Bagian Terkait Bilangan 15:24

HALAKHAH: “They are only liable for something which when intentional is punishable by extirpation,” etc. ³⁹Cf. Yebamot 4:15, Notes 219–227.The commandments of the Eternal⁴⁰Since the introduction to the rules of purification sacrifices, Lev. 4:2, seems to prescribe such a sacrifice for all the Commandments of the Eternal, it needs an argument why in all four cases (the High Priest, the High Court, Prince, and commoner) simple transgressions are excluded.. I could think that this also includes those who eat abominations and crawling things. ⁴¹Cf. Halakhah 1:8, Notes 145 ff. Here also one compares the transgressions for which the Court has to bring a bull to the sin of idolatry for which a bull and a goat are required. It says here from the eyes and it says there from the eyes. Just as from the eyes mentioned there means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin⁴²The punishment for idolatry in the absence of witnesses or warning. and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so from the eyes mentioned here means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Or since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here should mean something that can lead to the death penalty⁴³The punishment for idolatry if there are witnesses for warning and deed.? ⁴⁴This is a wrong quote from Yebamot(Note 220). The father’s wife who is not the mother is forbidden in Deut. 23:1 (in addition to Lev. 18:8, 20:11). The bastard is mentioned in Deut. 23:3; it is inferred that the bastard is a child from a forbidden union exemplified by the father’s wife.
One may assume that the intended quote from Yebamot was the answer given there to the question: “R. Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the place from which idolatry was singled out to teach about all who are subject to extirpation (Num.15:31), there was no mention of anything but extirpation (Num. 15:30–31). But the death penalty is written elsewhere (Lev.20:2, Deut. 17:5).” (Note 226). Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the (married woman) [father’s wife] came out to tell you about the bastard. ⁴⁵Babli 8a, Yebamot 9a. In Lev. 4:14, speaking of the Court’s sacrifice, it is said, and the sin became known concerning which (עָלֶיהָ) they had sinned. In Lev. 18:18 one reads: Do not marry a woman in addition to her sister, to make them co-wives, to uncover her nakedness over her (עָלֶיהָ) during her lifetime. Lev.18:29 is a blanket warning that all sexual crimes mentioned in the Chapter are punishable by extirpation. The wife’s sister is not mentioned in the list of punishments in Lev. 20. Therefore this is a reference only to divine extirpation; even with witnesses and due warnings no death penalty is involved (Sanhedrin 7:5, Note 78). Rebbi said over which, over her. Since over her mentioned there refers to something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so over which mentioned here means something for which one is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Why does Rebbi not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? ⁴⁶Text found only in B. Since the argument of R. Zeˋira is identical to that of R. Mana (student of R. Zeˋira’s student), the text is suspect. In Halakhah 3 it was established that Rebbi requires the High Priest to bring a sacrifice for an erroneous action even without an element of oblivion. If Rebbi would accept transfer of the argument of Halakhah 1:8, Notes 165ff. to the problem here, he would have to hold that the same applies to the Court. But since forgetting is mentioned in the verse speaking of the Court, this would disprove his thesis. Therefore, Rebbi cannot accept the application of the argument of Halakhah 1:8 to the problem of Mishnah 2:4.[Rebbi Zeˋira said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then from the eyes mentioned there for the Anointed refers to action in error; also from the eyes mentioned here would have to refer to action in error. Therefore, Rebbi will not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes.] Rebbi Yose said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here means something that can lead to the death penalty⁴⁷He accepts the question (Note 43) as valid.. Therefore, Rebbi does not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes. (Does Rebbi not have a book) [Will Rebbi not in the end have]⁴⁸The text in parentheses is from the ms., the one in brackets from B. It seems that the ms. text is a scribal error. to infer from the eyes, from the eyes? ⁴⁹Text of the ms. Since Rebbi only denies that for the High Priest’s offering an element of oblivion is necessary, for all others he accepts the reasoning of Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parašah 4(6) that from a comparison with the rules for unintentional idolatry it is established that both oblivion and unintentional action are needed. The connection is established by from the eyes, from the eyes. For if it is not so, from where would we have the rules for the individual, the chief, and the Anointed? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? ⁵⁰Text of B. But in Halakhah 3, there is no reference to inferences from idolatry. For if it is not so, from where would we have “unless they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part”? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have [the difference between] a ruling of the High Court and a ruling of a lower court⁵¹The fact that the court mentioned in Lev. 4 is the High Court is proven from Num. 15:24. The connection is established by from the eyes, from the eyes.? Rebbi Ḥanania⁵²This is the correct attribution, not R. Hanina as in B.
