Talmud su Levitico 16:21
וְסָמַ֨ךְ אַהֲרֹ֜ן אֶת־שְׁתֵּ֣י ידו [יָדָ֗יו] עַ֨ל רֹ֣אשׁ הַשָּׂעִיר֮ הַחַי֒ וְהִתְוַדָּ֣ה עָלָ֗יו אֶת־כָּל־עֲוֺנֹת֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְאֶת־כָּל־פִּשְׁעֵיהֶ֖ם לְכָל־חַטֹּאתָ֑ם וְנָתַ֤ן אֹתָם֙ עַל־רֹ֣אשׁ הַשָּׂעִ֔יר וְשִׁלַּ֛ח בְּיַד־אִ֥ישׁ עִתִּ֖י הַמִּדְבָּֽרָה׃
E Aaronne imporrà entrambe le mani sul capo della capra viva e confesserà su di lui tutte le iniquità dei figli d'Israele e tutte le loro trasgressioni, anche tutti i loro peccati; e li metterà sulla testa della capra e lo manderà via per mano di un uomo nominato nel deserto.
Jerusalem Talmud Yoma
HALAKHAH: He shall send him by a man44Lev. 16:21., to qualify the non-Cohen45Since “man” is unspecific. Babli 66a/b.. Timely44Lev. 16:21.. that he be ready; timely, that he be prepared. Timely, even on the Sabbath; timely, even in impurity. Can he be not ready but prepared46Ready and prepared are practically the same, the duplication is unwarranted.? But that he should not send him by two people. If he sent him by two people, does he make clothing impure47Lev. 16:26 states that the person bringing the scapegoat to the desert becomes impure together with his clothing.? Let us hear from the following: And the one who sends48Lev. 16:26.; not who was sending the one who sends. This implies that if he sent him by two people, it does not make clothing impure49Only the person first appointed to the task becomes impure..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot
HALAKHAH: “They said to him, did not the teacher use to say,” etc. Rebbi Yose the Southerner said before Rebbi Jonah: Would it not have been necessary to state, if it is so then those of the Days of the New Moon could be brought on the Day of Atonement since one increases holiness but one does not diminish; but those of the Day of Atonement cannot be brought on the Days of the New Moon since one does not diminish holiness169A general principle (cf. Bikkurim 3:3, Note 57; Yoma 3:8 41a l. 10, Megillah 1:12 72a l. 47, Horaiot 3:3 Note 151; Babli Yoma 12b). Since this principle cannot be overridden, it is an argument not for practice but against R. Simeon’s opinion that the sacrifices can be substituted one for the other and for R. Meїr’s that they cannot.
The argument presupposes that the cumulation of cases for which the sacrifices atone indicates a higher state of holiness.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Bun170The name tradition is impossible. The second generation R. Eleazar cannot transmit in the name of the third generation R. Bun I or the fourth generation R. Bun II. Probably one should read: R. Bun in the name of R. Elazar or even R. Yose ben R. Bun in the name of R. Eleazar. Cf. Note 24. explained it by another explanation171To uphold the text of the Mishnah. Since the argument is directed against one made in the Academy of R. Jonah, of the last generation of Galilean Amoraim, it should be attributed to the absolutely last Amora R. Yose ben R. Bun.: if it is so then those of the Day of Atonement could be brought on the Days of the New Moon, for included in their atoning is the atoning of the Days of the New Moon172He asserts that all purification sacrifices have the same status of holiness but their effectiveness depends on the intent of their dedication. One sacrifice atones for all instances for which it was dedicated but none for which it was not dedicated. He must assume that the dedication was for a purification sacrifice, not for “a sacrifice whichever it will be” since the only public sacrifices of rams are purification sacrifices including the scapegoat., but those of the days of the New Moon cannot be brought on the Day of Atonement, for they atone only their atonement. For if anybody ate five olive-sized pieces of fat and dedicated four sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated five, did he atone173Assuming that he is obligated to bring five different sacrifices for five different inadvertent sins punishable by extirpation of which eating fat is the paradigm (cf. Horaiot 3:3). If he offered only four, one sin by necessity remains without atonement.? Or if he ate four olive sized pieces of fat, dedicated five sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated four, not so much more174Automatically all sins are atoned for (even though one would expect the case never to happen since the owner of the sacrifice is required to confess his sin while leaning with his hands on the head of the sacrifice (Lev. 4:29), and probably would detect his error.)? And so 175Tosephta 1:2.“Rebbi Simeon used to say, thirty-two rams are brought for the public every year. Thirty one outside, they are eaten. One inside which is not eaten176Some of the blood of the purification offering of the Day of Atonement is brought inside the Sanctuary; the rest has to be burned outside the Sanctuary (Lev. 6:23). All other purification sacrifices must be eaten by the priests, (Lev. 6:22).. And the scapegoat. Twelve for the twelve months of the year. Eight on Tabernacles, seven on Passover, two on Pentecost, one for the day and one for the bread. One on New Year’s Day and one on the Day of Atonement.” 177A similar text in Midrash Tehillim 100. It is standard Galilean doctrine that the 11 Psalms 90–100 were composed by Moses (even Ps. 99!), not only Ps. 90 as indicated by its header. In the Babylonian tradition (transmitted by prayer texts) Moses was the author of Pss. 90–91 and the Sabbath of Ps. 92. When Moses heard this he said, it follows that anybody for whom the doubt of a transgression arises should bring all these sacrifices! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Moses, he shall confess178Lev. 16:21. This resolved Moses’s problem and informed him that his prior concern, that the slightest doubt might impose an unbearable financial burden on the sinner, was unfounded. on it etc., he started and said, A Song of confession179Ps. 100:1. Usually, one translates “a song of thanksgiving” since this is appropriate for the תוֹדָה sacrifice [Lev. r. 9(3)]., inspired by he shall confess on it.
