וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃
Yang Mahakekal berfirman kepada Musa:
Jerusalem Talmud Terumot
Let us hear from the following34In slightly enlarged form, Tosephta Miqwa’ot 1:17–20; in much shortened form Babli Qiddušin 66b.
The “reservoir of Discus” according to Rashi is named either after a place or a person Discus, Latin proper n.: “It happened that the reservoir of Discus at Jabneh was damaged, measured, and found deficient35Because something happened to the structure, they measured the volume of the water after the accident and found it to be less than 40 seah and, therefore, to be unusable for purification (cf. Chapter 4, Note 112). Since earlier, the miqweh was a valid one, a person who had immersed himself before the accident came to ask whether he could be considered pure because of the prior validity of the miqweh, or whether he was impure since now the miqweh was invalid.. Rebbi Ṭarphon declared pure and Rebbi Aqiba impure. Rebbi Ṭarphon said, the prior status of this miqweh was one of purity; it remains forever in its purity until it becomes known that it is deficient. Rebbi Aqiba said, the prior status of the impure is impurity, he remains forever in his impurity until it becomes known that he is pure. Rebbi Ṭarphon said, to what can this be compared? To one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, whose work is valid. Rebbi Aqiba said, to what can this be compared? To one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he has a bodily defect, whose work is invalid36Lev. 21:16–24. Since it is stated (v. 17) that a person with a bodily defect “shall not come close to present the bread of his God,” it is clear that this prohibition overrides the general inclusion inferred from Deut. 26:3 or 33:11.. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him, how is that, Aqiba? I am comparing this to the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, and you compare it to one with a bodily defect. Let us see to which case it really is similar; if to the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, let us learn from the son of the divorcee, but if to one with a bodily defect, let us learn from the person with a bodily defect. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, the miqweh is invalid because of an inherent defect; the one with a bodily defect is disqualified because of an inherent defect. The son of a divorcee cannot prove anything since he is disqualified because of others37His parents.. The miqweh is invalid because of itself, the one with a bodily defect is disqualified because of himself; the son of a divorcee cannot prove anything since he is disqualified by the court38As noted below, only the court can strip him of his role as Cohen, and only after regular judicial proceedings.. They voted on the matter and declared him impure. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to Rebbi Aqiba, he who separates himself from you is as if he separated himself from his own life.”
The “reservoir of Discus” according to Rashi is named either after a place or a person Discus, Latin proper n.: “It happened that the reservoir of Discus at Jabneh was damaged, measured, and found deficient35Because something happened to the structure, they measured the volume of the water after the accident and found it to be less than 40 seah and, therefore, to be unusable for purification (cf. Chapter 4, Note 112). Since earlier, the miqweh was a valid one, a person who had immersed himself before the accident came to ask whether he could be considered pure because of the prior validity of the miqweh, or whether he was impure since now the miqweh was invalid.. Rebbi Ṭarphon declared pure and Rebbi Aqiba impure. Rebbi Ṭarphon said, the prior status of this miqweh was one of purity; it remains forever in its purity until it becomes known that it is deficient. Rebbi Aqiba said, the prior status of the impure is impurity, he remains forever in his impurity until it becomes known that he is pure. Rebbi Ṭarphon said, to what can this be compared? To one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, whose work is valid. Rebbi Aqiba said, to what can this be compared? To one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he has a bodily defect, whose work is invalid36Lev. 21:16–24. Since it is stated (v. 17) that a person with a bodily defect “shall not come close to present the bread of his God,” it is clear that this prohibition overrides the general inclusion inferred from Deut. 26:3 or 33:11.. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him, how is that, Aqiba? I am comparing this to the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, and you compare it to one with a bodily defect. Let us see to which case it really is similar; if to the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, let us learn from the son of the divorcee, but if to one with a bodily defect, let us learn from the person with a bodily defect. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, the miqweh is invalid because of an inherent defect; the one with a bodily defect is disqualified because of an inherent defect. The son of a divorcee cannot prove anything since he is disqualified because of others37His parents.. The miqweh is invalid because of itself, the one with a bodily defect is disqualified because of himself; the son of a divorcee cannot prove anything since he is disqualified by the court38As noted below, only the court can strip him of his role as Cohen, and only after regular judicial proceedings.. They voted on the matter and declared him impure. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to Rebbi Aqiba, he who separates himself from you is as if he separated himself from his own life.”
Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah
It was stated: Bodily defective ones43Since nobody but priests are permitted to enter the inner courtyard with the altar, by necessity only priests may circle the altar, and bodily defective priests are excluded from Temple service (Lev. 21:16–24).. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, may bodily defective ones enter between the altar and the Temple entrance44It is stated in Mishnah Kelim 1:9 that bodily defective priests may not enter the space between altar and Temple entrance.? He told him, they were qualified45The rule of Mishnah Kelim 1:9 is rabbinic but the rite of the willows is a tradition ascribed to Moses; in this case the defective priests are qualified since the rite is not a sacrificial service. Babli 44a..
Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim
If it comes in impurity of the officiants90The case mentioned in the Mishnah, that the people were pure but all officiating priests impure.? How is that? If defective persons91It could have stated, “a pure non-priest”. The statement seems to imply that a priest with a bodily defect, who is barred from officiating (Lev. 21:16–24), still is permitted to act as slaughterer in the Temple. Here it is presumed that he is pure. slaughtered and pure92Obviously one has to read: impure. (K is not legible at this point.) The impure (by the impurity of the dead) priest does not come into direct contact with the sacrificial animal. While the blood collected in the vessel which he holds will be impure, it does not make the carcass impure through the stream of blood falling into his vessel. ones poured. Rebbi Hila said, any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten75Lev. 7:19., but here it was not touched by anybody impure. The meat, anybody pure may eat meat75Lev. 7:19.; there are pure ones available to eat it93The people, as stated in the Mishnah.. Rebbi Zeˋira: Since Pesaḥ made in impurity is eaten, [this one is as if brought in impurity]94Since the people are pure, the argument of R. Hoshaia is superfluous.. And where was this95The source of R. Zeˋira’s argument. said? Rebbi Samuel said, Rebbi Zeˋira asked: If it comes with impurity of the blood96The carcass is pure, the priests are pure, but the blood has become impure. Since only the blood pumped out at the moment of slaughter is acceptable on the altar (Chapter 5, Note 234), it cannot be replaced., what is done? Since one does not permit him to pour, is it as if brought in impurity? Or since if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable, is it as if not brought in impurity? Let us hear from the following which was said by [Rebbi Elazar in the name of 87Reading of K. Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices97Ex. 28:38. Explained in more detail in the Babli 16b, Yoma 7a, Zevaḥim 23a., the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers98The diadem will not cover deficiencies in either the owners or the officiants of a sacrifice. Babli Zevaḥim 23b.. He separated between what is offered on behalf of an individual and what is offered on behalf of the public. If offered for an individual, if he has another one99Another animal to offer.
The following text in brackets is a corrector’s addition which by the concurrent testimony of the original scribe and K should be deleted., one tells him, bring! If not, [one does not permit him to pour the blood;] if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable. The sacrificers for an individual, whether he has or does not have, [it was not made acceptable. If offered for the public, if he has another one, one tells him, bring! If not, one permits him to pour the blood a priori. The sacrificers for the public, whether he has or does not have,] it was made acceptable.
The following text in brackets is a corrector’s addition which by the concurrent testimony of the original scribe and K should be deleted., one tells him, bring! If not, [one does not permit him to pour the blood;] if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable. The sacrificers for an individual, whether he has or does not have, [it was not made acceptable. If offered for the public, if he has another one, one tells him, bring! If not, one permits him to pour the blood a priori. The sacrificers for the public, whether he has or does not have,] it was made acceptable.