Talmud su Levitico 22:78

MISHNAH: If somebody eats heave in error, he pays principal and fifth¹Lev. 22:14: “Anybody who ate sanctified food in error must add its fifth to it and give the holy food to the Cohen.” In the Yerushalmi (6:1) and the Sifra [Wayyiqra pereq 20(8); Emor pereq 6(4)], its fifth is interpreted to mean that the addition must be one fifth of the restitution, or one fourth of the principal. In the Babli (Baba Meẓi‘a 54a) this is the opinion of R. Oshaia, whereas R. Jonathan refers its fifth to the principal. The latter opinion is never found in the Yerushalmi. There will be a discussion in the Halakhah whether the expression “give the holy food to the Cohen” means that the designation as reparation makes holy or only its delivery.; whether he eats, drinks, or anoints²Since the food enters his body, whether through the mouth or through the skin., whether the heave be pure or impure, he pays. The fifth and the fifth of the fifths³If he dedicated the fifth and then inadvertently ate this fifth, since it had become heave as stated in the next sentence, it is subject to the rule of the fifth and he must restitute both the fifth and an additional fifth (1/16 of the original amount.) he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave. All payments become heave. Although the Cohen may want to forgive this, he has no right to forgive.
If an Israel woman ate heave and then was married to a Cohen, ate the heave before a Cohen had acquired it, she pays principal and fifth to herself⁵⁴Heave is eaten not only by a Cohen but also by his family (wife, children, slaves.), but if she ate heave which a Cohen had acquired, she pays principal to its owner and the fifth to herself since they said, he who eats heave in error pays the principal to its owner and the fifth to a person of his choice.

HALAKHAH: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man²Lev. 22:4. The verse excludes impure persons from sanctified food. The inclusive “every man” implies that every man of the descendents of Aaron is included among the prospective eaters of heave since every man is exluded when impure. Verse 7 notes that after immersion in water he may eat the sanctified food after sundown; this refers to heave which does not require a prior purification sacrifice.”, to include the uncircumcised³Quoted in the Babli (70a, 71a, 74a) and Sifra Emor Pereq 4(18) in the name of R. Aqiba. He takes the emphatic expression “every man” to mean that in addition to the persons excluded in the text there must be some category of excluded persons not mentioned in the text.. Or “every man” to include the mourner⁴The mourner during the period between the death of a relative and his burial, who is excluded from all religious duties except the care for the burial. As R. Hila points out at the end, the exclusion of the mourner is mentioned only in the declaration of tithes (Deut. 26:14), which implies that even the Israel farmer may not eat his sanctified food (the Second Tithe) while in mourning. From there, it is inferred that the Cohen certainly is disabled during his mourning.? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified [food]⁵Lev. 22:10: “No outsider (a non-priestly Jew; cf. Num. 18:4) shall eat sanctified [food], a Cohen’s sojourner (foreign worker) and hireling shall not eat sanctified [food].” The verse clearly disqualifies persons because of their intrinsic status, not because of a temporary disability. Sifra Emor Pereq4(16) also classifies the bastard as an outsider.”. I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce⁶In the Babli 71a, “I did not forbid because of mourning” which is immediately corrected to “say: not lack of circumcision.” One may not correct the Yerushalmi text according to the first version of the Babli (done by most commentators and the editors of the Zhitomir/Wilna text), since not only the principle of lectio difficilior but also the next sentence in the text, and the parallel discussion in the Babli preclude such an approach. It is clear from the start that both the uncircumcised and the mourner are forbidden heave, and the entire discussion is one of hermeneutics. No temporary disabilities have any place in the interpretation of vv. 10–13. The question is only whether the rather arbitrary approach of R. Aqiba has any justification.. The reddish Rebbi Tiufa⁷A Galilean Amora of the fourth generation; his name appears also as Ṭaifa. His sobriquet may mean that he was a redhead. asked before Rebbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes⁸It is the general method of R. Aqiba to analyze verses for expressions of inclusion and exclusion. The expression in 22:4: אִישׁ אִישׁ “man, man” (translated as “every man”) implies that some man is included in the set of persons excluded from heave who is not mentioned in the verse. On the other hand, if the verse had simply read אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב the same meaning as in the actual verse אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן והוּא צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב could have been expressed in correct grammar with one less word. This is taken as an exclusion, “only if he be a leper or sick with gonorrhea”, which decreases the size of the excluded set. The verse deals only with temporary disabilities. The verse 22:10 dealing with permanent disabilities has no exclusion. It is therefore acceptable to include a permanently disabled person in the excluded set and to exclude from that set an additional temporarily disabled person., I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated⁹Sifra Emor Pereq 4(18). In the Babli (70a) and the Mekhilta deR. Ismael, Bo (ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 54), the argument is presented in the name of R. Eliezer, adding to the arguments of B. Z. Wacholder [The date of the Mekhilta de-R. Ishmael, HUCA 39(1968) 117–144] about the dependence of that Mekhilta on the Babli.: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover¹⁰Ex. 12:45. and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave¹¹Lev. 22:10.. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised¹²An application of the principle of גזרה שוה, R. Ismael’s rule 2: One word found in two different laws which in neither of them are needed for the understanding of the law, are written to permit the transfer of rules from one to the other.. Rebbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner¹³However, Mishnah Pesaḥim8:8, explained in Pesaḥim [Yerushalmi 8:8 (fol. 36b), Babli 92a] states that the mourner is excluded by biblical decree only from services during daytime. This means that the mourner (as long as he is not impure) is admitted to the Passover meal. R. Haggai attempts to discredit R. Ismael’s approach.. Rebbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph¹⁴While the argument of R. Hila is almost understandable, this sentence is not. Neither in the laws of Passover nor in those of heave is the word תחת used. The Babli, in a somewhat similar discussion (71a, 74a) discusses the seemingly superfluous inclusion of three expressions “ממנו” in the laws of the Passover sacrifice offered in Egypt (Ex. 12:9,10). The argument there is not applicable here. All R. Hila seems to say is that one does not derive laws not touched upon in Ex. 22:43–50 from there.. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category¹⁵The sexless is excluded from sacrifices since he probably is a male with an ingrown penis and therefore uncircumcised. The hermaphrodite is circumcised and accepted. His inclusion here has to be rated an editorial or scribal error since “sexless and hermaphrodite” is a frequently occurring combination. (A priest hermaphrodite is excluded from the sacrifices reserved for men and admitted to those open to women; Tosephta 10:2.). The mourner comes from second tithe⁴The mourner during the period between the death of a relative and his burial, who is excluded from all religious duties except the care for the burial. As R. Hila points out at the end, the exclusion of the mourner is mentioned only in the declaration of tithes (Deut. 26:14), which implies that even the Israel farmer may not eat his sanctified food (the Second Tithe) while in mourning. From there, it is inferred that the Cohen certainly is disabled during his mourning..

HALAKHAH: “A widow [married] to a High Ptiest,” etc. From where that a priest who married a wife or bought slaves enables them to eat heave? The verse says “and if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition⁴Lev. 22:11: “And if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition, he shall eat of it; and the one born in his house, they shall eat of his food.” The wife is acquired by the qiddushin money.,” etc. From where that if his wife bought slaves, and her slaves [bought] slaves, that they may eat heave? The verse says “and if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition,” etc. Also his acquisition which bought an acquisition enables him to eat⁵Note the incongruous plural in Lev. 22:11. Up to here the text is a baraita; Babli 66a, Sifra Emor Parasha5(1).. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. “They shall eat⁴Lev. 22:11: “And if a priest buys a person as his money’s acquisition, he shall eat of it; and the one born in his house, they shall eat of his food.” The wife is acquired by the qiddushin money.”, they shall enable to eat. The baraita speaks about a slave who acquired slaves within the power of his master. But if a slave acquired slaves on condition that his master have no power over them, they are his property⁶Anything a slave buys is his owner’s property. Usually, what he otherwise acquires is also his owner’s property. But if he received something as a gift (e. g., money to buy his freedom) with the express stipulation that his master shall have no claim to it, then it is the slave’s direct property. If the slave received other slaves as such a gift, these are not the master’s acquisition and are barred from eating sanctified food.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. If a slave acquired slaves on condition that his master have no power over them and he died, the first person who comes can grab them⁷They are ownerless. Since a slave can become free only by an act of manumission, these slaves are not freed by the death of their master and can be taken by anybody.. In that case, [that slave] is not his property’s property⁸The slave’s slave is not the slave’s master’s property..

HALAKHAH: “If somebody eats heave in error,” etc. It is written (Lev. 22:14): “Anybody who ate sanctified food in error must add its fifth.” That it and its fifth make five⁴Cf. Note 1. It is clear that the main inference is from the word עליו not quoted here..

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..

HALAKHAH: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man²Lev. 22:4. The verse excludes impure persons from sanctified food. The inclusive “every man” implies that every man of the descendents of Aaron is included among the prospective eaters of heave since every man is exluded when impure. Verse 7 notes that after immersion in water he may eat the sanctified food after sundown; this refers to heave which does not require a prior purification sacrifice.”, to include the uncircumcised³Quoted in the Babli (70a, 71a, 74a) and Sifra Emor Pereq 4(18) in the name of R. Aqiba. He takes the emphatic expression “every man” to mean that in addition to the persons excluded in the text there must be some category of excluded persons not mentioned in the text.. Or “every man” to include the mourner⁴The mourner during the period between the death of a relative and his burial, who is excluded from all religious duties except the care for the burial. As R. Hila points out at the end, the exclusion of the mourner is mentioned only in the declaration of tithes (Deut. 26:14), which implies that even the Israel farmer may not eat his sanctified food (the Second Tithe) while in mourning. From there, it is inferred that the Cohen certainly is disabled during his mourning.? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified [food]⁵Lev. 22:10: “No outsider (a non-priestly Jew; cf. Num. 18:4) shall eat sanctified [food], a Cohen’s sojourner (foreign worker) and hireling shall not eat sanctified [food].” The verse clearly disqualifies persons because of their intrinsic status, not because of a temporary disability. Sifra Emor Pereq4(16) also classifies the bastard as an outsider.”. I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce⁶In the Babli 71a, “I did not forbid because of mourning” which is immediately corrected to “say: not lack of circumcision.” One may not correct the Yerushalmi text according to the first version of the Babli (done by most commentators and the editors of the Zhitomir/Wilna text), since not only the principle of lectio difficilior but also the next sentence in the text, and the parallel discussion in the Babli preclude such an approach. It is clear from the start that both the uncircumcised and the mourner are forbidden heave, and the entire discussion is one of hermeneutics. No temporary disabilities have any place in the interpretation of vv. 10–13. The question is only whether the rather arbitrary approach of R. Aqiba has any justification.. The reddish Rebbi Tiufa⁷A Galilean Amora of the fourth generation; his name appears also as Ṭaifa. His sobriquet may mean that he was a redhead. asked before Rebbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes⁸It is the general method of R. Aqiba to analyze verses for expressions of inclusion and exclusion. The expression in 22:4: אִישׁ אִישׁ “man, man” (translated as “every man”) implies that some man is included in the set of persons excluded from heave who is not mentioned in the verse. On the other hand, if the verse had simply read אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב the same meaning as in the actual verse אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן והוּא צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב could have been expressed in correct grammar with one less word. This is taken as an exclusion, “only if he be a leper or sick with gonorrhea”, which decreases the size of the excluded set. The verse deals only with temporary disabilities. The verse 22:10 dealing with permanent disabilities has no exclusion. It is therefore acceptable to include a permanently disabled person in the excluded set and to exclude from that set an additional temporarily disabled person., I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated⁹Sifra Emor Pereq 4(18). In the Babli (70a) and the Mekhilta deR. Ismael, Bo (ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 54), the argument is presented in the name of R. Eliezer, adding to the arguments of B. Z. Wacholder [The date of the Mekhilta de-R. Ishmael, HUCA 39(1968) 117–144] about the dependence of that Mekhilta on the Babli.: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover¹⁰Ex. 12:45. and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave¹¹Lev. 22:10.. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised¹²An application of the principle of גזרה שוה, R. Ismael’s rule 2: One word found in two different laws which in neither of them are needed for the understanding of the law, are written to permit the transfer of rules from one to the other.. Rebbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner¹³However, Mishnah Pesaḥim8:8, explained in Pesaḥim [Yerushalmi 8:8 (fol. 36b), Babli 92a] states that the mourner is excluded by biblical decree only from services during daytime. This means that the mourner (as long as he is not impure) is admitted to the Passover meal. R. Haggai attempts to discredit R. Ismael’s approach.. Rebbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph¹⁴While the argument of R. Hila is almost understandable, this sentence is not. Neither in the laws of Passover nor in those of heave is the word תחת used. The Babli, in a somewhat similar discussion (71a, 74a) discusses the seemingly superfluous inclusion of three expressions “ממנו” in the laws of the Passover sacrifice offered in Egypt (Ex. 12:9,10). The argument there is not applicable here. All R. Hila seems to say is that one does not derive laws not touched upon in Ex. 22:43–50 from there.. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category¹⁵The sexless is excluded from sacrifices since he probably is a male with an ingrown penis and therefore uncircumcised. The hermaphrodite is circumcised and accepted. His inclusion here has to be rated an editorial or scribal error since “sexless and hermaphrodite” is a frequently occurring combination. (A priest hermaphrodite is excluded from the sacrifices reserved for men and admitted to those open to women; Tosephta 10:2.). The mourner comes from second tithe⁴The mourner during the period between the death of a relative and his burial, who is excluded from all religious duties except the care for the burial. As R. Hila points out at the end, the exclusion of the mourner is mentioned only in the declaration of tithes (Deut. 26:14), which implies that even the Israel farmer may not eat his sanctified food (the Second Tithe) while in mourning. From there, it is inferred that the Cohen certainly is disabled during his mourning..