The argument presupposes that the cumulation of cases for which the sacrifices atone indicates a higher state of holiness.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Bun170The name tradition is impossible. The second generation R. Eleazar cannot transmit in the name of the third generation R. Bun I or the fourth generation R. Bun II. Probably one should read: R. Bun in the name of R. Elazar or even R. Yose ben R. Bun in the name of R. Eleazar. Cf. Note 24. explained it by another explanation171To uphold the text of the Mishnah. Since the argument is directed against one made in the Academy of R. Jonah, of the last generation of Galilean Amoraim, it should be attributed to the absolutely last Amora R. Yose ben R. Bun.: if it is so then those of the Day of Atonement could be brought on the Days of the New Moon, for included in their atoning is the atoning of the Days of the New Moon172He asserts that all purification sacrifices have the same status of holiness but their effectiveness depends on the intent of their dedication. One sacrifice atones for all instances for which it was dedicated but none for which it was not dedicated. He must assume that the dedication was for a purification sacrifice, not for “a sacrifice whichever it will be” since the only public sacrifices of rams are purification sacrifices including the scapegoat., but those of the days of the New Moon cannot be brought on the Day of Atonement, for they atone only their atonement. For if anybody ate five olive-sized pieces of fat and dedicated four sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated five, did he atone173Assuming that he is obligated to bring five different sacrifices for five different inadvertent sins punishable by extirpation of which eating fat is the paradigm (cf. Horaiot 3:3). If he offered only four, one sin by necessity remains without atonement.? Or if he ate four olive sized pieces of fat, dedicated five sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated four, not so much more174Automatically all sins are atoned for (even though one would expect the case never to happen since the owner of the sacrifice is required to confess his sin while leaning with his hands on the head of the sacrifice (Lev. 4:29), and probably would detect his error.)? And so 175Tosephta 1:2.“Rebbi Simeon used to say, thirty-two rams are brought for the public every year. Thirty one outside, they are eaten. One inside which is not eaten176Some of the blood of the purification offering of the Day of Atonement is brought inside the Sanctuary; the rest has to be burned outside the Sanctuary (Lev. 6:23). All other purification sacrifices must be eaten by the priests, (Lev. 6:22).. And the scapegoat. Twelve for the twelve months of the year. Eight on Tabernacles, seven on Passover, two on Pentecost, one for the day and one for the bread. One on New Year’s Day and one on the Day of Atonement.” 177A similar text in Midrash Tehillim 100. It is standard Galilean doctrine that the 11 Psalms 90–100 were composed by Moses (even Ps. 99!), not only Ps. 90 as indicated by its header. In the Babylonian tradition (transmitted by prayer texts) Moses was the author of Pss. 90–91 and the Sabbath of Ps. 92. When Moses heard this he said, it follows that anybody for whom the doubt of a transgression arises should bring all these sacrifices! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Moses, he shall confess178Lev. 16:21. This resolved Moses’s problem and informed him that his prior concern, that the slightest doubt might impose an unbearable financial burden on the sinner, was unfounded. on it etc., he started and said, A Song of confession179Ps. 100:1. Usually, one translates “a song of thanksgiving” since this is appropriate for the תוֹדָה sacrifice [Lev. r. 9(3)]., inspired by he shall confess on it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot
MISHNAH: Together Israel, Cohanim, and the Anointed Priest225This fraction of a sentence is the end of the preceding Mishnah. The scapegoat atones equally for Israel, Cohanim and the High Priest. The expression “Anointed Priest” is biblical (Lev. 6:15); as explained in Tractate Horaiot it excludes the High Priests of the Second Temple who were invested, not anointed.. What is the difference between Israel and a Cohen or the Anointed Priest226There is a difference not only on the Day of Atonement, but all year round: the purification offering of the Anointed Priest (not the invested one) is a bull, but everybody else’s a lamb. For impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta, everybody has to bring a sacrifice depending on his wealth except the Anointed Priest who is exempt (Mishnah Horaiot 2:7).? Only that the blood of the bull atones for Cohanim in matters of the Sanctuary and its sancta. Rebbi Simeon says, just as the blood of the he-goat which is brought inside atones for Israel, so the blood of the bull atones for the Cohanim227The actual atoning sacrifices on the Day of Atonement are separate for the High Priest (Lev. 16:6), the common priests (v. 13), and the people. But for the action of the scapegoat they are all equal.. Just as the confession of the scapegoat228Lev. 16:21. atones for Israel, so the confession of the bull atones for Cohanim229He disagrees with the anonymous Mishnah and restricts the action of the scapegoat to the benefit of the people..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy