Talmud su Levitico 22:28

The practice of Mercurius is the following: Two stones one touching the other and the third on top of them⁵This does not mean that the third stone lies vertically on top of the other two since this is a very unstable arrangement. It must be that the third stone forms a triangle together with the others; then the third stone is on the altitude of the triangle which is at a right angle to, i. e. “on”, the base line.. If one put down the second one and they warned him because of “it and its young”⁶Lev. 22:28. The text is very elliptic here; it is explained by the following quote from Terumot.
A person is starting to build a rudimentary Mercurius. When he had put down the second stone he decided to sacrifice to the yet unfinished idol and he chose for this purpose an animal and its young. As explained in Sanhedrin, a criminal conviction in rabbinic theory is possible only if criminal intent was proven by the testimony of two eye witnesses that the perpetrator had duly been warned of the criminal nature of his intended act. Also, for one act there can be only one punishment. Slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day is a simple criminal infraction for which no punishment is spelled out in the biblical text. The prescribed punishment for such an act is flogging., he is whipped. Because of idolatry he is stoned⁷One has to read “is not stoned”. Since two stones do not make an idol, even if there was criminal intent no crime was committed.. If he put down the third⁸Then there is an idol and even though it is worshipped by throwing an additional stone, anything which would be part of the service in the Temple when done for an idol is a capital crime whether or not the idol is worshipped in this way.; there is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. ⁹This text to the end of the paragraph is from Terumot7:1 Notes 64–66; Ketubot3:1 (27c l.21). For they disagreed: If somebody slaughters an animal and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young he is flogged, about idolatry he is stoned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he is cautioned about an animal and its young he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he be cautioned about idolatry.

There, we have stated⁷Mishnah Ḥulin 5:3.: “If he slaughtered her, her daughter’s daughter, and afterwards her daughter, he absorbs forty [lashes].⁸Really, 39 lashes, the maximum permitted (Deut. 25:3). Similarly, Symmachos’s 80 are really 78. Symmachos said in Rebbi Meïr’s name, he absorbs eighty.⁹Lev. 22:28: “A cow or a sheep, it and its young you shall not slaughter on the same day.” Slaughtering a cow and a second generation calf on the same day is not forbidden. If after that the calf is slaughtered on the same day, with one act he slaughters {the cow and her calf} and {the calf’s calf and her mother}. For the rabbis, violating one law by one act can be punished only once. For Symmachos, the order of execution is important; the prohibition of slaughtering the calf after its mother is separate from that of slaughtering the mother after its calf.” Rebbi Eleazar said, [Symmachos]¹⁰Missing in the text, required by the context. and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said the same thing, since we stated there¹¹Mishnah Keritut 3:6. R. Eleazar’s opinion is quoted in the Babli, Keritut 14b.: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, he who copulates with his mother-in-law may be guilty because of his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother. They said to him, all three fall under the same law¹²The relevant verse is Lev. 18:17: “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover; her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter you shall not take to uncover her nakedness; they are family, it is taboo.” The Tosephta (Keritut 1:21) explains that R. Joḥanan ben Nuri speaks about a man who married three wives, a woman and her nieces from a sister and a brother; i. e. a daughter and two granddaughters of the same woman. If the man sleeps with his mother-in-law, by one act he sleeps with a woman and her daughter, a woman and her daughter’s daughter, and a woman and her son’s daughter. If it is three times the same transgression, he is punished only once; if the one act implies three different paragraphs have been violated, he receives multiple punishment..” Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Symmachos agrees to the earlier [part of the Mishnah]¹³Ḥulin 5:3, where it is stated that everybody agrees that if he slaughtered first the mother and after that two of her calves he is whipped “80” times but if he first slaughtered the two calves and then the mother, he is whipped only “40” times.. If was found stated, it still is in dispute¹⁴Tosephta Ḥulin 5:7: “If he slaughtered its five calves and then the cow, Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meïr he is guilty of five transgressions but he only is guilty for transgression of one prohibition.” This shows that Symmachos counts instances of the same prohibition separately; he cannot have the same position as R. Joḥanan ben Nuri. This is the position of Rava in the Babli, Keritut 15a; cf. צבי דור, תורת ארץ ישׂראל בבבל, דביר, תל אביב 1971, p. 42.. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s reason? Since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her daughter’s daughter fall under two separate prohibitions¹⁵For him, the two parts of Lev. 18:17 are two separate paragraphs; for the rabbis the verse counts as only one., also a woman and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter fall under two separate prohibitions. What is the reason of the rabbis? Since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her daughter’s daughter fall under one and the same prohibition, also a woman and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter fall under one and the same prohibition.

It and its young⁹⁰Lev. 22:28. It is prohibited to slaughter an animal and its young on the same day. Therefore, if both an animal and its young fell into a cistern on a holiday, only one of them can be potential food. The other one is muqṣeh and cannot be moved by humans. Babli 117b, Beṣah 37a, Tosephta Yom Ṭov 3:2.. The paragraph also appears as Halakhah Beṣah 3:5 with the references to “here” and “there” switched correctly. fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one⁹¹As long as it is not determined which animal is to be turned into food, both are potential food and can be moved.. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted⁹²He is permitted to declare both animals as potential food even though he had no intention of slaughtering either one.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? There he says, one is prohibited from cunning but here he says, one is permitted to be cunning⁹³In the matter of an animal and its young he requires strict adherence to the rules; in the matter of impure ḥallah he permits bending them.. Here it is because “not to be seen nor found”; there, what do you have⁹⁴In matters of dough on Passover there is no other way out (short of not making food on the holiday); in the matters of the animals it is possible to follow all the rules.? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? There he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but here, he says, one is prohibited from cunning⁹⁵For the animals in the cistern he allows a fake declaration which permits their rescue; for impure ḥallah he removes the prohibition by declaring it inapplicable.. Rebbi Idi said, there it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but here liability for a purification offering⁹⁶Muqṣeh is rabbinic; eating bread without taking ḥallah is a deadly sin.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, there it is to protect Jews’ money; here what do you have⁹⁷The animals in the cistern are valuable; impure ḥallah is worthless.?