of refuge, he is safe., all goes by the crown, for Jerusalem¹⁵¹Second tithe can be redeemed outside Jerusalem; in Jerusalem it must be consumed in purity. Once it is brought under the crown of a tree of Jerusalem, it cannot any longer be redeemed. The Babli (Makkot 12a) notes that the two last statements are parallel but the reasons are different. all goes by the crown.

“If she spent six months for her husband and six months for the levir, she cannot eat heave. Not only six months for the levir but even all the time for the levir except for one day, she cannot eat heave.” The Mishna follows neither the earliest not the last Mishnah, but the intermediate development. As it was stated⁹¹A similar statement is in Tosephta 5:1, where, however, the intermediate Mishnah is not mentioned. Cf. also Terumot 8:1, Note 9.: First, they were saying that a preliminarily married woman, daughter of an Israel, could eat heave, for they were explaining: “If a Cohen acquires a person, acquistion by money⁹²Lev. 22:11. The verse ends: “He shall eat [the Cohen’s sacred food]”. A parallel statement in the Babli, 57b.;” for what would be the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl⁹³The slave girl, by becoming the property of a Jew, is presumed to become Jewish by immersion in a miqweh. Then she has to follow all Jewish laws valid for women (only that, being unable to marry, she is permitted guiltless unmarried sex with everybody except Jewish men). By manumission she would become a full Jewish woman. While a Gentile cannot become impure by biblical standards, the immersion in the ritual bath makes her subject to all rules of purity. If her owner is a Cohen, she may eat his sacred food if in the appropriate state of ritual purity.
A wife is usually acquired in preliminary marriage, as far as criminal law is concerned, by a gift of money or its equivalent. The argument is shaky since one should mention that if the wife is acquired by a matrimonial contract or by sexual relations without a gift of money (Mishnah Qiddušin 1:1), there would be no reason to permit heave to the Israel woman preliminarily married to a Cohen. Nowhere do we find that the way the preliminary marriage is effected makes any difference.? They changed, to say: after twelve months, when he becomes responsible for her upkeep. The court of the later ones said: A woman never eats heave before she enters the bridal chamber⁹⁴Tosephta 5:1. However, the same Tosephta (and the Yerushalmi. Yebamot 4:12, Note 197) mentions that in a famine, R. Tarphon (a Cohen) preliminarily married 300 women to give them access to sanctified food. This means that the “later Mishnah” has to be dated some time after the destruction of the Temple when, probably, the importance of heave for the income of Cohanim was rapidly diminishing.. ⁹⁵Tosephta 5:1.”Already Rebbi Joḥanan ben Bagbag sent to Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra⁹⁶The leader of Babylonian Jewry in the first half of the 2^nd Century C.E. at Nisibis: They say in your name that the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel eats heave. He sent back the following: I had been convinced that you are knowledgeable in the secrets of the Torah, but you do not even know the rules de minore ad majus! Since money can acquire a Gentile slave girl to permit her to eat heave, but she cannot be acquired by sexual relations⁹⁷Being Gentile, she could be married to a Gentile by sexual relations. But sexual relations with her are forbidden to a Jew and, therefore, she cannot be acquired by a Jew through sexual relations either as a slave or a wife. to permit her to eat heave, whereas a wife can be acquired by sexual relations to permit her to eat heave⁹⁸If preliminary and definitive marriage are enacted together in the bridal chamber without any gift of money, the woman is a wife and entitled to eat her husband’s food by biblical standards., it is only logical that money can acquire a wife to permit her to eat heave! But what can I do? They said that no woman eats heave before she enters the bridal chamber,” and they supported it by the verse⁹⁹Num. 18:11. The wife is part of the household only after the definitive marriage. The argument is rejected in Sifry Num. 117, since in. v. 13 a similar restriction is noted, “every pure person in your household shall eat it,” and it is a generally accepted hermeneutical principle that “two consecutive restrictions mean a relaxation”, in this case, that the wife may eat heave from the moment of the preliminary marriage. Therefore, the restriction to definitively married wives is purely rabbinical.: “Every pure person in your household shall eat it.” Rebbi Yudan said, that is an argument de minore ad majus that can be reversed! Because he could say to him, since a Gentile slave girl can be acquired by active possession¹⁰⁰The word חֲזָקָה “grasping” can have two very different meanings. In legal arguments, it denotes a general assumption which generates prima facie evidence. In the law of real estate and slaves, it denotes the exercise of possession. For example, if an intestate person dies without heirs (e. g., a proselyte who failed to start a Jewish family), his property becomes ownerless and is up for grabs. Therefore, if somebody goes to the ownerless real estate and acts as proprietor, fencing in or harvesting a field or painting a house, he has acquired the piece of real estate by his action. Similarly, if somebody takes an ownerless slave from the estate and tells him to work on his orders, the work of the slave makes him the property of the person giving the orders. The work can be quite symbolical, such as carrying a stone for a short stretch, to qualify as חֲזָקָה and if the acquirer is a Cohen, the slave is qualified to eat heave. Therefore, the means of acquisition of slave girls and wives are only partially comparable; the ways of acquisition of a slave are not subordinated to those for a wife. to permit her to eat heave, what can you say about a wife who cannot be acquired by active possession? If an argument de minore ad majus can be reversed, the argument is invalid.

HALAKHAH: What is “on Pesaḥ”? On the Fourteenth²⁰³In biblical Hebrew “Pesaḥ” denotes the 14^th of Nisan, the day of the Pesaḥ sacrifice (Lev. 23:5, Deut. 28:16). In popular language “Pesaḥ” denotes the festival of unleavened bread, the 15^th–21^st. The Mishnah uses the biblical expression.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the words²⁰⁴Explaining what R. Meïr in the Mishnah is referring to. of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Yasa: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable²⁰⁵S. Liebermann here endorses the opinion of earlier commentators who want to emend the text and switch the names of RR. Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish, since otherwise how could the latter ask where RR. Eliezer and Joshua enter the discussion? But it seems that with the two classical commentaries one may explain the text as it stands. According to R. Joḥanan, R. Meïr refers to Mishnah 7. Since RR. Eliezer and Joshua are mentioned only in the argument of R. Yose, the statement quoted at the end of Mishnah 8 cannot be the one to which R. Meïr refers; it must be Mishnah Terumot8:7, quoted later in the Halakhah, which on the face of it deals with an unrelated subject, whether it is better to keep heave from becoming certainly impure or see to it that it be usable in conformity with the rules (Notes 216 ff.).. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, where enter Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua in the discussion? He told him, there are [different] Tannaim²⁰⁶There are Tannaim who state Mishnah 7 in the name of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together]²⁰⁷If leavened heave was discovered during the holiday it must be burned. If unleavened heave became impure during the holiday, it must be burned, in both cases by biblical decree. But sancta other than Temple sacrifices may not be burned on the holiday; the burning must be on the first of the intermediate days where work is permitted..