Talmud sobre Levítico 1:4

Some baraita implies that the agent of a person acts in his stead, and some baraita implies that the agent of a person does not act in his stead²³Everybody agrees that there exist situations in which an agent acts with the full authority of a principal and others where only the person himself can act. The question is, what is the normal case and what is the exception?. “If he definitively will substitute²⁴This seems to be a quote from Lev. 27:10, but there the masoretic text is הָמֵר יָמִיר. If the word יְמִירֶנּוּ is not a slip of the scribe’s pen, the reference might be to יַחֲליפֶנּוּ (“he himself may exchange it”) in the same verse. There is no explicit baraita in rabbinic literature which would invalidate substitution by agent; the double expression is always interpreted as an addition in R. Aqiba’s system. In Sifra Beḥuqqotay Pereq 9(6), the double expression is interpreted to include a woman for her own sacrifice and an heir for an inherited one. Since the agent is not mentioned, he is excluded. In the Babli, Temurah 2a, the statement of Sifra is characterized as R. Meïr’s., if he himself will dissolve²⁵Num. 30:14. This does not refer to an infinitive construction but to the use of the word יְפֵרֶנּוּ instead of the simple יָפֵר. In R. Aqiba’s system, suffixes always carry a special meaning. The argument is explicit in the Babli, Nazir 12b, where the Tanna R. Joshia quotes Num. 30:14 to prove that a husband cannot delegate his power over his wife’s vows to an attorney. R. Jonathan holds that an agent always can act for his principal..” We may hold that a person’s agent cannot act in his stead because Scripture excluded him. “He shall lean his hand,²⁶Lev. 1:4;3:2,8,13;4:24,29,33, a necessary action to validate a sacrifice. The repetition of his hand in all these verses is taken in the Babli, Menaḥot93b, as proof that any agency is impossible for animal sacrifices.” not the hand of his son nor the hand of his slave nor the hand of his agent²⁷This formulation is in Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 4(2).. We may hold that a person’s agent can act in his stead but [in this case] Scripture excluded him. “His master shall pierce his ear with an awl²⁸Ex. 21:6, speaking of the Hebrew slave; cf. Chapter 1:2.;” “his master” but not the latter’s son, “his master” but not the latter’s agent²⁹Mekhilta dR.Ismael,Neziqin 2 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 253), dR.Simeon ben Ioḥai Mišpaṭim 6:6.. We may hold that a person’s agent can act in his stead but Scripture excluded him. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall pierce”, to include the agent. This follows Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? “His master”, anybody acting on his master’s authority³⁰This opinion is not found in any parallel source..

The behavior of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi¹⁰⁸One of the great sages of the first generation of Amoraïm. He lived in the valley of Beth Shean (Demay2:1). It follows that his way of reading the nightly Shema‘, which is the one followed today, is the oldest. In the Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 4b) he is only reported to have stated the duty to read the Shema‘ before sleeping, with the reason of R. Samuel ben Naḥmani given by a Galilean Amora by the name of R. Yose or R. Assi. The psalms read by R. Joshua ben Levi are detailed in Babli Shevuöt 15b where it is noted that, while it is forbiddden to use Biblical verses as charms in healing, it is admissible to recite them for protection. disagrees since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi read psalms afterwards. But have we not stated: One does not say words after Emet Weyaẓiv? He explains that as relating to Emet Weyaẓiv of the morning prayers¹⁰⁹Here it is obvious that “words after Emet Weyaẓiv” mean any insertion between the benediction גאל ישׂראל and the Amidah prayer. It does not follow that the expression must have the same meaning in the preceding section., since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Abba bar Jeremiah¹¹⁰R. Abba bar Jeremiah seems to have been a Babylonian whose father (or uncle) was a contemporary of Rav and who was the teacher of Rebbi Zeïra (Rebbi Zera in the Babli) when the latter was still in Babylonia. The parallel teaching is mentioned, in the same wording but with a different meaning, in the Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 42a) in the name of Rav.: There are three immediacies: immediately after leaning comes slaughtering¹¹¹In the usual process of bringing a sacrifice in the temple, the votary has to press with his hand on the head of the sacrifice before the slaughter., immediately after hand-washing comes benediction¹¹²It is clear from the following that the meaning here is that immediately after washing one’s hands, while drying them, one has to pronounce