Talmud su Levitico 14:10

HALAKHAH: “Also he can separate his heave” etc. If somebody fixes the harvest of another person without the latter’s knowledge, who receives the goodwill⁵⁴That value is estimated by what a third party Israel would be willing to pay to the farmer to have the latter give his heave to his grandson, the son of his daughter and his Cohen son-in-law, or the tithes to a levitic grandson. “To fix” means to separate heave and tithes, to prepare the harvest for use and sale. from the tithes? Rebbi Abbahu says, the one who does the fixing⁵⁵Since he uses his own produce to make the other person’s produce permitted for profane use.. Rebbi Ze‘ira says, the owner of the produce. Rebbi Ze‘ira is consistent since Rebbi Ze‘ira said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁵⁶In the Babli, 36b (and also Yoma50b, Zebaḥim 6a, Temurah 2b, 10b), a statement of R. Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan states that the person purged only can make the exchange but the goodwill belongs to the person who gives the produce. The Babli also quotes R. Ze‘ira in the same sense as the Yerushalmi but clearly prefers R. Abbahu over R. Ze‘ira against the Yerushalmi., if somebody gave the sacrifice of a nazir⁵⁷Num. 6:14–15. or of a [healed] person afflicted with skin disease⁵⁸Lev. 14:10., the person purged makes (heave)⁵⁹This word, found in the ms. and the editio princeps, makes no sense since the sacrifices are given to the Cohen who alone directs the purging ceremony. With all commentaries one has to read תְמוּרָה “substitution” instead of תְרוּמָה “heave”, a simple metathesis. It is asserted that if somebody dedicates an animal as somebody else’s obligatory sacrifice, then only the person for whom the sacrifice is destined may substitute another animal (which action is sinful, Lev. 27:9–10). If the donor would substitute another animal after dedication, the action would be invalid and the substitute profane as before. In analogy, R. Simeon ben Laqish must hold that sanctified food can be disposed of only by the person whose obligation is satisfied by the sanctification.. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Also he can separate his heave and tithes with his knowledge.⁶⁰In that case, A would make a donation of the value of the goodwill to B while B is forbidden to receive any gain from A!” Explain it, that [it was stipulated] that the other should not get the goodwill⁶¹This stipulation overrides any general rule and makes the transaction legal..

¹⁴⁶Tosephta Ḥallah 2:7–9, Babli Baba Qama 110b, Ḥulin 132b, Sifry Qoraḥ #119 (“12 in the Temple, 12 in the countryside”), Midrash Tanḥuma Bemidbar 24, Num. rabba 5(1).24 gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten in the countryside. These are the ten in the Temple: Purification offering¹⁴⁷Lev. 6:19., reparation offering¹⁴⁸Lev. 7:7., public well-being offerings¹⁴⁹Lev. 23:19. Even though this sacrifice is labelled “well-being offering”, being a public offering it is treated as most holy and must be eaten by Cohanim in the Temple precinct., purification offering of a bird¹⁵⁰While there is no separate verse commanding that the purification offering of a bird must be eaten, since the burnt offering of a bird is consumed on the altar it follows that the purification offering must be eaten., the reparation offering for suspected guilt¹⁵¹Lev5:17–18., the log of oil of the skin-diseased¹⁵²Lev 14:10,21. The unused part of the oil becomes property of the Cohen., the two breads¹⁵³Lev. 23:17., the shew-bread¹⁵⁴Lev. 24:9., the remainders of cereal offerings¹⁵⁵Lev. 2:3, 6:9–11., and the ‘omer¹⁵⁶Lev. 23:10–11.. These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings¹⁵⁷While these are sacrifices, after the blood was sprinkled on the altar wall the animal was eaten by the Cohen and his family anywhere in the city., First Fruits¹⁵⁸Cf. Mishnah Bikkurim 3:10., what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the nazir’s ram¹⁵⁹In fact, any part lifted for the Cohen from any well-being sacrifice is for the Cohen and his entire family, to be eaten outside the Temple precinct. Cf. Lev. 7:34, Num. 18:11., and the skins of sacrifices¹⁶⁰Only of most holy sacrifices (burnt, purification, and reparation offerings); Lev. 7:8.. These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, ḥallah, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach¹²⁷Deut. 18:3., the first shearing¹⁶¹Deut. 18:4., robbery of the proselyte¹⁶²Num. 5:8. It is assumed that the only person without legal heirs is the proselyte who had no children after his conversion., redemption of the firstborn¹⁶³Ex. 13., redemption of the firstborn donkey¹⁶³Ex. 13., ḥērem-dedications, and fields of inheritance¹⁶⁴Dedicated and not redeemed; Lev. 27:16–21..

