Levítico 27:34 Referencias del Talmud: Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah, Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat, Megillah & Jerusalem Talmud Megillah

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: It is written<sup>101</sup>Lev. 27:33. When one counts the calves or lambs born in one tax year, the tenth must be consumed, if unblemished as a sacrifice (of which the altar gets the blood but the Cohanim nothing); if blemished as profane food., do not investigate between good or bad. If he transgressed and investigated, does he transgress<sup>102</sup>If one transgressed the biblical injunction and substituted an unblemished animal for a blemished one, both animals are dedicated (Lev. 27:34). The question now is whether he transgresses the commandment “do not tarry” unless the substituted animal was sacrificed within one year or before three holidays have elapsed.? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? Here the Torah permitted to dedicate deficient animals<sup>103</sup>Since the sanctity of the tithe is conferred on the substituted animal even if it is blemished and the original unblemished.. There, we have stated<sup>104</sup>Mishnah Nega`im14:7; the purification ritual of the healed sufferer from skin disease (Lev. 14:1–32.): “On the eighth day he brings three animals, purification sacrifice, reparation sacrifice, and elevation sacrifice. But the poor man brought birds as reparation and elevation offerings.” Is not the bird¹⁰⁵This word is missing in G and it seems that it should be deleted. It is stated in Lev. 14:10 that the rich sufferer from skin disease brings two undifferentiated male sheep and one female. The female automatically is the purification offering; of the males one will be designated by the Cohen as reparation offering and the other as elevation offering. Therefore the dedication of the purification offering precedes that of the reparation offering. Now Mishnah Zevaḥim10:5 notes that while in general purification offerings precede reparation ones, for the healed sufferer from skin disease this is not so since the ritual described in vv.14–18 is the prerequisite for the other two sacrifices. Therefore the dedication of the purification offering which is not a bird happens at a time when the animal cannot be sacrificed. In the case of the poor man, the birds for purification and elevation offerings are dedicated after the lamb of the reparation offering; the argument is not applicable. as reparation offering deficient in time next to the reparation offering? Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: It is written¹⁰⁶Num. 6:10, sacrifices of the impure nazir., on the eighth he shall bring. If he transgressed and did not bring, does he transgress¹⁰⁷As before, if the impure nazir does not bring his sacrifices on the eighth day, would he transgress “do not tarry” if he waited more than 3 holidays or one year to bring them?? He told him, for anything which comes to permit one does not transgress. What does it come to permit? As Rebbi Eleazar said, here the Torah did permit to dedicate those deficient in time¹⁰⁸As for the healed sufferer from skin disease.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all seven days one does not tell him, bring. Afterwards one tells him, bring¹⁰⁹He disagrees and holds that both the healed sufferer from skin disease and the impure nazir transgress the prohibition “do not tarry” immediately at the end of the eighth day.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Everybody plans and brings his sacrifices on the holiday¹¹⁰It is presumed that anybody making a vow to offer a sacrifice from the start intends to fulfill his vow on a holiday of pilgrimage; the same holds for obligatory sacrifices whose obligations arise in the meantime.. One understands a nazir. Is the sufferer from skin disease not missing atonement¹¹¹The nazir who was impure by the impurity of the dead is purified by sprinkling with water containing ashes of the Red Cow and immersion in a miqweh; his sacrifice on the eighth day is the start of his new period of nezirut. He may bring his holiday offering on the holiday itself and later his nazir offering during the holiday week. But for the sufferer from skin disease the reparation offering is required to permit him access to the Temple domain; by necessity this would have to occur before the holiday for him to make a valid pilgrimage.? And did we not state¹¹²Mishnah Sukkah4:1. As explained there in Halakhah 4, if the first day of the holiday is a Sabbath, the festival offering which is the symbol of joy may be brought only on the second day, and there would only be 7 days of joy., Hallel and joy eight? Explain it for a nazir. Rebbi Sachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi asked, the beginning one explains for a nazir and the end for a sufferer from skin disease¹¹³This refers to Mishnah Sukkah4:6. Eight days of joy are possible for the nazir(if the first day of the holiday is not a Sabbath), but the last day also is accessible to the sufferer from skin disease who brings his enabling sacrifice during the holiday week.? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, was this not already objected there? And Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat. Here also, Cohanim and the goat¹¹⁴As explained in Sukkah4:5, Note 82. Eight days of joy (i. e., eating sacrificial meat) always is possible for the Cohanim in the Temple. Since it is not implied that everybody is required to have 8 days of access to sacrificial meat, there is no problem with the healed sufferer from skin disease: he may bring his enabling sacrifice during the holiday week and the holiday is counted for him..

⁵²This is from Ḥallah 1:9 (ח), Notes 218–223. In the Babli (Sanhedrin 6b, Bava Qamma 94a) and in Yerushalmi Sanhedrin1:1 (Notes 70–72) this is a tannaitic statement. Here, the argument is that a religious obligation, like eating mazzah on Passover, cannot be fulfilled in a sinful way. The Babli insists that not even the regular benedictions before and after eating can be recited if the food is stolen or robbed. It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a benediction over a robbed mazzah. Rebbi Hoshaia said, because of he who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes⁵³Ps. 10:3. Usually, the verse is read to mean: “Certainly, the wicked one praises his own desires; he who blesses unlawful gain slanders the Eternal! The Tosephta (Sanhedrin 1:2) explains the verse as referring to judges who do not follow the rules.. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation⁵⁴The robber certainly cannot recite a benediction for robbed food, but after he ate it he acquired the food (or if he robbed flour he acquired it by baking) and is no longer required to return the robbed piece but has to pay. In that stage, the robber seems to be in the same position as a buyer who is slow in paying and one does not understand why he should not recite grace.? Rebbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed⁵⁵A good deed done by immoral means is no good deed at all and no religious obligation can be satisfied in this way. He declares his first argument faulty.. Rebbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin⁵⁶He accepts R. Jonah’s original logic.. Rebbi Ila said, these are the commandments⁵⁷Lev. 27:34.. If you did them the way they were commanded they are a good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds⁵⁸He sides with R. Jonah’s final position against R. Yose..

Do you really think so? Is it not written, “These are the commandments” (Leviticus 27:34) which implies that no prophet is permitted to introduce anything new afterwards? And further R.Hisda has said: The mem and the samekh in the Tablets