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..

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.

²⁷One returns to the prior topic, to try to understand R. Eliezer’s position in view of biblical verses which seem to indicate that Gentile animals are perfectly acceptable as sacrifices. Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking, is it not written²⁸2Chr.15:11. At first glance this refers to the booty which they took from the Nubians as described in Chapter 14 since no other war of Asa was mentioned.: On that day they slaughtered of the booty for the Eternal? They explained it, but we do not know whether the colleagues explained it or Rebbi Immi explained it, from previous ones, from booty which was in their hands they sacrificed²⁹Since Chapter 15 does not refer to the war described in Chapter 14, it is not necessary to assume that “the booty” was taken from the Nubians.. But is it not written³⁰1S. 6:15, one the day the Philistines returned the Ark on a carriage drawn by cows.: The men of Bet Shemesh brought an elevation offering and slaughtered family offerings to the Eternal, oxen? Can we learn anything from the rulers of the Philistines? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, they even sacrificed females, the cows they offered as elevation offering to the Eternal³¹1S. 6:14. In Lev. 1:3 it is spelled out that an elevation offering must be a male animal. Since the entire proceedings were irregular, one cannot infer anything about the rules to follow.. But is it not written³²1S. 15:15. As explained in v. 21, the animals taken from the Gentile tribe were to be slaughtered as sacrifices. Babli 24b., Saul said, they brought them from the Amalekite? One does not learn from Saul; as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Saul was a sycamore shoot³³Something inedible. In the Babli, Eruvin53a/b, the verse 1S. 14:47 in interpreted that religious practice never follows Saul. The same is intended here.. But it is not written³⁴2S. 24:24., David bought the threshing floor? He bought but did not sacrifice. But is it not written³⁵2S. 24:23. To give pleasure before the Eternal usually is asserted of sacrifices (e. g., Ex. 28:38). Babli 24b., Arawna said to the king, may the Eternal, your God, have pleasure with you. May he find pleasure with you in prayer. But is it not written³⁶Lev. 22:25., Also from the hand of a stranger you should not bring your God’s bread from any of these? From any of these you do not sacrifice; you buy unblemished ones and sacrifice. What does Rebbi Eliezer do with this? You are buying for money and sacrifice? The one who stated “for money” cannot follow Rebbi Eliezer³⁷Since R. Eliezer considers all animals of a Gentile unfit for the altar. But he must read the verse as absolute prohibition of accepting any sacrifice from a Gentile, similar to Sifra Emor Pereq7(12) where the verse is read to prohibit accepting money of the Temple tax from Gentiles..

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.

Is it free²⁶This refers back to the argument (Notes 9–12) that the uncircumcised is barred from eating heave. It is claimed that the conditions for application of rule 2, גזרה שוה, are not fulfilled.? Has it not been used for a derivation? As it was stated²⁷Babli 70a, Qiddushin 4a, Zebaḥim 62a; Sifra Emor Pereq 4(17).: “Sojourner”, that is the one who is permanently acquired, “hireling” the one temporarily acquired²⁸Lev. 22:10: “A Cohen’s sojourner or hireling shall not eat from sanctified food.” Who are sojourner and hireling? They cannot be Gentiles; these were excluded in the first part of v. 10. They cannot be slaves; these are included (when circumcised) in v. 11. They must be Hebrew “slaves”, i. e., indentured servants. The verse states that the money paid in acquiring a Hebrew slave is paid not to acquire his person but his working and earning power. Therefore, they are not able to partake of sanctified food. The Hebrew slave who is permanently acquired is the one who refuses to leave when his six years of indenture are passed; Ex. 21:5–6, Deut. 15:16–17.
According to tradition, the institution of Hebrew slaves disappeared with the first commonwealth and could never be re-introduced. The argument here is purely one of biblical interpretation, not of actual law.. It should only say “sojourner”; why does the verse mention “hireling”? Should the one who is permanently acquired be forbidden to eat and the one temporarily acquired be permitted? But I would have said that “sojourner” means the one temporarily acquired; the mention of the “hireling” teaches that “sojourner” means the one permanently acquired. Rebbi Mathias²⁹He is mentioned only here. said, since it is written “no uncircumcised person may eat from it,³⁰Ex. 12:48.” it is as if free from one side³¹While the verse in Lev. is used for clarification about the Hebrew slave, Ex. 12:46 cannot speak about him since no circumcised Jew is excluded from the Passover sacrifices. Therefore, the verse is not used for other deductions and the application of rule 2 might be justified.
The Yerushalmi does not clarify the difference between a straight גזרה שוה in which neither part is used for other implications (cf. Note 12), and a conditional one in which only one of the conditions is fulfilled, which may be rejected on logical grounds. This is made explicit in the Babli, 70b..

²⁴This text is shortened from Maˋaser Šeni2:1 (Notes 28–35), Šabbat 9, Notes 122–127 and Taˋanit 1:6.“Anointing.” As it was stated: On the Sabbath both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Av and public fasts, anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted. But it was stated: Anointing is equal to drinking regarding prohibition and reparation but not punishment²⁵Referring to illegal use of heave and dedicated food by non-Cohanim and its replacement by 5/4 of the value taken.. On the Day of Atonement regarding prohibition but not punishment²⁶The only biblical prohibitions on the Day of Atonement are eating, drinking, and working. The other two, anointing and sexual relations, are rabbinic and not subject to biblical punishment. But was it not stated, they shall not desecrate²⁷Lev. 22:15. The verse refers to the non-Cohen who “eats” holy food in error. Babli Niddah 32a., to include him who anoints or drinks? Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “anoints” there. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no “anoints” there is no “drinks”. For if it were not so, do matters combine which come from two different prohibitions²⁸If the verse in Lev. is needed to subsume drinking under eating, it is incomprehensible that for inadvertently eating and drinking together on the Day of Atonement one should be responsible only for one sacrifice since in that case, one infringes on two separate biblical prohibitions and should be liable for two separate sacrifices. Similarly, if one illegitimately ate and drank heave he should be liable for two separate fifths. Since in both cases the Mishnah treats eating and drinking together, the verse cannot express a separate status for drinking; the addition of anointing and drinking is rabbinic interpretation but not biblical law and there is no reason to exclude anointing.?

“Although the Cohen may want to forgive this, he has no right to forgive.³⁴Quote from the Mishnah.” That is, if he did not yet separate. If he separated and after that ate³⁵Not from the heave but the replacement of the heave., the disagreement of Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, as it is stated: “(Lev. 22:14) ‘He shall give the holy food to the Cohen,’ his delivery sanctifies it so that he cannot eat it because it is heave. Also the separation sanctifies it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth, the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon. Also the separation sanctifies it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth preventing him from eating it because it is heave.³⁶The text is garbled in both mss.; the position of R. Eleazar is quoted twice, that of Rebbi is missing. It is probable that the original text was similar to Sifra Emor Pereq 6(7): “I could think that the separation [taking the payment out of some profane food] sanctifies it so that one would be obligated for principal and fifth; the verse says ‘He shall give the holy food to the Cohen,’ his delivery sanctifies it so that one [any non-Cohen] will be liable for principal and fifth, but the separation does not sanctify it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, also the separation sanctifies it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth.””

Some want to understand it from this (Deut. 12:17): “You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your cider, and your shining oil.”²⁵Both drinking and anointing are subsumed under “eating”. ‘Your cider’, that is the wine. ‘And your shining oil’ refers to anointing and the Torah called it ‘eating’. But this is not clear. If it were clear one should be whipped because of it outside the walls²⁶If the verse were a formal identification of anointing and eating as far as Second Tithe is concerned, the use of impure heave oil for anointing should be a criminal offense.! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one is whipped outside the walls only for pure Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and left²⁷This amoraïc statement is part of the objection.. From where that it is not clear? From what was stated²⁸The text from here to the end of the next paragraph is only hinted at in Yoma; it is in Šabbat 9:4, fol. 12a–b, the fullest text in Ta‘aniot 1:6, fol. 64c.: “On the Sabbath, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Ab and public fasts²⁹Fasts in a winter of draught, whose rules are modeled on those for the Ninth of Ab. anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted.” Did we not state: “Anointing is equal to drinking for prohibition and replacement³⁰Referring to illegal use of heave and dedicated food by non-Cohanim and its replacement by 5/4 of the value taken. but not for punishment, on the Day of Atonement for prohibition but not for punishment³¹The only biblical prohibitions on the Day of Atonement are eating, drinking, and working. The other two, anointing and sexual relations, are rabbinic and not subject to biblical punishment.”? Did we not state (Lev. 22:15): “They should not desecrate,” to include him who anoints and him who drinks³²The verse refers to the non-Cohen who “eats” holy food in error.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no ‘anoints’ here. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no ‘anoints’ here then there is no ‘drinks’ for otherwise something that comes from two different prohibitions would be added together³³If the verse in Lev. is needed to include drinking in eating then it is incomprehensible that for inadvertently eating and drinking together on the Day of Atonement one should be responsible only for one sacrifice since in that case, one infringes on two separate biblical prohibitions and should be responsible for two separate sacrifices. Similarly, if one illegimately ate and drank heave one should be responsible for two separate fifths. Since in both cases the Mishnah treats eating and drinking together, the verse cannot express a separate status for drinking; the addition of anointing and drinking is rabbinic interpretation but not biblical law and there is no reason to exclude anointing.!

For the Eternal⁴²Lev. 22:26., to include the he-goat which is sent away that it can be disqualified for lacking time⁴³A he-goat which is not at least eight days old may not be used on the Day of Atonement. Even though the he-goat sent into the wilderness is not a sacrifice, by the process of drawing lots it is a potential sacrifice and has to be qualified as such. Babli 63b, Sifra Emor Parasha 8(6).. This comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth⁴⁴Since for him it might be the choice of the High Priest to select the he-goat as sacrifice, one understands that a separate verse is needed to require both he-goats to be eligible at the same time. But for R. Yannai, for whom only the drawing determines which animal is chosen, it should be obvious that both have to be eligible. Then why is a separate verse needed?. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why is there said, lots? Should we not be concerned that maybe it is drawn for the Eternal? He explains it if he wants to draw lots⁴⁵To prohibit that one could take the risk that an ineligible animal be drawn as sacrifice and in this case start again with another pair and a new drawing..

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..

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..

So far something than one lifts and thereby permits for lay persons. Something one lifts and permits for Heaven⁴⁴Heave is considered Heaven’s property given to the Cohen.? Let us hear from the following: ⁴⁵Sifra Emor Pereq 4(10). There, the reading is לעירובים לפחות ממאה “mixtures in less than 100 parts.” The paragraph deals with sanctified food eaten outside the Temple precinct, the common example of which is heave.(Lev. 22:7) “ ‘After that he shall eat from⁴⁶מן is taken as partitive: some, not all, is permitted the pure Cohen. the holy foods because it is his bread.’ There exists holy food which he does not eat; that excludes mixtures of more than one in 100”⁴⁷If the forbidden (impure) is more than 1/100 of the permitted (pure) heave..

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: Even if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, does the verse agree with Rebbi Meïr? Is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to pay money; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to pay money.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: Even if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, does the verse agree with Rebbi Meïr? Is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to pay money; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to pay money.

⁴⁸Sifra Emor Pereq 4(11). The explanation follows R. Abraham ben David ad loc.“Not only heave food in heave food⁴⁹Impure heave in pure heave. An impure Cohen who eats pure heave has committed a deadly sin since it is said: (Lev. 22:9) “They will die from it because they desecrated it.” Impure heave is already desecrated; an impure priest eating it commits a sin but not a deadly one. The impure heave cannot become insignificant in pure since the two are of the same kind.; from where heave food in profane food⁵⁰One seah of heave in less than 100 seot of pure (and certainly one seah of pure in less than 100 seot of heave) must all be treated as heave., profane food in heave food, heave food in sacrificial food, sacrificial food in heave food, heave drink in heave drink, heave drink in profane drink, profane drink in heave drink, heave drink in sacrificial drink, sacrificial drink in heave drink, sacrificial drink in sacrificial drink? From where? The verse says (Lev. 22:7) ‘From the holy foods⁵¹The plural implies all kinds of sanctified food. The singular is used in v. 10.’, it adds.” Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Explain it if the log of oil of the skin-diseased was mixed with the excess of the loaves of the gift of the nazir⁵²This explains a possible complication of “sacrificial drink in sacrificial drink”. The person healed from his skin disease has to bring a reparation offering together with a log of oil (Lev. 14). Part of the oil is used on the healed person’s body; the remainder is for the Cohen under the rules of the reparation offering; it must be consumed by priests in the Temple precincts. The nazir who has completed his vow has to bring sacrifices and a cereal offering consisting of unleavened bread made from flour mixed with oil and unleavened bread anointed with oil (Num. 6:13–20). The officiating Cohen receives one of these as gift added to the nazir’s well-being sacrifice; therefore, the loaves may be eaten by the Cohen’s family anywhere in the city of the sanctuary. If there is a mix-up of the oils, the anointed loaves can be eaten only by the Cohen in the Temple precinct.; so we have stated, two drinks. Rebbi Ḥanania said, that means burned offerings in burned offerings; but purification offerings in burned offerings is certainly a prohibition⁵³A mixture of pieces of elevation and purification offerings cannot be brought to the altar since of purification offerings only the fat and some inner organs are burned. They cannot be eaten since elevation sacrifices are forbidden for any use. They cannot become insignificant because (a) they are of the same kind of meat and (b) they are counted as pieces. Therefore, one has to leave the meat for the next day when all will be forbidden and has to be burned..

