Talmud su Esodo 30:78

The Torah was given at Sinai through Moses' hands, as it says (Deuteronomy 5:19), "He wrote them on two stone tablets, and He gave them to me." And then later it says (Leviticus 26:46), "These are the decrees and the laws and the teachings that the Eternal gave, through Moses on Mount Sinai, between Him and the children of Israel." The Torah that the Holy Blessed One gave to Israel was given only through Moses, as it says (Exodus 31:17), "Between Me and the children of Israel"; Moses merited to be a messenger between the children of Israel and the Omnipresent God. Moses prepared the inaugural ram and the anointing oil, and anointed Aaron and his sons with it all seven days of inauguration, and from it, all the high priests and kings are anointed. And Elazar burned the [red] heifer as a sin offering, with which impurities would be purified for generations. Rabbi Eliezer said: Great is this ritual, for it is practiced throughout the generations, just as Aaron and his sons were sanctified with this anointing oil, as it says (Exodus 30:30), "Anoint Aaron and his sons, and sanctify them to serve as priests.”

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. Three contributions are mentioned in the paragraph⁴⁰Ex. 25:2–3, as explained in the text., the contribution for the bases⁴¹As noted in Ex. 38:27–28, the silver contributed by half-sheqalim contributed by a head tax according to Ex. 30:11–16 was used to cast the bases, hooks, and covers, for the poles for the posts securing the sanctuary and its gobelins., the contribution for sheqalim⁴²Since the receipt of the first tax was used for construction purposes, there must have been a second tax (in the amount of the first but collected only in the following years, not the year of construction) to provide for the communal sacrifices., and the contribution for the Sanctuary⁴³². Speak to the Children of Israel, they shall take for me a contribution, that is the contribution for the bases. From any man of goodwill take my contribution, this refers to the contribution for sheqalim. This is the contribution which you shall take from them, that is the contribution for the Sanctuary. The contribution for the Sanctuary is for the Sanctuary, they may use it in any way they want. The contribution for sheqalim is for sacrifices, they may use it in any way they want, so that everybody’s part of it be the same. The contribution for the bases [is for the bases]⁴⁴Addition by the corrector following B but probably incorrect; the fact that it is equal for everybody distinguishes it from the contributions to the Sanctuary., the rich may not increase and the poor may not decrease⁴⁵Ex. 30:15.. Rebbi Abun said, also in this paragraph⁴⁶In Ex. 30:11–16. The expression תְּרוּמָה לַיי or תְּרומַת יי appears in vv.. 13,14,15 Babli Megillah29b. are three contributions mentioned.

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. Three contributions are mentioned in the paragraph⁴⁰Ex. 25:2–3, as explained in the text., the contribution for the bases⁴¹As noted in Ex. 38:27–28, the silver contributed by half-sheqalim contributed by a head tax according to Ex. 30:11–16 was used to cast the bases, hooks, and covers, for the poles for the posts securing the sanctuary and its gobelins., the contribution for sheqalim⁴²Since the receipt of the first tax was used for construction purposes, there must have been a second tax (in the amount of the first but collected only in the following years, not the year of construction) to provide for the communal sacrifices., and the contribution for the Sanctuary⁴³². Speak to the Children of Israel, they shall take for me a contribution, that is the contribution for the bases. From any man of goodwill take my contribution, this refers to the contribution for sheqalim. This is the contribution which you shall take from them, that is the contribution for the Sanctuary. The contribution for the Sanctuary is for the Sanctuary, they may use it in any way they want. The contribution for sheqalim is for sacrifices, they may use it in any way they want, so that everybody’s part of it be the same. The contribution for the bases [is for the bases]⁴⁴Addition by the corrector following B but probably incorrect; the fact that it is equal for everybody distinguishes it from the contributions to the Sanctuary., the rich may not increase and the poor may not decrease⁴⁵Ex. 30:15.. Rebbi Abun said, also in this paragraph⁴⁶In Ex. 30:11–16. The expression תְּרוּמָה לַיי or תְּרומַת יי appears in vv.. 13,14,15 Babli Megillah29b. are three contributions mentioned.

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. Three contributions are mentioned in the paragraph⁴⁰Ex. 25:2–3, as explained in the text., the contribution for the bases⁴¹As noted in Ex. 38:27–28, the silver contributed by half-sheqalim contributed by a head tax according to Ex. 30:11–16 was used to cast the bases, hooks, and covers, for the poles for the posts securing the sanctuary and its gobelins., the contribution for sheqalim⁴²Since the receipt of the first tax was used for construction purposes, there must have been a second tax (in the amount of the first but collected only in the following years, not the year of construction) to provide for the communal sacrifices., and the contribution for the Sanctuary⁴³². Speak to the Children of Israel, they shall take for me a contribution, that is the contribution for the bases. From any man of goodwill take my contribution, this refers to the contribution for sheqalim. This is the contribution which you shall take from them, that is the contribution for the Sanctuary. The contribution for the Sanctuary is for the Sanctuary, they may use it in any way they want. The contribution for sheqalim is for sacrifices, they may use it in any way they want, so that everybody’s part of it be the same. The contribution for the bases [is for the bases]⁴⁴Addition by the corrector following B but probably incorrect; the fact that it is equal for everybody distinguishes it from the contributions to the Sanctuary., the rich may not increase and the poor may not decrease⁴⁵Ex. 30:15.. Rebbi Abun said, also in this paragraph⁴⁶In Ex. 30:11–16. The expression תְּרוּמָה לַיי or תְּרומַת יי appears in vv.. 13,14,15 Babli Megillah29b. are three contributions mentioned.

The preparation of the anointing oil. Take for yourself select spices, etc. and cassia 500, etc., altogether 1500 parts. And olive oil one hin, that is twelve log, in which the roots were cooked, the words of Rebbi Meןr. Rebbi Jehudah says, he cooked them in water, then poured the oil on them, and when it had absorbed the fragrance one removed it, just as the perfumers do. That is what is written: holy anointing oil, etc.

¹⁸This and the following paragraph also are in Horaiot3:3 (ה). Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilay stated: The anointing oil made by Moses in the desert was from the start to the end a work of wonders, since there were only twelve log to start with, as it was said, and olive oil one hin. It would not have been enough to rub the wooden planks with it; so much more since the fire swallows, wood absorbs, and the kettle absorbs! From it the Tabernacles and all its vessels were anointed, the table and its vessels, the candelabrum and all its vessels. From it Aaron and his sons were anointed all of the seven days of induction, from it all high priests and kings were anointed. A king who is first needs anointing, a king who is a king’s son does not need anointing. [What is the reason? Do anoint him, for this one is it¹⁹1S. 17:20., this one needs anointing but his son does not need anointing.]²⁰Corrector’s addition from B. But a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest needs anointing, even for ten generations. Nevertheless, it is all there for the future; that is what is written²¹Ex. 30:31., a holy anointing oil will this be for Me, for all your generations.

Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah. If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation⁴⁷It is a general principle of hermeneutics in both Talmudim that for every prohibition one verse has to explain what is forbidden and another verse, often at a different place, has to spell out the punishment. If the latter verse refers to several prohibitions at once, the number of sins committed in one act (the number of required cleansing sacrifices if the sin was inadvertent) is counted by the number of prohibitions, not by the number of punishments enumerated separately. In the Babli (Makkot 14b, Keritut 3a), this is a matter of dispute.. What is the reason? “On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it.⁴⁸Ex. 30:32, speaking of the oil used to anoint priests and holy vessels.” And it is written: “A man who would compound like it⁴⁹Ex. 30:33: “A man who would compound its likeness or who would apply it on an outside person {who is not a priest} will be extirpated from his people.” There are only two prohibitions since the “human” of v. 32 is defined as “not a priest” in v. 33.”. Here are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation. The prohibitions divide the extirpation. This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said one infers from an argument de minore ad majus but one does not punish from an argument de minore ad majus⁵⁰A principle spelled out many times in the Babli, cf. Makkot 5b, 14a, 17a; Sanhedrin 54a.. Where does he have that from? It comes following what Ḥizqiah stated: “If the daughter of a Cohen is desecrated by whoring.” Why does the verse say, “a man⁵¹Lev. 21:9. “A Cohen man’s daughter if she is desecrated by whoring with her father, shall be burned in fire;” cf. Babli Sanhedrin 76.”? To include him who cohabits with his daughter’s daughter from a rape that she should be [under sentence of] burning⁵²It was determined earlier that the prohibition of 20:14 of descendents or progenitors in the direct line applies only if one of the women is married to the man. For priests, this is extended also to extramarital children.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one may even understand this from the warning: “Do not desecrate your daughter⁵³Lev. 19:29: “Do not desecrate your daughter to cause her to whore.” This interpretation is quoted in the Babli, Sanhedrin 76a, in the name of R. Abun’s father and there is only one of several alternative interpretations..”

Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah. If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation⁴⁷It is a general principle of hermeneutics in both Talmudim that for every prohibition one verse has to explain what is forbidden and another verse, often at a different place, has to spell out the punishment. If the latter verse refers to several prohibitions at once, the number of sins committed in one act (the number of required cleansing sacrifices if the sin was inadvertent) is counted by the number of prohibitions, not by the number of punishments enumerated separately. In the Babli (Makkot 14b, Keritut 3a), this is a matter of dispute.. What is the reason? “On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it.⁴⁸Ex. 30:32, speaking of the oil used to anoint priests and holy vessels.” And it is written: “A man who would compound like it⁴⁹Ex. 30:33: “A man who would compound its likeness or who would apply it on an outside person {who is not a priest} will be extirpated from his people.” There are only two prohibitions since the “human” of v. 32 is defined as “not a priest” in v. 33.”. Here are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation. The prohibitions divide the extirpation. This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said one infers from an argument de minore ad majus but one does not punish from an argument de minore ad majus⁵⁰A principle spelled out many times in the Babli, cf. Makkot 5b, 14a, 17a; Sanhedrin 54a.. Where does he have that from? It comes following what Ḥizqiah stated: “If the daughter of a Cohen is desecrated by whoring.” Why does the verse say, “a man⁵¹Lev. 21:9. “A Cohen man’s daughter if she is desecrated by whoring with her father, shall be burned in fire;” cf. Babli Sanhedrin 76.”? To include him who cohabits with his daughter’s daughter from a rape that she should be [under sentence of] burning⁵²It was determined earlier that the prohibition of 20:14 of descendents or progenitors in the direct line applies only if one of the women is married to the man. For priests, this is extended also to extramarital children.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one may even understand this from the warning: “Do not desecrate your daughter⁵³Lev. 19:29: “Do not desecrate your daughter to cause her to whore.” This interpretation is quoted in the Babli, Sanhedrin 76a, in the name of R. Abun’s father and there is only one of several alternative interpretations..”

So is the Mishnah: “If he ties⁴¹The shoelaces. lower than the knee, it is valid, above the knee it is invalid.” It is written: “Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and feet from it⁴²Ex. 30:19..” It was stated about this: The hand up to the wrist, the foot up to the calf; and here you say so⁴³The “foot” of the priests refers only to the calf (in another interpretation to the shinbone) but not to the knee, but for the widow it extends up to the knee!? There is a difference, since it is written “from above his foot”. In that case, even higher than the knee should be valid! There is a difference, since it is written “from above his foot”, and not from higher than above his foot⁴⁴The Babli agrees, 103a.. Cahana objected: Is it not written, “and the afterbirth which comes out from between her feet⁴⁵Deut. 28:57. Usually, one translates “between her legs”; then one also should translate that the widow has to remove the levir’s shoe “from his leg” and shoelaces bound above the knee should be permissible. The same question is quoted in the Babli, 103a.;” does it come out from between her feet? It looks as if it was between her feet; as we have stated there: “The water pit was between the Temple hall and the alter drawn towards the South.⁴⁶Mishnah Middot 3:6. It was between the Southern edge of the hall and the altar.” Was it put between the hall and the altar? Only it looked as if between hall and altar.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, to make a procession⁸⁵Latin pompa, Greek πομπή “solemn procession”. One tries to have as many Cohanim as possible involved in order to increase the solemnity.
Babli 24b, bottom. on the occasion. Rebbi said, could not the Cohen who was removing the ashes from the interior altar himself clean the candelabra? But to make a procession on the occasion. There, we have stated: “He deposits the flask on the second step and leaves;⁸⁶Mishnah Tamid 3:9, speaking of the Cohen who cleans 5 lights of the candelabrum and refills them with oil.” “he takes the flask from the second step and leaves.⁸⁷Mishnah Tamid 6:1; the same Cohen returns, cleans the remaining two lights on the candelabrum, refills, and lights them, when he enters the Sanctuary a second time.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, why does he enter twice for incense? Only to make a procession on the occasion. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is a biblical command: in the morning, in the morning, when he cleans the lights he shall burn the incense⁸⁸Ex. 30:7.. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He could enter to clean and to burn incense⁸⁹The verse does not require different persons for the different jobs (also we already had interpreted in the morning, in the morning as meaning “early in the morning, cf. Note 49.).

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.

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.

HALAKHAH: From where the cleaning of the interior altar⁹⁰Since in contrast to the exterior altar, removing ashes from the interior incense altar is never mentioned in the Torah.? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He shall throw it next to the altar, to the East, on the place of ashes⁹¹Lev. 1:16, referring to the crop of a pigeon brought as elevation offering. Cf. Sifra Wayyiqra1Pereq 9(3).. It is unnecessary⁹²The mention on the place of ashes is not needed to fix the place; it instructs the Cohen where to put the ashes. Babli Meˋilah 12a.. If to designate [the place], it already is written, next to the altar. If to teach you that it should be put to the East of the ramp, it already is written, to the East. Also he explained, next to the altar, next to the altar⁹³The first quote is from Lev. 1:16, the second Lev. 6:3, about the ashes from the exterior altar formally deposited next to the altar. Since this case is explicit the exterior altar, the other is taken implicitly to refer to the interior altar.. Since in one case it is to the East of the ramp, so in the other case it is to the East of the ramp. From where that it is forbidden for usufruct⁹⁴Mishnah Meˋilah 3:4 states that from the ashes from the interior altar and the candelabrum one may not have usufruct but taking them is not larceny.? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to a pure place⁹⁵Lev. 6:4. The quote is inappropriate since the verse speaks of the remainder of the ashes on the exterior altar which are transported to a pure place outside the sacred precinct., that its place shall be pure⁹⁶It seems that here “pure” is taken in the sense of “untouched”.. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, from where that the cleaning of the exterior altar is forbidden for usufruct? The verse says, to the place of ashes, that it be its place forever. From where the cleaning of the interior altar? He shall sprinkle on it⁹¹Lev. 1:16, referring to the crop of a pigeon brought as elevation offering. Cf. Sifra Wayyiqra1Pereq 9(3)., he shall burn incense⁹⁸Ex. 30:7. The quote is incomplete since the argument is a comparison of he shall sprinkle on it, and he shall burn incense on it.. Since sprinkling is on its body⁹⁹As explained in Halakhah 5:7, the High Priest on the Day of Atonement is commanded to sprinkle blood on the interior altar on it, on the cleaned metal surface directly, not on ashes or unburned incense. The rule is then transferred to everyday’s burning of incense since the same expression is used., also burning incense on its body. From where that the interior altar is forbidden for usufruct? An argument de minore ad majus. If from the exterior altar it is forbidden, so much more from the interior¹⁰⁰Since the external altar is accessible to all Cohanim at all times, the internal only to a selected Cohen twice a day..

Here, you are saying, he cleans and then he burns the incense; but there, you are saying, he burns the incense and then he cleans¹⁰⁷In Mishnah 1:2 it is stated that the High Priest first burns the incense and then cleans the lights; it is presumed that this was the order during the entire year when ordinary priests were serving. But in Mishnah 2:3 the cleaning of the candelabrum is part of the first lottery, while buring the incense is mentioned only in Mishnah 2:4 (confirmed by Mishnah Tamid 5:2). The Mishnaiot are inconsistent with another.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Tamid of Rebbi Simeon from Mitzpeh¹⁰⁸Chapter 2 follows the Mishnah in Tamid, which follows the teachings of Rebbi Simeon from Mitzpeh. Tosephta 1:13.. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, but not all of it; there are sayings questioned by the rabbis¹⁰⁹Tractate Tamid is mostly but not totally, based on the teachings of Rebbi Simeon from Mitzpeh.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is Middot of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob¹¹⁰The parts in Tamid inconsistent with the teachings of Rebbi Simeon from Mitzpeh are attributed to R. Eliezer ben Jacob I who is the source of most of Mishnah Middot (Babli 16a).. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, but not all of it; there are sayings questioned by the rabbis. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon from Mitzpeh? In the morning, in the morning, when he cleans the lights he shall burn the incense on it¹¹¹. Ex. 30:7 clearly mentions cleaning the lights before burning the incense.. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi: The reason of the rabbis, outside the curtain of the testimonial in the Tent of Meeting, Aaron and his sons shall arrange it from evening to morning¹¹²Ex. 27:21 (badly misquoted). If the burning of incense in the evening were after lighting the candelabrum, the lighting would not be the last action in the Sanctuary before the next morning.; that there shall be only the cleaning of the lights¹¹³Babli 26a..

