מִמּוֹשְׁבֹ֨תֵיכֶ֜ם תָּבִ֣יאּוּ ׀ לֶ֣חֶם תְּנוּפָ֗ה שְׁ֚תַּיִם שְׁנֵ֣י עֶשְׂרֹנִ֔ים סֹ֣לֶת תִּהְיֶ֔ינָה חָמֵ֖ץ תֵּאָפֶ֑ינָה בִּכּוּרִ֖ים לַֽיהוָֽה׃
Dari tempat kediamanmu haruslah kamu membawa dua roti persembahan unjukan. Kedua roti itu harus dibuat dari dua persepuluh efa tepung halus dan dibakar beragi, sebagai hasil pertama bagi Yang Mahakekal.
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat
HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases24The question is whether R. Eliezer permits to perform preparations on the Sabbath which could have been made on Friday for circumcision only or in general for any action prescribed for the Sabbath even if it involves doing work which under other circumstances would be Sabbath violations.. Since Rebbi Eliezer needed to explain “first fruits;” since “first fruits” mentioned with the ˋomer push the Sabbath aside, so also “first fruits” mentioned with the Two Breads push the Sabbath aside25The ˋomer is a measure, a tenth of an epha, about 3.5 liter, of new barley grain which is offered in the Temple to permit the consumption of grain from the new harvest. It has to be brought on the day after the Sabbath (Lev. 23:15) which in rabbinic tradition is the second day of the Feast of unleavened bread, in the Sadducee tradition of the Book of Jubilees the day following the Feast, and in Boethusian tradition on the Sunday in the Feast. The common testimony of Philo and Josephus shows that rabbinic tradition was followed in the Temple service. The ˋomer had to be brought to the Temple on a fixed date, even if this date was a Sabbath (except for Boethusians for which this never could happen.) Therefore it is clear that there is a biblical prescription to cut the barley on the Sabbath if that is the day on which the grain has to be offered.
The Two Breads are the only leavened bread ever permitted in the Temple precinct; they have to be presented to the altar (but not offered on it) on the festival of Weeks (Lev. 23:17), which falls on the 50th day after the ˋomer, on the same day of the week as the ˋomer. These Two Breads permit the use of new wheat in the Temple service. R. Eliezer concludes from an argument of “equal cut”, since both the ˋomer and the Two Breads are referred to in the verse as “first fruits” that they follow the same rules and, therefore, if the two loaves were not baked before the Sabbath they may be baked on the Sabbath.; this implies that Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree in all cases26If it were understood that in all cases of a prescribed action on the Sabbath the preparation also can be done on the Sabbath the argument of “equal cut” would be unnecessary. Babli 131a.. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases27This sentence is missing in modern editions of the Yerushalmi., and why did Rebbi Eliezer have to explain “first fruits” “first fruits”? Only because their essence pushes aside the Sabbath but their enabling actions are work28R. Joḥanan’s argument is not convincing. For the ˋomer the action of harvesting is prescribed on the day of the sacrifice (Lev. 23:10); the grain must be roasted (Lev. 2:14) and part of it burned on the altar. This means that both the preparation and the offering involve actions that are violations of Sabbath prohibitions. But the Two Breads are simply presented to the altar; no part of them may be burned on the altar (Lev. 2:12); they have to be eaten by the priests in the Temple precinct. This means that the offering itself does not imply any Sabbath violation; there is no intrinsic reason which would allow baking the breads on the Sabbath.. They objected, did we not state, the lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside29Babli 131a,b. Lev. 23:40 requires that on the first day of Tabernacles one has to take four kinds of greenery tied to a palm branch, the lulav. Since this is required at a fixed day of the calendar, it has precedence over the rules of the Sabbath. For R. Eliezer cutting the plants may be done on the Sabbath. The statement has to be dated before the destruction of the Temple since in Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai’s reconstruction of rabbinic Judaism at Jabneh, in imitation of a Temple ceremony the obligation to take the “four kinds” was extended to all seven days of Tabernacles which automatically re-instituted the rules of the Sabbath as preeminent. Here the situation is completely parallel to that of the Two Breads in that taking the Four Kinds on the holiday does not involve any Sabbath desecration; but the preparation involves forms of harvesting which are forbidden on the Sabbath.? Rebbi Jonah said, to bring it from the top of the palm tree30It is possible to explain that R. Eliezer in this case permits only rabbinic prohibitions, not work by biblical standards.. But did we not state, the shofar and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? To bring it from outside the Sabbath boundary31This statement also refers to the time before the reforms of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai which permanently extended the holiday of the New Year to two days, thereby eliminating the power of the duty to sound the shofar to override the rules of the Sabbath (including rabbinic rules). The prohibition to bring anything from outside the Sabbath boundaries (at least if the distance is less than three parasang) certainly is rabbinic,. And was it stated so: One does not scratch, and one does not scratch, and one does not break off32This text seems corrupt. S. Liebermann reads מגדד “one cuts” instead of the second מגרד. It is not clear whether the topic is preparing a ram’s horn for use as a shofar or the preparation of the Four Kinds. מפרך means breaking off outcroppings to produce smooth surface.. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: The lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita was finished33The baraita about not scraping, not cutting, etc., is separate from the statement attributed to R. Eliezer about the lulav.. It was stated: It happened that Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, what reason did Rebbi have to disregard the words of the Sages and to act following Rebbi Eliezer34Such an act contradicts ail our rules for determining practice.? Rebbi Hoshaia said, we asked Rebbi Jehudah the circumciser and he told us, it was about a dead-end street, as we had stated that it is forbidden35Rabbinically. to move from it into the houses and from the houses into it. Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it about a baby and a knife being in the dead-end street on the Sabbath; and it is not forbidden to move in the entire dead-end street36As explained in the next paragraph, this is a matter of different interpretations of rabbinic rules. Since R. Eliezer allows biblical rules to be broken, saying that Rebbi instructed following R. Eliezer is a misrepresentation of what he did..
