וְאִם֙ כָּל־בְּהֵמָ֣ה טְמֵאָ֔ה אֲ֠שֶׁר לֹא־יַקְרִ֧יבוּ מִמֶּ֛נָּה קָרְבָּ֖ן לַֽיהוָ֑ה וְהֶֽעֱמִ֥יד אֶת־הַבְּהֵמָ֖ה לִפְנֵ֥י הַכֹּהֵֽן׃
Jika yang dinazarkan itu hewan najis apa pun, yang tidak dapat dipersembahkan sebagai kurban kepada Yang Mahakekal, maka ia harus menghadapkan hewan itu kepada imam,
Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot
HALAKHAH: It is written (Ps. 24:1): “The Eternal’s are the earth and what is in it, the dry land and its inhabitants.” He who profits from the world commits larceny4Since he uses God’s property, not his own. until good deeds will permit him5The obligation to say Grace after a meal is spelled out in Deut. 8:10. The obligation to recite blessings before one eats is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah. Since Grace is only treated in the next Chapter, one has to find here Biblical allusions to this duty and (in the next section) to the duty of reciting a benediction before fulfilling specified commandments.
The verse appears in the Babli (35a) in the name of Samuel. R. Levi compares the verse (Ps. 115:16) “Heaven is the Eternal’s heaven but the earth He gave to mankind”, explaining that before a benediction everything is the Eternal’s property but after a benediction it becomes human property. While Rebbi Levi is a Galilean teacher, the Yerushalmi rejects his combination since in the third paragraph earthly enjoyment is only “as if one ate from one’s own”. The text of the Yerushalmi is from Tosephta Berakhot 4:1 which is identical with the Talmudic text except that there it says “until all good deeds will permit him”, meaning that only if the preparation of food is completely within the commandments of the Torah then the last step of the preparation, the recitation of the benediction, will allow the food to be given to man as his own.. Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written (Deut. 22:9) “Lest the fullness of the seed that you sow and the yield of the vineyard should be forbidden.” The entire world and its contents are like a vineyard. What is its redemption? The benediction6This argument is very difficult to understand and the commentators either chose to ignore it or give very incongruous explanations. The best explanation is that of R. Eliahu Fulda who in his Yerushalmi edition suppresses the word פֶּן “lest”. One would have to assume that Rebbi Abbahu’s text did not have the word but that later scribes added it from memory. By it the negative implication of the verse (which speaks about growing different kinds of plants in a vineyard) are changed to a positive one which now should be translated: “That you shall sanctify the fullness of the seed that you sow and the yield of the vineyard.” Since the sanctity is not that of sacrifices, the sanctity may be removed by redemption (Lev. 27:11). However, there can be no monetary redemption of anything not explicitly authorized in the Torah. Hence, the redemption is non-monetary and is the traditional praise given to God in benedictions. [The simple sense of the verse is that produce grown in a vineyard becomes forbidden for private use as if it were dedicated for sacrifice.]. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: (Ps. 16:2) “Say to the Eternal, You are my Master7The translation follows the Biblical text, not the text written here., my good is only with You.” If you ate and recited the benedictions then it is as if you ate from your own. Another explanation8The verse is extremely hard to understand; the next two interpretations have nothing to do with the topic on hand; they are only added to indicate translations that might be considered if בל is not a negation but a verb form derived from בלל, which may mean either “to give food” (Jud. 19:24) or, more frequently, “mixed with fluid, moistened.”: “My good is בל with you”, I am feeding My goodness to your body. Another explanation: “My good is בל with you”, all good things may be mixed together and come to you. Rebbi Aḥa said, what is “only with you?” I shall not bring any good things to the world without you. As it is said (Gen. 41:44) “Without you nobody may lift his hand.9Taking בל as shorthand for בִּלְעֲדֵי “without”.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: (Lev. 19:24) “Holy for praises”, this shows that it needs benediction before and after. From here did Rebbi Aqiba say that nobody should taste anything before he gives praise10This is also quoted in the Babli (35a); the source of both Talmudim is Sifra on the verse. The verse speaks of the fruits of a vineyard in its fourth year when the grapes can be used for the first time after having been forbidden for the first three years. This is only a hint for any other food..