But Rebbi Ismael himself had a problem: from where does one prove it¹⁸²This refers to the paragraph before the last, where R. Joḥanan explained that the sister had a special role in the list of incest prohibitions, to deduce that from the different levels of punishment the blanket decree of extirpation really represents separate decrees for each kind of infraction. In Sanhedrin, the name here is Joḥanan. But Ismael may be the correct attribution, since according to one opinion in the Babli, Zebaḥim 107b, this is R. Ismael’s position. S. Liebermann prefers to read “Eleazar” since the supporting argument is quoted in the latter’s name.? Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation¹⁸³This answers the question. It is rather frequent to find verses containing multiple prohibitions covered by one mention of extirpation where the context makes it clear that each single infraction triggers extirpation.. What is the reason? ¹⁸⁴Ex. 30:32,33 regarding the holy oil. Only v. 33 is discussed.It should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation¹⁸⁵A person who inadvertently compounds aromatic oil in the same composition as holy oil and uses it on people has to bring two sacrifices. Babli, Makkot 14b.. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? The verse speaks about males. His sister is mentioned to teach about all females¹⁸⁶While in the punishments listed in Lev. 20 both sexes are mentioned, the prohibition in Chapter 18 are all formulated for the male, except that the mention of extirpation is formulated (18:29) for “all persons”. Since the punishment for marrying one’s sister is extirpation (20:17) for both partners, it proves that the “persons” mentioned in 18:29 are both male and female.. Does Rebbi Eleazar not accept this? He has it from do not come near¹⁸⁷Lev. 18:6, the verse introducing incest prohibitions. While the verse starts אִישׁ אִישׁ it is agreed that the meaning is not “every man” but “every person”., equally male or female. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? He explains it but it is not clear¹⁸⁸Since אִישׁ אִישׁ really means “every man” it needs a supporting argument.
מחוור is Babylonian spelling of Galilean מחובר “logically connected”; in the ms. it is a corrector’s change., so also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity¹⁸⁹Impurity of well-being sacrifices, the only ones available to lay people, is treated at length in Lev. 7:11–27. Impurity of sacrifices available to priests is treated in Lev. 22:1–16. One should assume that a priest who inadvertently eats a combination of impure well-being and other sacrifices has to bring separate purification sacrifices; but this is not the case.? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple regarding larceny¹⁹⁰While misuse of all kinds of sancta is larceny, it is punishable only if the monetary value of the misuse is at least one peruṭah. Misuse of one half peruṭah’s worth of Temple donations and one half peruṭah’s worth of sacrifices is not punishable., lest one be liable for them because of mushiness¹⁹¹Sacrificing with the intent of eating of the sacrificial meat out of its time and place., leftovers¹⁹²Eating of sacrificial meat after its allotted time., and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity¹⁹³This shows that well-being and other sacrifices are equal in the hand of the Cohen, Mishnah Meˋilah 4:1. The categories of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity do not apply to monetary gifts to the Temple. Anything donated to the Temple which is not a sacrifice or a Temple vessel is sold by the Temple treasurer and thereby reverts to fully profane status.,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do split¹⁹⁵Somebody committing simultaneous larceny involving gifts to the Temple and sacrifices has to atone separately for the two offenses.. Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁹⁶The Genizah text in Sanhedrin reads Ḥinena, preferable for chronological reasons. said, so it is. They split but do not combine¹⁹⁷R. Ḥanina’s statement is an assertion that the rules are different for well-being and other sacrifices. This would agree with the Babli, Meˋilah 15a, that in fact well-being and purification offerings do not combine; the contrary statement of the Mishnah is classified as a rabbinic stringency..

¹¹²This text is part of a longer text found in Soṭah 8:3, Notes 69–92 (L. Ginzberg, Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah, New York 1909, p. 214), and, what seems to be the original source, Šeqalim 6:1, 49c l. 52 ff., Babli editio princeps 9d l. 21. Only the biblical quotes and major deviations from the Sotah text are noted here. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilai says: The anointing oil made by Moses on the Mountain¹¹³In Sotah and Šeqalim: “in the desert.” The place is not mentioned in B. was from beginning to end a series of miracles since there were only twelve log to start with, as it was said: and olive oil one hin¹¹⁴Ex. 30:24.. It would not have been enough to rub the wooden planks with it; so much more since the fire swallows, the kettle swallows, wood absorbs! From it the Tabernacle and all its vessels were anointed, the altar and all its vessels, the candelabra and all its vessels, the wash basin and its base. From it Aaron the High Priest and his sons were anointed all of the seven days of induction; from it all high priests and kings were anointed. A king who is first needs anointing; a king who is a king’s son does not need anointing, for it is said: Do anoint him, for this one is it¹¹⁵1S. 16:12., this one needs anointing, but his son does not need anointing. But a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest needs anointing even for ten generations. Nevertheless, it is there for the future, as it was said: a holy anointing oil will this be for Me, for all your generations¹¹⁶Ex. 30:31..

¹¹²This text is part of a longer text found in Soṭah 8:3, Notes 69–92 (L. Ginzberg, Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah, New York 1909, p. 214), and, what seems to be the original source, Šeqalim 6:1, 49c l. 52 ff., Babli editio princeps 9d l. 21. Only the biblical quotes and major deviations from the Sotah text are noted here. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilai says: The anointing oil made by Moses on the Mountain¹¹³In Sotah and Šeqalim: “in the desert.” The place is not mentioned in B. was from beginning to end a series of miracles since there were only twelve log to start with, as it was said: and olive oil one hin¹¹⁴Ex. 30:24.. It would not have been enough to rub the wooden planks with it; so much more since the fire swallows, the kettle swallows, wood absorbs! From it the Tabernacle and all its vessels were anointed, the altar and all its vessels, the candelabra and all its vessels, the wash basin and its base. From it Aaron the High Priest and his sons were anointed all of the seven days of induction; from it all high priests and kings were anointed. A king who is first needs anointing; a king who is a king’s son does not need anointing, for it is said: Do anoint him, for this one is it¹¹⁵1S. 16:12., this one needs anointing, but his son does not need anointing. But a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest needs anointing even for ten generations. Nevertheless, it is there for the future, as it was said: a holy anointing oil will this be for Me, for all your generations¹¹⁶Ex. 30:31..

BARAITHA. [They should be] industrious and full of energy [memulla’].
GEMARA. Some read memulla’, others memullaḥ.¹³lit. ‘salted’. [They who read memulla’ intend by it: The disciple of the wise] fills the place of his ancestors. They who read memullaḥ [interpret the word] in accordance with what is written, Seasoned with salt, pure and holy,¹⁴Ex. 30, 35, relating to the incense of the altar. i.e. a disciple of the wise must be pleasant towards all men¹⁵Cf. Keth. 17a (Sonc. ed., p. 93). and should not be like a dish without salt.

^100aThis is a copy from Yoma 5:1, explained there in Notes 12-30. The introductory sentence is missing, but is partially present in B. The question is, why does the Mishnah prescribe that leftover incense should be redeemed and used as payment of the artisans. Since it is a biblical decree (Lev. 27:10) that unblemished animals dedicated as sacrifices cannot be redeemed, would it not be reasonable to assume that sacrificial objects sanctified in a Service vessel cannot be redeemed? If one accepts this, a second question arises. Was the incense prepared in a Service vessel and therefore is sanctified from the start, or does only the daily portion become sanctified when it is filled into a Service vessel, and the leftovers are intrinsically redeemable as Temple property? As they disagreed: If it¹⁰¹The incense. was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy¹⁰²There is no such verse; similar verses about incense would be Ex.30:36, most holy it shall be for you, Ex. 30:37, holy it shall be for you. Babli Keritut 6a., that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the disbursement from the lodge. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings¹⁰³Mishnah 6..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos who took incense as his wages. And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel to sanctify. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, one is lenient in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If unblemished animals were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta. Leftover he-goats, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion? Rebbi Ze`ira said, they shall graze. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices.

“Rebbi Jehudah said:, testified” etc. Rebbi Berekhiah said, the reason of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai is¹¹²Ex. 30:12., this they shall give, twelve tribes shall give. Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rav Hamnuna: So answer the Sages to Rebbi Jehudah¹¹³Who reports the opinion of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai approvingly.. A private purification sacrifice is let to die; a public purification sacrifice is not left to die¹¹⁴Once a sacrifice has been designated as a purification sacrifice it can neither be redeemed nor used for any other sacrifice. If such an animal was lost, another animal was used, and then the original was found again (or a few similar situations), nothing can be done with it, it must be left to die.. A private flour offering¹¹⁵Of a Cohen, as noted in the Mishnah. is brought totally, but no public flour offering is brought totally. This is difficult, how can one argue with a person about something with which he does not agree¹¹⁶ג reads: “by an argument that can be objected to.”? “For no public purification sacrifice is left to die; Rebbi Jehudah says, it shall be left to die.¹¹⁷Mishnah Yoma6:2; see there Halakhah 1, Note 33.” And he objects to them, are these not private flour offerings¹¹⁸The argument of Cohanim to which Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai objects implies that the half sheqel is not given as a tax but to acquire a minute part of the public sacrifices, which imply that there are no public offerings at all, only those of a private partnership.? They answer him, from the moment when it is delivered to the public, it is treated as a public offering¹¹⁹The argument is impossible since biblical rules for private and public offerings differ in some respects.. It is written, everybody being counted¹²⁰Ex. 30:13., Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, everyone who crossed the Sea shall give, the other one said, everyone being counted¹²¹In Numbers where it is made explicit that the tribe of Levi was not counted with the remainder of the tribes. Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai cannot explain this verse, unless he explains that Ex. 30:11–16 is not the basis of the duty to pay the sheqel, but Ben Kovri (Kokhri, Bukhri, Bikhri) cannot explain the inclusion in Mishnah 4. shall give. He who said, everyone who crossed the Sea shall give, supports Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai; he who said, everyone being counted shall give, supports Ben Kovri.