The Two Breads are the only leavened bread ever permitted in the Temple precinct; they have to be presented to the altar (but not offered on it) on the festival of Weeks (Lev. 23:17), which falls on the 50th day after the ˋomer, on the same day of the week as the ˋomer. These Two Breads permit the use of new wheat in the Temple service. R. Eliezer concludes from an argument of “equal cut”, since both the ˋomer and the Two Breads are referred to in the verse as “first fruits” that they follow the same rules and, therefore, if the two loaves were not baked before the Sabbath they may be baked on the Sabbath.; this implies that Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree in all cases26If it were understood that in all cases of a prescribed action on the Sabbath the preparation also can be done on the Sabbath the argument of “equal cut” would be unnecessary. Babli 131a.. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases27This sentence is missing in modern editions of the Yerushalmi., and why did Rebbi Eliezer have to explain “first fruits” “first fruits”? Only because their essence pushes aside the Sabbath but their enabling actions are work28R. Joḥanan’s argument is not convincing. For the ˋomer the action of harvesting is prescribed on the day of the sacrifice (Lev. 23:10); the grain must be roasted (Lev. 2:14) and part of it burned on the altar. This means that both the preparation and the offering involve actions that are violations of Sabbath prohibitions. But the Two Breads are simply presented to the altar; no part of them may be burned on the altar (Lev. 2:12); they have to be eaten by the priests in the Temple precinct. This means that the offering itself does not imply any Sabbath violation; there is no intrinsic reason which would allow baking the breads on the Sabbath.. They objected, did we not state, the lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside29Babli 131a,b. Lev. 23:40 requires that on the first day of Tabernacles one has to take four kinds of greenery tied to a palm branch, the lulav. Since this is required at a fixed day of the calendar, it has precedence over the rules of the Sabbath. For R. Eliezer cutting the plants may be done on the Sabbath. The statement has to be dated before the destruction of the Temple since in Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai’s reconstruction of rabbinic Judaism at Jabneh, in imitation of a Temple ceremony the obligation to take the “four kinds” was extended to all seven days of Tabernacles which automatically re-instituted the rules of the Sabbath as preeminent. Here the situation is completely parallel to that of the Two Breads in that taking the Four Kinds on the holiday does not involve any Sabbath desecration; but the preparation involves forms of harvesting which are forbidden on the Sabbath.? Rebbi Jonah said, to bring it from the top of the palm tree30It is possible to explain that R. Eliezer in this case permits only rabbinic prohibitions, not work by biblical standards.. But did we not state, the shofar and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? To bring it from outside the Sabbath boundary31This statement also refers to the time before the reforms of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai which permanently extended the holiday of the New Year to two days, thereby eliminating the power of the duty to sound the shofar to override the rules of the Sabbath (including rabbinic rules). The prohibition to bring anything from outside the Sabbath boundaries (at least if the distance is less than three parasang) certainly is rabbinic,. And was it stated so: One does not scratch, and one does not scratch, and one does not break off32This text seems corrupt. S. Liebermann reads מגדד “one cuts” instead of the second מגרד. It is not clear whether the topic is preparing a ram’s horn for use as a shofar or the preparation of the Four Kinds. מפרך means breaking off outcroppings to produce smooth surface.. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: The lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita was finished33The baraita about not scraping, not cutting, etc., is separate from the statement attributed to R. Eliezer about the lulav.. It was stated: It happened that Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, what reason did Rebbi have to disregard the words of the Sages and to act following Rebbi Eliezer34Such an act contradicts ail our rules for determining practice.? Rebbi Hoshaia said, we asked Rebbi Jehudah the circumciser and he told us, it was about a dead-end street, as we had stated that it is forbidden35Rabbinically. to move from it into the houses and from the houses into it. Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it about a baby and a knife being in the dead-end street on the Sabbath; and it is not forbidden to move in the entire dead-end street36As explained in the next paragraph, this is a matter of different interpretations of rabbinic rules. Since R. Eliezer allows biblical rules to be broken, saying that Rebbi instructed following R. Eliezer is a misrepresentation of what he did..
Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin
Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqush disagreeed. One said, one builds and afterwards one dedicates308One builds as if the buildings were profane. Only when the Temple enclosure is complete does one dedicate the Temple area, and when the walls of Jerusalem are rebuilt does one dedicate the city. During the building period one is not restricted by all the rules applying to the Temple area. This is possible since the dedication by Solomon was annulled by the destruction of the Temple. One has to assume that it is possible to dedicate the area of the altar and its enclosure without dedicating the Temple, as done in the time of the first return from Babylonia under Cyrus, Ezra 3:3,6.. The other one said, one dedicates and afterwards one builds309He holds that the dedication by Solomon is permanent. Therefore, anybuilding must be done under restrictive rules (but it can be built in stages, cf. Mishnah Idiut 8:6). If the outline of the Temple enclosure or the original city walls was still visible in Zerubabel’s time, no rebuilding was necessary in order to restore the service of the altar.. For him who says, one builds and afterwards one dedicates, one does not say that the partitions are as if built up310They actually have to be restored before Temple service can be resumed whole or in part.. If one desires to add to the Temple Hall, by which means does one add311In imitation of the rules given for dedication of the city of Jerusalem under Nehemiah, any dedication must involve a sacrifice. The Babli, loc. cit. 299, insists that the sacrifice be used in the place to be dedicated. This leads to a catch-22 situation since a sacrifice can be dedicated only after the dedication of the holy place. There is no reason to assume that the Yerushalmi accepts this reasoning.? By the two loaves312The two loaves of leavened bread dedicated on Pentecost to permit use of new wheat, Lev. 23:17. This is in imitation of the leavened bread used for the dedication of the city, cf. 295. A parallel discussion is in the Babli, Ševuot 15a/b.. Does one dedicate on a holiday313Since the dedication has far-reaching legal consequences, it has the status of an acquisition, which is not acceptable on Sabbath or holiday, Is. 58:13. In addition, the Babli points out that the dedication of the leavened breads is the slaughter of the accompanying well-being sacrifice; then the dedication would not be by bread.? Then by the Shew Bread. Does one dedicate on the Sabbath314The Shew Bread is removed from the sanctuary on the Sabbath, Lev. 24:8. It becomes available for secondary use on the Sabbath, when it cannot be so used.? Then in the night315The following evening, after the end of the Sabbath.. Does one dedicate in the night316Ex. 30:2 prescribes that the Tabernacle be erected during daytime. This rule then is extended to include all building activity of the Temple.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, with a baked flour offering317The daily flour offering of the High Priest, Lev. 6:12–16.. One understands that on their return from the diaspora they sacrificed and then dedicated. When they entered the Land,318When they entered the Land, they had the Tabernacle which was dedicated in the desert. What one asks here is, how was Solomon’s Temple dedicated? with what did they dedicate? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, with two thanksgiving sacrifices coming from Nob319The priests’ settlement at Nob already was destroyed at the time when the priests from Nob resided at Anatot. The active place of worship was Gibeon, but “Nob and Gibeon” is used as a legal term to indicate the status of holy places after the destruction of Shiloh, before the building of the Temple; cf. Mishnah Zevahim 14:7. and Gibeon.