Le Deutéronome 12:3 Passages liés

HALAKHAH: ²⁹This and the the following paragraph also are Halakhah 3:8 in Avodah zara, where the differences in spelling are noted. Evidence points to Šabbat as the primary source. Much of the argument is found in Babli Šabbat 82b–83b. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, and there is written abomination about idolatry, and there is written abomination about vermin. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abomination s³⁰Lev. 18:29. The verse refers to all prohibitions of a sexual nature., etc. Abomination about idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house³¹Deut. 7:26. This verse refers uniquely to idols and idolatry., etc. Abomination about vermin, do not eat any abomination³²Deut. 14:2. The verse refers to all food prohibitions.. But I do not know to which of them it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load²In Lev. 15:20–21 it is stated that anything the menstruating woman lies on becomes an original source of impurity. This means that if a woman in her period lies on top of ten mattresses and somebody touches the lowest one, which the woman never touched, he becomes impure as if he had touched the woman herself.. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone³³Stone is impervious to impurity. In general, anything not susceptible to impurity cannot transmit impurity. The one and only exception is impurity caused by genital discharges where impurity by load (Note 2) applies to anything under the affected person and even a stone plate covering a mattress will not shield the mattress from impurity if a person afflicted by a genital discharge sits on the stone. Babli Niddah 69b., does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Jehudah, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abomination s of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion³⁴Here one has a serious discrepancy between the technical terminology of the Babli and the Yerushalmi. In the Babli impurity by motion is a form of impurity by load: If a person suffering from a genital discharge moves something indirectly or is moved with it, he imparts impurity. In the Yerushalmi this is consistently designated by its Mishnaic name, מִדְרָס, “stepping on.” This kind of impurity emphatically does not exist for vermin, or anything other than genital discharges. Therefore היסט the “motion” mentioned here must be that of a person’s hand touching an impure object. Transfer of impurity by touch is the only one mentioned for the eight kinds of impure vermin., so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity³⁵Mishnah Ahilut 1:8. This minimum size for generation of impurity does not apply to complete limbs. does idolatry in the size of a lentil also impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead³⁶Ps. 106:28.. As the dead in the volume of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the volume of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in³⁷This refers to “tent” impurity (Ševuot 2:1 Note 34) which is created by any part of a person’s body being under the same roof as a corpse, even if it is only a finger tip., could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down from the leprous house³⁸A house afflicted with recurrent “leprosy” must be torn down (Lev. 14:45). Pagan altars must be torn down (Deut. 12:3). By the nature of the topics, the verb נתץ is used in the singular in the first case, in the plural in the second. Therefore this is a comparison (הקש), not an “equal cut” (גזירה שוה); the laws will be similar, not exactly identical.. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body³⁹Based on Lev. 14:46, which decrees impurity for anybody coming into the house, Sifra Meṣoraˋ Pereq 5(4), Mishnah Negaˋim 13:8., so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent⁴⁰Neither R. Aqiba nor the rabbis are consistent in their comparisons.. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it⁴¹The impurity of idols and idolatry should follow the rules common for impurities generated either by dead vermin or by bodily discharges. This argument is known in the Babli tradition as הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה “the equal part;” cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: “Confrontations with Judaism”, ed. Ph. Longworth, London 1966, p. 185.. This is for a broken idol. But a whole one even in the most minute size⁴²This is consistent with the impurity of animals as food, where a complete creature always is biblically forbidden irrespective of size (cf. Nazir 6:1 Note 64)., as Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥama bar Gorion said in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean: They selected the Baal of circumcision as god⁴³Jud. 8:33. Instead of “Baal of Covenant” one reads “Baal of circumcision” referring to the place of circumcision. This identifies the Semitic Baal with the Greek and Roman Priapus..

“A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden,” therefore it can be annulled. “But a Jew’s only when it is worshipped,” therefore it cannot be annulled. Rebbi Ze`ira said, there is no “therefore”<sup>58</sup>It is not a logical consequence. The Tosephta, 5:3, notes that it is a logical consequence of the opposite opinion. If the idol made by a Jew is immediately forbidden even if he did not worship it then it follows that he cannot annul it (except maybe by melting it down) but the Gentile whose idol becomes forbidden only if worshipped can annul an idol by an act of non-worship., only “it cannot be annulled or it can be annulled”. “A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden,” as it is written<sup>59</sup>Deut. 12:20.: you certainly shall destroy.“But a Jew’s only when it is worshipped,” as it is written<sup>60</sup>Deut. 27:15. The argument is from the later part of the verse, cursed be the man who would make a hewn or molten image and put it up in secret. As long as it is not put up there is no curse. The Babli, 52a, reads the verse as stating that the curse applies when the idol is made., cursed be the man who makes a hewn or molten image, etc., when he puts it up. But some are switching this<sup>61</sup>Tosephta 5:4.. “A Jew’s idol is immediately forbidden,” for it is written, cursed be the man. “But a Gentile’s only when it was worshipped,” as it is written<sup>59</sup>Deut. 12:20., you certainly shall destroy all the places where these peoples worshipped. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel understood it from the following: If you inherited it when it was a god you shall burn it in fire<sup>62</sup>This probably should be a quote of Deut. 7:25., otherwise of which you will inherit their gods<sup>63</sup>The full verse reads: you certainly shall destroy all the places where these peoples worshipped, whom you are going to inherit, their gods. By taking only a fraction of the verse it is turned into permission to inherit the statues of the gods. This implies that if the Gentiles do not consider them as gods any more, the prohibition of usufruct is lifted.. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai understood it from the following: You should not covet silver or gold for them<sup>64</sup>` Deut. 8:25. If the Gentiles covet their silver and gold, you may take it. In the Babli, 52a, is a similar argument. Samuel reads the verse, do not covet silver or gold for them and take for yourself as: you may not covet silver or gold for them but you may be permitted to take for yourself.. You cannot covet and take, but others can covet and you are taking.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a stele is a monolith, an altar has many stones⁸⁴Babli 53b. In the Babli, instead of maṣseba one uses βωμός, not consistent with the use of the term in the Yerushalmi.. This change in terminology is not usually recognized in the talmudic Dictionaries.. Ḥizqiah said, a stele is annulled once it is damaged; of an altar one has to damage each single stone. A baraita of Ḥizqiah disagrees with him: If you tore down the altar, leave it alone; if you broke the stele, leave it alone ⁸⁵The terminology is taken from Deut. 12:3.. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia; Rebbi Ḥiyya (Rebbi)⁸⁶Read בר for ר׳. The tradent is R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. Abba, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rav Hoshaia: When He turns all stones of the altar like smashed pieces of chalk⁸⁷Is. 27:9. In the Babli, 54a, this is Ḥizqiah’s baraita; probably here also this is the statement which contradicts his earlier statement that simple damage, not complete annihilation, permits maṣsebot and altars for usufruct., persecute them until you eliminated its egg from the world. But here, if you broke a stele, leave it alone; if you tore down an altar, leave it alone⁸⁸Divine vengeance is different from rules prescribed for humans..