Le Deutéronome 21:4 Passages liés

It was stated⁵⁰Tosephta 7:11. The text is quoted Babli Pesaḥim 53a.: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a sign for mountains are ash trees⁵¹Greek μελία (Musaphia). Rashi and R. Ḥananel in Pesaḥim define as “gall-oak.” Lieberman defines as “pine”; in Arabic מילא is “a leafy tree”., for valleys dates, for brooks reeds, for the lowland sycamores. Even if it is no proof, there is a sign (1K. 10:27, 2Chr. 1:19, 9:27)): ‘Cedars he [Solomon] gave as many as sycamores in the lowland.’ ” Some people want to say it was said⁵²The sign for brooks, which is not needed for the laws of the Sabbatical. The sign is needed either to standardize legal terms (that a contract for sale of a brook which has no reeds is invalid unless their absence is noted in the contract) or as definition of the “abandoned brook” at which an unsolved murder case must be atoned for (Deut. 21). The Babli takes the entire Tosephta as defining legal terms. as a legal term, others say it refers to the calf whose neck is to be broken.

The place where it¹³²The primary meaning of the imperfect is as a future. falls down and its surroundings are forbidden. How much are its surroundings? Four cubits¹³³Where the calf falls down. The hapax גיסה in the opinion of S. Lieberman may be Syriac. In the two Tosephta mss. (9:1) the readings are גיתה, גיזתה.. Rebbi says, I am saying that its surroundings are fifty cubits¹³⁴In the Tosephta: 40 cubits. Since no reason is given for that number and it does not appear in other agricultural contexts, the reading of the Yerushalmi is preferable. The Genizah ms. is not available at this point. The notion that a strip 4 cubits wide is attached to a given domain appears in several contexts, agricultural (as boundary strip betwen fields) and not agricultural (as private domain on the Sabbath, as reserved domain in front of a house in a multi-family courtyard).. Rebbi Samuel the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: “which would not be worked on,” a general statement. “And would not be sown,” a detail. If a general statement is followed by a detail, the general does not contain more than the detail⁹⁵The fifth hermeneutical rule. Since the detail is logically contained in the general, its mention serves as definition for the general statement. The same objection is noted in the Babli, 46a; the short answer given in the Babli is intelligible only in the light of the Yerushalmi.. He said to him, if it were written “which would not be worked on, which would not be sown,” you would be justified; but it is written “which would not be worked on.” This does not describe general statement and detail, but an additional reference¹³⁶That “work” means agricultural use, but that industrial use of the place is permitted..

Rebbi Yannai said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: Even if one broke its neck he is guilty¹⁵⁰If a calf has its neck broken the same day its mother was slaughtered for food, cf. Note 120.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The words of Rebbi Meïr: Even if one broke its neck he is guilty. The words of Rebbi Simeon: Even if he cut its throat, he is not punishable¹⁵¹R. Simeon holds that any use of the verb שחט in the Pentateuch refers to slaughter either for the altar or human consumption (Ḥulin 82a). Since the verse which forbids slaughtering mother and young on the same day uses the word תשחטו, it follows that for him only the provision of food either for the altar or humans is forbidden; nothing done with an atoning calf falls under that law.. Rebbi Yannai said, I heard about a boundary, from when it is forbidden: “They shall bring it down,” from the time of bringing down¹⁵²In the Babli, Ḥulin 82a, R. Yannai stated only that he heard that there is a well defined moment in which the calf becomes sanctified and loses its quality as potential food; the members of his Academy determined that moment to be when the calf enters the unworkable area of the valley.. Rebbi Ila said, to free it from “it and its young” following Rebbi Simeon¹⁵³This qualifies the statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish in the name of R. Simeon (ben Ioḥai). If the mother was slaughtered while her calf was still potential profane food, the calf cannot be slaughtered on the same day. If the mother was slaughtered after the calf had lost its status as potential food, even if the calf was wrongly slaughtered by cutting its throat instead of breaking its neck, the prohibition was not infringed upon. The Babli does not follow this argument..