Who disagrees?⁴⁸With the criterion of three stars for the start of night. Rebbi Ḥanina the Colleague of the Rabbis⁴⁹He usually goes by the name of R. Ḥananiah the Colleague of the Rabbis, a Babylonian who was an important teacher of the leaders of the fourth generation of Amoraim but who never headed a talmudic academy. He insists that it is logical to assert that as long as three stars can still be seen at dawn it is night even though it is relatively light and (Mishnah 5) one may well distinguish between dark blue and white, or between dark blue and dark green. Hence, since the theory of the three stars contradicts the Mishnah it must be invalid. asked: Just as you say in the evening that it is night if three stars are visible even though the sun is in the middle of the sky it is night, so you must say the same thing in the morning. Rebbi Abba⁵⁰R. Abba also was a Babylonian, a student of Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah in Babylonia, who went to Israel and became a rich silk merchant and talmudic authority of the third generation of Amoraim, a contemporary of R. Ḥanina the Colleague of the Rabbis. His argument parallels the previous one but, since it is based on Biblical verses, it seems to be an attack on the Mishnah which gives different treatments to dawn and dusk.
The first verse asserts that Lot came to Zoar at sunrise. The second verse asserts that the Cohen who had cleansed himself from impurity is purified at nightfall as explained earlier. The argument seems to center on the ambiguous statement “the sun will come and he will be pure.” Everywhere, the “coming” of the sun is its going, sundown or nightfall. In the first verse, the coming of Lot to Zoar is real coming, parallel to the going out of the sun. Hence, in the first verse coming and going out are the same. It would follow that, in the second verse also, coming must have the same status as going out since it is one of the principles of Rabbinic interpretation that Biblical expressions have the same meaning at every occurrence (a principle known as gĕzērāh šāwāh.) Hence, the different treatment of dawn and dusk in the Mishnah seems to contradict the principles of Rabbinic Bible interpretation. said: It is written (Gen. 19:23): “The sun went out over the earth and Lot came to Zoar.” And it is written (Lev. 22:7): “The sun will come and he shall be pure.” He brackets going out and coming. Since coming means that it is hidden from the creatures so also its coming out when it will be ascertained by the creatures. Rebbi Abba⁵¹It is not known if this Rebbi Abba, solving the puzzle, is the same as the author of the preceding question or another sage of the same name. The editorial principle of the Babli, to quote an authority the first time as פלוני אמר and the following times as אמר פלוני or ואמר פלוני does not apply to the Yerushalmi. said, it is written (Gen. 43:3): “In the morning it was light.” The Torah called the light morning.⁵²The Biblical text tells of Joseph’s brothers leaving Egypt to return to Canaan. Hence, it means the first dawn which was the first possible time for their leaving, and the Biblical verse connects the technical meaning of “morning” with the first light of dawn. Hence, the asymmetry of treating dawn and dusk is Biblical and Rebbi Ḥanina’s and Rebbi Abba’s arguments are unjustified. Rebbi Ismael⁵³He is a Tanna, an older contemporary of Rebbi Akiba and head of his own school. The sentence is a quote from an anonymous statement in Mekhilta dĕRibbi Ishmaël, Bo, 6): “ ‘They shall eat the meat during that night’; from here I understand during the entire night. The verse says ‘do not leave any leftovers until morning; but anything left over until morning you shall burn in fire.’ Why does the verse repeat ‘until morning’? To give a domain to the earliest part of morning. From here they said (Mishnah 3–4): ‘The consumption of the Passover sacrifice and all other sacrifices, the burning of their parts on the altar can be done until the start of dawn and all sacrifices that must be eaten within one day can be eaten until the start of dawn.’ Why did the Sages decree (that all must be done) until midnight? To remove people from transgression and to make a fence around the Torah.”
This is an additional indication that the earliest possible sign of dawn is the Biblical start of a new day. stated: (Ex. 12:10) “In the morning, in the morning,” to give a domain to the very early morning.

MISHNAH: The daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel⁷⁴She used to eat heave when unmarried. Once she is married outside the tribe, heave is forbidden to her (Lev. 22:12). However, if the marriage is dissolved without issue, she returns to eat heave (v. 13). This implies that even in her marriage she is not a stranger in the sense of v. 13; the obligation of payment of a fifth (v. 14) cannot apply to her. It is clear that one has returned to the case of eating heave in error, not intentionally. who afterwards ate heave pays the principal but does not pay the fifth; her death is by burning⁷⁵If she commits adultery, Lev. 21:9.. If she married one of the ineligible⁷⁶A castrate, bastard, Ammonite or Moabite (Deut. 23:2–4), or a Cohen after she had been divorced (Lev. 21:7). In these cases, even if her marriage is dissolved, she may never return to eating heave since she is desecrated. R. Meïr holds that she is now a stranger to her former tribe., she pays principal and fifth and her death is by strangulation⁷⁷The normal penalty for adultery, which applies to the adulterer in all cases., the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say⁷⁸Since in Lev. 21:9 she is characterized as “daughter of a Cohen man,” and this she remains [Sifra Emor Parašah 5(7), Babli Sanhedrin 51a]. The involved formulation is taken to include also illegitimate offspring of a Cohen [Sifra Emor Pereq 1(16)]. In Babli Keritut 6a, the opinion of the Sages is traced to R. Jehudah., both pay principal but not the fifth and their deaths are by burning.
He who feeds his minor children or his slaves, adult or minor, he who eats heave from outside the Land, and he who eats less than the volume of an olive of heave pays the principal but not the fifth⁸⁸Lev. 22:14: “If a man ate in error from the holy [food], then he has to add a fifth and hand over the holy [food] to the Cohen.” In the first cases of the Mishnah, he himself does not eat; therefore, he is not covered by the verse. But minors and slaves are not responsible; they cannot be asked to pay. Heave from outside the Land is of questionable holiness. Less than the volume of an olive may be nibbling; it is not eating.. The payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive it, he may forgive.
This is the principle: In every case one pays the principal and the fifth, the payment is heave and although the Cohen may want to forgive, he may not forgive. In every case one pays the principal but not the fifth, the payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive, he may do so.

Rebbi Yannai said, the Mishnah is split⁶⁷The entire argument refers only to the last case, heave stolen from the sanctuary.. If there is the size of an olive but it is not worth a peruṭah⁶⁸A peruṭah, a small Hasmonean coin, ⅙ or ⅛ of an as. Theft of less than a peruṭah is not prosecutable and does not entitle the injured person to ask for restitution. In the case under consideration, there was sin but no monetary restitution is possible; there is no principal but the fifth has to be paid. But Lev. 22:14 ends: He hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen. Since “handing over” implies something substantial, it must be the value of at least a peruṭah. This means that in this case, restitution to the Cohen is excluded; the recipient must be the Sanctuary even though legally no larceny has occured., he pays to the Sanctuary. If it is worth a peruṭah but is not the size of an olive, he pays to the tribe. If it is the size of an olive and is worth a peruṭah, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he pays to the Sanctuary⁶⁹Both the principal and the fifth.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe⁷⁰For use of heave. The other fifth, for use of consecrated things, must go to the Sanctuary. R. Zeïra disagrees since the argument from the verse applies only to the payment of the fine for heave.. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is a decision of the verse (Lev. 22:14): “If somebody should eat consecrated food in error,” where the principal goes, there the fifth has to go. Cahana said, he pays two fifths, one to the tribe⁷¹Since the principal and the fifth for heave has to be profane food. The question of the second fifth, fine for illicit use of consecrated food, is not addressed here. and one to the Sanctuary.

⁷¹Babli 6b; Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 11(9). And from where that it speaks only about the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta? He warned and punished about impurity⁷²In Lev. 22:15–16, both warning and punishment are written for priests who would violate the purity of the Sanctuary and its sancta. For the laity the corresponding verses are Lev. 7:19–20. The sacrifice for violations in purity is mentioned in Lev. 5:2–3; one has to establish that no sacrifice is possible for violations of sancta which do not belong to the Sanctuary such as heave. and required a sacrifice about impurity. Since punishment and warning spelled out later on refer to impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta⁷³Deut. 26:14. The person who comes to eat his Second Tithe at the place of the Sanctuary has to make a declaration that he followed all the rules; in particular that he did not eat of it while in “deep mourning”, occupied in burying a close relative. Second Tithe has to be eaten in purity but no sanction for violation of its purity is spelled out anywhere in the Pentateuch., also when He made liable for a sacrifice it is about impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, since it says, I did not eat from it in my deep mourning⁷⁴Deut.14., I could think that an Israel who ate tithe in deep mourning should bring a sacrifice. The verse says, from thes e⁷⁵Lev. 5:4. Prefix מ always is read as partitive, “some but not all.” Since it is not spelled out which infractions of the laws of impurity (or of testimony, or oaths) are included, and which are excluded, the detailed rules are left to rabbinic interpretation. Babli 33b.. For some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. I will exclude tithe which is not a deadly sin but will not exclude heave which is a deadly sin as it is said, they would die from it for they desecrated it⁷⁶Lev. 22:9. First Tithe (of which heave of the tithe was separated) is totally profane in the hand of the Levite. Second Tithe has to be eaten in purity at the place of the Sanctuary but there is no penalty for violation of its purity. But heave has to be eaten by the Cohen in purity and violation of its purity is a deadly sin.. The verse says from thes e; for some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. Or since there⁷⁷The verse mentioned in Note 76. [one speaks about] heave, also here heave. But did you not learn it from foreign worship⁷⁸The sacrifice atoning for inadvertent idolatry is declared paradigmatic for all sins in Num. 15:22.? Since foreign worship teaches about all transgressions in the Torah, to say that as foreign worship is special that one is liable for extirpation if done intentionally and for a sacrifice if done unintentionally⁷⁹The sacrifice is spelled out in Num. 15:22–29; extirpation in vv. 30–31. Babli Šabbat 69a.. This excludes heave which only is a deadly sin⁸⁰But no extirpation is mentioned for violating purity of heaves..

Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi said before Rebbi Abbahu: Did not Rebbi Zeїra and Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq, say that they voted on the upper floor of the Libzah house²⁴In the Babli, Sanhedrin 74a, this is called the Nitzah house. in Lydda: About all the Torah, if a Gentile tells a Jew to transgress any commandment of the Torah except those concerning idolatry, incest and adultery, and murder he should transgress and not be killed. That is in private, but in public he should not follow him even for the slightest commandment, as exemplified by Julianus and his brother Pappos whom they gave water in a colored glass²⁵Julianus and Pappos were famous martyrs from the time of Trajan. It is not clear which commandment they were ordered to transgress. (A change of consonant from J to L also occurs in Italian Luglio(“month of July”) from Latin Julius. and they did not accept. He said, they do not intend to lead you to apostasy, they only want to collect annona. What means “in public”? The rabbis of Caesarea say ten, as it is written²⁶In the Babli, Sanhedrin74b, it is noted that the verse in itself does not prove anything but that one has to compare the wording “I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel,” with Num. 16:21 “separate yourselves from the midst of this congregation”, where Qoraḥ and his adherents were 10. The main inference from the verse is that the public has to be Jewish; a single Jew with many Gentiles is not in public. (Lev. 22:32): “I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel.”

⁷¹Babli 6b; Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 11(9). And from where that it speaks only about the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta? He warned and punished about impurity⁷²In Lev. 22:15–16, both warning and punishment are written for priests who would violate the purity of the Sanctuary and its sancta. For the laity the corresponding verses are Lev. 7:19–20. The sacrifice for violations in purity is mentioned in Lev. 5:2–3; one has to establish that no sacrifice is possible for violations of sancta which do not belong to the Sanctuary such as heave. and required a sacrifice about impurity. Since punishment and warning spelled out later on refer to impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta⁷³Deut. 26:14. The person who comes to eat his Second Tithe at the place of the Sanctuary has to make a declaration that he followed all the rules; in particular that he did not eat of it while in “deep mourning”, occupied in burying a close relative. Second Tithe has to be eaten in purity but no sanction for violation of its purity is spelled out anywhere in the Pentateuch., also when He made liable for a sacrifice it is about impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, since it says, I did not eat from it in my deep mourning⁷⁴Deut.14., I could think that an Israel who ate tithe in deep mourning should bring a sacrifice. The verse says, from thes e⁷⁵Lev. 5:4. Prefix מ always is read as partitive, “some but not all.” Since it is not spelled out which infractions of the laws of impurity (or of testimony, or oaths) are included, and which are excluded, the detailed rules are left to rabbinic interpretation. Babli 33b.. For some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. I will exclude tithe which is not a deadly sin but will not exclude heave which is a deadly sin as it is said, they would die from it for they desecrated it⁷⁶Lev. 22:9. First Tithe (of which heave of the tithe was separated) is totally profane in the hand of the Levite. Second Tithe has to be eaten in purity at the place of the Sanctuary but there is no penalty for violation of its purity. But heave has to be eaten by the Cohen in purity and violation of its purity is a deadly sin.. The verse says from thes e; for some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. Or since there⁷⁷The verse mentioned in Note 76. [one speaks about] heave, also here heave. But did you not learn it from foreign worship⁷⁸The sacrifice atoning for inadvertent idolatry is declared paradigmatic for all sins in Num. 15:22.? Since foreign worship teaches about all transgressions in the Torah, to say that as foreign worship is special that one is liable for extirpation if done intentionally and for a sacrifice if done unintentionally⁷⁹The sacrifice is spelled out in Num. 15:22–29; extirpation in vv. 30–31. Babli Šabbat 69a.. This excludes heave which only is a deadly sin⁸⁰But no extirpation is mentioned for violating purity of heaves..

