Talmud su Levitico 17:11

“Who dyes it.” What kind of dying was in the Tabernacle? They were clobbering an animal for red skins of rams³⁷⁹Ex. 25:5, 26:14.. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that he is liable who causes a wound which results in echymosis³⁸⁰If the blue spot stays blue more than 24 hours.. He who colors his lips red is liable³⁷⁴In the Babli 95a this is characterized as R. Eliezer’s opinion and is not practice since it is only temporary painting.. He who causes bleeding, because of taking away life force at that place³⁸¹Lev. 17:11. This does not refer to slaughter which is mentioned separately in Mishnah 3, but to a non-lethal wound. Babli 75a/b.. He who makes a shape, the first one is liable because of writing and the second one because of dying³⁸²Assuming that the first person draws an outline and the second fills it with color. The Babli 75b notes that if the object is decoration of the vessel, he also is liable because of “hitting with a hammer”.. If he left out a limb and another came and finished it, he is liable because of hitting with a hammer⁷A name for the formal end of any production process.. Wringing and washing are the same category of work. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, the dyers in Jerusalem made wringing a separate category of work. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, there are 40 categories of work³⁸³Since it is not listed separately in the Mishnah.. Should we state this? We come to state only items to which everybody agrees.

It was stated²¹⁷Tosephta Zevaḥim 6:9; Babli Yoma59a, Meˋilah 11a.: “One commits larceny with blood²¹⁸Illegitimate use of sancta is larceny which requires restitution, payment of a fine, and a sacrifice (Lev. 5:14–16). The question is whether this applies also to the blood when it flows out of the Temple domain after all ceremonies have successfully been completed., the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the Sages are saying, there is no larceny with blood.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for the blood is it, it atones for the person²¹⁹Lev. 17:11.. You only have atonement of persons from it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any who eats it will be extirpated²²⁰Lev. 17:14.. You only have extirpation of persons from it²²¹In both cases, the argument is that after the blood has left the Temple precinct it is profane. It still may be Temple property, but no sacrilege is involved in unauthorized use and no sacrifice for meˋilah can be due.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they differ if he dedicated blood²²²It is not clear what this means. It could be that one refers to blood of sacrifices which somehow became disqualified for the altar, or of the blood of animals unfit for the altar which from the start were donated only for the upkeep of the Temple, and whose illicit use is meˋilah.. He who said, you only have atonement of persons from it, and this since there is no atonement from it there is no larceny with it. He who says, you only have extirpation of persons from it, and since there is extirpation from it there is larceny with it²²³Both possibilities apply to both interpretations given in the preceding Note.. There came Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they differ if he dedicated blood or for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Zeˋira enjoyed it; he thought that it had been said about the rabbis. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? It was said about Rebbi Simeon²²⁴R. Simeon holds that the remainders of blood used on the altar, as the blood mentioned in Mishnah 8, as well as the blood of animals dedicated to the upkeep of the Temple, are subject to meˋilah (and the Mishnah follows R. Simeon), but about blood unfit for atonement he agrees that there can be no meˋilah. Therefore the expression “they differ” does not refer to the Amoraim reporting in the name of R. Joḥanan, but to R. Sineon and the Sages in the Tosephta..