Talmud su Deuteronomio 12:9

What? Does Rebbi Yose the Galilean consider it as thick hips⁷Is his argument a practical one? Since it is assumed that the inner parts also will be roasted by the fire burning under the lamb, there is no reason that the innards, if put inside, will not be roasted., or does he explain the verse⁸Deut. 12:9. As explained in the next paragraph, he reads “on” to mean in direct bodily contact; and this is guaranteed at all times only if the hooves and innards are tucked inside the body., its head, on its hooves, and on its innards. What is the difference between them? If he roasted it like a profane lamb⁹Innards and hooves separate from the body.. If you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is disqualified¹⁰One has to read “qualified”. This is the reading of the quote in Or Zaruaˋ II §229. This author is usually trustworthy in his readings.; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is qualified¹¹Read: disqualified, confirmed by Or zaruaˋ. Clearly, if the innards hang in the fire separate from the body, they will be roasted but the verse is violated.. If he cut some meat from it and roasted it inside, if you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is qualified; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is disqualified¹²In the first case the meat will be roasted, therefore being qualified as Pesaḥ; but the verse does not permit to roast anything inside the body except innards and hooves.. If he roasted it in the steam of a pot, if you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is disqualified¹³Read: qualified (Or zaruaˋ).; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is qualified¹⁴Read: disqualified (Or zaruaˋ).. But did one not state, roasted in fire, not roasted in a pot. [Explain it,] if it touched the body of the pot. This¹⁵Not the preceding inconclusive discussion but the following discussion of the verse. implies that he explained the verse.

There are Tannaim who state, rest is Shilo, inheritance is Jerusalem. There are Tannaim who state, rest is Jerusalem, inheritance is Shilo⁵⁹¹Since in the verse quoted next the times when private altars are forbidden is called rest and inheritance. Babli 10a, Zevaḥim 119a.. He who says that rest is Shilo, because up to now you did not come to the rest⁵⁹²Deut. 12:9.. Inheritance is Jerusalem, My inheritance is a vulture, a hyena for Me⁵⁹³Jer. 12:9.. He who said, inheritance is Shilo, My inheritance like a lion in the forest⁵⁹⁴Jer. 12:8.; rest is Jerusalem, this is My rest forever⁵⁹⁵Ps. 132:14., etc.; like one who made a bundle and rested with it⁵⁹⁶Even if he has to work on the bundle, once he has assembled it he feels like being able to rest. So it is with Jerusalem, even though it was repeatedly destroyed, it is not to be replaced.. At the Tent of Meeting private altars were forbidden. At Gilgal private altars were permitted. At Shilo private altars were forbidden. At Nob and Gibeon private altars were permitted. At Jerusalem private altars were forbidden. {A parable of} a king who said to his slave, drink wine neither from Tiberias, nor from Caesarea⁵⁹⁷Caesarea Philippi, as always., nor from Sepphoris. Therefore from in-between is permitted. So at the Tent of Meeting they spent 39 years. At Gilgal they spent fourteen years, seven when they conquered and seven when they distributed⁵⁹⁸As inferred from verses in Seder Olam 11 (in the author’s edition, pp. 116–119); Babli Zevaḥim 118b.. At Shilo they spent 369 years⁵⁹⁹Seder Olam 11 (p. 117)., at Nob and Gibeon they spent 57, thirteen at Nob⁶⁰⁰Seder Olam 13 (p. 131. and 44 at Gibeon⁶⁰¹Since Solomon started building the Temple in year 480 after the Exodus (1K. 6:1), the time at Gibeon was 480 - (40+14+369+13). This is not quite correct since the altar at Gibeon was closed only at the inauguration of the Temple, after a building period of 7 years.. But in Jerusalem they spent 410 years at the first Temple and 420 at the last Temple⁶⁰²Babli Yoma 9a. The computation which gives too few years for the Second Temple is analyzed by the author in Seder Olam, pp. 248–250., to confirm what has been said, the glory of this last Temple will be greater than that of the first⁶⁰³Hag.2:9..