They saw the young Rebbi Abuna²⁷Nothing is known about him and about the circumstances under which he was forced to collect dung. collecting donkey’s dung on the Sabbath. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose permitted baking for Ursicinus²⁸Legate in Syria (351–354) of the emperor Gallus. At that time, the Roman government already was Christian and, while they did not yet try to convert the Jews by force, they certainly welcomed an opportunity to force the Jews to break their law. The argument of the rabbis implies that martyrdom is required only if the Gentile wants to force his religion on the Jew, not if he wants to force him to transgress the laws of the Torah. The Babli (Sanhedrin 74b) comes to the same conclusion in the case of fire worshippers who take fire for their temple where everybody comes to warm themselves. on the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, I asked before my father Rebbi Jonah, did not Rebbi Zeїra and Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq, say that they voted on the upper floor of the Libzah house in Lydda: About all the Torah, if a Gentile tells a Jew to transgress any commandment of the Torah except those concerning idolatry, incest and adultery, and murder he should transgress and not be killed. That is in private, but in public he should not follow him even for the slightest commandment, as exemplified by Julianus and his brother Pappos whom they gave water in a colored glass and they did not accept. He said, he does not intend to lead you to apostasy, he only wants to eat warm bread. What means “in public”? The rabbis of Caesarea say ten, as it is written (Lev. 22:32): “I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel.”

Rebbi Abuna asked before Rebbi Ammi: Are Gentiles required to sanctify the Name²⁹“To sanctify the Name” means to suffer martyrdom for one’s faith (under the conditions spelled out before.)? He said to him (Lev. 22:32): “I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel.” Israel are required to sanctify the Name; the Gentiles are not required to sanctify the Name. Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Lazar understood it from the following (2K. 5:18): “May the Eternal forgive His servant for this³⁰Elisha permitted Naaman to accompany his king to a pagan temple and to bow down there; for a Jew that would be unthinkable. Same argument in Babli Sanhedrin 74b, in the name of the school of Rav., etc.” Israel are required to sanctify the Name; the Gentiles are not required to sanctify the Name.

They asked before Rebbi Zeïra, in that situation⁶⁶To give money to an Israel so that he should give his heave or the firstborn of his flock to a designated Cohen., a Cohen to an Israel, what is the rule? At Rebbi Yose’s they said that he did not answer. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he said to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly⁶⁷That people could think that he buys the gifts for himself; this would be forbidden. He should not do it lest he get a reputation as a sinner.? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly⁶⁸In the opinion of R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina the rabbis, not the Bible, prohibited the farmer from having any material gain from his heave and tithes.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is desecration of sacrifices and you said because it looks badly? Because of the following, as it was stated:⁶⁹Tosephta Demay 5:20, a slightly longer version. “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they desecrate them! In addition, they said⁷⁰By a decree of the Court, which has the power of removing property rights, anything that the Cohen receives is tevel and he has to give its heave and tithes to another Cohen. This is made explicit in the Tosephta. that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha 3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes and their priests come for a price⁷¹And their prophets perform witchcraft for money. The three punishments for the three sins are: Zion will be ploughed as a field, Jerusalem will be desolate, and the Temple Mount a wooded hill..’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophies; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, etc.’”

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, one repays from one kind for another kind which is not the same, on condition that he repay with better quality for worse, but Rebbi Aqiba says, one only repays from one kind for its own.
Therefore, if one ate green melon of the year before the Sabbatical, he should wait for green melons of the year following the Sabbatical and repay from them⁸⁰Sabbatical produce is all consecrated and cannot be used, even for those kinds that legally can be tended on private plots, or spontaneous growth which is forbidden by rabbinic decree.. From the verse which Rebbi Eliezer reads to be lenient, from there Rebbi Aqiba is restrictive, since it is said (Lev. 22:14): “He hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen,” anything that may be consecrated, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But Rebbi Aqiba says, “he hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen,” the consecrated food he himself ate.

HALAKHAH: “A widow to the High Priest,” etc. What is the reason of the rabbis? “Being” is mentioned here⁵⁴Lev. 21:7: “[The Cohen] shall be holy for you.” and “being” is mentioned there, “if a girl will be betrothed to a man⁵⁵Deut. 22:23, a shortened quote..” Just as “being” there means betrothal, so “being” here means betrothal⁵⁶The status of sanctity of a woman entering a Cohen’s house is determined by her betrothal. The argument follows R. Ismael’s rule, Note 45.. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon? “Being” is mentioned here⁵⁴Lev. 21:7: “[The Cohen] shall be holy for you.” and “being” is mentioned there, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s⁵⁷Lev. 22:12.”. Just as “being” there means marriage, so “being” here means marriage. Rebbi Yosa said, from where do Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon know that the daughter of a Cohen betrothed to an Israel may not eat heave⁵⁸In Mishnah 7:4 it is stated without opposition that betrothal of a Cohen’s daughter to an Israel disables her from eating have (but does not enable a daughter of an Israel engaged to a Cohen to eat heave).? Not from that verse, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s”? Here they make it betrothal, there they make it marriage!⁵⁹The question remains unanswered, the arguments presented up to here are inconsistent. What is the reason of the rabbis? “A man’s”, the man who enables to eat⁶⁰Sifra Emor Parashah5(7): “ ‘If the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s’, this includes not only a bastard, from where even to a Levi or an Israel? The verse says, ‘an outside man’s’. From where a widow to the High Priest, a divorcee or one who had participated in ḥalîṣah to a private Cohen? The verse says ‘a man’s’, a man’s who enables to eat.”
The rather cryptic argument here and in Sifra makes reference to the rule (Mishnah 7:3) that only a man can enable a (non-priestly) woman to eat heave, not a fetus. An Israel woman married to a Cohen eats heave as long as her husband is alive or after his death if she has children, but not if she is the pregnant widow of an otherwise childless man. She will only regain her status as member of the priestly clan after she has given birth. This explains the emphasis of the verse which is formulated לאיש זר and not simply לזר.
For the rabbis, the entire verse refers to betrothal.. Is it not an argument de minore ad majus⁶¹Sifra Emor Parashah 5(8). The Babli, 56b, tries an equally invalid argument.? Since an Israel, whose intercourse does not disable her⁶²A (widowed) daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel may return to her priestly status if she becomes a childless widow. from the priesthood, by intercourse will disable her from eating heave⁶³Once she is married to an Israel by intercourse, she is barred from eating heave., the High Priest, whose intercourse does disable her from the priesthood⁶⁴He desecrates any widow by his intercourse., it should be logical that his intercourse will disable her from eating heave. No. If you argue about an Israel who cannot enable others to eat, what can you say about the High Priest who can enable others to eat? Since he can enable others to eat, his intercourse should not disable her from eating heave. The argument de minore ad majus is broken, and one has to return to the verse. Therefore, it must say “a man’s”; viz., the man who enables her to eat. ⁵³Text from ms. A.
Ms. L and editio princeps: מַה טַעֲמָא לֹא אָֽמְרוּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נִישּׂוּאִין פּוֹסְלִין אוֹתָהּ מִלּוֹכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לוֹכַל אוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לוֹכַל. נִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא אִם לֹא יְדָעָהּ מִשּׁוּם מַה נַעֲשֶׂה פְצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה הֲרֵי יֹאכֵלוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר. הָדָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לֶאֱכוֹל וְהָכָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהַאֲכִיל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. נִבְעֲלוּ בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין פְּסוּלוֹת. לֹא נִבְעֲלוּ בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין .מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין כְּשֵׁירוֹת.
What is the reason that Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon did not say that marriage disables them from eating heave? What do Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon in this case? Because he may eat or because he is not fit to eat? Let us hear from the following: “If he did not know her why his testicles became injured or his penis cut off, these they enable to eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon. You have to say, here it is because he enables to eat, there because he enables to eat. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not only from marriage. If they had copulated whether betrothed or married, they are disabled; if they had not copulated whether betrothed or married, they are enabled.
The text is seen to be corrupt. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon⁶⁵Interpreting the same verse as do the majority rabbis., because he may eat or because he may enable to eat? Let us hear from the following⁶⁶Mishnah 8:1. Since men with injured testicles or torn-off penis cannot marry (Deut. 23:2), if they are Cohanim their intercourse desecrates. They themselves are also barred from eating sanctified food. If they were healthy when they married, their wives retain their priestly status even if the priest who brought them into the priesthood loses his.: “If he did not know her after his testicles became injured or his penis cut off, these they enable to eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon⁶⁷The Amora R. Eleazar holds that the rabbis, who exclude the betrothed in a forbidden union from eating heave even though betrothal is an acquisition, must also exclude the wife of a man whose intercourse will disable her. The statement is quoted in the Babli, 75a, and contrasted (as in the Yerushalmi, Halakhah 8:1) with the opinion of R. Joḥanan that the rabbis can agree because she started to eat with permission; that permission cannot disappear without anything happening involving her person. According to R. Joḥanan, nothing is proven here.. You have to say, here it is because he⁶⁸The Cohen before his accident. enables to eat, there⁶⁹The High Priest who never could enable a widow. because he cannot enable to eat. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not really from betrothal or marriage. If they had copulated whether betrothed or married, they are disabled; if they had not copulated whether betrothed or married, they are enabled⁷⁰In the Babli, 57b, this is the opinion of Samuel, interpreting the position of the rabbis (against the authoritative opinion of Rav)..

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who quarrels with the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reached¹²²All Mishnah manuscripts, all Yerushalmi sources of the Mishnah, and all Babli sources (Berakhot 33b, Megillah 25a) have יגיעוּ but all texts in the discussion have הגיעוּ. over a bird’s nest but did not reach this man¹²³“This man” in Talmudic speech means “me”. {The same usage is found in Greek (ὅδε) and Latin (hic), (E. G.).}! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who makes finite the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reach down to the bird’s nest¹²⁴His mercies reach down to a bird’s nest but not to insects and worms.. Some Tannaïm formulate “over”, some Tannaïm formulate “to”. He who says “over” supports Rebbi Phineas, he who says “to” supports Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said¹²⁵In Babli sources (Berakhot 33b, Megillah 25a), the statement is attributed either to R. Yose bar Abun or to R. Yose bar Zabida.: They do not act well who declare the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy. And those¹²⁶Targum Yerushalmi (Pseudo-Jonathan) to Lev. 22:28, with minor changes. who translate (Lev. 22:21) “My people Israel, just as I am merciful in Heaven so you should be merciful on earth. A cow or a mother sheep, it and its young you should not slaughter together on one day,” they do not act well because they declare the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy.

They asked before Rebbi Zeїra: a Cohen to an Israel, Rebbi forbids. What does Rebbi Yose say? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he responded to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. In addition, because of the following, as it was stated: “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha 3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes, [their priests are for hire].’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophies; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, Jerusalem will be desolate, and the Temple Mount a wooded hill.’

