בֶּן־שָׁנָ֖ה שָׁא֣וּל בְּמָלְכ֑וֹ וּשְׁתֵּ֣י שָׁנִ֔ים מָלַ֖ךְ עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
Saul war … [Die Zahl der Jahre ist ausgelassen.] Jahre alt, als er König wurde und zwei Jahre regierte er bereits über Israel,
Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot
From where about Neïlah64The additional, fifth prayer close to the end of Yom Kippur and the major fasts in a draught.? Rebbi Levi said: (Is. 1:15) “Even if you prolong your prayers.65The argument is from the full sentence: “Even if you augment your prayers, I shall not hear.” Since Isaiah presents this as a particular curse, it follows that, otherwise, if the people increase their prayers they will be heard.” From here that everyone who increases his prayers will be answered. The argument of Rebbi Levi is inverted. There says Rebbi Abba, the son of Rebbi Pappai66Amora of the fourth generation, student of Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin (Suknin in Lower Galilee), a student of Rebbi Levi. Only aggadic material is transmitted by these two sages., Rebbi Joshua of Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Levi (Prov. 14:23) “In all excitement there is something superfluous; and the word of the lips is but for deficit.” Hannah, because she prayed too long, reduced the years of Samuel because she said (1Sam. 1:22) “He shall dwell there forever” but “forever” for a Levite is only 50 years, as it is written (Num. 8:25): “At age fifty he should return from the worshipping hosts67In fact, Hannah gave that detailed dedication not in her prayer but only when she explained to her husband that she would not come with him to Shiloh until she had weaned the baby, so that the boy could stay in the Tabernacle for the rest of his life. A Levite could serve (as carrier) only to age 50.”. But in fact it was 5268There is no Biblical source that gives Samuel 52 years; this Yerushalmi tradition is the result of a computation detailed in Midrash Seder Olam, Chap.13, and is based on the assertion (1Sam. 13:1) that Saul ruled only for two years, and on certain not obvious principles of interpretation of the Bible. Shiloh was destroyed when Samuel was still relatively young and afterwards he never lived near the Tabernacle again.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said two years until she weaned him. And here you say so69That additional prayer is always good. The answer is that additional prayers are guaranteed to be heard only if the entire congregation prays together.? If he ever said it, one for private the other for public prayers. Rebbi Ḥiyya70R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. In the Babli (32b) he supports the negative opinion of Rebbi Levi in the name of R. Yoḥanan, at least in the case that somebody prays with the certain idea that he must be heard. The Yerushalmi clearly accepts the first statement of R. Levi but not the second one. in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan, Rebbi Simeon bar Ḥalaphta in the name of Rebbi Meïr (1Sam. 1:12): “When she prayed very long before the Eternal,” it follows that everyone who extends his prayers will be answered.
Jerusalem Talmud Horayot
HALAKHAH: “If they sinned before being appointed,” etc. The colleagues say that the reason of Rebbi Simeon is because greatness atones20As will become clear later (Note 29), it is not the high office which atones but the appointment to high office. This is the Babli’s interpretation of 1S. 13:1, that Saul was 1 year old when he became king; his sins were remitted and he was innocent like a one year old baby (Yoma 22b).
The colleagues are Rav Hanania and Rav Oshia, two Babylonians of the third generation of Amoraim who lived in Galilee but never held office there.. Rebbi Yose said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal21This is the only opinion mentioned in the Babli, 3a. Since the status of the individual at the moment of the sin determines the appropriate sacrifice, if later his status changes he is prevented from sacrificing.. What is the difference22Are there practical differences depending on which doctrine one chooses? Since only R. Simeon’s opinion is discussed, it seems that the Yerushalmi accepts his as practice, as far as these rules have practical applications. between them? Referring to the beginning of the Chapter: “An Anointed Priest who sinned and then was removed from his anointed status, or a Prince who sinned and then was removed from his exalted status. The Anointed Priest brings a bull and the Prince brings a goat;” if there is any doubt whether they sinned. He who said, because greatness atones; just as it atones for the certain [sin] so it atones for the doubt. He who said. because his sin and his knowledge are not equal; his sin and his knowledge are not equal23There is no practical difference between rulings based on the colleagues’ or R. Yose’s opinions.. If they sinned before they were appointed and after they were appointed they breached, for him who said, because greatness atones, greatness atoned for the first, but he is liable for the second and the third24The first case occurred before he was appointed, the second while he was in office, the third after he was removed from office. According to the colleagues, the induction into exalted office cancels the previous sins; once he entered office no further benefits accrue; cf. Note 29.. For him who said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal25No detail is given since the answer is complicated; the problem is taken up again in Note 64. There is no sacrifice possible if the status of the sinner has changed between the date of the sin and the realization that it happened. The only problem is that of a sin committed in stage 1 which becomes known in stage 3; whether or not a sacrifice is possible depends on the difference between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish in 1:2, cf. there Note 74; cf. also the following Note 61.. If they sinned regarding hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, or the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, for him who said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal, here his sin and his knowledge are equal26A sacrifice of variable value is required in all three cases; for R. Simeon under the restrictions of Chapter 2, Note 84.. For him who said, because greatness atones, even in this case greatness atones27The complications discussed in Chapter 2 regarding the variable sacrifice become irrelevant by the elevation of a person to exalted status..