The verse appears in the Babli (35a) in the name of Samuel. R. Levi compares the verse (Ps. 115:16) “Heaven is the Eternal’s heaven but the earth He gave to mankind”, explaining that before a benediction everything is the Eternal’s property but after a benediction it becomes human property. While Rebbi Levi is a Galilean teacher, the Yerushalmi rejects his combination since in the third paragraph earthly enjoyment is only “as if one ate from one’s own”. The text of the Yerushalmi is from Tosephta Berakhot 4:1 which is identical with the Talmudic text except that there it says “until all good deeds will permit him”, meaning that only if the preparation of food is completely within the commandments of the Torah then the last step of the preparation, the recitation of the benediction, will allow the food to be given to man as his own.. Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written (Deut. 22:9) “Lest the fullness of the seed that you sow and the yield of the vineyard should be forbidden.” The entire world and its contents are like a vineyard. What is its redemption? The benediction6This argument is very difficult to understand and the commentators either chose to ignore it or give very incongruous explanations. The best explanation is that of R. Eliahu Fulda who in his Yerushalmi edition suppresses the word פֶּן “lest”. One would have to assume that Rebbi Abbahu’s text did not have the word but that later scribes added it from memory. By it the negative implication of the verse (which speaks about growing different kinds of plants in a vineyard) are changed to a positive one which now should be translated: “That you shall sanctify the fullness of the seed that you sow and the yield of the vineyard.” Since the sanctity is not that of sacrifices, the sanctity may be removed by redemption (Lev. 27:11). However, there can be no monetary redemption of anything not explicitly authorized in the Torah. Hence, the redemption is non-monetary and is the traditional praise given to God in benedictions. [The simple sense of the verse is that produce grown in a vineyard becomes forbidden for private use as if it were dedicated for sacrifice.]. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: (Ps. 16:2) “Say to the Eternal, You are my Master7The translation follows the Biblical text, not the text written here., my good is only with You.” If you ate and recited the benedictions then it is as if you ate from your own. Another explanation8The verse is extremely hard to understand; the next two interpretations have nothing to do with the topic on hand; they are only added to indicate translations that might be considered if בל is not a negation but a verb form derived from בלל, which may mean either “to give food” (Jud. 19:24) or, more frequently, “mixed with fluid, moistened.”: “My good is בל with you”, I am feeding My goodness to your body. Another explanation: “My good is בל with you”, all good things may be mixed together and come to you. Rebbi Aḥa said, what is “only with you?” I shall not bring any good things to the world without you. As it is said (Gen. 41:44) “Without you nobody may lift his hand.9Taking בל as shorthand for בִּלְעֲדֵי “without”.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: (Lev. 19:24) “Holy for praises”, this shows that it needs benediction before and after. From here did Rebbi Aqiba say that nobody should taste anything before he gives praise10This is also quoted in the Babli (35a); the source of both Talmudim is Sifra on the verse. The verse speaks of the fruits of a vineyard in its fourth year when the grapes can be used for the first time after having been forbidden for the first three years. This is only a hint for any other food..
Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim
Now estimates26A person who offers to pay to the Temple the monetary value of his person, Lev. 27:1–8, which in general is a fixed sum but becomes an estimate for poor persons., bans, exchanges27Exchanging a dedicated animal for another, Lev. 27:9–10., and dedications28Giving non-sacrificial animals or any other valuables to the Temple to cover its expenses, Lev. 27:11–25. were in the same paragraph29Lev. 27, where bans are treated in v. 28. Why should bans be treated differently from all other categories of gifts?, but we did not state ‘substitute names of estimates, substitute names of exchanges and dedications.’ But if these were stated, what would we state30Recognized substitutes for vows, bans, nazir vows, and oaths are listed in Mishnah 2. The other dedications do not have recognized substitute names. The hypothetical names quoted in the sequel are built on the linguistic pattern of the accepted ones but either they make no sense or they have a sense very far from the intended one. Since they are not part of the current vocabulary as substitute names, they cannot be used.? ‘Araphin, ‘araṣin, ‘araqin31“Disappearances”.? Temupha, temuna32“Picture”., temuqa? Hegder, hegzer, hegres33The substitution of גּ for ק in this series shows that the pronunciation of q was close to that of Arabic ق.. It is understandable following him who says, unspecified bans are for the support of the Temple34If bans are gifts to the Temple they are gifts to God and, as stated in Note 2, they become absolute the moment the intention to give is declared. Therefore, substitute names which are in common use are as effective as the explicit mention of the word “ban”. But if an unspecified ban is intended for Cohanim (the majority opinion in Mishnah ‘Arakhin 8:6), the collection of the gift is a money transaction between Cohanim and the giver, subject to the rule that “the proof is on the claimant” (Sanhedrin 3:9, 21b 1. 70; Babli Baba qama 46b). The Cohanim would have to prove that the putative giver in his use of the substitute words really did intend to refer to bans. This proof seems almost impossible. Therefore, substitute bans could not be like bans and the Mishnah here must be interpreted as supporting the opinion that unspecified bans are for the Temple.. But according to him who says, unspecified bans are for the priests? Why did we not state ‘substitute names for heave’? But if it were stated, what would we state30Recognized substitutes for vows, bans, nazir vows, and oaths are listed in Mishnah 2. The other dedications do not have recognized substitute names. The hypothetical names quoted in the sequel are built on the linguistic pattern of the accepted ones but either they make no sense or they have a sense very far from the intended one. Since they are not part of the current vocabulary as substitute names, they cannot be used.? Terupha35“Medicine”., teruṣa, teruqa?
Jerusalem Talmud Makkot
MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food12Lev. 7:20,21; transgressions punishable by extirpation., or who came into the Temple when impure13Num. 19:13.. One who eats fat14Lev. 7:25., or blood15Lev. 7:27., or leftover, or piggul16Lev. 19:8., or impure17“Leftover” refers to meat from acceptable sacrifices which was not eaten during the statutory time limit. Piggul is a sacrifice which was offered with the idea in mind (of the offerer or the officiating priest) that it should be eaten out of its allotted time (or place); Lev. 7:18,19:8. The root of piggul probably is فجل “to be soft”. [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside19Lev. 17:4., or one who eats leavened matter on Passover20Ex. 12:19.. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement21Lev. 23:29–30., and one who compounds the oil22Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., or compounds the incense23For profane purposes, Ex. 30:38. Incense had to be compounded fresh every year., and who rubs with the anointing oil22Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., and one who eats carcass24Deut. 14:21, a simple prohibition. or torn meat25Ex. 22:30, a simple prohibition., abominations and crawling things26Lev. 11:11,44.. If one ate ṭevel27Fully harvested produce of which the priests’ heave was not taken; Lev. 22:10. or first tithe from which heave was not taken28The obligation is Num. 18:28, the penalty Num. 18:32., or second tithe29Outside the place of the Sanctuary it needs redemption, Deut. 14:24. or dedicated food30Donated to the Temple to be sold for its value, not dedicated to the altar; Lev. 27:11. which was not redeemed. How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats (carcass meat) [an ant]31In editio princeps and ms., נבילה “carcass meat”. In all other sources נמלה “ant”. The latter reading is the only one which makes sense since it both is forbidden (Lev. 11:42) and much less than the size of an olive. is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat32Given as heave (biblically restricted to grain, wine, and olive oil). is a creature.