Le Lévitique 4:12 Références du Talmud : Jerusalem Talmud Sotah, Jerusalem Talmud Yoma & Jerusalem Talmud Megillah

HALAKHAH: “As it was said further,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, anybody who is not in the position of those [men]²²The “heads of Ephraim”, “princes and community” who forbade to the Ephraimite army to treat the Judahite prisoners as prisoners of war, 2Chr. 28:12,14. who had the power to object, should not object. ²³The same text Terumot 5:9, Notes 113–115; Ḥagigah 1:8 (76d, line 50). Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as it is a commandment to speak on things that will be done, so it is a commandment not to talk about things that would not be done²⁴In the Babli, this is formulated as: “Let them be in error, do not turn them into intentional sinners” (Beṣah 30a, Baba batra 60b). A formulation similar to the one given here in Yebamot 65b in the name of R. Eleazar.. Rebbi Eleazar said, just as it is forbidden to declare the impure pure, so it is forbidden to declare the pure impure. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a practical case comes before you and you do not know whether to burn or to suspend²⁵Heave that is impure by biblical standards has to be burned, if impure by rabbinical standards it only has to be kept until it rots and is no longer food and therefore pure by all standards. As a practical matter, it would be preferable to burn heave rabbinically impure in the second degree so that it should not cause third degree disability by inadvertent touching., always prefer burning to suspension since nothing is more beloved in the Torah than burned oxen and burned rams²⁶Animals whose blood was used for a purification rite inside the Temple building (Lev. 4:12,21; 8:17; 16:27)., and they are burned. Rebbi Yose asked: Does one infer something which is not commanded from something which is commanded²⁷R. Joḥanan’s argument does not prove anything for rabbinic decisions.?

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned were taken out and brought back¹¹⁸Since it was established in the previous paragraph that the carcasses are the cause of severe impurity by biblical decree once the majority of the limbs was removed from the Temple precinct, the question necessarily refers to single limbs which do not constitute a majority of the carcass. The question is different in the Babli, Zevaḥim105a.? It is obvious for us that in returning they do not make garments impure¹¹⁹A limb even partially taken out of the sacred precinct becomes disqualified. Even if a person other than the carrier who touches a limb while it is taken back may become impure in his person, the impurity does not extend to his clothing since the biblical conditions for this are not satisfied.. What our problem is, do they make garments impure from the moment they started to be brought out¹²⁰As will be seen, the question is about people other than the carriers of the carcass or its limbs. If the carcass was partially taken out but then returned, and a third party touched the body, do his garments become impure?? Rebbi Abba objected, did we not state¹²¹Mishnah Zevaḥim 12:6.: “They were carrying them on yokes. If the front carriers left the walls of the Temple courtyard while the back carriers did not yet leave, the front carriers make garments impure while the back carriers do not make garments impure until they also leave. After they left, these and those make garments impure.” Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, there is a difference, for it is written, then he shall take out¹²²Lev. 4:12, about the purification sacrifice of the anointed priest., until he completely leave the domain from which it is taken out¹²³The carriers become impure the moment they are completely outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, but the carcass becomes a source of severe impurity for any who touch it only after it was completely taken out of the sacred domain. The carriers become impure even if they never come in contact with the carcass. The wooden bars on which the carcass is carried do not transmit impurity by touch; the impurity of the carriers is induced by the motion of the carcass, not by contact..

Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi accepted the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon and taught accordingly¹⁹⁸He holds that the last sentence of the Mishnah can be explained only following R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon.. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Why Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? Even following his father, Rebbi Simeon! He said to him, “eating” is on the altar, “burning” is not on the altar¹⁹⁹Rabbinic usage follows biblical usage in this case. The burning of sacrifices on the altar is never called “burning”, but “eating (by the fire)”, cf. Lev. 6:3. On the other hand, the burning outside the Temple is always called “burning”, cf. Lev. 4:12,21; 16:27. If the Mishnah uses the expression “burning”, it implies that this cannot be on the altar.. Rebbi Ḥanina objected before Rebbi Mana: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya disagree: “It cannot be burned completely because of the wife’s part²⁰⁰The offering for a Cohen’s suspected wife. The first clause is in Tosephta, 2:6. For the intelligible full text of this discussion, cf. Chapter 2:1, Note 7 ff.; it cannot be eaten because of the husband’s part.” He said to him, Rebbi accepted the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya accepted the opinion of the latter’s father Rebbi Simeon.