The colleagues are Rav Hanania and Rav Oshia, two Babylonians of the third generation of Amoraim who lived in Galilee but never held office there.. Rebbi Yose said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal21This is the only opinion mentioned in the Babli, 3a. Since the status of the individual at the moment of the sin determines the appropriate sacrifice, if later his status changes he is prevented from sacrificing.. What is the difference22Are there practical differences depending on which doctrine one chooses? Since only R. Simeon’s opinion is discussed, it seems that the Yerushalmi accepts his as practice, as far as these rules have practical applications. between them? Referring to the beginning of the Chapter: “An Anointed Priest who sinned and then was removed from his anointed status, or a Prince who sinned and then was removed from his exalted status. The Anointed Priest brings a bull and the Prince brings a goat;” if there is any doubt whether they sinned. He who said, because greatness atones; just as it atones for the certain [sin] so it atones for the doubt. He who said. because his sin and his knowledge are not equal; his sin and his knowledge are not equal23There is no practical difference between rulings based on the colleagues’ or R. Yose’s opinions.. If they sinned before they were appointed and after they were appointed they breached, for him who said, because greatness atones, greatness atoned for the first, but he is liable for the second and the third24The first case occurred before he was appointed, the second while he was in office, the third after he was removed from office. According to the colleagues, the induction into exalted office cancels the previous sins; once he entered office no further benefits accrue; cf. Note 29.. For him who said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal25No detail is given since the answer is complicated; the problem is taken up again in Note 64. There is no sacrifice possible if the status of the sinner has changed between the date of the sin and the realization that it happened. The only problem is that of a sin committed in stage 1 which becomes known in stage 3; whether or not a sacrifice is possible depends on the difference between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish in 1:2, cf. there Note 74; cf. also the following Note 61.. If they sinned regarding hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, or the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, for him who said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal, here his sin and his knowledge are equal26A sacrifice of variable value is required in all three cases; for R. Simeon under the restrictions of Chapter 2, Note 84.. For him who said, because greatness atones, even in this case greatness atones27The complications discussed in Chapter 2 regarding the variable sacrifice become irrelevant by the elevation of a person to exalted status..
Jerusalem Talmud Horayot
If one ate the volume of an olive before he was appointed, the volume of an olive after he was appointed, and the volume of an olive after he was removed from office. In the opinion of the colleagues who say, because high office atones20As will become clear later (Note 29), it is not the high office which atones but the appointment to high office. This is the Babli’s interpretation of 1S. 13:1, that Saul was 1 year old when he became king; his sins were remitted and he was innocent like a one year old baby (Yoma 22b).
The colleagues are Rav Hanania and Rav Oshia, two Babylonians of the third generation of Amoraim who lived in Galilee but never held office there., the office atoned for the first and he is liable for the second and the third73As explained at the start of the chapter, it is not the high office but the appointment to high office which atones; the occupant of a high office is responsible for his actions like everybody else.. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal21This is the only opinion mentioned in the Babli, 3a. Since the status of the individual at the moment of the sin determines the appropriate sacrifice, if later his status changes he is prevented from sacrificing., he is liable for the first and the second, but not liable for the third74It is difficult to make sense of this statement. If the information became known in stage three, which seems to be the hypothesis, there can be no sacrifice for unresolved sins committed in stage 2. The only problem would be a sin committed in stage 1, for which a sacrifice in stage 3 was ruled out by R. Abun in the preceding paragraph. The author of this paragraph seems to disagree with R. Abun.. He ate the size of an olive. If it is in doubt whether he ate before he was appointed or after he was appointed75In the first case, a purification sacrifice is needed but not in the second, both for the colleagues and R. Yose., or whether it was before he converted or after he converted76The Gentile is not required to observe biblical commandments except the Seven Noahide commandments. In no case is a purification sacrifice possible for an unconverted Gentile., or whether it was before he had grown two pubic hairs or after he had grown two pubic hairs67The text in parentheses is from L, the one in brackets from B. It seems that the scribe of L read וכ׳ instead of וכי and unthinkingly interpreted כ׳ as the common abbreviation of כְּתִיב., he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice78This means that a reparation sacrifice is required not only in case the criminality of the act is in question but even if the possibility of a purification sacrifice is in doubt..
The colleagues are Rav Hanania and Rav Oshia, two Babylonians of the third generation of Amoraim who lived in Galilee but never held office there., the office atoned for the first and he is liable for the second and the third73As explained at the start of the chapter, it is not the high office but the appointment to high office which atones; the occupant of a high office is responsible for his actions like everybody else.. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal21This is the only opinion mentioned in the Babli, 3a. Since the status of the individual at the moment of the sin determines the appropriate sacrifice, if later his status changes he is prevented from sacrificing., he is liable for the first and the second, but not liable for the third74It is difficult to make sense of this statement. If the information became known in stage three, which seems to be the hypothesis, there can be no sacrifice for unresolved sins committed in stage 2. The only problem would be a sin committed in stage 1, for which a sacrifice in stage 3 was ruled out by R. Abun in the preceding paragraph. The author of this paragraph seems to disagree with R. Abun.. He ate the size of an olive. If it is in doubt whether he ate before he was appointed or after he was appointed75In the first case, a purification sacrifice is needed but not in the second, both for the colleagues and R. Yose., or whether it was before he converted or after he converted76The Gentile is not required to observe biblical commandments except the Seven Noahide commandments. In no case is a purification sacrifice possible for an unconverted Gentile., or whether it was before he had grown two pubic hairs or after he had grown two pubic hairs67The text in parentheses is from L, the one in brackets from B. It seems that the scribe of L read וכ׳ instead of וכי and unthinkingly interpreted כ׳ as the common abbreviation of כְּתִיב., he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice78This means that a reparation sacrifice is required not only in case the criminality of the act is in question but even if the possibility of a purification sacrifice is in doubt..