53 Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parašah 3(7). The reference is to Lev. 4:5: The Anointed Priest shall take of the bull’s blood and bring it to the Tent of Meeting. “To bring it” could have been expressed as וְהֵבִיאוֹ, but it is given as וְהֵבִיא אֹתוֹ. The choice of a separate word for “it” is read as emphasizing that precisely this blood is brought into the sanctuary, not blood of similar sacrifices. The one sacrifice similar to the bull of the High Priest and the one of the Court which follows the same rule (Lev. 4:16, where the language is: of the bull’s blood) is the bull offered for inadvertent idolatry. The latter is called “the singular commandment” both because it requires a rite of atonement different from all other commandments as also it is the only sin which in one act violates all commandments (cf. Halakhah 1:6, Note 135). said before Rebbi Mana: Would not Rebbi in the end have to infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi? Rebbi follows his own opinion, since Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error. Intentional error is only written for the Court⁴⁶Text found only in B. Since the argument of R. Zeˋira is identical to that of R. Mana (student of R. Zeˋira’s student), the text is suspect. In Halakhah 3 it was established that Rebbi requires the High Priest to bring a sacrifice for an erroneous action even without an element of oblivion. If Rebbi would accept transfer of the argument of Halakhah 1:8, Notes 165ff. to the problem here, he would have to hold that the same applies to the Court. But since forgetting is mentioned in the verse speaking of the Court, this would disprove his thesis. Therefore, Rebbi cannot accept the application of the argument of Halakhah 1:8 to the problem of Mishnah 2:4.. ⁵³It. It specifies about his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary. Does this follow Rebbi, as Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error; if it would follow the rabbis, there must be an instance of forgetting. (Rav) [Rebbi]⁵⁴The text in parentheses is from the ms., the (correct) one in brackets from B. Cf. Note 34. Huna said, it was needed for the rabbis. Lest you say, because there is extirpation⁵⁵For idolatry which cannot be prosecuted in court for lack of eye witnesses or due warning. its blood should be brought into the Sanctuary. Therefore, it was necessary to say it, it specifies his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary.

HALAKHAH: “Anything which is more frequent than another,” etc. [“If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull”,]²¹⁵From B; a necessary introduction to the following text. for one is atoning, the other is being atoned for²¹⁶This also is the reason given in the Babli (13a) for the precedence of a purification offering over a simultaneously presented elevation offering, both being most holy sacrifices.. It is preferable that the atoner precede the atoned for, as it is written, he shall atone for himself, and for his house, and for all the congregation of Israel²¹⁷Lev. 16:17. The argument really refers to the service of the Day of Atonement in its entirety, where the High Priest performs three acts of atonement, the first for himself and his family, the second for himself and the priests, and then the third for himself, the priests, and all of Israel. The priest performing the rite of atonement has to be purified himself before being able to serve others. (Tosephta Horaiot 2:4, Zevahim 10:1).. Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence²¹⁸Again because the priest has to act to present the king’s gift.. Between a voluntary gift of the community and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the prince has precedence²¹⁹Since he is the representative of the community.. Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the community, which one has precedence? Let us hear from the following: A voluntary gift of the Anointed and rams of idolatry²²⁰Cf. Chapter 1, Notes 122,135. For the number of rams, cf. Mishnah 1:6. were standing. The rams of idolatry have precedence since their blood enters inside²²¹While this is not indicated elsewhere, if the bull is identified as the bull prescribed in Lev. 4, the ram is attached to a sacrifice whose blood is brought inside the Sanctuary and which, therefore, has precedence as the more holy sacrifice.. He only said “since their blood enters inside;” this implies that between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the community, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence. If there were standing the bull of idolatry, the ram which accompanies it, and another purification sacrifice. The bull precedes the ram²²²As will be explained later in this paragraph., the ram precedes the other purification sacrifice, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull²²³The bull of idolatry is defined as an elevation sacrifice which takes second place after a purification sacrifice (Note 216). The rules lead to an infinite loop.. How is this done? Rebbi Yose said, since the ram is dependent in time on the bull, it is as if the bull preceded it, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull. The bull of idolatry precedes the ram because it precedes in Scripture²²⁴The bull is prescribed in the first half of Num. 15:24, the ram in the second half.. Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah asked: But then that of the New Moon should precede the ram which comes with it because it precedes [in Scripture.²²⁵The sacrifices for the Day of the New Moon are prescribed in Num. 28:11 (elevation sacrifices) and 28:15 (the purification sacrifice). This contradicts our rule from Note 216.]²²⁶Added from B, not absolutely necessary. Rebbi Abba Mari said, you cannot do this; its purification sacrifice is defective²²⁷The argument is very elliptic. The ram of idolatry follows the bull not really because it is mentioned later in the verse, but mainly because it is spelled defective, not as חטאת but only as חטת (Babli 13a, Zevaḥim 90b). But the purification offering of the special days is directly connected with the daily offerings which start the day in the sanctuary (Num. 28:15.): After the permanent elevation offering it shall be made, with its libation; it made it lean on the permanent elevation offering. Between the sacrifice of a man and the sacrifice of a woman, the man’s sacrifice has precedence²²⁸If both are voluntary offerings of equal value. But an obligatory offering always has precedence over a voluntary one (Tosephta Zevaḥim 10:4).. That is, if both were equal. But if one was a bull and the other a lamb, it is what Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: A slave brings a bull and his master brings a bull, the slave’s precedes the master’s, as we have stated there: “If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull in all its ceremonies.²²⁹The argument is a non sequitur. Some commentators want to emend the text, in that the slave brings a bull but his master a goat. While this connects to the preceding, it severs the connection to the statement of R. Phineas. As a matter of principle, an emendation is totally inadmissible since the text is confirmed not only by the two independent sources here but also by Lev. Rabba 5(4) where the case of slave and master both bringing a bull follows a story about the merit of contributing to the support of scholars. As the text is presented here, one wonders why the following stories are placed here and what connection they could have with the topic of the Mishnah. But Lev. Rabba, an old text, shows that the case of slave and master is not a legal but a homiletic statement. There the argument is that the High Priest is the servant of the people; the Sanctuary is run only on behalf of the people. After the destruction of the Temple, the rabbinic establishment became the servant of the people, looking after their needs. Therefore, the rules of preference should be transferred from Temple service to the rabbinic establishment.”