Rebbi Eleazar said, παρά βασιλέως ‘ο νόμος ʼάγραφος²³²“For the king the law is unwritten.”. Usually in the world a king of flesh and blood decides a decision. If he desires it, he keeps it. If he²³³Translated following G and A. In the text: “if they want”. desires it, others keep it. But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not so but if He decides a decision He keeps it first. What is the reason? They have to keep My watch, I am the Eternal²³⁴Lev. 22:9., I am He Who keeps the commandments of the Torah first. Rebbi Simon said, it is written, before white hairs you have to stand, and honor the presence of an elderly person, and to fear your God, I am the Eternal²³⁵Lev. 19:32.. I am He Who first stood before an elderly person²³⁶Gen. 18:2.. Rebbi Simon said, it is written²³⁷Deut. 4:8, misquoted.: for who is a great people which has just laws and ordinances, etc. <For who is this great people that has God close to it²³⁸Deut. 4:7, text of G. A only quotes the first words of the verse, but clearly this indicates v. 7, not v. 8. Since in the ms. the start of v. 7 is grafted on the text of v. 8 it is reasonable to assume that the original quote is v. 7..> Rebbi Ḥama ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Hoshaia. One said, is there a people like this people? Usually in the world a person who knows that he will stand in trial dresses in black, wears black headdress, and lets his beard grow, since he does not know how his trial will end. But Israel are not so, but they wear white, wear white headdress, cut their beard, eat, and drink, and are happy²³⁹On New Year’s Day.. They know that the Holy One, praise to Him, will perform wonders for them. But the other one said, is there a people like this people? Usually in the world if the ruler says, the trial is today, but the robber²⁴⁰Greek ληστής. says, tomorrow is the trial, whom does one listen to, not the ruler? But the Holy One, praise to Him, is not like this. If the Court said, today is New Year’s Day, the Holy One, praise to Him, says to the angels of service, put up the dais, [summon defenders²⁴¹Greek συνήγορος., summon accusers²⁴²Greek κατήγωρ. A instead reads ספיקטורין which probably is shortened from ספקלטורין, Semitic plural of Latin speculator “examiner.”, for My children said that today is New Year’s Day.]²⁴³Corrector’s addition, confirmed by G. If the Court took counsel to transfer it to the next day, the Holy One, praise to Him, says to the angels of service, remove the dais, remove the defenders, remove the accusers, for My children took counsel to transfer to tomorrow. What is the reason? Certainly, it is a rule for Israel, a law of the God of Jacob²⁴⁴Ps. 81:5.. If it is not a rule for Israel, so to speak²⁴⁵The customary expression to excuse anthropomorphisms. Babli 8b. it is not a law for the God of Jacob. Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In the past, the festive times of the Eternal, from then and onwards which You shall declare²⁴⁶Lev. 23:2. While the holidays are declared to be “the Eternal’s holidays”,
since they depend on calendar dates, the actual dates are fixed not by God but by the calendar authorities. Cf. Shevi`it10:2 Notes 53–54.. Rebbi Ila said, if you declare them they are My festive times, otherwise they are not My festive times. Rebbi Simon said, it is written, great things You did, You, Eternal my God, Your wonders and intentions regarding us²⁴⁷Ps. 40:6.. In the past, great things You did; from then onwards, Your wonders and intentions regarding us²⁴⁸This passage is explained in A: “From the creation of the world up to Moses did the Holy One, praise to Him, compute the motions of the stars, and New Moons, and turning points (Note 161). When Moses was appointed, He handed over to him the secret of the calendar as it is said, this month is for you the head of months. Up to this time it was Mine, from now on it is delivered to you.” The following parables have to be explained as exploring the meaning of this handing over the sacred calendar to human interpretation.. Rebbi <Joshua ben>²⁴⁹Added from G and A. This attribution is most likely correct even though the Yerushalmi, in contrast to the Babli, does not in general follow a chronological sequence of the quotes. R. Joshua ben Levi, great authority of the first generation of Amoraim, can precede the second generation authority R. Yose ben Ḥanina better than the third generation preacher (but not halakhic authority) R. Levi. Levi said, a parable of a king who had a watch; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a parable of a king who had a watch-box; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Aḥa said, a parable of a king who had a ring; when his son came of age, he handed it to him. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, a parable of a carpenter who had carpenter’s tools; when his son came of age, he handed them to him. Rebbi Isaac said, a parable of a king who had treasures; when his son came of age, he handed them to him. But the rabbis say, a parable of a healer who had a box of medicines; when his son came of age, he handed it to him.

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.?

HALAKHAH: “The fetus, the levir, the betrothal,” etc. Rebbi Simeon said, here the logic is deficient, for if it is action to disable it also should be action to enable, and if it is not action to disable it also should not be action to enable⁸⁸The wording is correct in Tosephta 9:3: “For if it is action to disable it also should be action to enable, and if it is not action to enable it also should not be action to disable.” S. Lieberman (Tosephta ki-fshutah Yebamot, pp. 83–85) shows that the question is restricted to the fetus.. Rebbi Simeon is correct; what is the reason of the rabbis? “They shall eat”, they shall enable to eat. The one who may eat enables to eat, the one who may not eat cannot enable to eat⁸⁹See above, Notes 9–10. Since in Sifra this is an argument of R. Simeon, S. Lieberman (l. c.) concludes that the objection of R. Simeon is a rhetorical device.. They objected: there is the bastard who may not eat and he enables to eat⁹⁰This is a quote from Sifra Emor Pereq 5(4), quoted in Babli 69b; the scenario is elaborated in Mishnah 7. According to Halakhah 6, Gentile or slave disable the woman partner from the priesthood; whether the child is a bastard is a matter of dispute (in Galilee, not in Babylonia). One has to assume that the desecrated mother of the disabled child has died. Since the verses Lev. 22:11,12 speak only of “born in the house” and “descendants” without qualifications, the child from an improper union is as good as one from a proper union for the rules of eating heave. The biological fathers do not disable since they cannot be legal fathers; the child is the child of his mother and God alone, cf. Peah 1:1, Note 116, Babli Niddah 31a.! There is a difference, since it is written “born in the house⁹¹Lev. 22:11. The simple meaning of the text is that slaves of a Cohen may eat heave, whether they are born in the house or bought by the master. The expression “born in the house” is extended here to disqualified children of the house.”. Then the born should enable, the not born should not enable! There is a difference, ⁹²Sifra Emor Pereq 6(1) on Lev.22:12, speaking about the issueless daughter of a Cohen returning to her father’s house to eat sanctified food. The text is also quoted in Babli 67b. since it is written “and she returns to her father’s house”, to exclude the one waiting for the levir, “in her youth”, to exclude the pregnant one. Rebbi Yose said, that⁹³The language is not quite appropriate; it is influenced by the context of the quote at the end of the paragraph. R. Yose notes that the Tanna of Sifra interprets the biblical verse as implying the status of the fetus as described in the sentence; he should have said “the verse considers …”. The formulation as given is appropriate for the version of Ze‘ira/the rabbis who refer to rabbinic rules; “they” are the men of the Great Assembly who voluntarily reintroduced the rules of heave and tithes. means that they considered pregnancy to be real to disable but did not consider it real to enable to eat. The words of the rabbis disagree since Ze‘ira⁹⁴Cf. Berakhot 2:1, Note 54. said, there⁹⁵In Babylonia. No parallel to this statement is found. they state that the betrothed, the one waiting for the levir, and the pregnant, pay the capital but not the fifth⁹⁶If a person who is not enabled to eat heave transgresses and eats it, in general he is liable to pay for the amount he took plus a 25% fine to the priesthood; cf. Terumot, Chapters 6,7. Mishnah Terumot 7:2 states that the daughter of a Cohen never loses her priestly status, even if she is disabled from eating heave, to the effect that she never pays the fine.. What are we speaking about? If about the daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel, even if she had children from him she is not an outsider for it. But we must deal with the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen. If you say, they considered the fetus to be real to disable but did not consider it real to enable to eat, why does she pay the capital but not the fifth, should she not pay capital and fifth⁹⁷Since even the marriage of the daughter of an Israel to a Cohen does not free her from the fine incurred before her marriage, Mishnah Terumot 6:2. This proves that the rule cannot be biblical; the reference to the verse is not a proof.?

“If she spent six months for her husband and six months for the levir, she cannot eat heave. Not only six months for the levir but even all the time for the levir except for one day, she cannot eat heave.” The Mishna follows neither the earliest not the last Mishnah, but the intermediate development. As it was stated⁹¹A similar statement is in Tosephta 5:1, where, however, the intermediate Mishnah is not mentioned. Cf. also Terumot 8:1, Note 9.: First, they were saying that a preliminarily married woman, daughter of an Israel, could eat heave, for they were explaining: “If a Cohen acquires a person, acquistion by money⁹²Lev. 22:11. The verse ends: “He shall eat [the Cohen’s sacred food]”. A parallel statement in the Babli, 57b.;” for what would be the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl⁹³The slave girl, by becoming the property of a Jew, is presumed to become Jewish by immersion in a miqweh. Then she has to follow all Jewish laws valid for women (only that, being unable to marry, she is permitted guiltless unmarried sex with everybody except Jewish men). By manumission she would become a full Jewish woman. While a Gentile cannot become impure by biblical standards, the immersion in the ritual bath makes her subject to all rules of purity. If her owner is a Cohen, she may eat his sacred food if in the appropriate state of ritual purity.
A wife is usually acquired in preliminary marriage, as far as criminal law is concerned, by a gift of money or its equivalent. The argument is shaky since one should mention that if the wife is acquired by a matrimonial contract or by sexual relations without a gift of money (Mishnah Qiddušin 1:1), there would be no reason to permit heave to the Israel woman preliminarily married to a Cohen. Nowhere do we find that the way the preliminary marriage is effected makes any difference.? They changed, to say: after twelve months, when he becomes responsible for her upkeep. The court of the later ones said: A woman never eats heave before she enters the bridal chamber⁹⁴Tosephta 5:1. However, the same Tosephta (and the Yerushalmi. Yebamot 4:12, Note 197) mentions that in a famine, R. Tarphon (a Cohen) preliminarily married 300 women to give them access to sanctified food. This means that the “later Mishnah” has to be dated some time after the destruction of the Temple when, probably, the importance of heave for the income of Cohanim was rapidly diminishing.. ⁹⁵Tosephta 5:1.”Already Rebbi Joḥanan ben Bagbag sent to Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra⁹⁶The leader of Babylonian Jewry in the first half of the 2^nd Century C.E. at Nisibis: They say in your name that the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel eats heave. He sent back the following: I had been convinced that you are knowledgeable in the secrets of the Torah, but you do not even know the rules de minore ad majus! Since money can acquire a Gentile slave girl to permit her to eat heave, but she cannot be acquired by sexual relations⁹⁷Being Gentile, she could be married to a Gentile by sexual relations. But sexual relations with her are forbidden to a Jew and, therefore, she cannot be acquired by a Jew through sexual relations either as a slave or a wife. to permit her to eat heave, whereas a wife can be acquired by sexual relations to permit her to eat heave⁹⁸If preliminary and definitive marriage are enacted together in the bridal chamber without any gift of money, the woman is a wife and entitled to eat her husband’s food by biblical standards., it is only logical that money can acquire a wife to permit her to eat heave! But what can I do? They said that no woman eats heave before she enters the bridal chamber,” and they supported it by the verse⁹⁹Num. 18:11. The wife is part of the household only after the definitive marriage. The argument is rejected in Sifry Num. 117, since in. v. 13 a similar restriction is noted, “every pure person in your household shall eat it,” and it is a generally accepted hermeneutical principle that “two consecutive restrictions mean a relaxation”, in this case, that the wife may eat heave from the moment of the preliminary marriage. Therefore, the restriction to definitively married wives is purely rabbinical.: “Every pure person in your household shall eat it.” Rebbi Yudan said, that is an argument de minore ad majus that can be reversed! Because he could say to him, since a Gentile slave girl can be acquired by active possession¹⁰⁰The word חֲזָקָה “grasping” can have two very different meanings. In legal arguments, it denotes a general assumption which generates prima facie evidence. In the law of real estate and slaves, it denotes the exercise of possession. For example, if an intestate person dies without heirs (e. g., a proselyte who failed to start a Jewish family), his property becomes ownerless and is up for grabs. Therefore, if somebody goes to the ownerless real estate and acts as proprietor, fencing in or harvesting a field or painting a house, he has acquired the piece of real estate by his action. Similarly, if somebody takes an ownerless slave from the estate and tells him to work on his orders, the work of the slave makes him the property of the person giving the orders. The work can be quite symbolical, such as carrying a stone for a short stretch, to qualify as חֲזָקָה and if the acquirer is a Cohen, the slave is qualified to eat heave. Therefore, the means of acquisition of slave girls and wives are only partially comparable; the ways of acquisition of a slave are not subordinated to those for a wife. to permit her to eat heave, what can you say about a wife who cannot be acquired by active possession? If an argument de minore ad majus can be reversed, the argument is invalid.

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Joshua<sup>137</sup>Since R. Joshua requires that the male animals be used as elevation offerings, why does he not require that the females be used directly as well-being offerings, but sold and the proceeds used for elevation offerings?: <sup>138</sup>Lev. 22:18–19.Speak to Aaron, and his sons, and to all Children of Israel, and say to them: each single man from Israel, etc. who willoffer an elevation sacrifice to the Eternal, anything could be elevation sacrifice, voluntarily from you, unblemished, male. From where even females? The verse says, in cattle, to include females<sup>139</sup>In contrast to Lev. 1:3, whereמִן הַבָּקָר clearly is partitive, only the select from the cattle, here בַּבָּקָר, “in the herd”, is inclusive. While females cannot be elevation sacrifices, they can be dedicated that their proceeds be used for elevation sacrifices.. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar<sup>140</sup>B adds, probably correctly, “asked”.: It says male, and you are saying in cattle, to include females. Then similarly it is written unblemished, and you are saying in cattle, to include the blemished<sup>141</sup>Since Mishnah 7 starts “if there was an animal fit for the altar,” clearly excluding defective animals also according to R. Joshua, the argument is invalid and so is the prior statement of R. Ze`ira.?

There²²⁹Mishnah Bekhorot 5:2. Since a firstling is a sacrifice by birth, it has to be treated according to the rules of sacrifices. The only difference is that a dedicated sacrifice which develops a blemish must be redeemed to become profane whereas a firstling in the hands of a Cohen which develops a blemish automatically becomes quasi profane and may be eaten by everybody and in impurity. Therefore, Cohanim are suspected to induce blemishes on the firstlings in their possession., we stated: “A firstling afflicted by blood, even if it is going to die, cannot be bled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, it should be bled even if this causes a blemish. If it did cause a blemish, it should not be slaughtered because of it. Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he makes a blemish.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jehudah parallels Rabban Gamliel, the Rabbis parallel Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Joshua²³⁰In Mishnah 7 (the “first amphora”). The Babli (Bekhorot 35b) identifies the position of the Sages with that of Rebbi Joshua (i. e., the operative opinion in Bekhorot with the operative opinion in Terumot.) The Yerushalmi implies that practice should follow Rebbi Simeon.. But we have stated: “Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he knows he will cause a blemish.” This parallels the later opinion of Rebbi Joshua²³¹His opinion about the “second amphora”, where he permits to induce impurity on most of the heave in order to save a small portion in purity.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah (Deut. 12:24): “You shall not eat it; spill it onto the ground like water.” I permitted you its blood only to spill it²³²One would have expected R. Jehudah to use Deut. 15:23, speaking of the firstling: “Only its blood you shall not eat; spill it onto the ground like water.” The verse used gives the rules for animals which develop blemishes after being dedicated. This also includes firstlings.. Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, objected: That is written about [blood of] invalid sacrifices: “You shall not eat it; spill it onto the ground like water.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, you get from it for preparation²³³Blood is one of the fluids that prepare dry food to accept impurity (cf. Demay Chapter 2, Notes 136, 141). Since the rules for preparation are spelled out for water (Lev. 11:38), other fluids have this property of water only if there is a biblical verse which compares them to water.. Just as water prepares, so blood prepares. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both of them explained the same verse (Lev. 22:21): “Perfect it²³⁴Any sacrifice. shall be for goodwill; any blemish shall not be on it.” Rebbi Simeon explains: As long as it is for goodwill, you may not induce a blemish. If it is no longer for goodwill, you may induce a blemish. But the Sages say, even if it is all blemishes, you may not add a blemish²³⁵As Rashi explains in Bekhorot35b, the Sages hold that R. Simeon would be justified if the verse read “no blemish shall be on it.” But the involved language, any blemish, forbids the imposition of a new blemish on existing blemishes.
Here ends the parallel in Pesaḥim..

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Eleazar: ¹³⁸Lev. 22:18–19.Speak to Aaron and to his sons, etc., who would sacrifice to the Eternal as elevation sacrifice; everything may be brought as elevation sacrifice, by your volition, unblemished, male. I could think that this includes birds. The verse says, in cattle, not birds¹⁴⁸Since the verse restricts elevation offerings from four-legged animals to unblemished males, it is inferred that the restriction does not apply to birds [Sifra Emor Parashah7(20), Wayyiqra I Parshata6(3)]. In addition, since Lev. 1:14–17 is addressed to the individual, but Lev. 22:18–19 to the public, it is inferred that birds as elevation offerings are possible only to the individual; the public is restricted to four-legged animals. Since a gift to the Temple is a gift to the public, birds given to the Temple as part of an estate may not be sacrificed.. Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya were sitting and saying, there said Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that we find that a female is qualified as elevation offering of a bird¹²⁸Male animals are prescribed for four-legged elevation sacrifices, Lev. 1:3,10, but not for birds, 1:14 (Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata6(2,5). Argument missing in B.. And here, he¹⁴⁹Even though the statement is transmitted in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish, we do not hear that R. Joḥanan disagrees; the statement is coming from R. Joḥanan’s Academy. says so? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed it following what Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Anything which could be sacrificed neither itself nor its money’s worth is sanctified only as money’s worth¹⁵⁰If an animal is not dedicated as sacrifice and if sold, the money cannot be used to buy an animal which can validly be dedicated (Note 119), the animal is given for the upkeep of the Temple, not to the gift account.. And you are saying, this is correct. You cannot sacrifice it, for it is written in cattle¹⁵¹And the public to whom the bird was given may not dedicate it as sacrifice.. You cannot redeem it since birds cannot be redeemed.¹⁵²Mishnah Menaḥot12:1. Not only birds, but also dedicated wine and flour cannot be redeemed since the rules of redemption in Lev. 27 are formulated referring to four-legged animals only.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Eleazar: ¹³⁸Lev. 22:18–19.Speak to Aaron and to his sons, etc., who would sacrifice to the Eternal as elevation sacrifice; everything may be brought as elevation sacrifice, by your volition, unblemished, male. I could think that this includes birds. The verse says, in cattle, not birds¹⁴⁸Since the verse restricts elevation offerings from four-legged animals to unblemished males, it is inferred that the restriction does not apply to birds [Sifra Emor Parashah7(20), Wayyiqra I Parshata6(3)]. In addition, since Lev. 1:14–17 is addressed to the individual, but Lev. 22:18–19 to the public, it is inferred that birds as elevation offerings are possible only to the individual; the public is restricted to four-legged animals. Since a gift to the Temple is a gift to the public, birds given to the Temple as part of an estate may not be sacrificed.. Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya were sitting and saying, there said Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that we find that a female is qualified as elevation offering of a bird¹²⁸Male animals are prescribed for four-legged elevation sacrifices, Lev. 1:3,10, but not for birds, 1:14 (Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata6(2,5). Argument missing in B.. And here, he¹⁴⁹Even though the statement is transmitted in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish, we do not hear that R. Joḥanan disagrees; the statement is coming from R. Joḥanan’s Academy. says so? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed it following what Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Anything which could be sacrificed neither itself nor its money’s worth is sanctified only as money’s worth¹⁵⁰If an animal is not dedicated as sacrifice and if sold, the money cannot be used to buy an animal which can validly be dedicated (Note 119), the animal is given for the upkeep of the Temple, not to the gift account.. And you are saying, this is correct. You cannot sacrifice it, for it is written in cattle¹⁵¹And the public to whom the bird was given may not dedicate it as sacrifice.. You cannot redeem it since birds cannot be redeemed.¹⁵²Mishnah Menaḥot12:1. Not only birds, but also dedicated wine and flour cannot be redeemed since the rules of redemption in Lev. 27 are formulated referring to four-legged animals only.

HALAKHAH: From where that a cow of a Cohen which was appraised at an Israel’s cannot be fed vetch? The verse says (Lev. 22:11): “If a Cohen buys a living being with his money, etc.¹¹⁹(Lev. 22:11): “If a Cohen buys a living being with his money, he may eat of it; whoever is born in his house, they shall eat of his bread.” The ownership must be 100% the Cohen’s.” I could think, he may not feed it vetch, the verse says, “they”¹²⁰The argument is elliptic. It is a little more explicit in Sifra Emor Parašah 5:6: “They shall eat,” they but not an animal. I could think an animal could not eat [heave] vetch? The verse says, “a living being”.. Some Tannaïm state: I could think, he may not feed it vetch or fenugreek. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of the Torah is that here, there is no “fenugreek”¹²¹Vetch is human food only in times of famine; fenugreek is human food. R. Joḥanan follows the argument of Note 117 to exclude feeding animals heave of human food.. Did we not state: From where that a Cohen who bought a slave in partnership with an Israel, even if the latter has only a one percent interest, cannot feed him heave¹²²Why should an animal given to the Cohen on appraisal be fed heave vetch if the Israel has a continuing monetary stake in the animal?? The verse says, “If a Cohen buys.” Bar Qappara stated: Neither one of them may eat heave¹²³Bar Qappara (and the editors of the Yerushalmi) disagree with the Mishnah and forbid heave vetch in all cases of an animal given on appraisal..

HALAKHAH: “An Israel woman betrothed to a Cohen.” “Any pure person in your house may eat it,⁵⁶Num. 18:11, speaking of heave. While she was acquired by her husband (cf. Chapter 1, Note 63), she is not in his house before the actual marriage. She has a claim if the husband drags his feet for the marriage, cf. Mishnah Ketubot 5:2–3.” but she is not in his house. “From a Cohen”, for the one born in his house; this one is not born in his house⁵⁷This refers to the pregnant widow. The reason given is a misquote from Lev. 22:11: “Any born in his house, they should eat from his food.” The unborn does not eat.. “The one waiting for her Cohen levir,” “any pure person in your house may eat it,” but she is not in his house. “And also a Cohen woman betrothed to an Israel,” “a daughter of a Cohen when she will belong to an outside man⁵⁸Lev. 22:12: “she may not eat from the holy heaves.”.” One⁵⁹Speaking of the parallel cases not mentioned in the Mishnah of a Cohen’s daughter betrothed to, pregnant from, or waiting for a levir of, an Israel. pregnant from an Israel or waiting for an Israel levir: “When she returns to her father’s house⁶⁰Lev. 22:12: “she may eat from her father’s food.” The same argument in the Babli, 87a. A longer discussion in Sifra Emor Pereq 6(1),” that excludes the one waiting for her levir, “as in her youth⁵⁹Speaking of the parallel cases not mentioned in the Mishnah of a Cohen’s daughter betrothed to, pregnant from, or waiting for a levir of, an Israel.,” that excludes the pregnant one.

“An Israel woman betrothed to a Levite,” “you and your house⁶¹Num. 18:31.” but she is not in his house. “Pregnant from a Levite,” “born in the house,” this one is not born in his house⁵⁷This refers to the pregnant widow. The reason given is a misquote from Lev. 22:11: “Any born in his house, they should eat from his food.” The unborn does not eat.. Rebbi Yose said, is not “born in the house” written only for a Cohen? As you say there, whoever is born lets eat, whoever is not born does not let eat; here also whoever is born lets eat, whoever is not born does not let eat⁶²All rules for the Levites are (rabbinically) derived from those of the Cohen; they are not biblical.. “Waiting for her Levite levir,” “you and your house,” but he is not in her house. “And also a Levite woman”: “And a daughter of a Cohen when she will belong to an outside man⁵⁸Lev. 22:12: “she may not eat from the holy heaves.”.” Is there not written “daughter of a Cohen”? Rebbi Yose said “daughter”, whether she is a Cohen’s or a Levi’s⁶³This argument is a little less cryptic in the Babli, 68b, in the name of R. Abba: Since it is written “and a daughter” and not simply “a daughter”, following R. Aqiba one has to add another category of daughters who do not eat their part of agricultural produce.. The daughter of a Cohen who was married to an Israel may return and eat, the daughter of an Israel who was married to a Cohen may return and not eat. One⁶⁴Again the case of the Levite is assimilated into that of the Cohen. pregnant from an Israel or waiting for an Israel levir: “When she returns to her father’s house,” that excludes the one waiting for her levir, “as in her youth,” that excludes the pregnant one.

“By money.” Rebbi Abba was of the opinion, by money if there was no intention to write a deed. But if money was given with the intention to write a deed for him, possession was transferred only when the deed was written⁴⁸⁶Since proving title is difficult without a written deed, the buyer has no intention of accepting title without the deed. Therefore, transfer of possession is possible only by delivery of the deed unless one explicitly stipulates otherwise. In the Babli, 26a, this is a statement of Rav (Rebbi Abba bar Ayvo).. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose disagree⁴⁸⁷Since they are the collectors of the material in the Yerushalmi, their opinion is accepted as practice; it is not mentioned in the Babli for whom Samuel is the deciding authority in civil law.. It follows that Rebbi Abba parallels Samuel and Rav Huna Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Abba parallels Samuel. Samuel asked Rav Ḥuna: He was slaughtering sacrifices while being occupied⁴⁸⁸He was occupied in slaughtering profane animals when he also slaughtered an animal dedicated as sacrifice without realizing it. Is this valid slaughter? The scenario is really impossible since the slaughter of profane animals is forbidden in the holy precinct, as is the slaughter of sacrifices outside. A Temple slaughterer has to learn his trade outside the holy precinct.? He answered, “for your intention⁴⁸⁹Lev. 22:19. Babli Ḥulin 13a,” this excludes one otherwise occupied. If one wrote a gift in the language of a sale⁴⁹⁰Is a deed valid if it formulates a gift in the language of a fictitious sale? Starting here there is a shortened version, formulated differently, in Baba batra 8:5.? He answered, he made it ride on two racing horses; Rebbi Abba⁴⁹¹Since Rav was Rav Huna’s teacher, this reference must be to Rav, in whose name the expression is quoted in Babli Baba batra 152a. said this; Samuel did not accept it. What means “he made it ride on two shining racing horses”? They wanted to say, one brings two crazy horses and makes it ride on both. One goes in one direction and the other in another; he has nothing in his hand⁴⁹²Since sale and gift follow different rules, a gift formulated as sale is invalid.. Rebbi Yose from Mamelia said, he doubly empowered him, for there is a title guarantee in a sale but none for a gift⁴⁹³The seller is required to indemnify the buyer if the latter loses his land because of foreclosure of a mortgage owed by the seller. A gift is given without such guarantee.; the seller did not sell everything but the giver of a gift gave everything⁴⁹⁴A sale document is interpreted minimally: the seller of a parcel is not presumed to have sold a cistern or any other building on the parcel unless it be mentioned in the deed (Mishnah Baba batra 4:2; cf Tosaphot Qiddušin26a s. v. ולמה), but a gift document is interpreted maximally. In this interpretation of Rav, confirmed by the Babli Baba batra 152a, the holder of the deed is doubly privileged. In the Babli, Samuel is quoted as being unable to decide whether the deed is judged as sale or gift. Since Samuel is quoted as disagreeing, he must hold with R. Abba that if a deed is intended, only the deed will transfer possession.. And Rav Ḥuna parallels Rebbi Joḥanan. A person, when he lay dying, said: my property should be given to X. Afterwards he said: write and deliver. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim brought the case before Rebbi Joḥanan who said: If he said to transfer to him, everybody agrees that he entered into possession⁴⁹⁵If the first time he stated that the person designated should be his heir, the latter will inherit if the dying person made it clear that the deed will only be written as proof of title, not as means of transfer of property.. If the transfer was to be in writing, everybody agrees that nobody transfers rights in writing after his death⁴⁹⁶If the document was a deed, not a will, intended to convey possession but not delivered during the donor’s lifetime, it cannot be delivered after death (Babli Baba batra 135b).. Who would notify the greatness⁴⁹⁷If the donor intended his orally conveyed gift to convey possession, how can the recipient prove his title?? Explain it if witnesses know. Think of it, if no witnesses know it? Rebbi Yose said, the field remains in the hand of its proprietors⁴⁹⁸In this case, the legal heirs.; the burden of proof is on the claimant⁴⁹⁹Baba qama 5:1 (21b 1. 70), Babli Baba qama 27b,46b, Baba batra 92b..

¹⁷³Here starts another Genizah fragment edited by Ginzberg (pp. 74–75) of which very little is readable for this paragraph. An outsider who officiated in the Temple on the Sabbath¹⁷⁴He commits a deadly sin by officiating (Num. 18:7). In addition, the Temple service on the Sabbath requires many acts, slaughter and burning of sacrifices, which outside the Temple are capital crimes. If the act was unintentional, how many purification sacrifices are due?, or a deformed person who officiated in impurity¹⁷⁵The deformed Cohen is barred from officiating (Lev. 21:16–24). Any impure Cohen is similarly barred (Lev. 22:3). Are the disabilities cumulative or is disqualification one and the same? The question is raised but neither discussed nor answered; it is treated in the parallel in the Babli, Yebamot 32a., the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, two; bar Qappara said, one. Bar Qappara objected to the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: is the outsider liable for any service which is permitted to a Cohen¹⁷⁶Everybody agrees that as an officiating outsider he is liable for a sacrifice. The question is about the Sabbath. Outside the Temple, the Sabbath prohibitions apply to Cohanim and to everybody else. They are lifted in the Temple precinct by biblical decree. Since there is no verse re-instituting the prohibition for laymen in the Temple precinct one should conclude that violating Sabbath prohibitions in the course of Temple service is not sanctionable irrespective of the person who officiates. This is Bar Qappara’s position.? He^176aS. Lieberman has shown that וּמוֹתִיב should be read as הוּא מוֹתִיב. objected and he answered it. Is there not the handful¹⁷⁷We find that prohibitions are to be lifted for Cohanim but not for laymen inside and outside the Temple. A cereal offering is forbidden for all consumption from the moment it was received in a sanctified vessel. The priest has to take a handful from the offering and burn it on the altar; this permits the remainder to be eaten by Cohanim (Lev. 6:7–11) but it remains forbidden for all outsiders.; before the handful was taken it was forbidden for both; after the handful was taken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food¹⁷⁸Lev. 22:10. This is a separate decree independent of Temple or Sabbath.. Is there not the breaking of the neck¹⁷⁹Of sacrifices of birds, Lev. 1:15,5:9. In case of a purification offering, the bird has to be eaten by Cohanim and is prohibited to laymen; the live bird is prohibited to everybody.; before the neck was broken it was forbidden for both; after the neck was broken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. Is there not the ṭevel¹⁸⁰Produce after the harvest of which heave and tithes were not taken. After these were taken the produce becomes profane but heave is reserved to pure Cohanim. This has no connection with Temple service.; before it was put in order it was forbidden for both; after it was put in order it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. They said, let us go outside and learn. They went outside and heard, Rebbi Yose said, two; Rebbi Simeon said, one. He who said one, because of outsider status. He who said two, one because of outsider status; why the other? Because of slaughter¹⁸¹Of the sacrifices.. But slaughter by an outsider is valid¹⁸²The office of the Cohen starts only with receiving the victim’s blood in a sacred vessel; slaughter of sacrifices, even on the Sabbath, is legitimate for outsiders, mostly Levites. This bolsters Bar Qappara’s case. Babli Yebamot 33b.! But because bringing, sprinkling, and receiving¹⁸³The offices of the Cohen after the receiving of the blood. The blood is sprinkled on the wall of the altar.. These are only because of Sabbath rest¹⁸⁴If there are Sabbath violations they are only of rabbinic prohibitions which as a matter of principle do not apply to the Temple precinct.. Therefore the reason may be only because of the consumption of limbs and fat which were consumed on the altar during the entire night. In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah¹⁸⁵As explained at the end of the preceding paragraph. This is the reason for the inclusion of this paragraph at this point. who said because of setting fire it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose¹⁸⁵As explained at the end of the preceding paragraph. This is the reason for the inclusion of this paragraph at this point. who said because of cooking, what cooking is here? Since he wants their being consumed it is like cooking.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, I asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Did not [Rebbi] Zeˋira and Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yehoṣadaq, say that they voted on the upper floor of the Niṭzah house in Lydda: About all the Torah, if a Gentile tells a Jew to transgress any commandment of the Torah except those concerning idolatry, incest and adultery, and murder, he should transgress and not be killed⁷³Babli 74a.. That is in private, but in public he should not follow him even for the slightest commandment, as exemplified by Pappos and his brother Julianus to whom they gave water in a colored glass and they did not accept. He said, they do not intend to lead you to apostasy, they only want to collect annona. What means “in public”? The rabbis of Caesarea say ten, as it is written⁷⁴Lev. 22:32.: I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel.

They saw the young Rebbi Bina collecting donkey’s dung on the Sabbath. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose permitted baking for Ursicinus on the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, I asked before my father Rebbi Jonah, did not Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yehoṣadaq, say that they voted on the upper floor of the Niṭzah house in Lydda, etc.? He said, he did not intend to lead you to apostasy, he only wanted to eat warm bread.. What means “in public”? The rabbis of Caesarea say ten, as it is written⁷⁴Lev. 22:32.: I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel.

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.

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.

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.

HALAKHAH: “A slave disables because of intercourse,” etc. From where that the intercourse with a slave disables? Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “If a Cohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee without issue,¹²⁷Lev. 22:13. “If a Cohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee without issue, when she returns to her father’s house as in her youth, she shall eat from her father’s food.”” from [a man] with whom she has widowhood or divorce she returns, from [a man] with whom she has no relation of widowhood or divorce she does not return. Rebbi Jeremiah objected: But if a widow whored she has no widowhood or divorce and she returns¹²⁸If she is not married she cannot become a widow or be divorced. The objection is too stupid to deserve an answer since it is only required that she could have a marriage relationship, not that she actually must have had one.! Rebbi Yose did not say so, but [he held] that the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is reversed. In Giṭṭin he says, why are Samaritans disqualified? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Because if a Gentile or a slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard¹²⁹In our text, Giṭṭin 1:5, the statement is by R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Eleazar (the Tanna), in Qiddushin 3:14 it is an anonymous baraita. In the Babli, 45a, the statement is by R. Joḥanan and R. Eleazar (the Amora); a parallel statement in the name of Rebbi.
There is no doubt in the Yerushalmi that the original Samaritans were Jews. They consider the children of a Jewish mother from a Gentile as Jewish, as is accepted as practice, under Babylonian influence, in the next Halakhah and as already was decided in Halakhah 4:15.. In Qiddushin one says, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, the child is a bastard. Here he says it in his own name but there he says it in the name of Rebbi Ismael! For also according to the words of the Sages the child is a bastard. Rebbi Ḥizqiah did not say so, but: the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is reversed. In Giṭṭin he says, why are Samaritans disqualified? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Because if a Gentile or slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard. In Qiddushin one says, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, the child is a bastard. Here he says, from [a man] with whom she has widowhood or divorce she returns, from [a man] with whom she has no relation of widowhood or divorce she does not return¹³⁰This implies that the child of a Gentile or a slave is not a bastard since the only person to be affected is the mother who cannot return to her priestly status if she was the daughter of a Cohen.. Rebbi Mattaniah said, I went to Seḥora and heard: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Ismael the sons of Jesua: “If a Cohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee without issue,¹²⁷Lev. 22:13. “If a Cohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee without issue, when she returns to her father’s house as in her youth, she shall eat from her father’s food.”” from [a man] with whom she has widowhood or divorce she returns, from [a man] with whom she has no relation of widowhood or divorce she does not return. And I said, that is correct, there is no bastard, following Rebbi Joshua¹³¹It really is following R. Simeon from Timna (Mishnah 4:14), but the more liberal R. Joshua will certainly agree that there is no hint of bastardy attached to the child. If the child is a girl, she will be disqualified from the priesthood, cf. Halakhah 4:15., for a bastard is only from a woman which is for him under an incest prohibition and for whom one is punished by divine extirpation.

HALAKHAH: “The offering of an Israel’s daughter married to a Cohen,” etc. What is the difference between a Cohen and a Cohen’s daughter? “The flour offering of a Cohen’s daughter is eaten, that of a Cohen is not eaten.” For it is written, “any flour offering of a Cohen shall be total, it should not be eaten²⁰⁷Lev. 6:16.;” not the Cohen’s daugher’s. Rebbi Abbahu asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Is it not written: “If a Cohen acquire a person with his money²⁰⁸Lev. 22:11. The verse states that slaves of a Cohen may eat of his sanctified food and we hold (cf. Yebamot 7:1) that the slaves of a Cohen’s daughter may eat if and only if she can eat. Should the mention of the masculine form “Cohen” not exclude the daughter of a Cohen. Accepted without discussion in Babli 23b; Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 8(4).,” should that apply to a Cohen but not ro a Cohen’s daughter? How is that? “The Cohen anointed in his stead, one of his sons;²⁰⁹Lev. 6:15. Verse 16 is an appendix to a paragraph speaking only of the (male) High Priest. The son of a Cohen’s daughter belongs to his father’s clan, not hers.” one whose son fills his place, that excludes her whose son does not fill her place.

There, we have stated¹⁹⁶Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:1.: “All sacrifices whose blood was collected by a non-Cohen, a deep mourner¹⁹⁷A person obligated to bury a close relative, such as defined in Lev. 21:2–3, who from the moment of the death to the burial is barred from all sacral acts; inferred from Deut. 26:14., one immersed on this day¹⁹⁸Who is no longer impure but barred from sacral acts until sundown; Lev. 22:7., missing garments¹⁹⁹A Cohen serving while not wearing all priestly garments commits a deadly sin; Ex.28:43., missing atonement²⁰⁰A person healed from skin disease or gonorrhea who needs not only immersion in water and waiting for sundown but is excluded from sacral rites until be bring a purifying sacrifice, Lev. 14:1–32 for skin disease, 15:14–15 for the sufferer from gonorrhea., with unwashed hands or feet²⁰¹Ex. 30:19–20., uncircumcised²⁰²As the Babli points out, Zevaḥim 22b, there is no pentateuchal verse forbidding service to an uncircumcised priest, but there is one in Ezechiel, 44:9, which forbids entry to the Temple domain to any uncircumcised person, including a hemophiliac who may not be circumcised., impure²⁰³Lev. 22:2–3., sitting²⁰⁴Since the verses never permit any action in sitting, and the priests are required to be barefoot, no service is possible unless the priest is standing with his feet in direct contact with the floor of the Temple court, the Temple interior, or the altar., standing on utensils, on [an animal, on] another person²⁰⁵Meaning that another priest puts his hands under the feet of the officiating priest. Then he is not in contact with the floor., disqualified it.” The Southerners say, we hold this for those impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease²⁰⁶They read the expression “impurity of the body” used in the Mishnah to describe what the diadem does not make acceptable as impurity caused by the person’s body (i. e., in addition to skin disease and gonorrhea also sexual activity, Lev. 15:15,18.), but impurity of the dead does not desecrate since it was permitted in case of the impurity of the many for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to the Southerners: Since for the owner, where you clarified to his advantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year²⁰⁷They may send their sacrifices through an agent if they are disabled by impurity., you clarified to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ²⁰⁸He must celebrate the Second Pesaḥ., for the officiant, where you clarified to his disadvantage in case of all other impurities during the course of the year²⁰⁹He may never serve being impure., it is only logical that you should clarify to his disadvantage in case of impurity of the dead for Pesaḥ. In addition to what Rebbi stated, “the diadem makes impurity of the blood acceptable but not impurity of the body.” If you want to say that this refers to the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease, you cannot, since we have stated, “if the impurity was caused by impurity of the abyss⁸²Impurity buried in the ground which previously was totally unknown and is only recently uncovered. Since it is impossible to guard against this kind of impurity there can be no penalty for “tent impurity” of this kind., the diadem makes acceptable.²¹⁰Since impurity of the abyss only is caused by a corpse, it is not caused by the person’s body. If it is stated that the diadem makes acceptable in this case, it follows that the diadem is inactive in all cases of known impurity caused by external influences.” What are the Southerners doing with this? They explain if for the owner²¹¹The diadem only covers abyss impurity of the owner, but not proven impurity of the dead; one may still read “impurity of the body” as referring to impurity produced by the body.. But did we not state “a nazir”²¹²The only impurity forbidden for the nazir is the impurity of the dead, so in Mishnah 5 the reference must be to this kind of impurity.? They explain it for the officiant. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, there is no difference; it is equal for owner or officiant. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is an argument de minore ad maius that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged¹⁷⁷While a person unable to eat the volume of an olive of the Pesaḥ may not subscribe to it, an old or sick priest is able to serve in the Temple as long as his infirmity is not of the kind listed in Lev, 21:18–20., what can you say about the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, this is an argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, for they can say to him, no. If you argue about the owner for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are indispensable for him²¹³Since Ex. 12:48 notes that no one uncircumcised may eat it [the Pesaḥ], in v. 44, a man’s slave, bought with money, if you circumcise him he may eat it, “he” is read to refer to the owner; the owner may not eat Pesaḥ if there are uncircumcised males in his familia. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 15, dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 35, what can you say about the officiating, for whom the circumcision of his males and his slaves are not indispensable²¹⁴Cf. Note 202. An uncircumcised Cohen may not serve; nothing is said about his dependents.. And any argument de minore ad majus that can be contradicted, the argument de minore ad majus is invalid.

MISHNAH: A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel may not eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she may not eat heave. If [then] she married a Levite, she may eat tithe. If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat tithe. If [then] she married a Cohen, she may eat heave. If he died but she had a son from him, she may eat heave. If her son from the Cohen died, she may eat tithe; from the Levite, she may not eat tithe. If her son from the Israel died, she returns to her father’s house and for this case it was said: “She returns to her father’s house as in her youth⁶⁸Lev. 22:13. “If the daughter of a Cohen becomes a widow or divorcee without issue, she returns to her father’s house as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s food, but no outsider may eat of it.”.”

HALAKHAH: “A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel,” etc. Rebbi Leontes asked before Rebbi Yose: One understands that a Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. But why does the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen not eat when she should be enabled to eat⁶⁹As long as the Cohen’s son is alive she should be able to eat heave since for him she remains in the Cohen’s family after her husband’s death.? He said to him, so said Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: What means “a Cohen’s daughter⁷⁰Lev. 22:13.”, one who is trained by a Cohen. As you say, “Babylon’s ransacked daughter,⁷¹Ps. 137:8, speaking of Edom.” was she the daughter of Babylon? But she behaved in Babylon’s way. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Two daughters are mentioned in the paragraph⁷²Lev. 22:12, a daughter who does not eat, Lev. 22:13 one who does eat.. One returns and eats, the other returns but does not eat. A Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. A daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen returns but does not eat. Say also, if she was married to a qualified person, she returns and eats, to a disqualified person she returns but does not eat⁷³A Cohen’s daughter married to a person disqualified for priesthood remains permanently disabled.. Rav said, practice is that she returns to eat heave but not to eat breast and foreleg⁷⁴Cf. Chapter 8, Note 228.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she eats breast and foreleg. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated a support for Rav: “of food,⁷⁵Lev. 22:13. “If the daughter of a Cohen becomes a widow or divorcee without issue, she returns to her father’s house as in her youth; she shall eat of her father’s food.” As usual, the prefix מ is used as partitive. The same argument (anonymous) in Sifra Emor Pereq 6(1), Babli 87a.” not all the food. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated a support for Rebbi Joḥanan: “of her father’s food she shall eat,” to include the loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the cakes of the nazir.

HALAKHAH: “A Cohen’s daughter married to an Israel,” etc. Rebbi Leontes asked before Rebbi Yose: One understands that a Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. But why does the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen not eat when she should be enabled to eat⁶⁹As long as the Cohen’s son is alive she should be able to eat heave since for him she remains in the Cohen’s family after her husband’s death.? He said to him, so said Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: What means “a Cohen’s daughter⁷⁰Lev. 22:13.”, one who is trained by a Cohen. As you say, “Babylon’s ransacked daughter,⁷¹Ps. 137:8, speaking of Edom.” was she the daughter of Babylon? But she behaved in Babylon’s way. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Two daughters are mentioned in the paragraph⁷²Lev. 22:12, a daughter who does not eat, Lev. 22:13 one who does eat.. One returns and eats, the other returns but does not eat. A Cohen’s daughter who was married to an Israel returns to eat. A daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen returns but does not eat. Say also, if she was married to a qualified person, she returns and eats, to a disqualified person she returns but does not eat⁷³A Cohen’s daughter married to a person disqualified for priesthood remains permanently disabled.. Rav said, practice is that she returns to eat heave but not to eat breast and foreleg⁷⁴Cf. Chapter 8, Note 228.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, she eats breast and foreleg. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated a support for Rav: “of food,⁷⁵Lev. 22:13. “If the daughter of a Cohen becomes a widow or divorcee without issue, she returns to her father’s house as in her youth; she shall eat of her father’s food.” As usual, the prefix מ is used as partitive. The same argument (anonymous) in Sifra Emor Pereq 6(1), Babli 87a.” not all the food. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated a support for Rebbi Joḥanan: “of her father’s food she shall eat,” to include the loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the cakes of the nazir.

GEMARA. ‘R. Meir said’: The Rabbis have taught:⁶⁴The story is not found elsewhere in Talmudic literature. R. Meir once went to a certain place where an old man asked him, ‘Why is it written, It is a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the Lord,⁶⁵e.g. Ex. 29, 18. [and elsewhere it is written, An offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord]?’⁶⁶e.g. Num. 29, 13. The words within brackets are not in V but added by H. He was not in possession [of the answer], so he went to the Beth Hammidrash and inquired. They told him, ‘The one passage refers to those who occupy themselves with the study of the Torah for its own sake, and the other to those who occupy themselves not for its own sake’.⁶⁷Where the motive is disinterested the study of the Torah is a sweet savour first and an offering made by fire second; otherwise it is reversed. For the comparison of the Torah to fire, cf. Deut. 33, 2, a fiery law. As for R. Meir who taught: ‘Whoever occupies himself with the Torah for its own sake’, etc.,⁶⁸At the beginning of the Baraitha. was he not in possession of what R. Joḥanan⁶⁹This name varies in the sources, e.g. R. Isaac and R. Abba. said: [It is written,] And the Lord saith: Because they have forsaken My law which I set before them, etc.⁷⁰Jer. 9, 12.: The Holy One, blessed be He, said [54b], ‘I have exiled Israel not because of idolatry, immorality and murder, but because they forsook My law; as it is stated, And have forsaken Me, and have not kept My law⁷¹ibid. XVI, 11.—if they forsook Me why did they not keep My law?’⁷²j.Ḥag. I, 7, 76C. Hence the Sages declared:⁷³Pes. 50b (Sonc. ed., p. 245). Let a man ever occupy himself with the Torah even not for its own sake; because from doing it not for its own sake, he will come to do it for its own sake.
[R. Meir] made his statement on the principle of R. ‘Aḳiba, for it has been taught: R. ‘Aḳiba said: Whoever reads [the Torah] not for its own sake, it were better for him that he had died at birth;⁷⁴lit. ‘it would have been better for him had the afterbirth been turned on his face’. for it is stated, And ye shall keep My commandments, and do them.⁷⁵Lev. 22, 31. The purpose of studying the precepts of the Torah is to do them. But whoever reads [the Torah] for its own sake, Scripture accounts it to him as though he had fulfilled [the precepts], as it is stated, And do them.⁷⁶Cf. Sanh. 99b (Sonc. ed., p. 675). The following was quoted in refutation of R. Joḥanan’s statement: What was the cause of the first destruction of Jerusalem? Idolatry. And of the second destruction? Causeless hatred;⁷⁷Tosiftha Men. XIII, 22 (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 533) cites this in the name of R. Joḥanan b. Torthah. so were there not two causes?⁷⁸R. Joḥanan gives only one cause for the first destruction and one for the second destruction. R. Joḥanan can reply: It is the Holy One, blessed be He, Who spoke thus: They have forsaken Me. Why? Because they have not kept My law;⁷⁹One cause was the effect of the other, and so there were not two causes. consequently if they had kept My law they would not have forsaken Me. And as to your question on [the destruction of] the Second Temple, causeless hatred is different because it is more grievous than idolatry.⁸⁰Hence one cause sufficed. Whence do we know this? For it is written, Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone:⁸¹Hosea 4, 17. As long as they are joined together even [to worship] their idols, leave them alone;⁸²So long as there was unity among the people, even for a base purpose, God would not punish them. [and it is written,] Their heart is divided; now shall they bear their guilt.⁸³ibid. X, 2. Only when the people are divided through enmity they suffer divine punishment. If so, what [was the cause of] the first destruction? With the First Temple it was different; He deferred the punishment from the days of Rehoboam. Or if you wish I can say that the First Temple was also destroyed for the reason their heart is divided.
The Rabbis have taught:⁸⁴This statement is not found in the Talmudic sources. Whoever hates another is as though he were his murderer, as it is stated, But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die⁸⁵Deut. 19, 11. Hatred may lead to murder. Cf. Sifrë, Deut., §§186f. (ed. Friedmann, p. 108b).—were it in his power he would kill him.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, both of them explain the same verse²⁶⁴Lev. 22:21.: Perfect it²⁶⁵Any animal sacrifice.shall be for goodwill; any blemish shall not be on it. Rebbi Simeon explains: As long as it is for goodwill, you may not induce a blemish. If it is no longer for goodwill, you may induce a blemish. But the Sages say, even if it is all blemishes, you may not add a blemish²⁶⁶As Rashi explains in Bekhorot 35b, the Sages hold that R. Simeon would be justified if the verse read “no blemish shall be on it.” But the involved language, any blemish, forbids the imposition of a new blemish on existing blemishes..

They asked before Rebbi Zeïra: a Cohen to an Israel, Rebbi forbids. What does Rebbi Yose say? He did not respond. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he said to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. In addition, because of the following, as it was stated: “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they do desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes, their priests instruct for hire, etc.’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophes; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, Jerusalem will be desolate, and the Temple Mount a wooded hill.’

¹⁶²Originally a shortened reference to a text in Berakhot 5:3 (Notes 122–126), extended to a full copy by the corrector. Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who quarrels with the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reached¹⁶³All Mishnah manuscripts, all Yerushalmi sources of the Mishnah, and all Babli sources (25a, Berakhot33b) have יגיעו but all texts in the discussion have הגיעו. over a bird’s nest but did not reach this man¹⁶⁴“This man” in Talmudic speech means “me”.! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who makes finite the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reach down to the bird’s nest¹⁶⁵His mercies reach down to a bird’s nest but not to insects and worms.. Some Tannaim formulate “over”, some Tannaim formulate “to”. He who says “over” supports Rebbi Phineas, he who says “to” supports Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said¹⁶⁶In Babli sources (25a, Berakhot33b), the statement is attributed either to R. Yose bar Abun or to R. Yose bar Zabida.: They do not act well who declare [the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy. And those¹⁶⁷Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Lev. 22:28, with minor changes. who translate “My people Israel, just as I am merciful in Heaven so you should be merciful on earth. A cow or a mother sheep, it and its young you should not slaughter together on one day,” they do not act well because they declare] the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy.

MISHNAH: If two men gave qiddushin to two women and when they entered the bridal chamber¹⁵¹The act of marriage itself which was preceded by a public ceremony and which validates the marriage in terms of civil law. The meaning of “bridal canopy” given today to the word חוּפָּה is comparatively recent, not older than about 1000 years. In terms of criminal law, the couple are married from the time of qiddushin; therefore, the marriage with the wrong wife constitutes adultery. they switched each of them to the other¹⁵²Inadvertently, maybe because they never had seen their brides beforehand., they are guilty of [adultery with] a married woman. If they were brothers, they also are guilty because of [the prohibition of] the brother’s wife. If they were sisters, they are guilty also because of [the prohibition of] “a woman in addition to her sister”. If they were menstruating, they are guilty also because of [the prohibition of] menstruating women¹⁵³It is possible to commit 4 deadly sins in one act; this would require 8 purification offerings per pair.. And all of these one separates for three months to see whether they are pregnant. If they were minors not able yet to have children one returns them at once. If they were from priestly families they are disabled for heave¹⁵⁴Lev. 22:13 states that the daughter of a Cohen married to a non-Cohen who becomes a widow may return to her family to eat from holy food only is she is “as in her maidenhood”, that she could be married by a Cohen. But a woman who had illicit sex, even as a rape victim, is forbidden to a Cohen..

On Passover we read from the section of the Festivals in Leviticus;³⁰Lev. 22, 26—XXIII, 44. on Pentecost Seven weeks;³¹Deut. 16, 9ff. The present practice is to read ibid. XV, 19—XVI, 17 on the second day of Pentecost; and if it falls on a Sabbath to begin from XIV, 22. on New Year In the seventh month on the first day of the month;³²Lev. 23, 23ff. on the Day of Atonement After the death.³³ibid. XVI. On the first day of Tabernacles we read from the section of the Festivals in Leviticus,³⁴ibid. XXII, 26—XXIII, 44. and on the other days of Tabernacles the section of the offerings of the Festival.³⁵Num. 29, 12ff, on each day the corresponding offering.