“Rebbi Jehudah said:, testified” etc. Rebbi Berekhiah said, the reason of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai is¹¹²Ex. 30:12., this they shall give, twelve tribes shall give. Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rav Hamnuna: So answer the Sages to Rebbi Jehudah¹¹³Who reports the opinion of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai approvingly.. A private purification sacrifice is let to die; a public purification sacrifice is not left to die¹¹⁴Once a sacrifice has been designated as a purification sacrifice it can neither be redeemed nor used for any other sacrifice. If such an animal was lost, another animal was used, and then the original was found again (or a few similar situations), nothing can be done with it, it must be left to die.. A private flour offering¹¹⁵Of a Cohen, as noted in the Mishnah. is brought totally, but no public flour offering is brought totally. This is difficult, how can one argue with a person about something with which he does not agree¹¹⁶ג reads: “by an argument that can be objected to.”? “For no public purification sacrifice is left to die; Rebbi Jehudah says, it shall be left to die.¹¹⁷Mishnah Yoma6:2; see there Halakhah 1, Note 33.” And he objects to them, are these not private flour offerings¹¹⁸The argument of Cohanim to which Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai objects implies that the half sheqel is not given as a tax but to acquire a minute part of the public sacrifices, which imply that there are no public offerings at all, only those of a private partnership.? They answer him, from the moment when it is delivered to the public, it is treated as a public offering¹¹⁹The argument is impossible since biblical rules for private and public offerings differ in some respects.. It is written, everybody being counted¹²⁰Ex. 30:13., Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, everyone who crossed the Sea shall give, the other one said, everyone being counted¹²¹In Numbers where it is made explicit that the tribe of Levi was not counted with the remainder of the tribes. Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai cannot explain this verse, unless he explains that Ex. 30:11–16 is not the basis of the duty to pay the sheqel, but Ben Kovri (Kokhri, Bukhri, Bikhri) cannot explain the inclusion in Mishnah 4. shall give. He who said, everyone who crossed the Sea shall give, supports Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai; he who said, everyone being counted shall give, supports Ben Kovri.

⁵⁷Babli Yoma 52b, Horaiot 12a, Keritut 5b; Tosephta Kippurim 2:15, Soṭah 13:1; Seder ‘Olam 24; Abot dR. Nathan A 31. In the Babli and the sources depending on it, some Tannaïm hold that the Ark was brought to Babylon. When the ark was hidden, there were hidden with it the flask of Manna⁵⁸Ex. 16:33–34., the bottle of anointing oil⁵⁹Ex. 30:22–33., Aaron’s staff with its flowers and almonds⁶⁰Num. 17:25., and the chest which the Philistines returned as a reparation sacrifice for Israel’s God⁶¹1Sam. 6.. Who hid it? Josiah! When he saw that it was written⁶²Deut. 28:36.: “The Eternal will lead you and your king whom you will have put above you, to a people whom neither you nor your fathers had known,” he started and hid it. That is what is written⁶³2Chr. 35:3. The Levites had not carried the Ark since the time of Samuel.: “He said to the Levites, who instruct all of Israel, the ones holy to the Eternal, put the Ark into the House that Salomon, son of David, king of Israel, built; you do not have to carry it on your shoulder.” He said, if it is exiled with you to Babylonia, you will never return it to its place. But “⁶³2Chr. 35:3. The Levites had not carried the Ark since the time of Samuel. now, serve the Eternal, your God, and his people Israel.”

It is written⁶⁹Ex. 30:13, reading הַפְּקוּדִים “the census” as Mishnaic Hebrew הַפִּקּוּדִים “the Commandments”.: This they shall give, everybody who violated the Commandments. Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, because they sinned⁷⁰Making the Golden Calf after 12 noon, Babli Šabbat89a, summarized by Rashi, Ex. 32:1. in the middle of the day they shall give half a sheqel; but the other said, because they sinned in the sixth hour they shall give half a sheqel; which is worth six grams⁷¹An Aramaic plural of Greek γράμμα, τό, “gram, scruple (as weight)”. One scruple is two oboloi, a third of a denar, approximately 1.2 metric grams, used here as name of a silver coin.. Rebbi Joshua the son of Rebbi Neḥemiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Zakkai: Because they transgressed the Ten Commandments, each of them shall give ten gerah⁶⁹Ex. 30:13, reading הַפְּקוּדִים “the census” as Mishnaic Hebrew הַפִּקּוּדִים “the Commandments”.. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because they sold Rachel’s firstborn for twenty pieces of silver; each of them shall redeem his firstborn with twenty pieces of silver⁷²Num. 3:47. The firstborn is redeemed by 5 sheqalim. Since it is held that the sheqel in the Torah is equal to a Roman tetradrachma, Qiddušin1:3 Note 339, 5 sheqalim are 20 denarii. The generic expression “pieces of silver” is taken to mean the most common silver coin, the denar.
The homily is mentioned as introduction to the following one.. Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Levi: Because they sold Rachel’s firstborn for twenty pieces of silver and each of them received a minted coin^60,In this context meaning the silver didrachma.⁷³Since Joseph was sold by 10 of his brothers. The formulation of the homily shows that in later Amoraic times the word sheqel had lost its meaning denoting either a standard weight or a standard coin but became the label of a religious obligation., each of them shall give a minted coin as his sheqel.

⁶⁴Babli Keritut 5a. The preparation of the anointing oil. “Take for yourself select spices: Flowing myrrh 500, etc., and casia 500 in Temple sheqel, altogether 1500 parts⁶⁵Ex. 30:23–24. The amounts given there are myrrh 500, cinnamon half the weight, 250, spice sticks 250, casia 500 in the holy šeqel weight, together 1500 (šeqel). The Babli notes that the verse could be translated: “myrrh 500, the half of the cinnamon weight 250, spice sticks 250; casia 500 in the holy šeqel weight,” for a total of either 2000 or 1750. The baraita shows that the traditional interpretation is as given first. A similar argument must be understood in the Yerushalmi.
It is impossible to translate מנה as “mina” since the holy šeqel by archeological evidence was between 13.77 and 14.28 g (Y. Meshorer, Ancient Means of Exchange, Weights and Coins, Haifa 1998), practically equal to the official weight of a tetradrachma. In the tradition of the Babli, the holy šeqel was twice the weight of the common šeqel; in Babylonian weight this would make it about 18 g. (In any case, spices in the weight of at least 21 kg are a large quantity for only 6.4 liters of oil.) But a mina is defined in the Talmudim as 100 tetradrachmas. This is out of line with the small amount of oil used. It may be that the word “mina”, which is missing in the parallel Babli text, is an intrusion from the baraita on the preparation of the holy incense of which 365 portions were prepared for an entire year at once and where all weights, missing in the biblical text, are indicated in minas [Yoma 4:5 (41d line 27), Babli Keritut6a].. “And olive oil one hin,” that is twelve log⁶⁶The log is the Roman sextarius, cf. Berakhot 3:4, Note 164. 12 log are three quarters of a modius or about 6.4 liter., in which the roots were cooked, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, they cooked in water, then poured the oil on them, and when it had absorbed the fragrance one removed it, just as the perfumers do. That is what is written: “Make it into holy anointing oil.⁶⁷Ex. 30:25.” “That will be for Me for your generations.⁶⁸Ex. 30:31.” It was stated, ⁶⁹Babli Keritut 5a/b. Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilaï says: The anointing oil made by Moses in the desert was from the start to the end a work of wonders, since there were only twelve log to start with, as it was said, “and olive oil one hin⁷⁰Ex. 30:24.”. It would not have been enough to rub the wooden planks with it; so much more since the fire swallows, wood absorbs, and the kettle absorbs! From it the Tabernacles and all its vessels were anointed, the table and its vessels, the candelabra and all its vessels. From it Aaron and his sons were anointed all of the seven days of induction, from it all high priests and kings were anointed. A king who is first needs anointing, a king who is a king’s son does not need anointing, for it is said⁷¹1Sam. 16:12.: “Do anoint him, for this one is it,” this one needs anointing but his son does not need anointing. But a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest needs anointing, even for ten generations⁷²Lev. 6:13, 21:10. The same statement in Babli Keritut 5a, Horaiot 11b.. Nevertheless, it is all there for the future, as it was said, “a holy anointing oil will this⁷³In the Babli, an amoraic gloss in this baraita of R. Jehudah notes that the numerical value of ז̇ה̇ “this” is 12, implying that all 12 log remain for the Lord. be for Me, for all your generations.⁶⁸Ex. 30:31.”

