וְכִ֣י תִשְׁגּ֔וּ וְלֹ֣א תַעֲשׂ֔וּ אֵ֥ת כָּל־הַמִּצְוֺ֖ת הָאֵ֑לֶּה אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶֽׁה׃
Si, par suite d’une erreur, vous n’observez pas tous ces commandements que l’Éternel a communiqués à Moïse,
Jerusalem Talmud Nazir
7This paragraph and the next are from Šabbat 7:2 (9c, 1. 11 ff.), as will be seen in the commentary. The variant readings refer to that text. The introductory section is from Šabbat 7:1 (9a, 1. 20–24), the one variant in spelling there is noted by: א.
Mishnah Šabbat 7:2 states that on the Sabbath, 39 different activities are forbidden. This means that a person who violates the Sabbath unintentionally may be liable for up to 39 purification sacrifices. The question then appears whether in other cases multiple sacrifices also are necessary. Rav Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting8He committed idolatry but forgot that sacrificing, burning incense, and pouring libations are forbidden as idolatrous actions, or he was conscious that these acts are part of idolatry but forgot that idolatry was forbidden., he is guilty for each action separately9In the Babli, Šabbat 72a, Sanhedrin 62a, the positions of R. Joḥanan and R. Zakkai are switched.. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands10Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan. and were broken. He is guilty only once! 11The sentences in braces are unintelligible here; they refer to and are quoted from a discussion in Šabbat 7:1 (fol. 9a) which deals with the introductory sentence to the chapter of purification offerings, Lev. 4:2: “Speak to the Children of Israel, saying: If a person sins unintentionally against any commandments of the Eternal that are not to be broken, and did from any one, from those.” This implies that sometimes a purification offering is due for violating one prohibition, and sometimes one sacrifice is valid for a number of those. In general, the answer depends on what was unintentional. If a person does not know that today is Sabbath, for all he does wrong he owes one sacrifice. If he knows that it is Sabbath but forgot what is forbidden, he owes one sacrifice for each category of forbidden work. The problem is first whether this principle also applies to idolatry, the sacrifice for which is not described in Lev. 4 but in Num. 15:22–26, and second what is the status of the details enumerated in the Second Commandment, in particular why a detail, “do not prostrate yourself before them” is mentioned before the principle “do not serve them”.{Before he broke12The reference to “breaking” here is a continuation of R. Joḥanan’s criticism of Rav Zakkai (who in the Babli is Rebbi Zakkai): If the Second Commandment is considered a unit, there are no “those” to be applied to idolatry. If all activities mentioned are separate rules, how can one bring only one sacrifice? in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: “Do not perform any work13Ex. 20:10.,” principle. “Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places,14Ex. 35:3.” a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual15A forbidden action on the Sabbath which is executed only by the common effort of several people is not prosecutable. and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty16Needs a separate sacrifice. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli, Šabbat 70a, appears as R. Nathan.)
Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qama 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menahem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים לתולדות התפתחותה של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original Tannaïtic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions.. Also here17Regarding idolatry.: “Do not worship them,18Ex. 20:5.” a principle. “Do not prostrate yourself,18Ex. 20:5.” a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty16Needs a separate sacrifice. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli, Šabbat 70a, appears as R. Nathan.)
Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qama 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menahem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים לתולדות התפתחותה של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original Tannaïtic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions.. He answered19R. Ze‘ira, answering R. Abba bar Mamal. The translation follows the text in Šabbat.: For the Sabbath, he mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail20In the same sentence. If “prostrating” had been mentioned after “serving”, the 5th hermeneutical principle would imply that the two notions are identical in intent. As the verse stands, it cannot be interpreted as “principle and detail”.. He retorted: Is it not witten: “Do not prostrate yourself before another power”21Ex. 34:14.? He did not state the principle and the detail at the same spot! He said, since you do not infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar22Since 34:14 does not teach anything not contained in Ex. 20:5.. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle23Therefore, the 9th principle does not apply to idolatry since the detail does not follow after the principle.. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether 24Text from Šabbat.[He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle25This really is the case for the Second Comandment.]; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He was indeterminate regarding its worship but detailed the worship of Heaven26The prohibition refers to performing for idolatry any ceremony commanded for the worship of Heaven. The case of R. Zakkai really has no connection with the argument about the status of the mention of prostrating oneself in the Second Commandment..
Mishnah Šabbat 7:2 states that on the Sabbath, 39 different activities are forbidden. This means that a person who violates the Sabbath unintentionally may be liable for up to 39 purification sacrifices. The question then appears whether in other cases multiple sacrifices also are necessary. Rav Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting8He committed idolatry but forgot that sacrificing, burning incense, and pouring libations are forbidden as idolatrous actions, or he was conscious that these acts are part of idolatry but forgot that idolatry was forbidden., he is guilty for each action separately9In the Babli, Šabbat 72a, Sanhedrin 62a, the positions of R. Joḥanan and R. Zakkai are switched.. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands10Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan. and were broken. He is guilty only once! 11The sentences in braces are unintelligible here; they refer to and are quoted from a discussion in Šabbat 7:1 (fol. 9a) which deals with the introductory sentence to the chapter of purification offerings, Lev. 4:2: “Speak to the Children of Israel, saying: If a person sins unintentionally against any commandments of the Eternal that are not to be broken, and did from any one, from those.” This implies that sometimes a purification offering is due for violating one prohibition, and sometimes one sacrifice is valid for a number of those. In general, the answer depends on what was unintentional. If a person does not know that today is Sabbath, for all he does wrong he owes one sacrifice. If he knows that it is Sabbath but forgot what is forbidden, he owes one sacrifice for each category of forbidden work. The problem is first whether this principle also applies to idolatry, the sacrifice for which is not described in Lev. 4 but in Num. 15:22–26, and second what is the status of the details enumerated in the Second Commandment, in particular why a detail, “do not prostrate yourself before them” is mentioned before the principle “do not serve them”.{Before he broke12The reference to “breaking” here is a continuation of R. Joḥanan’s criticism of Rav Zakkai (who in the Babli is Rebbi Zakkai): If the Second Commandment is considered a unit, there are no “those” to be applied to idolatry. If all activities mentioned are separate rules, how can one bring only one sacrifice? in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: “Do not perform any work13Ex. 20:10.,” principle. “Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places,14Ex. 35:3.” a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual15A forbidden action on the Sabbath which is executed only by the common effort of several people is not prosecutable. and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty16Needs a separate sacrifice. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli, Šabbat 70a, appears as R. Nathan.)
Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qama 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menahem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים לתולדות התפתחותה של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original Tannaïtic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions.. Also here17Regarding idolatry.: “Do not worship them,18Ex. 20:5.” a principle. “Do not prostrate yourself,18Ex. 20:5.” a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty16Needs a separate sacrifice. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli, Šabbat 70a, appears as R. Nathan.)
Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qama 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menahem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים לתולדות התפתחותה של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original Tannaïtic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions.. He answered19R. Ze‘ira, answering R. Abba bar Mamal. The translation follows the text in Šabbat.: For the Sabbath, he mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail20In the same sentence. If “prostrating” had been mentioned after “serving”, the 5th hermeneutical principle would imply that the two notions are identical in intent. As the verse stands, it cannot be interpreted as “principle and detail”.. He retorted: Is it not witten: “Do not prostrate yourself before another power”21Ex. 34:14.? He did not state the principle and the detail at the same spot! He said, since you do not infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar22Since 34:14 does not teach anything not contained in Ex. 20:5.. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle23Therefore, the 9th principle does not apply to idolatry since the detail does not follow after the principle.. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether 24Text from Šabbat.[He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle25This really is the case for the Second Comandment.]; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He was indeterminate regarding its worship but detailed the worship of Heaven26The prohibition refers to performing for idolatry any ceremony commanded for the worship of Heaven. The case of R. Zakkai really has no connection with the argument about the status of the mention of prostrating oneself in the Second Commandment..
Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot
71Babli 6b; Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 11(9). And from where that it speaks only about the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta? He warned and punished about impurity72In Lev. 22:15–16, both warning and punishment are written for priests who would violate the purity of the Sanctuary and its sancta. For the laity the corresponding verses are Lev. 7:19–20. The sacrifice for violations in purity is mentioned in Lev. 5:2–3; one has to establish that no sacrifice is possible for violations of sancta which do not belong to the Sanctuary such as heave. and required a sacrifice about impurity. Since punishment and warning spelled out later on refer to impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta73Deut. 26:14. The person who comes to eat his Second Tithe at the place of the Sanctuary has to make a declaration that he followed all the rules; in particular that he did not eat of it while in “deep mourning”, occupied in burying a close relative. Second Tithe has to be eaten in purity but no sanction for violation of its purity is spelled out anywhere in the Pentateuch., also when He made liable for a sacrifice it is about impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, since it says, I did not eat from it in my deep mourning74Deut.14., I could think that an Israel who ate tithe in deep mourning should bring a sacrifice. The verse says, from thes e75Lev. 5:4. Prefix מ always is read as partitive, “some but not all.” Since it is not spelled out which infractions of the laws of impurity (or of testimony, or oaths) are included, and which are excluded, the detailed rules are left to rabbinic interpretation. Babli 33b.. For some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. I will exclude tithe which is not a deadly sin but will not exclude heave which is a deadly sin as it is said, they would die from it for they desecrated it76Lev. 22:9. First Tithe (of which heave of the tithe was separated) is totally profane in the hand of the Levite. Second Tithe has to be eaten in purity at the place of the Sanctuary but there is no penalty for violation of its purity. But heave has to be eaten by the Cohen in purity and violation of its purity is a deadly sin.. The verse says from thes e; for some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. Or since there77The verse mentioned in Note 76. [one speaks about] heave, also here heave. But did you not learn it from foreign worship78The sacrifice atoning for inadvertent idolatry is declared paradigmatic for all sins in Num. 15:22.? Since foreign worship teaches about all transgressions in the Torah, to say that as foreign worship is special that one is liable for extirpation if done intentionally and for a sacrifice if done unintentionally79The sacrifice is spelled out in Num. 15:22–29; extirpation in vv. 30–31. Babli Šabbat 69a.. This excludes heave which only is a deadly sin80But no extirpation is mentioned for violating purity of heaves..
Jerusalem Talmud Horayot
MISHNAH: If the Court ruled and all the public or a majority acted on their instruction, they bring a bull; or in a matter of idolatry a bull and a goat135Sacrifices for unintended sins committed by the entire community are prescribed both in Lev. 4:13–31 (a bull) and Num. 15:22–26 (a bull as elevation offering and a goat as purification offering). The verses in Num. are interpreted to refer to the sin of idolatry since that is the only sin by which in one action one violates all commandments (Num. 15:22). Since the sacrifice for violating all commandments cannot be less than that for violating one commandment, it is logical that the sacrifice for idolatry must be more than the regular sacrifice Lev.4:13–31. (Sifry Num. 111), the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the Twelve Tribes bring twelve bulls and in a matter of idolatry the Twelve Tribes bring twelve bulls and twelve goats136As discussed in the Halakhah, this is a problem of definition of עֵדָה and קָהָל.. Rebbi Simeon says, thirteen oxen, and in a matter of idolatry thirteen bulls and thirteen goats; a bull and a goat for each tribe; a bull and a goat for the Court.