Rujukan Talmud untuk Imamat 1:3: Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah, Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim, Jerusalem Talmud Nazir & Arakhin

²⁷One returns to the prior topic, to try to understand R. Eliezer’s position in view of biblical verses which seem to indicate that Gentile animals are perfectly acceptable as sacrifices. Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking, is it not written²⁸2Chr.15:11. At first glance this refers to the booty which they took from the Nubians as described in Chapter 14 since no other war of Asa was mentioned.: On that day they slaughtered of the booty for the Eternal? They explained it, but we do not know whether the colleagues explained it or Rebbi Immi explained it, from previous ones, from booty which was in their hands they sacrificed²⁹Since Chapter 15 does not refer to the war described in Chapter 14, it is not necessary to assume that “the booty” was taken from the Nubians.. But is it not written³⁰1S. 6:15, one the day the Philistines returned the Ark on a carriage drawn by cows.: The men of Bet Shemesh brought an elevation offering and slaughtered family offerings to the Eternal, oxen? Can we learn anything from the rulers of the Philistines? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, they even sacrificed females, the cows they offered as elevation offering to the Eternal³¹1S. 6:14. In Lev. 1:3 it is spelled out that an elevation offering must be a male animal. Since the entire proceedings were irregular, one cannot infer anything about the rules to follow.. But is it not written³²1S. 15:15. As explained in v. 21, the animals taken from the Gentile tribe were to be slaughtered as sacrifices. Babli 24b., Saul said, they brought them from the Amalekite? One does not learn from Saul; as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Saul was a sycamore shoot³³Something inedible. In the Babli, Eruvin53a/b, the verse 1S. 14:47 in interpreted that religious practice never follows Saul. The same is intended here.. But it is not written³⁴2S. 24:24., David bought the threshing floor? He bought but did not sacrifice. But is it not written³⁵2S. 24:23. To give pleasure before the Eternal usually is asserted of sacrifices (e. g., Ex. 28:38). Babli 24b., Arawna said to the king, may the Eternal, your God, have pleasure with you. May he find pleasure with you in prayer. But is it not written³⁶Lev. 22:25., Also from the hand of a stranger you should not bring your God’s bread from any of these? From any of these you do not sacrifice; you buy unblemished ones and sacrifice. What does Rebbi Eliezer do with this? You are buying for money and sacrifice? The one who stated “for money” cannot follow Rebbi Eliezer³⁷Since R. Eliezer considers all animals of a Gentile unfit for the altar. But he must read the verse as absolute prohibition of accepting any sacrifice from a Gentile, similar to Sifra Emor Pereq7(12) where the verse is read to prohibit accepting money of the Temple tax from Gentiles..