If it spread while in quarantine²⁴⁶Lev. 13:13. If the entire skin of the patient is diseased, he is pure. Naturally while the disease is spreading he satisfies all conditions of severe purity, but since this requires a pronouncement by the Cohen, if there were no clear signs of impurity when he was put in quarantine and at the end of the quarantine the entire skin already was diseased, the Cohen who sees him only at the start and the end of his 7 days of quarantine has to declare him pure out of quarantine without ever pronouncing him absolutely impure., Rebbi Joḥanan said, he needs birds. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not need birds. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: ²⁴⁷Sifra Mesora` Introduction 6–8.“From the sufferer from skin disease²⁴⁸Lev. 14:3. As introduction to the bird ceremony the Cohen has “to see that the skin disease was healed from the sufferer from skin disease.” Skin disease can be healed only from a sufferer from the disease; the final remark seems to be redundant. It is added to include also a sufferer who never was declared as such.; to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds. Is that not a logical argument? If a person became pure and the signs of what made him impure are not on him shall need birds²⁴⁹The disappearance of his symptoms is the sign that he is healed, in contrast to the person who is pure but far from healed in that all his skin is infected., (should not) [is it not logical that]²⁵⁰The corrector’s changes are from the (Babylonian style) Sifra. one who became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him [shall] need birds? [But] the one on whom it was stable for two weeks²⁵¹Lev. 13:6. If the white spot does not grow within 14 days nor develop a white hair, the person has to be declared pure (after immersion) even though his problem skin is still visible. shall disprove it, since he became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him, but he does not need birds. So do not wonder if one on whom it spread while in quarantine and the signs of what made him impure are on him does not need birds. The verse says, from the sufferer of skin disease to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds.” If you would say that one becoming pure in quarantine does not need birds, should he not have objected that it would have been better to argue spreading against spreadings and not staying stable against spreadings²⁵²This is the proof that the Sifra supports the opinion of R. Joḥanan since following R. Eleazar instead of appealing to purity after a lengthy quarantine the Tanna should have mentioned the case of fast spreading skin disease which at the next inspection by the Cohen already has changed from a sign of impurity to one of purity and does not need birds.? Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis: the baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan since the Tanna answers his colleague, no. If you are saying about this one who never was up to be declared absolute, what can you say about the one who was to be declared absolute²⁵³The case of dispute between R. Joḥanan and R. Eleazar is not comparable to other cases of skin disease since the Cohen is not empowered to inspect during the quarantine; the patient never was in a state to be declared absolutely impure.? Because he was to be declared absolute, he needs birds. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the closing statement²⁵⁴The second sentence of the Mishnah. supports Rebbi Eleazar. The one becoming pure in quarantine is not liable for torn clothing, and untended hair, and shaving, and birds. All of this is what we are considering here, about spreadings²⁵⁵This seems to refer to a statement similar to the wording of the Mishnah in the Babli: The only difference between one declared pure after quarantine and one declared pure after being absolutely impure is shaving and birds. Since this envisages a situation like the one discussed here, it explicitly supports the Babylonian R. Eleazar.. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, all they are disagreeing is about bringing birds. But in the matter of bringing a sacrifice everybody agrees that he does not bring a sacrifice. It was stated thus: On the seventh he has to shave, on the eighth he shall bring²⁵⁶Lev. 14:9,10.; one who needs shaving brings a sacrifice, one who does not need shaving does not bring a sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: All days on which the skin disease is on him he will be impure²⁵⁷Lev. 13:46., one whose impurity is caused by his skin disease. This excludes him whose (purity) [impurity]²⁵⁸Both the scribe’s and the corrector’s texts give the same meaning; the correction is unnecessary. depends on the count of his days²⁵⁹Since the Cohen cannot judge him during the intermediate days of his quarantine.. So far torn clothing and unkempt hair. From where shaving and birds²⁶⁰What is the biblical source of the statement of the Mishnah regarding these items?? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner in the name of Rebbi Shammai: This shall be the doctrine of the sufferer from skin disease on the day²⁶¹Lev. 14:2.. One who may become impure and pure on one day; this excludes one who cannot become impure and pure on one day²⁶²Since quarantine makes impure for a minimum of 7 days..