⁶⁴Babli Keritut 5a. The preparation of the anointing oil. “Take for yourself select spices: Flowing myrrh 500, etc., and casia 500 in Temple sheqel, altogether 1500 parts⁶⁵Ex. 30:23–24. The amounts given there are myrrh 500, cinnamon half the weight, 250, spice sticks 250, casia 500 in the holy šeqel weight, together 1500 (šeqel). The Babli notes that the verse could be translated: “myrrh 500, the half of the cinnamon weight 250, spice sticks 250; casia 500 in the holy šeqel weight,” for a total of either 2000 or 1750. The baraita shows that the traditional interpretation is as given first. A similar argument must be understood in the Yerushalmi.
It is impossible to translate מנה as “mina” since the holy šeqel by archeological evidence was between 13.77 and 14.28 g (Y. Meshorer, Ancient Means of Exchange, Weights and Coins, Haifa 1998), practically equal to the official weight of a tetradrachma. In the tradition of the Babli, the holy šeqel was twice the weight of the common šeqel; in Babylonian weight this would make it about 18 g. (In any case, spices in the weight of at least 21 kg are a large quantity for only 6.4 liters of oil.) But a mina is defined in the Talmudim as 100 tetradrachmas. This is out of line with the small amount of oil used. It may be that the word “mina”, which is missing in the parallel Babli text, is an intrusion from the baraita on the preparation of the holy incense of which 365 portions were prepared for an entire year at once and where all weights, missing in the biblical text, are indicated in minas [Yoma 4:5 (41d line 27), Babli Keritut6a].. “And olive oil one hin,” that is twelve log⁶⁶The log is the Roman sextarius, cf. Berakhot 3:4, Note 164. 12 log are three quarters of a modius or about 6.4 liter., in which the roots were cooked, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, they cooked in water, then poured the oil on them, and when it had absorbed the fragrance one removed it, just as the perfumers do. That is what is written: “Make it into holy anointing oil.⁶⁷Ex. 30:25.” “That will be for Me for your generations.⁶⁸Ex. 30:31.” It was stated, ⁶⁹Babli Keritut 5a/b. Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilaï says: The anointing oil made by Moses in the desert was from the start to the end a work of wonders, since there were only twelve log to start with, as it was said, “and olive oil one hin⁷⁰Ex. 30:24.”. It would not have been enough to rub the wooden planks with it; so much more since the fire swallows, wood absorbs, and the kettle absorbs! From it the Tabernacles and all its vessels were anointed, the table and its vessels, the candelabra and all its vessels. From it Aaron and his sons were anointed all of the seven days of induction, from it all high priests and kings were anointed. A king who is first needs anointing, a king who is a king’s son does not need anointing, for it is said⁷¹1Sam. 16:12.: “Do anoint him, for this one is it,” this one needs anointing but his son does not need anointing. But a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest needs anointing, even for ten generations⁷²Lev. 6:13, 21:10. The same statement in Babli Keritut 5a, Horaiot 11b.. Nevertheless, it is all there for the future, as it was said, “a holy anointing oil will this⁷³In the Babli, an amoraic gloss in this baraita of R. Jehudah notes that the numerical value of ז̇ה̇ “this” is 12, implying that all 12 log remain for the Lord. be for Me, for all your generations.⁶⁸Ex. 30:31.”

⁶⁴Babli Keritut 5a. The preparation of the anointing oil. “Take for yourself select spices: Flowing myrrh 500, etc., and casia 500 in Temple sheqel, altogether 1500 parts⁶⁵Ex. 30:23–24. The amounts given there are myrrh 500, cinnamon half the weight, 250, spice sticks 250, casia 500 in the holy šeqel weight, together 1500 (šeqel). The Babli notes that the verse could be translated: “myrrh 500, the half of the cinnamon weight 250, spice sticks 250; casia 500 in the holy šeqel weight,” for a total of either 2000 or 1750. The baraita shows that the traditional interpretation is as given first. A similar argument must be understood in the Yerushalmi.
It is impossible to translate מנה as “mina” since the holy šeqel by archeological evidence was between 13.77 and 14.28 g (Y. Meshorer, Ancient Means of Exchange, Weights and Coins, Haifa 1998), practically equal to the official weight of a tetradrachma. In the tradition of the Babli, the holy šeqel was twice the weight of the common šeqel; in Babylonian weight this would make it about 18 g. (In any case, spices in the weight of at least 21 kg are a large quantity for only 6.4 liters of oil.) But a mina is defined in the Talmudim as 100 tetradrachmas. This is out of line with the small amount of oil used. It may be that the word “mina”, which is missing in the parallel Babli text, is an intrusion from the baraita on the preparation of the holy incense of which 365 portions were prepared for an entire year at once and where all weights, missing in the biblical text, are indicated in minas [Yoma 4:5 (41d line 27), Babli Keritut6a].. “And olive oil one hin,” that is twelve log⁶⁶The log is the Roman sextarius, cf. Berakhot 3:4, Note 164. 12 log are three quarters of a modius or about 6.4 liter., in which the roots were cooked, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, they cooked in water, then poured the oil on them, and when it had absorbed the fragrance one removed it, just as the perfumers do. That is what is written: “Make it into holy anointing oil.⁶⁷Ex. 30:25.” “That will be for Me for your generations.⁶⁸Ex. 30:31.” It was stated, ⁶⁹Babli Keritut 5a/b. Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilaï says: The anointing oil made by Moses in the desert was from the start to the end a work of wonders, since there were only twelve log to start with, as it was said, “and olive oil one hin⁷⁰Ex. 30:24.”. It would not have been enough to rub the wooden planks with it; so much more since the fire swallows, wood absorbs, and the kettle absorbs! From it the Tabernacles and all its vessels were anointed, the table and its vessels, the candelabra and all its vessels. From it Aaron and his sons were anointed all of the seven days of induction, from it all high priests and kings were anointed. A king who is first needs anointing, a king who is a king’s son does not need anointing, for it is said⁷¹1Sam. 16:12.: “Do anoint him, for this one is it,” this one needs anointing but his son does not need anointing. But a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest needs anointing, even for ten generations⁷²Lev. 6:13, 21:10. The same statement in Babli Keritut 5a, Horaiot 11b.. Nevertheless, it is all there for the future, as it was said, “a holy anointing oil will this⁷³In the Babli, an amoraic gloss in this baraita of R. Jehudah notes that the numerical value of ז̇ה̇ “this” is 12, implying that all 12 log remain for the Lord. be for Me, for all your generations.⁶⁸Ex. 30:31.”

Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqush disagreeed. One said, one builds and afterwards one dedicates³⁰⁸One builds as if the buildings were profane. Only when the Temple enclosure is complete does one dedicate the Temple area, and when the walls of Jerusalem are rebuilt does one dedicate the city. During the building period one is not restricted by all the rules applying to the Temple area. This is possible since the dedication by Solomon was annulled by the destruction of the Temple. One has to assume that it is possible to dedicate the area of the altar and its enclosure without dedicating the Temple, as done in the time of the first return from Babylonia under Cyrus, Ezra 3:3,6.. The other one said, one dedicates and afterwards one builds³⁰⁹He holds that the dedication by Solomon is permanent. Therefore, anybuilding must be done under restrictive rules (but it can be built in stages, cf. Mishnah Idiut 8:6). If the outline of the Temple enclosure or the original city walls was still visible in Zerubabel’s time, no rebuilding was necessary in order to restore the service of the altar.. For him who says, one builds and afterwards one dedicates, one does not say that the partitions are as if built up³¹⁰They actually have to be restored before Temple service can be resumed whole or in part.. If one desires to add to the Temple Hall, by which means does one add³¹¹In imitation of the rules given for dedication of the city of Jerusalem under Nehemiah, any dedication must involve a sacrifice. The Babli, loc. cit. ²⁹⁹, insists that the sacrifice be used in the place to be dedicated. This leads to a catch-22 situation since a sacrifice can be dedicated only after the dedication of the holy place. There is no reason to assume that the Yerushalmi accepts this reasoning.? By the two loaves³¹²The two loaves of leavened bread dedicated on Pentecost to permit use of new wheat, Lev. 23:17. This is in imitation of the leavened bread used for the dedication of the city, cf. ²⁹⁵. A parallel discussion is in the Babli, Ševuot 15a/b.. Does one dedicate on a holiday³¹³Since the dedication has far-reaching legal consequences, it has the status of an acquisition, which is not acceptable on Sabbath or holiday, Is. 58:13. In addition, the Babli points out that the dedication of the leavened breads is the slaughter of the accompanying well-being sacrifice; then the dedication would not be by bread.? Then by the Shew Bread. Does one dedicate on the Sabbath³¹⁴The Shew Bread is removed from the sanctuary on the Sabbath, Lev. 24:8. It becomes available for secondary use on the Sabbath, when it cannot be so used.? Then in the night³¹⁵The following evening, after the end of the Sabbath.. Does one dedicate in the night³¹⁶Ex. 30:2 prescribes that the Tabernacle be erected during daytime. This rule then is extended to include all building activity of the Temple.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, with a baked flour offering³¹⁷The daily flour offering of the High Priest, Lev. 6:12–16.. One understands that on their return from the diaspora they sacrificed and then dedicated. When they entered the Land,³¹⁸When they entered the Land, they had the Tabernacle which was dedicated in the desert. What one asks here is, how was Solomon’s Temple dedicated? with what did they dedicate? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, with two thanksgiving sacrifices coming from Nob³¹⁹The priests’ settlement at Nob already was destroyed at the time when the priests from Nob resided at Anatot. The active place of worship was Gibeon, but “Nob and Gibeon” is used as a legal term to indicate the status of holy places after the destruction of Shiloh, before the building of the Temple; cf. Mishnah Zevahim 14:7. and Gibeon.