the appropriate benediction. [Possibly, it could mean that immediately after washing the hands one has to pronounce the benediction over bread that starts the meal. The urgency of starting the meal directly after washing one’s hands is ascribed in Babli Berakhot 52b to the School of Shammai; this interpretation of the Yerushalmi is implied by R. Aqiba Eiger in his notes to Babli Berakhot42a.] In the Babli, Berakhot 42a, the same expression means that immediately after washing one’s hands after the meal one has to say Grace and is not allowed to eat anymore., immediately after redemption comes prayer¹¹³This means that immediately after reciting the benediction: “Praise to You, o Lord, Who redeemed Israel,” one has to start the Amidah prayer. This creates no problems in the morning prayers but is impossible in the evening since after the benediction (starting Emet Weëmunah or Emet Weyaẓiv) there follows at least one more benediction and a Qaddish to separate the recital of Shema‘ and its benedictions, an unconditional obligation at least from the institutions of the Men of the Great Assembly, and the Amidah prayer that in the night is of conditional Rabbinical character. When the principle “immediately after redemption comes prayer” was adopted also for the evening prayers (see preceding section), the intermediate pieces were declared to be “extensions of the thanksgiving for redemption.” The benediction immediately preceding the Qaddish was fixed by Babylonian Gaonim to be a benediction for future redemption. The Qaddish itself may be a Gaonic institution.. Immediately after leaning comes slaughtering: “He shall lean … he shall slaughter” (Lev. 1:4–5)¹¹⁴Leaning and slaughtering are two obligations of the votary given in two consecutive verses. (However, leaning must be performed by the votary himself but slaughtering can be delegated to a third party.). Immediately after hand-washing comes benediction, (Ps. 134:2) “Lift your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.¹¹⁵Hands lifted in holiness are washed hands. An allusion to this is found in the benediction that does not read “to wash the hands” but “to lift the hands.”” Immediately after redemption comes prayer, (Ps. 19:15) “May the words of my mouth be for goodwill” and it is written after that (Ps. 20:2) “May the Lord answer you on the day of worry.”¹¹⁶This derivation is a good example for the tendency of the Talmud to assume that everybody knows his Bible by heart and that it is enough to quote the start of a sentence in order to recall the entire sentence. The last sentence of Psalm 19 reads in its entirety: “May the words of my mouth be for goodwill before You, o Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer”. The next psalm, disregarding the title “For the director, a psalm of David,” starts: “May the Lord answer you on the day of worry.” Since psalms in ancient manuscripts were written without paragraph divisions, the description of God as redeemer and the mention of help through prayer are consecutive. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: For anyone who immediately slaughters after leaning, no disqualification will appear regarding his sacrifice. For anyone who immediately pronounces the benediction after washing his hands, Satan will not find anything to accuse about at that meal. For anyone who immediately prays after mentioning redemption, Satan will not find anything to accuse him of the entire day¹¹⁷This third statement is quoted in the Babli (Berakhot 9b), in the name of the holy congregation of Jerusalem, i.e., the Tanna R. Yose ben Hammeshullam. To it is appended the story about Rebbi Zera (Zeïra)’s complaint, only there he had to bring myrrh to the king himself. Since R. Zeïra was a Babylonian immigrant to Israel, it is not clear whether his forced labor occured in Babylonia, on the occasion of a visit of the Persian king, or in Galilee where he only had the opportunity to see the interior of the governor’s residence. The language of the story in the Yerushalmi points to its happening in Israel, while the language of the Babli points to the Persian empire. It cannot be decided where the incident happened.. Rebbi Zeïra said, I am used to immediately pray after mentioning redemption and I was conscripted to forced labor, to bring myrrh to the Palace. They said to him: our teacher, that is an honor. There are people who pay money to see the inside of the Palace. Rebbi Immi¹¹⁸In the Babylonian Talmud, he appears as Rebbi Ammi, colleague of Rebbi Assi/Yasa. In the Yerushalmi, his name usually is Immi. His simile is quoted by Rashi, Berakhot 4b. said: Anyone who does not immediately pray after mentioning redemption, whom is he to be likened to? To an acquaintance of the king who comes from afar to the king’s door. When the king comes to see what he wants, he finds that the person left. Hence, the king also leaves.