Talmud sobre Levítico 19:23
וְכִי־תָבֹ֣אוּ אֶל־הָאָ֗רֶץ וּנְטַעְתֶּם֙ כָּל־עֵ֣ץ מַאֲכָ֔ל וַעֲרַלְתֶּ֥ם עָרְלָת֖וֹ אֶת־פִּרְי֑וֹ שָׁלֹ֣שׁ שָׁנִ֗ים יִהְיֶ֥ה לָכֶ֛ם עֲרֵלִ֖ים לֹ֥א יֵאָכֵֽל׃
Y cuando hubiereis entrado en la tierra, y plantareis todo árbol de comer, quitaréis su prepucio, lo primero de su fruto: <span class="x" onmousemove="Show('perush','Este es el <b>192do Precepto Negativo</b> enumerado por el Rambam en el Prefacio a Mishné Torá, su “Compendio de la Ley Hebrea” para todo el Pueblo de Israel.',event);" onmouseout="Close();">tres años os será incircunciso: su fruto no se comerá</span>.
Jerusalem Talmud Orlah
HALAKHAH: “If somebody plants for fences or building logs he is exempt,” etc. It is written (Lev. 19:23): “If you plant any food tree.” What is for food is obligated; for fencing, logs, or wood it is exempt. Then the one for food even if he intended it as a fence should be obligated! The verse says, “a food tree2It says “a food tree”, not “a fruit tree” as in the Creation story (Gen. 1:11–12); it must be intended for food; a fruit tree grown for its timber is exempt. A similar argument in Sifra Qedošim Parsha 3(2)..”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Orlah
Rebbi Yose understood the text from its beginning, from the meaning of what is said (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten.” Does this not imply that the verse speaks about a fruit tree? Why does the verse say: “If you plant any food tree”? What is for food is obligated, for fencing, logs, or wood is exempt. Rebbi Jonah understood the text from its end, from the meaning of what is said (Lev. 19:25): “In the fifth year you shall eat its fruit, to increase its yield for you.” Does this not imply that the verse speaks about a fruit tree? Why does the verse say: “If you plant any food tree”? What is for food is obligated; for fencing, logs, or wood it is exempt.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing33Latin splenium, Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.” from a stoned ox34The Babli 24b explains that one might use fat from the stoned ox to cover a wound.
The ox was stoned by order of the court because it killed humans (Ex. 21:28–29). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct as explained in the sequel. Cf. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Mišpaṭim10 (p. 282). or from leftover sour matter after Passover35Since the Mishnah had stated that leavened matter becomes prohibited for all usufruct in the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan, after the holiday it cannot become permitted again. cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard kilaim he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said36Deut. 22:9. For this derivation, cf. Kilaim 8:1, Note 6.: Lest it be sanctified, lest fire should be kindled. For ˋorlah it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to removal is written37Since Lev. 19:23 requires that the (budding) fruit is treated as “foreskin” and the foreskin has to be removed, one may take the verse as prescribing the removal of any ˋorlah fruit., a prohibition to eat is written38Last two words of Lev. 19:23. Since R. Joḥanan reads לֹ֥א יֵֽאָכֵֽל as prohibition of eating, not of usufruct, he follows his teacher Ḥizqiah in rejecting the argument of R. Eleazar., [“do not eat”]39An incorrect and unnecessary addition by the corrector, not part of the original ms., a prohibition to remove it is not written40Non-fulfillment of a prescriptive commandment is not prosecutable..
The ox was stoned by order of the court because it killed humans (Ex. 21:28–29). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct as explained in the sequel. Cf. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Mišpaṭim10 (p. 282). or from leftover sour matter after Passover35Since the Mishnah had stated that leavened matter becomes prohibited for all usufruct in the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan, after the holiday it cannot become permitted again. cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard kilaim he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said36Deut. 22:9. For this derivation, cf. Kilaim 8:1, Note 6.: Lest it be sanctified, lest fire should be kindled. For ˋorlah it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to removal is written37Since Lev. 19:23 requires that the (budding) fruit is treated as “foreskin” and the foreskin has to be removed, one may take the verse as prescribing the removal of any ˋorlah fruit., a prohibition to eat is written38Last two words of Lev. 19:23. Since R. Joḥanan reads לֹ֥א יֵֽאָכֵֽל as prohibition of eating, not of usufruct, he follows his teacher Ḥizqiah in rejecting the argument of R. Eleazar., [“do not eat”]39An incorrect and unnecessary addition by the corrector, not part of the original ms., a prohibition to remove it is not written40Non-fulfillment of a prescriptive commandment is not prosecutable..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy