Talmud su Levitico 17:78

HALAKHAH: ⁷This and the following paragraphs (up to Note 35) are also in Yoma 8:3 (fol. 45a), Ševu‘ot 3:2 (fol. 34b). The parallel discussion in the Babli is Ševu‘ot 22b–23a.“Second Tithe is to be used for eating,” etc. It is to be used for eating, since eating is written regarding it⁸Deut. 14:23.. For drinking, since drinking is included in eating. From where that drinking is included in eating? Rebbi Jonah understood if from the following (Lev. 17:12): “Therefore, I said to the Children of Israel, no person among you may eat blood.” Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, did we not state⁹Tosephta Tahorot 2:5.: “Congealed blood is neither food nor drink”? So we must hold as is¹⁰Fluid blood., and the Torah called it “eating.” But did we not state¹¹Babli Ḥulin 120a, Menaḥot 21a.: “If he mashed the fat¹²The fat of domestic animals which from sacrifices is burned on the altar and from profane meat is forbidden as food. and sipped it, congealed the blood and ate it, he is guilty!” How does Rebbi Jonah explain? It is neither food, to accept the impurity of food, nor drink, to accept the impurity of drinks¹³The Tosephta Tahorot adds explicitly: “If he thought of [the congealed blood] as food, it accepts the impurities of food.” The argument of R. Jonah is not acceptable..

A “torn” [creature] that was turned into a carcass⁷²If a “torn” animal was not slaughtered according to the rules, is the meat forbidden under one or two statutes?. Rebbi Yasa, the son of Rebbi Yasa’s daughter, in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he is guilty twice; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, the following⁷³Sifra Aḥare Pereq 11(8). supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “ ‘Any person who would eat any carcass meat⁷⁴Lev. 17:15.,’ why does the verse say ‘and torn’? If a ‘torn’ animal can survive, was ‘carcass meat’ mentioned before⁷⁵No animal is ritually impure while alive. [Even the “impure” animals forbidden as food (Lev. 11:26, Deut. 14:9) are ritually pure while alive.] If a “torn” animal can survive and was ritually slaughtered, it does not become impure.? If a ‘torn’ animal must die, is it not included in ‘carcass meat’ ”⁷⁶If a “torn” animal must die in the short run, it simply becomes impure as a carcass. The mention of “torn” in the verse seems superfluous; it can only be justified as adding another prohibition. (In Sifra, the argument is inverted to prove that a “torn” animal, if ritually slaughtered, is not impure even as it is forbidden food.)? Should he not say, it is carcass meat? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The reason of Rebbi Yose⁷⁷Who seems to accept his son’s argument.: “Do not defile yourself by animals and birds⁷⁸The argument refers to the part of the verse, Lev. 20:25, which is not quoted: “Do not defile yourself by animals and birds, and anything which crawls on the ground, which I separated for you as impure.” Now anything crawling on the ground (and in the water) is forbidden as food, but impurity caused by dead bodies is restricted to mammals, birds, and the Eight Reptiles enumerated in Lev. 11:29–30.,” but only the Eight Reptiles impart impurity! But the measure of their impurities is the measure of their uses as food⁷⁹Since even in biblical usage, mammals and birds acceptable as food are called “pure” (Gen. 8:20). By inference, non-kosher animals are called “impure” even while alive and technically pure.. Rebbi Eleazar objected⁸⁰To R. Abbahu.: May not the limbs of pure animals impart impurity in the most minute amount⁸¹Mishnah Ahilut 1:7. but as food only in the volume of an olive? He accepted it. What is meant by “he accepted it”? Like a person who said, the opponent accepted it. Ḥiyya bar Abba said: “You shall not [eat] any carcass meat.” The Torah identified all eating together. Rebbi Ḥanina objected: Is not the impurity of the Eight Reptiles in the size of a lentil, but as food in the volume of an olive, whether for blood or for meat⁸²In the Babli, Me‘ilah 15b, R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina states, as explanation of his inference (Note 78) that eating parts of any of the Eight Reptiles is prosecutable in amounts the size of a lentil (Maimonides Ma‘akhalot asurot 2:7). The identity of the rules for blood and flesh of these reptiles is Mishnah Me‘ilah 4:3, for the rules of impurity Sifra Šemini Parašah 5(2), Pereq 7(6).?

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: It is written¹¹⁵Lev. 12:3., and on the eighth day one shall circumcise. If he transgressed and did not circumcise? He answered him, if you make a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it¹¹⁶Deut. 23:22.. A matter which is subject to replacement¹¹⁷The root שלם not only means “to fulfill, to pay” but also “to give in replacement”. This is read to mean that the prohibition to tarry in fulfilling a vow is restricted to cases where the way of fulfilling depends on the person making the vow. In contrast the obligation to circumcise one’s sons is fixed and not given to the discretion of the circumciser; the obligation not to tarry does not apply.. It excludes this which is not subject to replacement. Do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute¹¹⁸Since the verse says do not tarry to fulfill it, not simply do not tarry to fulfill. Sifry Deut. 264.. As it was stated: and to the gate of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it¹¹⁹Lev. 17:4; same argument as before., but not its replacement. Rebbi Jonah said, Levi ben Sisi explained it before Rebbi: If one said, upon me is the obligation of an elevation offering. There passed three holidays and he brought another one¹²⁰The text is elliptic. First it is stated that he makes the vow “to bring an עוֹלָה” without specifying a particular animal. Then is stated “another”, which implies that in the meantime he had dedicated an animal for his vow, but did not use it for the sacrifice. and sacrificed it immediately. I would say, he is freed from the first one. Therefore it was necessary to say, do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute¹²¹After one animal is dedicated for the vow, any other animal is an unrelated sacrifice.. Rebbi Yose said, if he said, upon me is the obligation, he transgresses immediately¹²²After three holidays.. But we must hold about one who says, this one shall be an elevation offering¹²³Which now is not a vow but a voluntary offering, also subject to the three-holiday rule.. There passed two holidays and he brought another one [in its stead but did not sacrifice it immediately]¹²⁴Corrector’s addition; to be deleted as shown by G. and there passed by another holiday for it. I would say that it combines with its replacement for three holidays. Therefore it was necessary to say, do not tarry to fulfill it, but not its substitute¹²⁵The substitute being a separate offering, its term of 3 holidays only starts with its dedication. Differently Babli 5b..

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged. He reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously. But here, when he muzzled he is subject to flogging but only later for payment. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected before Rebbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say that because for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free (Lev. 17:4): “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers.

MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food¹²Lev. 7:20,21; transgressions punishable by extirpation., or who came into the Temple when impure¹³Num. 19:13.. One who eats fat¹⁴Lev. 7:25., or blood¹⁵Lev. 7:27., or leftover, or piggul¹⁶Lev. 19:8., or impure¹⁷“Leftover” refers to meat from acceptable sacrifices which was not eaten during the statutory time limit. Piggul is a sacrifice which was offered with the idea in mind (of the offerer or the officiating priest) that it should be eaten out of its allotted time (or place); Lev. 7:18,19:8. The root of piggul probably is فجل “to be soft”. [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside¹⁹Lev. 17:4., or one who eats leavened matter on Passover²⁰Ex. 12:19.. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement²¹Lev. 23:29–30., and one who compounds the oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., or compounds the incense²³For profane purposes, Ex. 30:38. Incense had to be compounded fresh every year., and who rubs with the anointing oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., and one who eats carcass²⁴Deut. 14:21, a simple prohibition. or torn meat²⁵Ex. 22:30, a simple prohibition., abominations and crawling things²⁶Lev. 11:11,44.. If one ate ṭevel²⁷Fully harvested produce of which the priests’ heave was not taken; Lev. 22:10. or first tithe from which heave was not taken²⁸The obligation is Num. 18:28, the penalty Num. 18:32., or second tithe²⁹Outside the place of the Sanctuary it needs redemption, Deut. 14:24. or dedicated food³⁰Donated to the Temple to be sold for its value, not dedicated to the altar; Lev. 27:11. which was not redeemed. How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats (carcass meat) [an ant]³¹In editio princeps and ms., נבילה “carcass meat”. In all other sources נמלה “ant”. The latter reading is the only one which makes sense since it both is forbidden (Lev. 11:42) and much less than the size of an olive. is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat³²Given as heave (biblically restricted to grain, wine, and olive oil). is a creature.

HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate,” etc. ²⁶The entire Halakhah does not refer to Mishnah 2 but to the last part of Mishnah 1 where it is stated that an oath to refrain from eating includes a prohibition of drinking but separate oaths for solid and fluid food mean just that. The text is a slightly inaccurate copy of a text in Ma`aser ŠœŠeni2:1, Notes 8–23 and Yoma8:3 (45a); a parallel discussion is in the Babli, 22b–23a. The essence of the argument is that if one mentions eating, the accompanying drink is included, but speaking of drinking no solid food is intended. Drinking is subsumed under eating but eating is not subsumed under drinking. Rebbi Jonah understood all this from: Therefore, I told the Children of Israel, none of you shall eat blood<sup>27</sup>Lev. 17:12.. Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, was it not stated that congealed blood is neither food nor drink? <sup>28</sup>This text does not belong here; it was copied again from Halakhah 1, text between Notes 17,18.(But we hold, about minute amounts. Are minute amounts eating? Explain it following Rebbi Aqiba who said that a minute amount is eating.) And was it not stated: If one liquefied the blood and swallowed it, or froze fat and ate it, if there is the volume of an olive he is liable. What does Rebbi Jonah do with this? It is not food to become impure in the impurity of food, or fluid to become impure in the impurity of fluids. Rebbi Jonah changed and explained the Mishnah: You shall spend the money for anything you desire<sup>29</sup>Deut. 14:26. The argument is about the part of the verse which is not quoted, that the money of Second Tithe may be spent for all kinds of edibles, cattle and sheep, wine and liquor.. Where do we hold? If about one who gives the taste of wine into a cooked dish, is that not spoiling the taste? But we hold with everything and the Merciful called it “eating.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain if about gomraya and orzaraya<sup>30</sup>Ma`aser Šeni2:1, Note 16. For the second word the preferred reading seems to be that of the other two sources, אורזנײה, which may denote cedar resin (J. Levy) or a derivative of אוֹרֶז “rice”. The readings for the first word, גמרײה, גמזוזיניה, גומננײא show that the scribe did not know what to do with it; it may be a derivative of “gum” (gummi, κόμμι) (E. G.) used in the preparation of liquors., since anything that is auxiliary to food is like food.

Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated³⁰³Babli Soṭah 16b; Sifry Deut. #122.: At three places teaching circumvents Scripture and at another place the interpretation.The Torah said, “in a scroll”³⁰⁴This is a wrong quote, referring to Num. 6:23, the text of the incantations required in the rite of the wife suspected of infidelity. But that text has to be written on a scroll; cf. Soṭah 2:4, Notes 143-144. Here, it should say סֵפֶר "book", referring to the divorce document mentioned in Deut. 24:1 which can be written on anything not connected to the ground; Mishnah Giṭṭin 2:3. The quote is correct in the sources quoted in the preceding Note., but practice said on anything separated from the ground. The Torah said, “in dust”³⁰⁵Lev. 17:13. The blood of slaughtered wild animals or birds has to be covered “in dust”., but practice said in anything on which plants grow³⁰⁶Mishnah Ḥulin 6:6.. The Torah said, “with an awl”, but practice said, even a buck-thorn, even a thorn, even glass. And at one place the interpretation³⁰⁷R. Ismael’s own hermeneutical rules.: Rebbi Ismael stated: “It shall be on the seventh day that he shave all his hair³⁰⁸Lev. 14:9, speaking of the ritual purification of the healed sufferer from skin disease. All the quotes are from this verse.,” inclusion. “His head, his beard, and his eyebrows,” detail. Since it continues “and all his hair he shall shave,” it repeats inclusion. Inclusion, detail, and inclusion is judged only by what is similar to the detail³⁰⁹By the seventh hermeneutical rule one has to try to find an intensional definition of the properties common to the examples given as detail; these then are the properties referred to by the inclusions.. Since the detail is explained as place of bunching and exposed, it should refer only [hair growing] in bunches at exposed places. But practice is that he shaves to be like a gourd³¹⁰Shaving completely every exposed hair; Mishnah Nega‘im 14:4. (Sifra Meṣora‘ Pereq 2 disagrees with the baraita here and the Mishnah and holds that the insistence on the shaving of all hair in both inclusions requires that any single one of the properties mentioned in the analysis of the detail, hair growing in bunches or visible, has to be shaved but nothing else. The Tanna of Sifra holds that practice follows interpretation closely.). “With an awl”, since an awl is made of metal, so anything made of metal³¹¹In Babylonian sources, Babli 21b, Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin 2, Sifry Deut # 122, this is an argument of Rebbi, in Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai, of R. Yose ben Jehudah: Any metal implement which can be used for piercing is called “awl”. The most detailed analysis of the verse is in the Babli, 21b, (Midrash Haggadol Deut. 15:17) where the inclusion-exclusion methodology of R. Ismael is shown to lead to the admissibility of any metal piercing instrument and the addition-subtraction methodology of R. Aqiba to the inclusion of all mechanical and the exclusion of chemical means.. Rebbi Yose said, this is a large drill³¹²In Sifry Deut # 122, Midrash Haggadol Deut. on Deut. 15:17: This is the large awl. The Yerushalmi text seems to be the original.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, that is the engraving-knife. “He shall bring him to the door.³¹³Ex. 21:6; cf. Deut. 15:17.” I could think, even if it was lying flat. The verse says, “or to the door-post”. Since the door-post is upright, so also the door has to be upright³¹⁴Babli 22b, Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin 2, Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 163.: a shame to him and to his family³¹⁵They violated their obligation to support their relative when he could not fend for himself..

“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.

HALAKHAH: Why? ⁶⁴This is a partial copy, in places completed by the corrector for the Venice edition and indicated by brackets, of a text in Maˋaser Šeni 2:1 (Notes 7–35), also partially reproduced in Ševuot 3:2 (Notes 26–36). It is clear that the original is in Maˋuser Šeni since the last paragraph has no connection with the rules of the Day of Atonement. Drinking is subsumed under eating but eating is not subsumed under drinking. From where that drinking is subsumed under eating? Rebbi Jonah understood if from the following: Therefore, I told the Children of Israel, none of you shall eat blood⁶⁵Lev. 17:12.. Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, was it not stated that congealed blood is neither food nor drink? But we hold, as it is. And the Torah called it eating. And was it not stated: If one liquefied fat and drank it, or congealed blood and ate it, [if there is the volume of an olive] he is liable. What does Rebbi Jonah do with this? It is not food to become impure in the impurity of food, or fluid to become impure in the impurity of fluids. Rebbi Jonah changed and understood if from the following:: You shall spend the money for anything you desire⁶⁶Deut. 14:26.. Where do we hold? If about one who gives the taste of wine into a cooked dish, is that not spoiling the taste of the wine? [But we hold as it is and the Torah called it “eating.”] The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain if about orzaraya and gomnany⁶⁷Maˋaser Šeni 2:1, Note 16. The first word may denote cedar resin (J. Levy) or a derivative of אוֹרֶז “rice”. The readings for the second word, גמרייה, גמזוזיניה, גומננייא show that the scribe did not know what to do with it; it may be a derivative of “gum” (gummi, κόμμι) (E. G.) used in the preparation of liquors., since anything that is ancillary to food is like food.

HALAKHAH: 4. What is clay soil? The gray kind. Samuel says, dust in order to cover the blood of a small bird. Samuel stated: Dust and ashes in order to cover the blood of a small bird⁹⁶Lev. 17:13. The expression “small bird” means “smaller than a pigeon” and is an indirect confirmation of the Italian Jewish tradition of eating certain birds of song. Tosephta 8:19, in the name of R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa..

¹¹⁴Discussion of the statement of the Mishnah that both the Omer and the Two Breads are brought in impurity even though they cannot be consumed by the priest and it is questionable whether a fistful of the Omer can be burned or the breads presented before the altar if that action seems purposeless since it does not serve to permit anything to be eaten. Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joshua: One verse says, but a firstling of cattle, or a firstling of sheep, or a firstling of goats¹¹⁵Num. 18:17. The verse continues: pour their blood on the altar, and burn their fat, … and their meat shall be yours., etc. And another verse says¹¹⁶Lev. 17:6. the Cohen shall pour the blood on the Eternal’s altar at the door of the Tent of Meeting, and burn the fat for a pleasant smell before the Eternal. Only if there be there either meat be be eaten or parts to be burned¹¹⁷Since Num. 18:17 mentions fat and meat but Lev.17:6 only fat, it follows that the sacrifice is acceptable if the blood is poured either to permit the fat to be burned or the meat to be eaten.. There we have stated¹¹⁸Mishnah Menaḥot3:4. For flour offerings, the fistful to be burned on the altar permits the remainder to be eaten by the Cohanim; the relationship of the fistful taken by the priest for the altar to the remainder to be consumed in the sacred domain is parallel to that of blood to be poured and the parts to be burned or the meat to be eaten.: “If the remainders became impure, the remainders were burned, the remainders were lost. In the rules of Rebbi Eliezer it is qualified, in the rules of Rebbi Joshua it is disqualified. [Not in a vessel of service it is disqualified; Rebbi Ismael¹¹⁹The second part of the Mishnah was added by the corrector; by the testimony of K this should be deleted. “R. Ismael” is a scribal error for “R. Simeon” in the Mishnah and in a quote of the Mishnah in Yoma 2:1, 39c line 32. qualifies. If he burned the fistful in two parts it is qualified.”] In Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion, if there is no blood there is no meat; even though if there is no meat there is blood¹²⁰For him, pouring the blood is a sacral act independent of the fact that pouring the blood is needed to enable the parts to be burned and the meat to be eaten.. If there is no fistful there are no remainders, even though if there are no remainders there is a fistful. In Rebbi Joshua’s opinion, if there is no blood there is no meat; if there is no meat there is no blood¹²¹If nothing is to be enabled, the act of pouring becomes meaningless and therefore has to be avoided. But then R. Joshua cannot permit the Omer to be brought in impurity, since this also would be a meaningless act.. If there is no fistful there are no remainders, if there are no remainders there is no fistful. Rebbi Mana said, explain it¹¹⁴Discussion of the statement of the Mishnah that both the Omer and the Two Breads are brought in impurity even though they cannot be consumed by the priest and it is questionable whether a fistful of the Omer can be burned or the breads presented before the altar if that action seems purposeless since it does not serve to permit anything to be eaten. following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, even though there are no remainders there is a fistful. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, Rebbi Joshua agrees that if he transgressed and poured the blood that it was made acceptable¹²²Since the diadem justifies the act retroactively, the same can be said for the Omer and the entire Mishnah may be R. Joshua’s..

³²⁰A slightly shortened version of Thr. rabba; cf. Babli Gittin 57b, Sanhedrin 94b. Rebbi Joḥanan said, 80’000 young priests were slaughtered for the blood of Zachariah³²¹2Chr. 24:20–22. In dying he invoked God’s vengeance.. Rebbi Yudan asked Rebbi Aḥa, where did they kill Zachariah? In the women’s courtyard or in Israel’s courtyard³²²Herod’s Temple had an outer courtyard accessible to women, a middle one accessible to Israel males, and an inner one reserved uniquely for the sacrificial service by Cohanim.? He said to him, neither in Israel’s courtyard nor in the women’s courtyard but in the priests’ courtyard. They treated his blood neither as ram’s blood nor as gazelle’s blood³²³Ram’s blood has to be poured on the base of the altar; deer’s blood has to be covered as indicated in the verse.. There is written, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust³²⁴Lev. 17:13.. But here³²⁵Ez. 24:7., for its blood was in its midst, on a bare rock he put it. Why all this? To arise rage, to avenge vengeance, I put its blood on a bare rock, without being covered³²⁶Ez. 24:8. In the verse: “impossible to cover.”. Seven sins did Israel commit on that day. They killed a priest, prophet, and judge, spilled innocent blood, defiled the Temple courtyard, and it was a Sabbath and Day of Atonement. When Nebuzaraddan³²⁷Sent to burn down Jerusalem after its surrender and the exile of its inhabitants. came here and saw the blood bubbling, he asked them, what is the matter with this? They told him, it is the blood of bulls, sheep, and rams, which we were sacrificing on the altar. Immediately he brought bulls, rams, and sheep and slaughtered them on it, but the blood still was bubbling. Since they did not confess, he hung them on gallows. They said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, wants to ask for his blood from us, they told him, it is the blood of a priest, prophet, and judge who was prophesying for us [all that you are doing to us.] We conspired against him and killed him. Immediately he brought 80’000 young priests and slaughtered them on it, but the blood was still bubbling. At this moment he got angry with him³²⁸Zachariah., and said to him, do you want to destroy your entire people because of you? Immediately the Holy One, praise to Him, was filled with mercy and said, if this one who is flesh and blood, and cruel, is filled with mercy for My children, I, where it is written about Me³²⁹Deut. 4:31., for a compassionate power is the Eternal, your God, He will not destroy you nor forget the covenant of your forefathers, not so much more? Immediately he indicated to the blood and it was absorbed on its place.

MISHNAH: On Passover one reads the section about holidays in Leviticus¹¹²Lev. 23:1–44.. On Pentecost, seven weeks¹¹³Deut. 16:9–12 to be repeated five times.. On New Year’s Day, in the Seventh month on the First of the month¹¹⁴Lev. 23:23–25 to be repeated five times. On the Day of Atonement, after the death¹¹⁵Lev. 17:1–34. On the first day of Tabernacles one reads the section about holidays in Leviticus; on the remaining days about the sacrifices of the holiday¹¹⁶The appropriate verses from Num. 29:17–39..

MISHNAH: The koy¹⁵⁴Since no cognate language has any animal name close to כוי, its identity cannot be determined. It might exist only for the sake of argument.
The Babli (Ḥulin 80b–81a) has a long discussion about the legal differences between the offspring of a he-goat which mated with a hind or a stag which mated with a she-goat. The Babli quotes a baraita which ascribes the opinion of R. Eleazar to anonymous authors, the opinion of the rabbis to R. Yose, and a third, anonymous, opinion that כוי is a wild goat. in some ways follows the rules for wild animals and in some those for domestic animals, in some the rules for both domestic and wild animals, and in some those for neither domestic nor wild animals.
How does it follow the rules of wild animals? Its blood must be covered like the blood of a wild animal¹⁴⁹Lev. 17:13. The blood of domestic kosher animals (cattle, sheep, and goats) may be used for industrial purposes but not that of wild animals or birds.; one does not slaughter it on a holiday¹⁵⁰While one may slaughter on a holiday for immediate consumption and may cover the blood of a wild animal or bird, one may not move earth on the holiday for a questionable case. but if it was slaughtered one does not cover its blood. Its fat can become impure in the impurity of a carcass like a wild animal¹⁵¹Since all fat of a wild animal can be eaten, it is not distinguished from its body and, unless the animal is correctly slaughtered, its entire body becomes impure as a carcass (Lev.11:39); cf. Mishnah Uqeẓin 3:9.; that impurity is one of doubt¹⁵²Since the koy might be a domestic animal. If a person who has become impure by touching fat from a koy carcass visits the Temple enclosure, he cannot be prosecuted but he will induce impurity by his touch. This rule and the one about covering the blood on a holiday are really rules distinct from those valid for domestic or wild animals.. One may not use it to redeem the first-born of a donkey¹⁵³Ex. 13:13 requires that the first-born of a female donkey be redeemed by a sheep or goat given to a Cohen..
How does it follow the rules of domestic animals? Its fat is forbidden like the fat of domestic animals¹⁵⁶Lev. 7:23, prohibition restricted to “cattle, sheep, and goats.”, but one is not punished for it by extirpation. It cannot be bought with tithe money to be eaten in Jerusalem¹⁵⁷Since tithe money should be used to buy well-being sacrifices (Ma‘aser Šeni 1:4) and a koy cannot be a sacrifice. and it is subject to the foreleg, the lower jaw, and the first stomach [to be given to a Cohen]¹⁵⁸Deut. 18:3, the part Cohen’s of profane slaughter of cattle or sheep or goats.. Rebbi Eleazar frees¹⁵⁹The person slaughtering does not have to give away the foreleg, jaw, and stomach. Since these gifts are profane, the Cohen can collect only if he can prove that the koy is subject to these rules. R. Eleazar quoted here is the Tanna R. Eleazar ben Shamua. since the claimant has to bring proof.
How does it differ from both a wild and a domestic animal? It is forbidden as kilaim with wild animals and domestic animals. If somebody writes his wild or domestic animals over to his son¹⁶⁴In a gift document., he did not include the koy¹⁶⁵Since it is neither a wild nor a domestic animal.. If somebody said, I am a nazir if that is neither a wild nor a domestic animal, he is a nazir¹⁶⁵Since it is neither a wild nor a domestic animal.. In all other ways it is like wild and domestic animals; it needs slaughtering by cutting its throat¹⁶⁶Lev. 11:39. like both, and as carcass it is impure like both.

Rebbi Aḥa said: Solomon said, three things I desecrated where I got the better of the law¹⁸¹Eccl. r. 2(3), Tanhuma Aḥare Mot 1, Tanhuma Buber Ahare Mot 2, Pesiqṭa dR. Cahana(Buber) Ahare Mot 168b–168a.
Most of the verses quoted in these paragraphs are also quoted in the Babli, 21b. Cf. also Cant. rabba 1(10).. He shall not add wives, and it is written: King Solomonloved foreign women¹⁸²1K. 11:1.. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, he really made love to them immorally¹⁸³He did not marry them but slept with them unmarried to increase his sexual enjoyment.. Ḥananiah, Rebbi Joshua’s nephew, says, because you shall not intermarry with them¹⁸⁴Deut. 7:3. He agrees with R. Simeon ben Iohai and notes that by behaving immorally he avoided violating the law. In Num. r. 10(8) only Hanania and R. Yose are mentioned.. Rebbi Yose said, to draw them to the words of the Torah and bring them under the Wings of the Divine Presence¹⁸⁵He married all those women with good intentions but violated Deut. 17:17. The expression “to take shelter under the Wings of the Divine Presence” for “to convert to Judaism” is from Ru. 2:12.. Rebbi Eliezer said, because also the foreign wives made him sin¹⁸⁶Neh. 13:26. He violated Mishnah 7 according to all authorities quoted there.. It turns out that one may say that Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai, Ḥananiah, and Rebbi Eliezer mean the same. Rebbi Yose disagrees with all three of them.

¹⁸¹Eccl. r. 2(3), Tanhuma Aḥare Mot 1, Tanhuma Buber Ahare Mot 2, Pesiqṭa dR. Cahana(Buber) Ahare Mot 168b–168a.
Most of the verses quoted in these paragraphs are also quoted in the Babli, 21b. Cf. also Cant. rabba 1(10). It is written¹⁹³Eccl. 2:2.: To amusement I said, be praised. The Holy One, praise to him, said to Solomon: What is this crown on your head? Descend from My throne! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, at that moment an angel came down looking like Solomon, removed him from his throne, and sat in his stead. He was going around in synagogues and houses of study, saying I am Ecclesiastes, I used to be king over Israel in Jerusalem¹⁹⁴Eccl. 1:12.. They were telling him, the king sits on his chair of honor¹⁹⁵Latin bisellium; cf. Löw in Krauss’s Lehnwörter. and you say, I am Ecclesiastes? They hit him with a stick and brought a dish of split beans before him. At that moment, he said: that is my part¹⁹⁶Eccl. 2:10.. Some say, a staff. Others say, a rod. Others say, with his belt. ¹⁹⁷Cant. r. ad 5:10, Lev. r. 19(2), Ex. r. 6(1). Solomon is accused of wanting to remove the imperative from Deut. 17:17. Who had accused him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, י in יַרְבֶּה¹⁶⁰2S. 23:15–16; 1Chr. 11:17–18. accused him. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: The book Deuteronomy ascended, bowed down before the Holy One, praise to Him, and said to Him: Master of the Universe, You wrote in Your Torah that any disposition¹⁹⁸Greek διαθήκη “will, disposition”. which is partially invalid is totally invalid, and now Solomon wants to uproot a י from me! The Holy One, praise to Him, said to it: Solomon and a thousand like him will disappear but nothing from you will disappear.

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..

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..

Do not worship them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment.. Should I say, not unless he worshipped every single strange worship in the world? The verse says, do not prostrate yourself before them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment.. ²⁵²The argument is hinted at in the Babli, 60b. Prostration was included²⁵³Even though in the verse prostrating is mentioned before worshipping, it clearly is an act of worship and on purely logical grounds would not have to be mentioned separately.; why is it mentioned separately? To tie to it: Prostration is special in that it is the act of a single person and is punishable separately, so I am adding any single act that one is liable for separately. Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said²⁵⁴Halakhah 13, 25c l. 18, the entire argument is attributed to R. Jehudah ben Tanhum., if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting²⁵⁵If he was oblivious to the fact that worshipping other gods was forbidden, he only has to bring one purification sacrifice. he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical with the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action²⁵⁶Applying any forms of worship of Heaven to any other purpose is sinful. Therefore, using it for pagan worship is not the same as accepting pagan rites of other forms.. As Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: They should not continue to offer their sacrifices to spirits.²⁵⁷Lev. 17:7. They said to him, turn and refer it to sacrifices²⁵⁸The paragraph forbids any sacrificial act outside the holy precinct. It is not applicable to the question at hand..

Rebbi Tanḥum ben Yudan said, even though Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said²⁵⁴Halakhah 13, 25c l. 18, the entire argument is attributed to R. Jehudah ben Tanhum., if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting²⁵⁵If he was oblivious to the fact that worshipping other gods was forbidden, he only has to bring one purification sacrifice. he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical to the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action²⁵⁶Applying any forms of worship of Heaven to any other purpose is sinful. Therefore, using it for pagan worship is not the same as accepting pagan rites of other forms.. From where that if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical with the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action? As Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: They should not continue to offer their sacrifices to spirits²⁵⁷Lev. 17:7.. They said to him, turn and refer it to sacrifices.