Talmud sur Le Lévitique 1:2

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even while he is suffering an attack of seizures, one writes the bill of divorce and delivers it to his wife. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, when he regains his sanity¹¹In the Babli, 70b, the attributions are switched, following the later argument in this paragraph (Note 17).. The argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems to be inverted, since they disagreed: ¹²This quote is incomplete; the text has to be completed from Horaiot (Note 10) and a related text in the Babli, Zebaḥim 12b. The completed text must read: “If somebody had eaten forbidden fat and already had prepared his separation sacrifice when he became…” A purification sacrifice is personal; if its owner died it cannot be transferred to another owner or another use, nor can it be redeemed. The question is whether insanity makes a person lose his individuality; if the answer is positive then during the period of insanity the sacrificial animal was ownerless and cannot then or afterwards be of any use; it has to be put away until it dies a natural death. If he became deaf-mute¹³The illiterate deaf-mute has lost his legal personality; cf. Ketubot Chpater 1, Note 134, Yebamot 14:1., or insane, or became an apostate¹⁴Lev. 1:2: “If a person from among you present a sacrifice …” is interpreted to mean that the rules of obligatory sacrifices apply to converts but exclude apostates [Babli Ḥulin 5a, 13b; Erubin 69b; Sifra Wayyiqra Paršata 2(3)]., or the Court ruled that fat may be eaten¹⁵The High Court in the Temple ruled that the circumstances for which the person brings his purification offering do not imply that a sin was committed. Since a purification offering cannot be brought as a voluntary gift, the offering becomes unusable. It is stated here that if the court later reverses itself, R. Joḥanan holds that the sacrifice is not reinstated., Rebbi Joḥanan said, his sacrifice of purification is pushed aside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sacrifice of purification is not pushed aside¹⁶If circumstances change, the sacrifice may be re-instated.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi (Joḥanan) [Aḥa]¹⁷It is obvious that the reading from Horaiot, R. Aḥa, is correct, since R. Joḥanan, who is quoted in the text here, has no influence over what future generations report in his name. R. Aḥa’s tradition is the source of the quote in the Babli (Note 11). switches traditions, to avoid that a word of Rebbi Joḥanan contradict his own word. For Rebbi Samuel¹⁸Since both R. Samuel bar Abba and R. Simeon bar Abba were students of R. Joḥanan, it is impossible to decide between the readings here and in Horaiot. bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One sprinkles the blood of a purification sacrifice or a reparation sacrifice for a person terminally ill¹⁹These sacrifices may not be offered for the deceased. The priest who was informed that the offering was for a terminally ill person can proceed under the assumption that the person is alive at the moment which validates the offering, when the blood of the sacrifice is sprinkled on the wall of the altar.. The rabbis of Caesarea said, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yasa²⁰In Horaiot: R. Immi, the permanent companion of R. Yasa. It follows that the R. Ḥiyya mentioned here is R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, student and successor to R. Joḥanan., one follows the one, the other follows the other²¹It is not stated who followed R. Joḥanan and who R. Simeon ben Laqish; from the following it seems that the Yerushalmi does not accept R. Aḥa’s relabelling of the opinions..

Rebbi Idi said before Rebbi Yose, a slave is permitted his sister¹⁰⁰As the Babli explains (Sanhedrin 58b), he is no longer a Gentile but not yet a responsible Jew. He cannot be punished in either law and he cannot legally marry.. He said to him, did you hear this even if she is from the same mother? He said, yes. He said to him, but did we not state: “The same applies to a slave girl who was freed together with her sons.” For ḥalîṣah and levirate¹⁰¹But not for criminal matters. The convert changed from one set of laws to another; the libertine enters a set of laws that previously were not applicable to her.. Rebbi Phineas said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yasa: A slave who slept with his mother is obligated for a purification sacrifice. “You shall command them¹⁰²Lev. 1:2. After the introduction: “Speak to the Children of Israel”, the addition “you shall command them” seems superfluous unless it includes people whose inclusion among the Children of Israel is doubtful.,” including slaves¹⁰³Since in theory anything a slaves owns belongs to his master, any obligation of sacrifice would have to be deferred until after the slave’s manumission.. Or should we say, this was said about fat¹⁰⁴While a slave is obligated to obey all prohibitions in the Torah, it may be that in matters of sexual relations his status is different. (Since slaves cannot marry, as a matter of principle promiscuity is permitted to them; cf. Terumot Chapter 8, Note 247.)? Do we find in his relation to his mother that her converted aspect accompanies the unconverted aspect just as with a slave girl her converted aspect accompanies the unconverted aspect¹⁰⁵A betrothed girl is a wife for criminal law; adultery with her is a capital crime (Deut. 22:23–24). By contrast, adultery with a half-freed slave girl engaged to be married to a free man (in expectation of her full emancipation; she did belong to two masters one of whom manumitted his share) can be expiated by a reparation offering (Lev. 19:20–22; Sifra Qedošim Pereq 5). This shows that her semi-free status interferes with the operation of criminal law for free persons. In analogy, we could conjecture that the status of a slave as incompletely converted (since he is not obligated to observe most positive commandments) interferes with the operation of the laws of obligatory sacrifices.
The problem is not resolved, probably because it is not realistic.?

