Talmud su Levitico 19:26

The ‘meal of comfort’¹⁸The first meal partaken by the mourners on their return from the funeral is termed ‘the meal of comfort [habra’ah]’; cf. 2 Sam. 3, 35, to cause David to eat bread (lehabroth). It was prepared by friends and consisted of lentils and eggs (cf. Sanh. 63a, Sonc. ed., p. 430, n. 6) the round shape of which being a reminder of the revolving wheel of fortune. is not eaten in their case, as it is stated, Ye shall not eat [anything] with the blood.¹⁹Lev. 19, 26. This is homiletically interpreted to mean: where blood is shed (i.e. an execution has taken place) no ceremonial meal of mourners should be eaten. Cf. Sanh. loc. cit.
[The judges of] a Court who ordered the execution of a man used not to eat anything on that day.²⁰Sanh. loc. cit.
[The condemned] are allowed to converse with their brothers and relatives; and not to delay matters²¹i.e. to avoid giving the appearance that the execution of justice is unduly protracted. they are given to drink wine containing frankincense²²To numb the senses; cf. Sanh. 43a (Sonc. ed., p. 279). so that they should not feel grieved. They are urged²³lit. ‘they teach them’. to confess, because he who confesses has a portion in the World to Come. We find it so with Achan to whom Joshua said, My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord, the God of Israel, and make confession unto Him; and tell me now what thou hast done; hide nothing from me. And Achan answered Joshua, and said: Of a truth I have sinned against the Lord, the God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done.²⁴Josh. 7, 19f. What is the meaning of and thus and thus? It teaches that he violated the ban twice.²⁵By taking from the devoted things on two occasions. Sanh. 43b (Sonc. ed., p. 284) explains that he took of the ban three times, twice in the days of Moses and once at Jericho. [44b] I have sinned, i.e. I and not my household, I and not my children. This teaches that he truthfully²⁶Of a truth (’omnam) is explained as be’emunah (‘truthfully’). confessed. And whence do we know that his confession made atonement for him? As it is stated, And Joshua said: Why hast thou troubled us? The Lord shall trouble thee this day²⁷ibid. 25.—this day art thou to be troubled but thou shalt not be troubled in the World to Come; and it states, And the sons of Zerah: Zimri, and Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol and Dara: five of them in all.²⁸1 Chron. 2, 6. Do we not know that there were five of them in all?²⁹Since five names are specified. It teaches that Achan will be with them in the world to come.³⁰Cf. Sanh. 44b (Sonc. ed., p. 291). Zimri, according to a tradition, is identical with Achan. As Achan is mentioned together with the other four, who are considered to be worthy men, it is an indication that his confession was accepted and with them he shared in the World to Come.
Similarly one who steals the tax³¹i.e. eludes the customs; cf. B.Ḳ. 113a (Sonc. ed., p. 663), Tosiftha B.Ḳ. X, 8. or anything devoted [to the Sanctuary] is as if he shed blood; and not only is he as if he shed blood, but he is also as if he worships idols, was guilty of immorality and desecrates the Sabbath.³²[On this passage, cf. Büchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement, p. 198n.]

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun does not say so but Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp¹⁴⁹The ramp on which the priest ascends to the altar since it is forbidden to build steps to the altar (Ex. 20:22). The ramp was physically separated from the altar.? He said to him, them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp¹⁵⁸But on the altar one is liable at least in violation of a positive commandment. Babli Menaḥot 37b/38a.. This implies that a single item which is mentioned separately necessarily does not divide, but unnecessarily it divides¹³⁵It is axiomatic that the Torah contains no unnecessary statements. If an item is singled out and there is no apparent reason for this one has to conclude that anything to be inferred about this particular item applies to all similar cases.. Two items which are mentioned separately do not divide but according to Rebbi Ismael they do divide, as Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the words of Rebbi Ismael are that two items which are mentioned separately divide¹⁵⁹From here on and the next paragraphs there is a parallel (but not an exact copy) in Sanhedrin 7:5 Notes 72–125.
One of R. Ismael’s hermeneutical principles is that “a detail which was singled out from a general category was singled out not for itself but as an example for the entire category.” R. Abun bar Ḥiyya states that according to R. Ismael this holds only for a single detail, not for two or more.. As Rebbi Ismael stated, you shall neither divine nor cast spells¹⁶⁰Lev. 19:26. Divination is an attempt to predict the future by magical means; spellbinding is practical witchcraft. Both are particular examples in the prohibition of witchcraft (Ex. 22:17), but no penalty is indicated.. Were not divining and spellbinding included in the general class¹⁶¹To use witchcraft is a capital crime (Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:5); in the absence of witnesses there is an automatic Divine verdict of extirpation. But the special cases of divination and spellbinding only trigger a verdict of extirpation; they are not cases for the human court. This illustrates R. Ismael’s principle. In Sifra Qedošim Pereq 6(2), R. Ismael and R. Aqiba identify divination and spellbinding as examples of make-believe witchcraft which according to Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:19 is not punishable by the human court. Automatically, these are separate examples of sins which require a purification sacrifice if done without criminal intent. A person who unintentionally acts as sorcerer, divinator, and spellbinder has to bring three sacrifices.? The were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case¹⁶²Hermeneutical principle #5 on R. Ismael’s list states that a general expression followed by particulars only refers to the particulars. If both general expression and details declare the same., one has to find a reason why the details have to be mentioned separately..

⁷²This paragraph and the following almost to the end of the Halakhah have a slightly more complete parallel in Šabbat 7:2 (9c l.62–9d l.59). Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said^73,In Šabbat, there is here a sentence connecting the text to the preceding discussion, not applicable here. This shows that the text here is not a mechanical copy of the text in Šabbat.⁷⁴One of R. Ismael’s hermeneutical principles is that “a detail which was singled out from a general class was singled out not for itself but as an example for the entire class.” In Šabbat, R. Abun bar Hiyya is reported here to have stated that according to R. Ismael this holds only for a single detail, not for two or more. (As a statement of R. Johanan see below, Notes 95 ff.).: Rebbi Ismael stated so: You shall not divine nor cast spells⁷⁵Lev. 19:26. Divination is an attempt to predict the future by magical means; spellbinding is practical witchcraft. Both are particular examples of the prohibition of witchcraft (Ex. 22:17), but no penalty is indicated.. Were not divination and spellbinding included in the general class but were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case? In general by extirpation, the separate cases for extirpation⁷⁶To use witchcraft is a capital crime as indicated in the Mishnah; in the absence of witnesses there is an automatic Divine verdict of extirpation. But the special cases of divination and spellbinding only trigger a verdict of extirpation; they are not cases for the human court. This illustrates R. Ismael’s principle. In Sifra Qedošim Pereq 6(2), R. Ismael and R. Aqiba identify divination and spellbinding as examples of make-believe witchcraft which according to Mishnah 19 is not punishable by the human court. Automatically, these are separate examples of sins which require a purification sacrifice if done without criminal intent. A person who unintentionally acts as sorcerer, divinator, and spellbinder has to bring three sacrifices.. A statement of Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is a case of general case and detail⁷⁷The wording might be slightly misleading. There is a hermeneutical principle (#5 on R. Ismael’s list) which states that a general expression followed by particulars only refers to the particulars. This presupposes that both general expression and details are in the same paragraph. For example, Lev. 1:2 describes sacrificial animals as animals, cattle, sheep, or goats. In the context, “animals” means “cattle, sheep, and goats”. In the discussion here, the details are mentioned in paragraphs other than the one describing the general category. Then one has to find a reason why the details have to be mentioned separately., as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for anybody who would perform any of these abominations will be extirpated⁷⁸Lev. 18:29. This verse decrees a general verdict of extirpation on any violation of sexual taboos spelled out in Lev. 18, whether or not they are criminally punishable., etc. Was not his sister included in the general class⁷⁹The sister is forbidden in Lev. 18:9 but in the chapter about penalties, Lev. 20:17, the punishment is reserved for Heaven.? Rebbi Eleazar objected: Was it not written, the nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover⁸⁰A misquote from Lev. 18:7,8. It seems that in G the verses were quoted correctly. It is incorrect also in Šabbat. It seems from the context that the text in G is a learned scribe’s correction of the original which, however, did not refer to Lev. 18:7,8 but to Lev. 20:19: The nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover, for his close relative he touched, their sin they have to carry. Cf. Babli Yebamot 54a.? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by touching⁸¹Lev. 20:19 makes two statements: The punishment is reserved for Heaven and the sin is committed the moment the genitals of the parties touch, without any penetration. Mishnah Yebamot 6:2 extends the equivalence of touching and penetration to all sexual offenses.. But is it not written⁸²Lev. 20:18. The implications are the same as for v. 19.: A man who would lie with an unwellwoman, who uncovered her nakedness, he touched her source, and she uncovered the source of her blood? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by touching. That you should not say, since one is guilty about her already by the impurity of touching, we should not treat the one who touched equal to the one who had full intercourse. Therefore, it was necessary to say it⁸³In G and Šabbat: “Therefore, it was necessary to say that he is liable for each one,” cf. Note 71. It is possible to justify the addition by noting that Lev. 18:29 decrees separate extirpation and, therefore, separate sacrifices for unintentional sin, for each separate category of incest.. But is it not written⁸⁴Lev. 20:20.: A man who would sleep with his aunt uncovered his uncle’s nakedness? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by destruction⁸⁵In Šabbat there is a reference here to Lev. 20:21. This also is missing in G, showing that the text here is secondary to that in Šabbat, since Lev. 20:20 says they shall die destroyed whereas v. 21 notes they shall be destroyed. The difference is explained in the following statement by R. Yudan. The Babli (Yebamot 55a) applies both statements to both verses., as Rebbi Yudan said, at all places where they will be destroyed is mentioned, they will be childless; where they shall die destroyed is mentioned, they shall bury their children.