“The following are liable for agio,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, even though his sheqel is not from the Torah, his agio is from the Torah¹⁴⁹It seems that one has to accept the reading of B and ג: “just as his sheqel is from the Torah” (Ex. 30:11–16). The argument of the concluding aggadah is that the obligation is not to give the value of a half-sheqel of silver (5.7 g), but the exact coin which at this moment is called “sheqel” having approximately the historical weight. Then naturally anybody who pays with other coins automatically is required to pay the statutory fee for exchange into the correct coin.. Rebbi Meir is of the opinion that one who gives his sheqel as a piece is not liable for the agio^{150 151}, Rebbi Meïr said, like a kind of coin made of fire did the Holy One, praise to Him, bring out from under the Throne of Glory and showed it to Moses. He said to him, this they shall give¹⁵²Ex. 30:13., like this they shall give.

“The following are liable for agio,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, even though his sheqel is not from the Torah, his agio is from the Torah¹⁴⁹It seems that one has to accept the reading of B and ג: “just as his sheqel is from the Torah” (Ex. 30:11–16). The argument of the concluding aggadah is that the obligation is not to give the value of a half-sheqel of silver (5.7 g), but the exact coin which at this moment is called “sheqel” having approximately the historical weight. Then naturally anybody who pays with other coins automatically is required to pay the statutory fee for exchange into the correct coin.. Rebbi Meir is of the opinion that one who gives his sheqel as a piece is not liable for the agio^{150 151}, Rebbi Meïr said, like a kind of coin made of fire did the Holy One, praise to Him, bring out from under the Throne of Glory and showed it to Moses. He said to him, this they shall give¹⁵²Ex. 30:13., like this they shall give.

From where that he is required to pour out¹³²Why must the blood of the bull and the blood of the he-goat be mixed before given on the corners of the golden altar; Mishnah 6. The Babli does not necessarily accept the Mishnah, 57b–58a.? The verse says¹³³Lev. 16:18, misquoted., he shall give of the blood of the bull and the blood of the he-goat, when they are mixed. I could think each one by itself, the verse says¹³⁴Ex. 30:10., Aaron shall atone on its corners once yearly, he atones once yearly, he does not atone twice yearly¹³⁵Not even one directly after the other.. Or should we say, the bull’s blood once yearly, not twice yearly? Rebbi Ismael stated, from the blood of the atoning purification offering¹³⁴Ex. 30:10., he atones once yearly, he does not atone twice yearly. Everybody agrees that for the seven sprinklings downward¹³⁶Regarding the incense altar, it is required by Lev. 16:19 that the High Priest sprinkle on its top “seven times of the blood.” Since no mention is made of bull or he-goat, the verse must refer to the mixed blood. Sifra Aḥare Pereq 4(8). he has to pour¹³⁷I. e., to mix., for it is written seven, not fourteen.

HALAKHAH: It is written about the daily sacrifice in the morning⁷⁷Ex. 29:39; Num. 28:4., and it is written about wood in the morning⁷⁸This has to read: in the morning, in the morning; Lev. 6:5, referring to the two wooden logs which have to be ceremoniously put into the fire every morning. While this is not mentioned in the Mishnah, the presentation and arrangement of the two logs also is an obligation of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement.. Something about which is written in the morning, in the morning, shall precede something about which in the morning is written only once. Then even before its blood? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do⁷⁷Ex. 29:39; Num. 28:4., preceded action for it⁷⁹The slaughter and the dissection of the daily sacrifice are not done on the altar; they are not covered by any argument about the number of “mornings” quoted. They have to be done as early as possible in the morning (and as late as possible in the evening.). It is written about the daily sacrifice in the morning, and it is written about incense in the morning, in the morning⁸⁰Ex. 30:7.. Something about which is written in the morning, in the morning, shall precede something about which only [one] in the morning is written. Where do we hold? If about limbs, are they not like wood⁸¹They are to be burned on the altar; they can be considered fuel of the altar.? But we are holding, even for its blood. It is written about wood in the morning, in the morning, and it is written about incense in the morning, in the morning, and I do not know which of the two is preceding. Which one is enabling what? Wood enables the incense; the wood shall precede the incense⁸²Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(8).. Come and see, wood precedes the blood and blood precedes incense, and you are saying so? Rebbi Hila said, no. Since I could not prove by a logical argument that wood enables the incense, you needed that baraita. They wanted to say, what enables the incense? Charcoal. Rebbi Eleazar said, smoke-creating herb⁸³Cf. Chapter 2, Note 227..

It says for the afternoon daily sacrifice, in the evening⁷⁷Ex. 29:39; Num. 28:4., and it says about incense, in the evening, close to the lights⁸⁴Ex. 30:8: When Aaron kindles the light in the evening he shall burn incense on it i. e., on the interior altar.. (Not) [You say] about the lights, from evening to morning⁸⁵Ex. 27:21.(?)[.] A matter where it is said in the evening close to the lights shall be delayed after a matter where only in the evening is said. Then even after the libations? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do⁷⁷Ex. 29:39; Num. 28:4., delayed action for it⁸⁶By an argument parallel to that of Note 79.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Hila: Here you are saying, “you shall do, preceded action for it”, and there you are saying, “you shall do, delayed action for it”? Rebbi Hila said, each one according to its subject. The daily morning sacrifice was shown to be later; you shall do, preceded action for it. The daily evening sacrifice was shown to be earlier, the verse says you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Zeˋira acclaimed⁸⁷A Semitic adaptation of Greek καλόω. him and called him “son of the Torah.”

It says for the afternoon daily sacrifice, in the evening⁷⁷Ex. 29:39; Num. 28:4., and it says about incense, in the evening, close to the lights⁸⁴Ex. 30:8: When Aaron kindles the light in the evening he shall burn incense on it i. e., on the interior altar.. (Not) [You say] about the lights, from evening to morning⁸⁵Ex. 27:21.(?)[.] A matter where it is said in the evening close to the lights shall be delayed after a matter where only in the evening is said. Then even after the libations? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do⁷⁷Ex. 29:39; Num. 28:4., delayed action for it⁸⁶By an argument parallel to that of Note 79.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Hila: Here you are saying, “you shall do, preceded action for it”, and there you are saying, “you shall do, delayed action for it”? Rebbi Hila said, each one according to its subject. The daily morning sacrifice was shown to be later; you shall do, preceded action for it. The daily evening sacrifice was shown to be earlier, the verse says you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Zeˋira acclaimed⁸⁷A Semitic adaptation of Greek καλόω. him and called him “son of the Torah.”

Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The Holy One, praiuse to Him, saw that the evil Haman in the future would weigh his money against Israel. He said, it is better that my children’s money should precede this evil one’s money. Therefore one precedes and reads the paragraph about Šeqalim¹⁷¹A fundraising sermon concept to accompany the reading of Ex. 30:11–16 on the Sabbath preceding or falling on the New Moon of Adar (2). Originally this was introduced as a proclamation that the Temple tax was due. After the destruction of the Temple this reason disappeared and the Temple tax was turned into charity money and merged with the gifts due to the poor on Purim. Babli 13b..

But Rebbi Joḥanan himself had a problem: from where does one prove it⁹⁵This refers to the paragraph before the last, where R. Johanan explained that the sister had a special role in the list of incest prohibitions, to deduce that from the different levels of punishment the blanket decree of extirpation really represents separate decrees for each kind of infraction. In Šabbat, the name is Ismael; this may be the correct attribution, cf. Note 124.? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation⁹⁶This answers R. Joḥanan’s question. It is rather frequent to find verses containing multiple prohibitions covered by one mention of extirpation where the context makes it clear that each single infraction triggers extirpation.. For example⁹⁷Ex. 30:32,33 regarding the holy oil. Only v. 33 is discussed., it should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation⁹⁸A person who inadvertently compounds aromatic oil in the same composition as holy oil and uses it on people has to bring two sacrifices. The argument is repeated in Halakhah 9:1 (end of fol. 26d) and accepted in the Babli, Makkot 14b.. Also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ura, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity<sup>99</sup>Impurity of well-being sacrifices, the only ones available to lay people, is treated at length in Lev. 7:11–27. Impurity of sacrifices available to priests is treated in Lev. 22:1–16. One should assume that a priest who inadvertently eats a combination of impure well-being and other sacrifices has to bring separate purification sacrifices; but this is not the case.? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple [regarding larceny]<sup>100</sup>The text in brackets is found in G and in Šabbat. While misuse of all kinds of sacrifices is also larceny, it is punishable only if the monetary value of the misuse is at least one perutah. Misuse of one half perutah’s worth of Temple donations and one half perutah’s worth of sacrifices is not punishable., lest one be liable for them because of mushiness<sup>101</sup>Sacrificing with the intent of eating of the sacrificial meat out of its time and place., leftovers<sup>102</sup>Eating of sacrificial meat after its allotted time., and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity<sup>103</sup>This shows that well-being and other sacrifices are equal in the hand of the Cohen.,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple<sup>104</sup>Mishnah Me`ilah 4:1. The categories of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity do not apply to monetary gifts to the Temple. Anything donated to the Temple which is not a sacrifice or a temple vessel is sold by the Temple treasurer and thereby reverts to fully profane status.. Since they do not combine, they do (not)¹⁰⁵The word is not in G and Šabbat; it should be deleted. split¹⁰⁶Somebody committing simultaneous larceny involving gifts to the Temple and sacrifices has to atone separately for the two offenses.. Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁰⁷G reads: Hinena, preferable for chronological reasons. said, what he really questioned, should they not split but combine ¹⁰⁸The question remains unanswered why the rules for well-being are no different from those for other sacrifices even for Cohanim. In Šabbat, R. Ḥanina’s statement is an assertion that the rules are different for well-being and other sacrifices. This would agree with the Babli, Me`ilah 15a, that in fact well-being and purification offerings do not combine; the contrary statement of the Mishnah is classified as a rabbinic stringency.?

HALAKHAH: It was stated:²³¹Tosephta 3:4, Babli 60a. “Rebbi Jehudah said, when has this²³²That a change in the sequence of actions invalidates the service. been said? About service performed inside in white garments. But service performed outside in golden garments if he advanced one action to another, what he did is done. And the Sages are saying, even for service performed outside in golden garments if he advanced one action to another, he did not do anything.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan²³³Babli 60a/b.: Both of them are explaining the same verse²³⁴Ex. 30:10.: of the blood of the atoning sacrifice once. The rabbis are saying, service which is performed one [time]²³⁵Corrector’s addition, probably from the parallel in the Babli. in the year. Rebbi Jehudah is saying, a place in which he enters one [time]²³⁵Corrector’s addition, probably from the parallel in the Babli. per year.

There, we have stated¹⁹⁶Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:1.: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner¹⁹⁷A person obligated to bury a close relative, such as defined in Lev. 21:2–3, who from the moment of the death to the burial is barred from all sacral acts; inferred from Deut. 26:14., one immersed on this day¹⁹⁸Who is no longer impure but barred from sacral acts until sundown; Lev. 22:7., missing garments¹⁹⁹A Cohen serving while not wearing all priestly garments commits a deadly sin; Ex.28:43., missing atonement²⁰⁰A person healed from skin disease or gonorrhea who needs not only immersion in water and waiting for sundown but is excluded from sacral rites until be bring a purifying sacrifice, Lev. 14:1–32 for skin disease, 15:14–15 for the sufferer from gonorrhea., with unwashed hands or feet²⁰¹Ex. 30:19–20., uncircumcised²⁰²As the Babli points out, Zevaḥim 22b, there is no pentateuchal verse forbidding service to an uncircumcised priest, but there is one in Ezechiel, 44:9, which forbids entry to the Temple domain to any uncircumcised person, including a hemophiliac who may not be circumcised., impure²⁰³Lev. 22:2–3., sitting²⁰⁴Since the verses never permit any action in sitting, and the priests are required to be barefoot, no service is possible unless the priest is standing with his feet in direct contact with the floor of the Temple court, the Temple interior, or the altar., standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person²⁰⁵Meaning that another priest puts his hands under the feet of the officiating priest. Then he is not in contact with the floor., disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease²⁰⁶They read the expression “impurity of the body” used in the Mishnah to describe what the diadem does not make acceptable as impurity caused by the person’s body (i. e., in addition to skin disease and gonorrhea also sexual activity, Lev. 15:15,18.), but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year²⁰⁷They may send their sacrifices through an agent if they are disabled by impurity., you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ²⁰⁸He must celebrate the Second Pesaḥ., for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year²⁰⁹He may never serve being impure., it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss⁸²Impurity buried in the ground which previously was totally unknown and is only recently uncovered. Since it is impossible to guard against this kind of impurity there can be no penalty for “tent impurity” of this kind., the diadem makes acceptable.²¹⁰Since impurity of the abyss only is caused by a corpse, it is not caused by the person’s body. If it is stated that the diadem makes acceptable in this case, it follows that the diadem is inactive in all cases of known impurity caused by external influences.” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner²¹¹The diadem only covers abyss impurity of the owner, but not proven impurity of the dead; one may still read “impurity of the body” as referring to impurity produced by the body.. But did we not state “a nazir”²¹²The only impurity forbidden for the nazir is the impurity of the dead, so in Mishnah 5 the reference must be to this kind of impurity.? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged¹⁷⁷While a person unable to eat the volume of an olive of the Pesaḥ may not subscribe to it, an old or sick priest is able to serve in the Temple as long as his infirmity is not of the kind listed in Lev, 21:18–20., what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him²¹³Since Ex. 12:48 notes that no one uncircumcised may eat it [the Pesaḥ], in v. 44, a man’s slave, bought with money, if you circumcise him he may eat it, “he” is read to refer to the owner; the owner may not eat Pesaḥ if there are uncircumcised males in his familia. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 15, dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 35, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable²¹⁴Cf. Note 202. An uncircumcised Cohen may not serve; nothing is said about his dependents.. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid.

Rebbi Shiloh from Kefar-Tamarta in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer: And you shall cover it with pure gold²¹⁴Ex. 30:3., etc. The Torah called it real estate²¹⁵Since the Torah mentions its roof and its walls, it is described as a house.. So far the golden altar. From where the altar of the elevation sacrifices? It is a logical argument. Since the golden altar which is one cubit square is called real estate, the altar of elevation sacrifices which is five cubits square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square²¹⁶Ex.30:3 (the golden altar), 27:1 (the brass altar).. Since here it is real estate, also there it is real estate. Rebbi Hila said, the reason of the rabbis²¹⁷These rabbis are not mentioned in the Mishnah. The argument is that the Sages mentioned in the Mishnah could use R. Eliezer’s argument in the inverse direction to establish their rule., the altar is of wood, three cubits its height²¹⁸Ez. 41:22. The altar there is called “table”, a movable implement., etc. The Torah called it movable²¹⁹In the Torah both altars are movable, to be carried travelling in the desert.. So far the altar of the elevation sacrifices. From where the golden altar? It is a logical argument. Since the the altar of the elevation sacrifices which is five cubit square is called soil, the golden altar which is one cubit square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square. Since here it is movable, also there it is movable. “But the Sages say, because they are covered.” But is it not cover which stands because of it²²⁰If the cover could not stand alone it cannot be separated from the implement it covers which is a rectangular box of wood, enclosing a volume and therefore susceptible of impurity.? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Its thickness was that of a Gordian denar²²¹The only honest gold denar minted during the military anarchy (in the 240’s by Gordianus III.) The implication is that the gold cover could stand by itself; the objection cannot be sustained. Rebbi La said, for its purpose it does not stand because of it²²²The previous argument can be reinforced; the gold is the essential carrier of the altar and the wood is ancillary.. This parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, you shall make an altar for incense smoke²²³Ex. 30:1. is not written here but burning incense; the altar was burning the incense²²⁴No fire was used on the golden top of the altar (which if used would have melted the top in no time). The golden top transformed the incense into smoke.. But is it not like a table^224aLatin tabula. made to be moved and deposited? Does not Rebbi Immi say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: why is the table impure²²⁵In all this arguments, “pure” means “not susceptible to impurity” and “impure” “able to become impure”.? Not because one was removing it and showing it to the pilgrims²²⁶The table was not fixed; it cannot be considered a fixed part of the building. In addition, the rim around the table makes it a container which is “impure”. But once a permanent Temple was built, the altars are fixed and should be “pure” as fixtures of the building.? But this one remains in its place. It also served as a vessel in the Sanctuary. Then it should be pure, why is it impure²²⁵In all this arguments, “pure” means “not susceptible to impurity” and “impure” “able to become impure”.? Rebbi Mana said, as what we have stated there,²²⁷Mishnah Kelim24:9. “there are three baskets²²⁸A basket for manure may become impure by body fluids, a box for straw only becomes impure by the impurity of the dead, a cover for camels is pure.”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, because one uses it for its bales; so also here one uses it for its bales²²⁹Since the Mishnah classifies the baskets by their use, also here the altar has to be classified by the “impure” incense..

