Talmud su Ezechiele 12:27

Rebbi Jeremiah said, what you say is only that there are changed circumstances before the matter is discussed⁴⁶It always is possible by discussing the matter to find an aspect of changed circumstances which has not changed from the time the vow was made.. The force of Rebbi Yose⁴⁷It is not stated what R. Yose (the Amora’s) position is but the last sentence of the paragraph implies that R. Yose opposes R. Jeremiah. is from the following⁴⁸Mishnah 5:4. When a group of nezirim came from Babylonia to Palestine shortly after the destruction of the Temple, he asked them whether they would have vowed to be nezirim had they known that the Temple would be destroyed and they would permanently be forbidden wine and grapes and contact with corpses since the termination of the state of nazir depends on the Temple ceremony; cf. Num. 6:20.: “That was the error of Naḥum the Mede.” What was his error? That he found them an opening by changed circumstances. “Naḥum the Mede said to them: ‘Would you have made a vow to become nezirim if you had known that the Temple would be destroyed at some future time?’ ” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the following he should have said to them: Did you not know that the earlier prophets had prophesied while the Temple was standing that eventually it would be destroyed? Then there are no changed circumstances. Rebbi Hila said, still it is changed circumstances. They could have said to him, we knew it, but it seemed to us that this referred to the far future⁴⁹Ez. 12:27.: “The vision he sees is for many years; for faraway times he prophesies.” It turns out that Rebbi Jeremiah parallels Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Hila.