⁸⁶This and the next paragraph also appear in Pesaḥim5:1, Notes 80–97, where also the readings of B are noted (ג is unreadable or lacunary for the present paragraph.) Only the most necessary notes are given here, the remainder should be consulted there. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says⁸⁷Lev. 3:6., and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering from small cattle? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. Everywhere you are saying that מִן (is to include) [is to exclude], but here you are saying that (מִן is to exclude) [is to include]⁸⁸The text is difficult since it is standard rabbinic interpretation to consider prefix mem or מִן as privative, excluding certain categories (cf. Šabbat7 Note 26, Ševuot1:2 Note 75, Bava Meṣia`4:8 Note 122, Nazir5:4 Note 105). Also in the next sentence, R. Mana gives the interpretation that here מִן is privative. On the other hand, the testimony of the scribe’s two texts, the Genizah fragment available for Pesaḥim, and the Munich ms. of Šeqalim do not permit emendation. It seems that here “every where” is derogatory, meaning Babylonian. The sequence of arguments leads to a contradiction. Abba bar Abba treats מִן as inclusive, R. Abun bar Cahana as exclusive. R. Mana explains that מִן always is partitive; automatic switch to well-being offerings is possible only for sacrifices that totally correspond to the declaration צאן, i. e., both sheep and goats, male and female.. Rebbi Mana said, (it excludes it,) [here also מִן is to exclude: It excludes in that it may not be brought two years old; it excludes that it cannot be brought female; and for a reparation offering also it excludes]⁸⁹Corrector’s addition from B. since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written,⁹⁰Lev. 1:10. and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that they are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Illa said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering⁸⁷Lev. 3:6.; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts⁹¹If the animal dedicated as Pesaḥ is used against the rules for something other than a well-being offering, do the rules of the other kind apply or is it disqualified and no rules of intent apply?? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul⁹²If the animal still is a sacrifice, now under the rules of elevation sacrifices, the intention to perform any required action out of its prescribed time-frame is piggul, a deadly sin causing extirpation.. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified⁹³If the animal is disqualified and not under the rule of any kind of sacrifice, the illegitimate intent is inconsequential..

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about Gentiles, therefore not about Samaritans. It was stated so¹²⁶Sifra Wayyiqra I (Ḥovah) Pereq2(3).: “A human¹²⁷Lev. 1:2. This use of human follows R.. Simeon’s interpretation of Ez. 34:30, where he reads אָדָ֣ם אַתֶּ֑ם as “you are noblemen” (Accadic awēlum), a title reserved for members of the Covenant. Since the Samaritans are descendants of proselytes, they are included in all obligations and privileges of the covenant and cannot be excluded from any of these., to include the proselytes. From among you¹²⁸Reading prefix mem as privative; excluding people who removed themselves from the Covenant. It seems that ג reads “removed from discipline”., to exclude the apostates.” The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “One does not accept nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, nests of female sufferers from flux, nests of women having given birth.” Do there exist nests of sufferers from gonorrhea and flux among Gentiles¹²⁹These kinds of impurity do not apply to Gentiles who anyhow do not need them since they only are required to permit the healed person to enter the sanctuary or eat sancta, from which Gentiles are excluded.? But the beginning is about Gentiles, the end about Samaritans¹³⁰The statement that one does not accept the sheqel from them (but also that one accepts their voluntary sacrifices.) The rest is Rebbi’s formulation to exclude Samaritans from Jewish worship.. So it is, the beginning is about Gentiles, the end about Samaritans.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is about Gentiles, therefore not about Samaritans. It was stated so¹²⁶Sifra Wayyiqra I (Ḥovah) Pereq2(3).: “A human¹²⁷Lev. 1:2. This use of human follows R.. Simeon’s interpretation of Ez. 34:30, where he reads אָדָ֣ם אַתֶּ֑ם as “you are noblemen” (Accadic awēlum), a title reserved for members of the Covenant. Since the Samaritans are descendants of proselytes, they are included in all obligations and privileges of the covenant and cannot be excluded from any of these., to include the proselytes. From among you¹²⁸Reading prefix mem as privative; excluding people who removed themselves from the Covenant. It seems that ג reads “removed from discipline”., to exclude the apostates.” The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “One does not accept nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, nests of female sufferers from flux, nests of women having given birth.” Do there exist nests of sufferers from gonorrhea and flux among Gentiles¹²⁹These kinds of impurity do not apply to Gentiles who anyhow do not need them since they only are required to permit the healed person to enter the sanctuary or eat sancta, from which Gentiles are excluded.? But the beginning is about Gentiles, the end about Samaritans¹³⁰The statement that one does not accept the sheqel from them (but also that one accepts their voluntary sacrifices.) The rest is Rebbi’s formulation to exclude Samaritans from Jewish worship.. So it is, the beginning is about Gentiles, the end about Samaritans.

It was stated: Ben Bag-bag says, a perfect lamb, shorn is not perfect. But was it not stated, of small cattle⁷⁵Lev. 1:2. As always, prefix mem is read as: from some, not all., to exclude the smooth of them. Rebbi Abun said, to exclude those which the Torah separated⁷⁶Sifra Wayyiqra I (Nedavah) Pereq 2., the male or female used for bestiality, one dedicated for idolatrous worship, and one worshipped.