Talmud su Esdra 2:61
וּמִבְּנֵי֙ הַכֹּ֣הֲנִ֔ים בְּנֵ֥י חֳבַיָּ֖ה בְּנֵ֣י הַקּ֑וֹץ בְּנֵ֣י בַרְזִלַּ֗י אֲשֶׁ֣ר לָ֠קַח מִבְּנ֞וֹת בַּרְזִלַּ֤י הַגִּלְעָדִי֙ אִשָּׁ֔ה וַיִּקָּרֵ֖א עַל־שְׁמָֽם׃
E dei figli dei sacerdoti: i figliuoli di Habaiah, i figliuoli di Hakkoz, i figliuoli di Barzillai, che presero in moglie le figlie di Barzillai, il Galaadita, e furono chiamati dopo il loro nome.
Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin
“Desecrated priest.” Following9Ezra 2:61–63. The verses prove that there were desecrated priests coming from Babylonia, as asserted in the Mishnah. “from the sons of Cohanim, the family Ḥavaya, the family Haqqoṣ . .10Not mentioned here is the statement that their problem was rooted in the fact that their ancestors 500 years earlier had married the daughters of Barzilai the Gileadite; this is the subject of the following paragraph. The quote then shows that the category of “desecrated priest” is hereditary. . they tried to find their genealogical documents; but they were not found and they were freed from priesthood. And the tiršata11The Persian title of the governor, “the one to be feared”. The title is applied to Nehemiah in 8:9; therefore, traditionally the appellation is interpreted as a kind of nickname of Nehemiah (as is explicit in G) and as such the Iranian word is read as an Aramaic pun. It is clear from Neh. 7 that the title in Ezra 2 cannot apply to Nehemiah; it probably refers to Sheshbazzar. told them.” Why was he called hattiršata? Because they permitted him to drink of the wine12As cup-bearer to the Persian monarch, Nehemiah certainly had to taste the wine to make sure it was not poisoned. But drinking Gentile wine is forbidden in rabbinic Judaism. Since Nehemiah shows himself to be strictly orthodox in Ezra and Nehemiah, the natural assumption is that he had obtained a special dispensation from the religious authorities of the time. The interpretation reads the name הַתִּרְשָׁתָא (which never appears without initial ה) not as a noun with definite article but a composite הַתֵּר-שָׁתָא “permitted drinker.” The explanation is quoted by Rashi, 69b, s.v. התרשתא.. Hatiršata, “I was the king’s cup bearer.” “That they should not eat from what was dedicated as holy13It seems that the Yerushalmi is in disagreement with the vocalization by the Masoretes. In the Pentateuch, to which the verses clearly are referring, masoretic vocalization strictly differentiates between the noun קֳדָשִׁים “sancta, sacrifices” and the superlative adjective קָדָשִׁים “most holy”. Since the mss. of the Ben-Asher tradition uniformly write קֳדָשִׁים in the verse here, it is clear that the masoretic interpretation of the verse forbade all holy food to the desecrated priests, whether Temple sacrifices or “outside sancta”, i. e., heave and tithes. But the Yerushalmi, based on the Mishnaic distinction between קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים “most holy sacrifices”, destined exclusively for the altar and/or legitimate priests in the Temple precinct, קֳדָשִׁם קַלִּים “simple sacrifices” (well-being offerings) shared between altar, priests, and the donor’s family, and קָדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל “outside sancta”, here reads מִקָּדְשֵׁי הַקָּדָשִׁים “from most holy sacrifices.” This immediately raises the question why desecrated priests are not summarily excluded from all holy food (as they are in rabbinic practice). As far as the fragmentary text of G can be interpreted, this is exactly the question asked, which is missing in L and editio princeps: “[If they are genuine priests] they should eat Temple sancta; if they are not genuine priests [they should be excluded from all sancta.]” The Yerushalmi is quoted by Rashi as explanation of the Babli, 69b s. v. ואמר להם..” Therefore, from outside14Maybe better: “Borderline sancta.” holy food they might eat? Rebbi Yose said, great is the permanence of the status quo ante15Cf. Giṭṭin 3:4 Note 87, Ketubot5:5 Note 100, Yebamot 15:12 Notes 181. An echo of the discussion here is in the Babli, 69b. Since they were used to eat there16In Babylonia, an impure country, where heaves and tithes were given to the priests as a remembrance of biblical rules, not a biblical obligation., they may also eat here. One understands there, as it is written: “Put up signposts for yourself.17Jer. 31:20. The verse is read as exhortation to symbolically observe in the diaspora also those biblical precepts which are intrinsically bound to the Land (Threni rabbati 1:62).” What can one say here18Since heave and heave of the tithe in the Land require genuine purity and genuine priests.? Following him who said, they accepted tithes voluntarily19Cf. Halakhah 1:9, Ševi‘it 6:1.. “Until a priest will be appointed for urim and tummim.” But were there any urim and tummim then, in the Second Temple20The urim wetummim oracle was never part of the High Priest’s vestment in the Second Temple since its nature was unknown.? But [he is] like a person who says until the dead will be resurrected, until David’s son21The Messiah. will come.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy