Talmud su Levitico 14:5

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.⁵⁹In the Babli, 15b, this is attributed to R. Ismael. The statement is not mentioned in the Midrashim. The quote seems to imply a Mishnah text similar to that of the Babli.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer⁶⁰The argument is mentioned in his name in Sifra Meṣorah Pereq 1(4)., as we have stated there⁶¹Mishnah Nega‘im 14:1, referring to the purification of the person healed from skin disease.: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.⁶²Lev. 14:5, speaking of the slaughtering of one of the two birds used in the purification rite. “Live” water is running water from a fountain or natural stream.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here⁶³The argument is irrelevant for the ritual of the suspected wife. In the Babli, the connection is made by R. Ismael’s rule of gezerah s̊awah: If the meaning of “earthenware vessel” was determined to include “new”, the same meaning applies everywhere. The Yerushalmi rejects this application to the names of vessels of common use.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he⁶⁴R. Eliezer. agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin⁶⁵From which the priests draw the water for their ablutions; cf. Ex. 30:17–21. The statement is also anonymous in Sifry Num. 10, Sifry zuṭa Naśo, Num. rabba 9(12); cf. Targumim to Num. 5:17. In the Babli, 15b, it is attributed to R. Joḥanan in the editio princeps, impossible in a Tannaïtic text, and to R. Ismael in the Munich ms., contradicting the next statement there. In the Babli text quoted in the 12th Century Sefer Yereïm 460 (ed. S. Z. Halberstam), the statement is missing; this is the only consistent Babli text, defining this baraita as differing from the Mishnah.. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water⁶⁶The last two statements are also in the Babli, 15b. The statement by R. Ismael requires the water to be brought from outside the Temple precinct (the Giḥon source); the rabbis permit the water to be drawn also from the water canal crossing the temple courtyard or from one of the miqwaot in the Temple area.. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah⁶⁷From the context (here, and in Sifra, loc. cit.) it follows that the word describes a somehow defective or incomplete clay vessel. Ben Jehudah in his Thesaurus (p. 3662) quotes several proposed interpretations without giving his own opinion. As a Semitic word, the root is נקד, “exhibiting spots”, but cf. Greek μαγίς, -ίδος, ἡ, “kneading trough, pan, plate”; Latin magis, -idis, or magida -ae, “dish, platter, kneading trough”.. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They⁶⁸Some members of the Academy. wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer⁶⁹Since it may be assumed that “a new vessel” means: not a defective one. but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left⁷⁰A broken vessel is acceptable if it represents the major part of a complete vessel. This statement is not in the Babli; since the Babli requires a new vessel (or at least one renewed by firing), it will reject a broken one..

Three things have to be executed in the name [of the woman]¹⁰²A similar text in Tosephta Giṭṭin 2:7.. “He shall write for her.¹⁰³Deut. 24:1, speaking of a bill of divorce. The document has to be written for her, otherwise it is invalid (MishnahGiṭṭin 3:2, Sifry Deut. 269, quoted many times in both Talmudim).” “He shall execute for her.¹⁰⁴Num. 5:30. The Cohen has to conduct the ceremony of the suspected wife for that particular woman, otherwise it is invalid. The Babli (18a) refers this only to the scroll which is to be written for the woman, which has to be written and erased with that particular person in mind.” “Or manumission was not given to her.¹⁰⁵Lev. 19:20, speaking of a slave girl. The document of manumission has to be executed for the particular slave girl. This requirement is then extended in the Tosephta to the manumission of male slaves.” ¹⁰⁶Babli 16b; Tosephta 1:8; Sifry Num. 11, Sifry Zuṭa Naśo; Num.rabba 9(13). Three things have to be seen: The ashes of the cow¹⁰⁷Some ash has to be visible on the water used to purify from the impurity of the dead., the dust of the suspected wife¹⁰⁸As described in the Mishnah., and the spittle of the sister-in-law¹⁰⁹Deut. 25:9, in the ceremony of ḥalîṣah; cf. Mishnah Yebamot 12:6.. Rebbi Ismael stated: Also the blood of the bird for the sufferer from skin disease¹¹⁰Lev. 14:5; the healed patient has to be purified by being sprinkled with spring water mixed with the blood of a bird.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Sages estimated that the blood of a small bird becomes negligible in a quarter [log] and the blood of a large bird does not render a quarter [log of water] negligible¹¹¹Taking exactly one quarter log (135 dl, cf. Note 55) will prevent any problems.. As it was stated¹¹²Sifra Meṣora‘ Pereq 1(5); Babli 16b.: “In the blood¹¹³Lev. 14:6. The Cohen has to dip the hyssop and a living bird “in the blood of the slaughtered bird on the flowing water”. The “fresh water” is in a vessel but was taken from a spring. The blood of the slaughtered bird is on the fresh water in the vessel. The simple meaning of the verse, that the bird’s blood must form a layer on the fresh water, obviously cannot be meant.”, should that be only blood? The verse says, “fresh water”. If fresh water, should that be all fresh water? The verse says, “in the blood”. How is this? Fresh water in which the bird’s blood is recognizable. The Sages estimated, a quarter [log]. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The water of a suspected wife becomes disqualified by staying overnight¹¹⁴Following the opinion that the water has to be taken from the water basin in the Temple. Any water taken from there and sanctified in a temple vessel belongs to the service of that day; once the day has passed (which in the Temple is counted from dawn to dawn), its service cannot be made up (cf. Sukkah 4:7). But according to the opinion that the water may come from outside sources, the position of R. Joḥanan could be explained. However, R. Joḥanan holds everywhere that practice follows the anonymous Mishnah (Yebamot 4:11, Note 177; Babli Ḥulin 43a).. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abina: Nothing of which the altar has no part becomes disqualified by staying overnight¹¹⁵R. Joḥanan will hold that water in the basin is for the altar in the water offering on Tabernacles (Sukkah 4:7). The problem is not discussed in the Babli; Maimonides (Soṭah 4:12) follows R. Joḥanan as the overriding authority..