HALAKHAH: "If the Court of one of the tribes ruled," etc. ¹⁶⁴The Halakhah does not refer to Mishnah 8 but to Mishnaiot 6-7, to explain why R. Meïr requires only one bull, R. Jehudah 12, and R. Simeon 13.Rebbi Meïr says, it is the Court's obligation. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the public's obligation. Rebbi Simeon said, it is an obligation of the Court and an obligation of the public. What is Rebbi Meïr's reason? It is said here from the eyes¹⁶⁵Lev. 4:13., and it is said there from the eyes¹⁶⁶Num. 15:24.. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, here it also refers to the Court¹⁶⁷ This argument is difficult to explain. In Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parasah 4(2), the expression עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל used in Lev. 4:13 is explained as referring to the High Court, the selected group from Israel, based on v. 15 which makes it clear that the bull has to be presented by the Elders, the members of the High Court. Then R. Meïr's argument is to infer from Lev. 4:13 to Num. 15:24: Since the bull is the responsibility of the Court, the goat for idolatry also must be the responsibility of the Court. . What is Rebbi Jehudah's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public¹⁶⁸His argument is straightforward. Since the entire paragraph Num. 15:22-26 speaks only about עֵדָה, without any mention of the Elders, it is addressed to the public. Then the use of parallel terms is taken to transfer the setting to Lev. 4: 13.. What is Rebbi Simeon's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, also from the eyes here refers to the Court. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public¹⁶⁹He accepts arguing both from Lev. 4: 13 to Num. 15:24 and vice versa.. For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to bring¹⁷⁰They have to pay for the bull from their own money and present it in the Temple. . For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who brings¹⁷¹Who has to pay and who has to officiate?? As we have stated¹⁷²One imposes a tax and collects from everybody. In all other sources, Babli 3b, Menahot 52a; Tosephta Seqalim 2:6, the argument is between R. Jehudah and R. Simeon. This is the reasonable reading since for R. Meïr the Court pays from their own means., "one imposes and collects, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, they are brought from the Temple tax". For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to lay their hands on. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who lays their hands on¹⁷³Since obviously not every single Israelite can be called to lay his hands on the bull.? As we have stated, three from every tribe, ¹⁷⁴This follows R. Simeon in Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Pereq 6(2); R. Jehudah requires five. led by the president of the Court, lay their hands on the head of the bull. "Their hands, the hands of each single one. Their hands on the head of the bull; the bull needs laying on of hands but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon said, the bull needs laying on of hands by the Elders but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by the Elders; for Rebbi Simeon says, every public purification offering whose blood is brought inside¹⁷⁵The only sacrifices whose blood is brought inside the sanctuary to be sprinkled on the incense altar are the purification offerings of the High Priest and the Community as well as the offerings of the Day of Atonement. The body of any such sacrifice must be burned outside the holy precinct (Lev. 6:23,16:27). needs laying on of hands. ¹⁷⁶Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Pereq 6(3); Tosephta Menahot 10:9; Babli Menahot 92a." One objected to Rebbi Jehudah, is it not written, they presented the goats of the purification offering¹⁷⁷ 2Chr. 29:23. As usual, the argument is from the part of the verse which was not quoted: they presented the goats of the purification offering before the king and the public; they laid their hands on them. The goats were offered by Josiah to atone for the idolatry of his father Ahas.? Rebbi Hiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it was a temporary ruling¹⁷⁸A temporary deviation from Torah norms acceptable by prophetic instruction as long as it does not violate prohibitions. The absence of a bull and the presence of multiple goats both deviate from Torah prescriptions..