Talmud su Levitico 22:3

HALAKHAH: “For heave and First Fruits,” etc. It is written (Num.18.8): “Behold, I gave to you the watch over My heaves.” Two heaves, heave and First Fruits⁷In the Babli (Šabbat25a, 26a; Yebamot 74a; and in slightly different form Bekhorot 34a), the two heaves are pure and impure (or pure and questionable), respectively. That tradition is in the name of the Davidic Rabba bar Abuha and may represent the autochthonous Babylonian tradition. In the Yerushalmi tradition, the verse determines the rules of First Fruits as those of heave.. About heave it is written⁸The paragraph deals with the prohibition of impure hallowed food. (Lev. 22:9): “They should not carry sin because of it and die if they desecrate it.” First fruits as it is written (Deut. 12:6): “There you shall bring your elevation offerings,” these are First Fruits, as it is written (Deut. 26:4): “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand.⁹This statement is fragmentary and unintelligible in the form presented. The full text is in Sifry Deut.63: There you shall bring your elevation offerings, private and public, your well-being offerings, private and public, your tithes; R. Aqiba said, the verse deals with two different tithes, grain tithes and animal tithes, and your hand’s heaves, these are First Fruits, as it is written: The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand. Other heaves do not have to be brought to the Temple.” Maybe we should say that the verse¹⁰Lev. 22:9 which imposes death by the hand of Heaven for desecrators. refers to sacrifices? Extirpation is already written in regard to sacrifices¹¹Lev. 22:3 imposes the penalty of extirpation on any Cohen coming close to sacrifices while impure. Traditionally, extirpation is considered more of a punishment than death by the hand of Heaven..

Cahana asked Rebbi Zeïra³²Since Cahana preceded R. Zeïra by at least one generation, the text is impossible. Later (Note 42) the statement is referred to as Rav’s. Since Rav was teacher and colleague of Cahana, one has to read “Rav” instead of “R. Zeïra”.: A layman who ate heave? He said to him, it is a deadly sin. After he had prayed, he said to him (Lev. 22:3): “I am the Eternal” closed the statement³³Lev. 22 deals with the rules of heave. In verse 3, Cohanim are subjected to the penalty of extirpartion for neglecting the rules of impurity. This verse closes with the remark “I am the Eternal”, which usually appears at the conclusion of a commandment. R. Zeïra (Rav) concludes that no penalty has been spelled out for the rules given in verses 4 ff.. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A layman who ate heave committed a deadly sin³⁴The prohibition is spelled out Lev. 22:10. For R. Zeïra it is a simple violation; for R. Joḥanan it falls under the punishment stated in verse 3.. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Those who eat heave intentionally³⁵In the Constantinople print: אוכלי תרומה בזרים “lay persons eating heave”., whether pure [person] eating pure [heave], or impure eating impure, or pure eating impure, or impure eating pure, have commited a deadly sin. Cohanim eating heave, pure [person] eating pure [heave] fulfills its commandment; pure eating impure [has violated] a positive commandment; impure eating pure or impure eating impure [has violated] a prohibition. What did you see to say that a pure [person] eating impure [heave has violated] a positive commandment? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, (Lev. 22:7) “Afterwards he shall eat of the hallowed [food]”, of what is pure but not of what is impure. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment³⁶This is generally accepted also in the Babli (e. g., Yebamot 54b,73b; Pesaḥim 71b; Zebaḥim 34a, Ḥulin 81a). The proof is in the next paragraph. The transgression of a positive commandment is not prosecutable by a human court; the violation of a prohibition is.
The distinction between pure and impure food is read into the verse since מן “of” is partitive; there must be a category which is not included..

MISHNAH: Ḥallah and heave. ²³⁴Most of these rules have been spelled out for heave in Tractate Terumot; the sentence spells out that ḥallah is not only called “heave” (Num. 15:20–21) but actually follows all rules of heave. About them one is liable to death²³⁵Lev. 22:3. and a fifth²³⁶Terumot 6:1., they are forbidden to laymen²³⁷Lev. 22:10. Since this rule is mentioned after the penalties, it must mean that consumption by laymen of quantities too small to merit judicial attention is still forbidden., are Cohen’s property, can be lifted in 101²³⁸Terumot Chapter 5., need washing of the hands²³⁹An extension of the injunction Ex. 30:17–21. (and feet)²⁴⁰A scribal error in the ms. and some sources dependent on it; cf. The Mishnah with variant readings, Zera‘im II (Jerusalem 1975), p. 325, Note 74. and sundown²⁴¹Lev. 22:7., are not taken from pure for impure²⁴²Terumot 2:1. but only from what is earmarked²⁴³Terumot 1:1, Note 6. and completed²⁴⁴Completely processed; Ma‘serot 1.. He who says, all my threshing floor is heave or all my dough is ḥallah did not say anything unless he left out a small amount.