Rebbi Shiloh from Kefar-Tamarta in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer: And you shall cover it with pure gold²¹⁴Ex. 30:3., etc. The Torah called it real estate²¹⁵Since the Torah mentions its roof and its walls, it is described as a house.. So far the golden altar. From where the altar of the elevation sacrifices? It is a logical argument. Since the golden altar which is one cubit square is called real estate, the altar of elevation sacrifices which is five cubits square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square²¹⁶Ex.30:3 (the golden altar), 27:1 (the brass altar).. Since here it is real estate, also there it is real estate. Rebbi Hila said, the reason of the rabbis²¹⁷These rabbis are not mentioned in the Mishnah. The argument is that the Sages mentioned in the Mishnah could use R. Eliezer’s argument in the inverse direction to establish their rule., the altar is of wood, three cubits its height²¹⁸Ez. 41:22. The altar there is called “table”, a movable implement., etc. The Torah called it movable²¹⁹In the Torah both altars are movable, to be carried travelling in the desert.. So far the altar of the elevation sacrifices. From where the golden altar? It is a logical argument. Since the the altar of the elevation sacrifices which is five cubit square is called soil, the golden altar which is one cubit square not so much more? Some want to say, square, square. Since here it is movable, also there it is movable. “But the Sages say, because they are covered.” But is it not cover which stands because of it²²⁰If the cover could not stand alone it cannot be separated from the implement it covers which is a rectangular box of wood, enclosing a volume and therefore susceptible of impurity.? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Its thickness was that of a Gordian denar²²¹The only honest gold denar minted during the military anarchy (in the 240’s by Gordianus III.) The implication is that the gold cover could stand by itself; the objection cannot be sustained. Rebbi La said, for its purpose it does not stand because of it²²²The previous argument can be reinforced; the gold is the essential carrier of the altar and the wood is ancillary.. This parallels what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, you shall make an altar for incense smoke²²³Ex. 30:1. is not written here but burning incense; the altar was burning the incense²²⁴No fire was used on the golden top of the altar (which if used would have melted the top in no time). The golden top transformed the incense into smoke.. But is it not like a table^224aLatin tabula. made to be moved and deposited? Does not Rebbi Immi say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: why is the table impure²²⁵In all this arguments, “pure” means “not susceptible to impurity” and “impure” “able to become impure”.? Not because one was removing it and showing it to the pilgrims²²⁶The table was not fixed; it cannot be considered a fixed part of the building. In addition, the rim around the table makes it a container which is “impure”. But once a permanent Temple was built, the altars are fixed and should be “pure” as fixtures of the building.? But this one remains in its place. It also served as a vessel in the Sanctuary. Then it should be pure, why is it impure²²⁵In all this arguments, “pure” means “not susceptible to impurity” and “impure” “able to become impure”.? Rebbi Mana said, as what we have stated there,²²⁷Mishnah Kelim24:9. “there are three baskets²²⁸A basket for manure may become impure by body fluids, a box for straw only becomes impure by the impurity of the dead, a cover for camels is pure.”. Rebbi Ze`ira said, because one uses it for its bales; so also here one uses it for its bales²²⁹Since the Mishnah classifies the baskets by their use, also here the altar has to be classified by the “impure” incense..

HALAKHAH: “One who says, I seduced X’s daughter,” etc. ¹⁴³The entire Halakhah is part of a larger text in Šebuot 5:7. Rebbi Isaac asked: Would he have to pay the slave’s value on his own testimony? What is his problem? Are the entire 30 [šeqel]¹³⁸The payment is a fixed sum of 30 šeqel (Ex. 21:32) whose status is discussed in the Halakhah. a fine or is only the excess over his value a fine? If you say, the entire 30 [šeqel] are a fine, he does not pay. If you say, the excess over his value is a fine, he pays¹⁴⁴The slave’s market value.. There, we have stated¹⁴⁵Mishnah Šebuot 5:5. The topic of the Mishnah is the obligation to bring a purification sacrifice for a false oath (Lev. 5:4). The sacrifice is due for “an expression of the lips for worse or good”, i. e., if the oath changes the situation as far as monetary obligations are concerned. If A was accused by B to have seduced B’s daughter (when B has no witnesses to prove his claim) and A swore falsely, A is obligated for a sacrifice since by admitting guilt he would have had to pay for shame and diminution of value.: “‘Your ox killed my slave’! The other said, ‘he did not kill’. ‘I want you to swear’ and he said ‘Amen’, he is free.¹⁴⁶This Tanna assumes that the entire 30 šeqel to be paid for the slave are a fine which cannot be collected upon the confession of the guilty party. Therefore, the oath did not change the situation as far as monetary obligations are concerned and no purification sacrifice is possible.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it if he killed a slave afflicted with boils¹⁴⁷If the slave could not be sold on the slave market, he has no value and certainly all of the 30 šeqel are a criminal fine and not due upon confession.. He said to him, what does it say afterwards¹⁴⁸This is a baraita, not the continuation of the Mishnah.? “‘Your ox killed my son’! The other said, ‘he did not kill’. ‘I want you to swear’ and he said ‘Amen’, he is obligated.¹⁴⁹Since he would have to pay damages upon agreeing that his ox did the damage, his false oath requires a sacrifice.” Why do you not explain it that he was afflicted with boils, then he would be free¹⁵⁰If no damages were due.. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who says “he shall pay the redemption of his person”, the one’s who caused the damage¹⁵¹Ex. 21:30: “If weregilt is imposed on him, he shall pay the redemption of his person, all that is imposed on him.” The question is, to which person does “his person” refer? Is the weregilt assessed by the person killed or the owner of the ox? The question is discussed in Baba Qama Tosephta 4:7, Yerushalmi 4:7 (4c), Babli 27a, 40a; Babli Makkot 2b; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim p. 285, dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai p. 182.. He said to him, if following him who says “he shall pay the redemption of his person”, the one’s who caused the damage, everything is a fine¹⁵²In that case there is no direct connection between the amount to be paid and the damage caused.. Can one say to him, be also in the clear with Heaven¹⁵³Is there a moral obligation to pay when there is no legal way to force payment?? Let us hear from the following: It happened that Rabban Gamliel knocked out his slave Tebi’s tooth¹⁵⁴A slave has to be freed if his owner injures one of his limbs (Ex. 21:26,27). On the other hand, there is an interpretation of Lev. 25:46 which reads the statement about Gentile slaves, “for ever you shall have them work for you” that manumission of Gentile slaves without a good reason is forbidden. In the Yerushalmi (Yebamot11:6, Note 134) this interpretation is ascribed to R. Yose the Galilean, in the Babli to Rav Jehudah (Berakhot 47b) or R. Aqiba (Soṭah 3b). Another interpretation of the verse [Babli Niddah 47a; Sifra Behar Parašah 6(6)] insists that slaves can be used only for work, not sexual purposes.. He came to Rebbi Joshua¹⁵⁵The Babli, Baba Qama 74b/75a, reads the story as a ruling by R. Joshua that anybody who freed himself by confession from a fine cannot be fined even if later the fact is proven by two witnesses. It holds that Rabban Gamliel should have produced witnesses before talking informally to R. Joshua who even in a private setting could not forget about his position of president of the court. and said to him, I found a reason to free my slave Tebi. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? Fines can be imposed only by witnesses! Could they not say to him, do your duty before Heaven? That means one does not tell him, do your duty before Heaven! Rebbi Gamliel ben Avina¹⁵⁶Elsewhere, the name is Ininia (cf. Peah 1:1, Note 61). asked before Rebbi Mana: Does Rabban Gamliel follow him who said, it is permitted to manumit? He said to him, the story in itself implies that it is forbidden to manumit since, otherwise, he could have freed him immediately!

Antoninus⁴⁸⁹A crypto-Jewish Roman Emperor, probably of the Severan dynasty. It is futile to try to determine to whom one refers; cf. Kilaim9:4, Note 79. It was implied already in Halakhah 1 that Gentiles may have part in the World to Come. asked Rebbi, may I build an altar? He said to him, build it and hide its stones. May one make incense for him? He said to him, make it without one of its ingredients. Was it not stated, you may not make for yourselves⁴⁹⁰Ex. 30:37.? You may not make for yourselves [but] others may make for you⁴⁹¹Gentiles may make the incense for non-sacral use.. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this was for Rebbi Romanos⁴⁹²Rebbi’s agent for matters to be done outside the seat of the Patriarchate. whom Rebbi sent to make it for him. ⁴⁹³A parallel, in slightly different order, is in Sanhedrin 10:6 (Notes 331–338). There, in Halakhah 3:12, and in Midrashic sources, the Emperor is called Antolinus. There are indications implying that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] converted; there are indications implying that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] did not convert. One saw him walking with a slight shoe on the Day of Atonement³³²The scroll may not be used for public readings.. What do you infer since even God-fearing people go outside thus? (Antolinus) [Antoninus] said to Rebbi, can I eat from the Leviathan⁴⁹⁵The just feasting on Leviathan meat in the World to Come are also mentioned in Lev. rabba 22(7), Babli Bava batra74b–75a. in the World to Come? He said to him, yes. He told him, from the Passover lamb you would not let me eat, but from Leviathan you make me eat? He answered, what can we do for you since about the Passover lamb it is written that no uncircumcised man may eat from it⁴⁹⁶Ex. 12:48.. When he heard this, he went and circumcized. He came to Rebbi and said to him, look at my circumcision. He answered him, at mine I never looked⁴⁹⁷It is indecent to look at sexual organs. Other references to this insert are Megillah3:3 (74a l.39); Avodah zarah 3:1 (42c l.5); Babli Šabbat 118b, Pesaḥim 104a., and at yours I should look? Why is he called our holy teacher? Because he never in his life looked at his circumcision. And why is his name Naḥum the holiest of holies⁴⁹⁸An otherwise unknown personality.? Because he never in his life looked at the figure on a coin. This implies that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] converted. The statement of the rabbis implies that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] did (not) convert, as ³³¹“Open at the start” means that the writing of the first paragraph starts only in the middle of the line. This is normal for paragraphs following a closed paragraph. Open at the bottom means that the remainder of the last line of the paragraph remains empty; this is the definition of an open paragraph. Open on both sides implies open at the start. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said: When in the Future World the proselytes come, (Antolinus) [Antoninus] comes at the head of all of them.