Talmud su Deuteronomio 12:17

If somebody makes a vow to abstain from vegetables, would he be permited dried ones? Let us hear from the following: “He is forbidden fresh Egyptian beans and permitted dried ones.” He mentioned only Egyptian beans, a kind which has a threshing floor¹⁵I. e., Egyptian beans are separated from their hulls and stored in quantity. A contract for delivery of Egyptian beans requires delivery of dried ones. A vegetable is permitted in dry form only if that dry form is traded as a separate kind.. Therefore, anything which has no threshing floor is forbidden even if dried. ¹⁶Tosephta 4:3. If somebody makes a vow to abstain from bulbous plants¹⁷This translation follows S. Lieberman, Tosefta ki-f shutaḥ Nedarim, p. 455. he is forbidden green melon¹⁸Cf. Kilaim 1:2, Notes 38–39., squash, water melon, sweet melon¹⁸Cf. Kilaim 1:2, Notes 38–39. and all tree fruits. If somebody makes a vow to abstain from sheep meat, he is permitted lambs, pidgeon chicks¹⁹These have nothing to do with sheep; pigeons are only mentioned for inclusion in the next clause., and milk²⁰Sheep’s milk.. But if he said, which grew this year, he is forbidden all of these. ²¹Tosephta 4:3, Babli Yoma 76b. If somebody makes a vow to abstain from cider, he is forbidden everything sweet and permitted wine. That is, following those who say that vows are interpreted in the vernacular²²R. Joḥanan, Halakhah 6:1; everybody’s opinion in the Babli, Yoma 76b. It seems that in Mishnaic times, the sweetness of the cider was the determinig factor.. But following those who say, vows are interpreted in biblical Hebrew²³R. Joshiah, Halakhah 6:1., the Torah used “cider” as an expression for wine; “your cider”²⁴Deut. 12:17, 14:23, 18:4., that is wine.

Some want to understand it from this (Deut. 12:17): “You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your cider, and your shining oil.”²⁵Both drinking and anointing are subsumed under “eating”. ‘Your cider’, that is the wine. ‘And your shining oil’ refers to anointing and the Torah called it ‘eating’. But this is not clear. If it were clear one should be whipped because of it outside the walls²⁶If the verse were a formal identification of anointing and eating as far as Second Tithe is concerned, the use of impure heave oil for anointing should be a criminal offense.! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one is whipped outside the walls only for pure Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and left²⁷This amoraïc statement is part of the objection.. From where that it is not clear? From what was stated²⁸The text from here to the end of the next paragraph is only hinted at in Yoma; it is in Šabbat 9:4, fol. 12a–b, the fullest text in Ta‘aniot 1:6, fol. 64c.: “On the Sabbath, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Ab and public fasts²⁹Fasts in a winter of draught, whose rules are modeled on those for the Ninth of Ab. anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted.” Did we not state: “Anointing is equal to drinking for prohibition and replacement³⁰Referring to illegal use of heave and dedicated food by non-Cohanim and its replacement by 5/4 of the value taken. but not for punishment, on the Day of Atonement for prohibition but not for punishment³¹The only biblical prohibitions on the Day of Atonement are eating, drinking, and working. The other two, anointing and sexual relations, are rabbinic and not subject to biblical punishment.”? Did we not state (Lev. 22:15): “They should not desecrate,” to include him who anoints and him who drinks³²The verse refers to the non-Cohen who “eats” holy food in error.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no ‘anoints’ here. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no ‘anoints’ here then there is no ‘drinks’ for otherwise something that comes from two different prohibitions would be added together³³If the verse in Lev. is needed to include drinking in eating then it is incomprehensible that for inadvertently eating and drinking together on the Day of Atonement one should be responsible only for one sacrifice since in that case, one infringes on two separate biblical prohibitions and should be responsible for two separate sacrifices. Similarly, if one illegimately ate and drank heave one should be responsible for two separate fifths. Since in both cases the Mishnah treats eating and drinking together, the verse cannot express a separate status for drinking; the addition of anointing and drinking is rabbinic interpretation but not biblical law and there is no reason to exclude anointing.!

Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument seems inverted. There¹⁰⁰It is unknown what this statement refers to. Since the tentative explanation of R. Eliahu Fulda is the only one not based on emendation of the text, it is followed here. The statement of R. Joshua ben Levi is based on the explanation of Ex. 21:28 given in Mekhilta deR. Simeon ben Ioḥai which contains the teachings of Ḥizqia, the teacher of R. Joshua ben Levi and the young R. Johanan (ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 178): “If an ox gores a man or a woman and they die, the ox should be stoned, its meat may not be eaten, and the owner of the ox is free.” If the ox is stoned, it becomes a carcass whose meat is forbidden anyhow; why the remark “its meat may not be eaten”? This means that if the ox has been condemned in court to be stoned but the owners slaughtered it before execution, the meat is still forbidden. What does mean: “The owner of the ox is free”? Ben Azai said, he is freed from his property; the entire animal is forbidden for all usufruct. On that, R. Joshua ben Levi adds that not only the meat but (hide and) horns are forbidden even if it died before slaughter. R. Joḥanan objects and notes that if the verse deals with two cases (stoned or slaughtered), the rules have to apply to both. In the case of R. Joshua ben Levi this means that the verse is needed to forbid hide and horns also for a correctly slaughtered ox; therefore, one does not understand why he did not object to R. Yannai that both second tithe and First Fruits should have the same rules., Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it was quoted for the horns of a cadaver. He said to him, did the teacher not teach: “I saw” the size of two beans¹⁰¹This deals with the impurity of houses by mold disease (Lev. 14:33–57). Mold disease is considered impure if it is the size of a Cilician bean. It is said (v. 35) that the owner has to tell the Cohen, “like a plague it appears to me in the house.” But since it is written in v. 37 that the Cohen has to see “the plague in the walls of the house”, the house is impure only if two impurities appear, each of the size of a bean.? Should he have said here also, “their growths”? In addition, from the following (Deut.12:17): “You may not eat your grain’s tithe in your gates.” About which tithe has this been said? About pure second tithe which entered Jerusalem and left¹⁰²The origin of this statement is unknown. In the Sifry the verse is interpreted to mean that grain may not be consumed unless heave and all tithes have been removed.. Also from the following which Rebbi Simeon stated. It was stated¹⁰³In Tosephta 1:6, an anonymous statement is close to the text here. in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “Tithe is special in that tithe forbids its money, mixtures, and vessels; the doubt of an admixture forbids in the most minute amount and one may not use it for lighting.” He should say, the same holds for growth! Rebbi Hila said, he who says growth is permitted, Rebbi Simeon. Those who say growth is forbidden, the rabbis. They said to him, did we not state¹⁰⁴Mishnah Terumot 9:4; Notes 61–62.: “Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe are profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” Why does he have to redeem? Not because of their inherent sanctity? Here also they should require walls because of their inherent sanctity! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When one says the growth is forbidden, the prohibition of walls¹⁰⁵It is forbidden to eat Jerusalem growth from either second tithe or First Fruits outside of Jerusalem.. When one says the growth is permitted, the permission for unauthorized persons¹⁰⁶In this respect, growth is profane as stated in Mishnah Terumot.. “These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave.”