Rujukan Talmud untuk Keluaran 30:17: Jerusalem Talmud Sotah, Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim, Jerusalem Talmud Challah & Jerusalem Talmud Yoma

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.⁵⁹In the Babli, 15b, this is attributed to R. Ismael. The statement is not mentioned in the Midrashim. The quote seems to imply a Mishnah text similar to that of the Babli.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer⁶⁰The argument is mentioned in his name in Sifra Meṣorah Pereq 1(4)., as we have stated there⁶¹Mishnah Nega‘im 14:1, referring to the purification of the person healed from skin disease.: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.⁶²Lev. 14:5, speaking of the slaughtering of one of the two birds used in the purification rite. “Live” water is running water from a fountain or natural stream.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here⁶³The argument is irrelevant for the ritual of the suspected wife. In the Babli, the connection is made by R. Ismael’s rule of gezerah s̊awah: If the meaning of “earthenware vessel” was determined to include “new”, the same meaning applies everywhere. The Yerushalmi rejects this application to the names of vessels of common use.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he⁶⁴R. Eliezer. agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin⁶⁵From which the priests draw the water for their ablutions; cf. Ex. 30:17–21. The statement is also anonymous in Sifry Num. 10, Sifry zuṭa Naśo, Num. rabba 9(12); cf. Targumim to Num. 5:17. In the Babli, 15b, it is attributed to R. Joḥanan in the editio princeps, impossible in a Tannaïtic text, and to R. Ismael in the Munich ms., contradicting the next statement there. In the Babli text quoted in the 12th Century Sefer Yereïm 460 (ed. S. Z. Halberstam), the statement is missing; this is the only consistent Babli text, defining this baraita as differing from the Mishnah.. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water⁶⁶The last two statements are also in the Babli, 15b. The statement by R. Ismael requires the water to be brought from outside the Temple precinct (the Giḥon source); the rabbis permit the water to be drawn also from the water canal crossing the temple courtyard or from one of the miqwaot in the Temple area.. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah⁶⁷From the context (here, and in Sifra, loc. cit.) it follows that the word describes a somehow defective or incomplete clay vessel. Ben Jehudah in his Thesaurus (p. 3662) quotes several proposed interpretations without giving his own opinion. As a Semitic word, the root is נקד, “exhibiting spots”, but cf. Greek μαγίς, -ίδος, ἡ, “kneading trough, pan, plate”; Latin magis, -idis, or magida -ae, “dish, platter, kneading trough”.. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They⁶⁸Some members of the Academy. wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer⁶⁹Since it may be assumed that “a new vessel” means: not a defective one. but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left⁷⁰A broken vessel is acceptable if it represents the major part of a complete vessel. This statement is not in the Babli; since the Babli requires a new vessel (or at least one renewed by firing), it will reject a broken one..

Rebbi Ḥizqiah said that Rebbi Jehudah Dried Figs⁵⁶It is impossible to determine his time of activity. stated: The table, the candelabrum, the altars⁶²Since obviously in the absence of an altar there can be no sacrifice, the reference is to the golden incense altar in the Sanctuary, not the large altar outside. Babli Zevaḥim62a., and the gobelins⁵⁵For use in the Temple Hall, to separate between the holy and the holiest of holies. obstruct the sacrifice, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, the sacrifice is only obstructed by the wash basin and its base⁶³Since the priests are forbidden to officiate unless they wash hands and feet from the Temple wash basin on its base, Ex. 30:17–21, 40:30–32.. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, everywhere “opposite⁶⁴The following refers to the commandment how the Tabernacle had to be organized (Ex. 26:32–37; 40:1–16) and the report how this was executed ((Ex. 40:1–17–33.) The candelabrum was put “opposite the table”. (Ex. 40:24).” is written it is obstructive, “on the side⁶⁵The table has to be put “on the North side”, the candelabrum “on the South side”; (Ex. 26:35).” is not obstructive, but Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, even “on the side” is obstructive, and Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, even “putting⁶⁶Moses “put” all the furniture of the Tabernacle at its correct places (Ex. 40:18 ff.)” is obstructive. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, here for service inside, there for service outside⁶⁷Since one may bring sacrifices on the altar without a Temple (Mishnah Idiut8:6), for any offering on the large altar one only needs the wash basin and its base. But for any offering inside the Sanctuary, e. g., the daily incense burning, all pieces have to be available at the correct places..

MISHNAH: Ḥallah and heave. ²³⁴Most of these rules have been spelled out for heave in Tractate Terumot; the sentence spells out that ḥallah is not only called “heave” (Num. 15:20–21) but actually follows all rules of heave. About them one is liable to death²³⁵Lev. 22:3. and a fifth²³⁶Terumot 6:1., they are forbidden to laymen²³⁷Lev. 22:10. Since this rule is mentioned after the penalties, it must mean that consumption by laymen of quantities too small to merit judicial attention is still forbidden., are Cohen’s property, can be lifted in 101²³⁸Terumot Chapter 5., need washing of the hands²³⁹An extension of the injunction Ex. 30:17–21. (and feet)²⁴⁰A scribal error in the ms. and some sources dependent on it; cf. The Mishnah with variant readings, Zera‘im II (Jerusalem 1975), p. 325, Note 74. and sundown²⁴¹Lev. 22:7., are not taken from pure for impure²⁴²Terumot 2:1. but only from what is earmarked²⁴³Terumot 1:1, Note 6. and completed²⁴⁴Completely processed; Ma‘serot 1.. He who says, all my threshing floor is heave or all my dough is ḥallah did not say anything unless he left out a small amount.