“Like vows of the good ones, he did not say anything.” Does this mean that good people make vows⁸³The formulation seems to imply that free-will offerings of the wicked do exist; otherwise how could one speak about them?? Since that one made a vow, he is not a good one. ⁹²Purification offerings cannot be voluntary; they are required either for an inadvertent sin or for purification from a state of impurity. A male who does not sin inadvertently and who does not suffer from an impure sickness has no way to fulfill the commandments relative to the purification offerings. A woman can always bring a purification offering after childbirth. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, the ancient pious ones desired to bring a purification offering⁹³From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is also in Nazir 1:6, 51c 1. 36., but the Omnipresent did not let a sin happen to them; so they made a vow of nazir in order to be able to bring a purification offering⁹⁴One of the 3 prescribed animal sacrifices at the end of the nazir period; Num. 6:14.. Rebbi Simeon says, they became sinners because they made a vow of nazir, for it was said: “He shall atone for him for what he sinned about the person⁹⁵Num. 6:11. In Sifry Num. 30, R. Ismael points out that this verse is written about the nazir who became inadvertently impure in the impurity of the dead, who is in effect a sinner in respect to the dead person. The Babli, 10a, accepts the argument of R. Simeon, which in the Tosephta, 1:1, is in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.,” that one sinned against his own person because he barred himself from [drinking] wine. It turns out that that of Simeon the Just parallels Rebbi Simeon. As it was stated⁹⁶Babli 9b, Nazir Yerushalmi 1:6, Babli 4b, Sifry Num. 22, Num. rabba10(20).: Simeon the Just said, I never ate the reparation offering of a nazir except once. Once a man came to me from the South, I saw that he was reddish, with beautiful eyes and good looks, and his hair in nice rows of waves⁹⁷A combination of images referring to David (1S. 17:42) and the friend in the Song of Songs (5:11).. I said to him, my son, what induced you to cut off that beautiful hair? He said to me: Great man, I was a shephard in my village and I went to fill the water vessel with water when I saw my mirror image in the water and my instinct rushed over me and tried to lose me from the World⁹⁸He realized how much money he could make as a male prostitute in a hellenized city but that he would lose the World to Come.. I said to it, wicked! You are rushing me to something which is not yours; it is upon me to sanctify you to Heaven! I bent my head to him and said, my son, there should be many more in Israel who fulfill the Omnipresent’s will like you. About you the verse says¹⁴Num. 6:2., “man or woman, if he clearly articulates vowing a vow of nazir, to be a nazir for the Eternal.” Rebbi Mana asked⁹⁹Babli 9b.: Why following Simeon the Just, even following Rebbi Simeon? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for suet¹⁰⁰The standard purification offering is for the purification from an inadvertent sin which at least carries a penalty of extirpation by Divine decree, e. g., if somebody ate suet or blood inadvertently. In order to effect the purification, the Cohanim have to eat the sacrificial meat (Lev. 6:19). How can somebody called “the Just” refuse to purify people?? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for blood? Simeon the Just holds that people make a vow while they are upset. Since they make the vow while they are upset, in the end, they wonder¹⁰¹They feel that they should not have made the vow. This becomes acute in particular in the case of the reparation offering, which is brought only in case of impurity of the nazir, who has to restart his entire time as nazir after his impurity has been repaired. Since the verse repeatedly requires that offerings in the Temple must be brought willingly (Lev. 1:3, 22:29), an offering brought unwillingly is of questionable validity.. But if he wonders, his sacrifices become similar to one of those who slaughtered profane animals in the Temple courtyard. But this one made a well thought-out dedication, when his mouth and his thoughts were in unison¹⁰²Which alone makes the vow unquestionably valid..

There⁹⁹Mishnah Bekhorot 9:8. This starts the discussion of the rules of animal tithes (Note 87)., we have stated: “If he called the ninth tenth, and the tenth ninth, and the eleventh tenth, all three are sanctified. The ninth may be eaten when it develops a defect¹⁰⁰As explained later in this paragraph, the ninth is holy but is not dedicated as a sacrifice. Therefore, it is barred from becoming a sacrifice. The owner has to wait until it develops a blemish (which will be automatic with age); then it can be redeemed and eaten under the rules of profane slaughter., the tenth is tithe, the eleventh is brought as well-being sacrifice¹⁰¹It is holy and a sacrifice, but not tithe. Therefore, the priest’s parts are due from it..” “It shall be holy”¹⁰²Lev. 27:32: “About tithes of cattle and flocks, anything which passes under the staff, the tenth shall be holy for the Eternal.” Since the determination of which animal is the tenth is not automatic, any which either is the tenth or is designated as the tenth by the rancher’s staff is holy., this teaches that holiness falls on the ninth and the eleventh. ¹⁰³Babli Bekhorot 61a, Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 16(4). I could think that both of them should be sacrificed, the verse says “cattle”¹⁰⁴Lev. 3:1, speaking of well-being sacrifices., “cattle” to include the eleventh. “From the cattle”¹⁰⁵In all situations, the expression מן “from” is interpreted to mean: “Not all.” It is then a problem of rabbinic interpretation to determine which kinds are excluded. Since the expression “from the cattle” mentioned in Lev. 1:3 was used to exclude animals used for sinful purposes [Sifra Wayyiqra Parsheta 2(7)], the expression used here can be taken to apply to other situations., to exclude the ninth. What reason do you have to include the eleventh and to exclude the ninth? After the verse included, it excluded. You can argue, when are sanctified [animals] subject to substitution¹⁰⁶Substitutions of tithe animals arc mentioned in Lev. 27:33.? Before¹⁰⁷There can be no substitution for an animal which has not yet been designated as sacrifice since that would be a purely profane operation. or after? One has to say, afterwards. I am including the eleventh which is after sanctification and I am excluding the ninth which is before sanctification.