Talmud su Levitico 23:21

¹⁴⁴This paragraph is copied from Megillah 1:3, Notes 134–140. One verse says, the harvest festival, the first fruits of your work¹⁴⁵Ex. 23:16.. Another verse says, any productive work you shall not do¹⁴⁶Lev. 23:21.. Rebbi Ḥanania said, how could both verses be sustained? If it falls on a weekday you bring the festival offering and refrain from work. If it falls on the Sabbath, the following day you bring the festival offering and harvest. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, only ears for her dough. As what was stated, “therefore anybody who has an obligation for wood and first fruits. He who says, I am taking upon me {to bring} wood for the altar and logs for the arrangement on that day is forbidden funeral orations, and fasts, and working.”

“And the festive offering.” One verse says, the harvest festival, the first fruits of your work^134*Ex. 23:16.. Another verse says, any productive work you shall not do¹³⁵Lev. 23:21. The first verse seems to require harvesting on Pentecost, the second verse forbids it. Babli Ḥagigah 17b.. Rebbi Ḥanania said, how could both verses be sustained? If it falls on a weekday you bring the festival offering and refrain from work. If it falls on the Sabbath, the following day you bring the festival offering and harvest¹³⁶Since Pentecost is only one day, the next day is a regular work day.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only ears for her dough¹³⁷On a day of sacrificing one is forbidden gainful work, as on a holiday. Therefore on the Sunday after Pentecost on Sabbath the only harvesting permitted is collecting for immediate consumption.. As what was stated¹³⁸Pesaḥim 4:1, Notes 6–7; Megillat Ta`anit Chapter 5., “therefore anybody who has an obligation for wood and first fruits. He who says, I am taking upon me {to bring} wood for the altar and logs for the arrangement¹³⁹The arrangement of firewood on the altar. on that day are forbidden funeral orations, and fasting, and working¹⁴⁰Work is not forbidden in a formal sense as on the Sabbath or holiday, only any gainful employment, including harvest for later sale..”

¹⁵¹The main parallels for the first part of this paragraph are Eruvin 10(Note 147) and Pesaḥim 6:1(33b 1.34), also Bava qamma3:12 (Notes 140–144); cf. Babli Šabbat106a, Beṣah 12b, Yebamot 16b, Bava qamma 34b, Sanhedrin 62b. There, we have stated¹⁵²Mishnah 13:3.: “All who destroy are not liable,” except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes¹⁵³There is obviously a sentence missing here stating the position of R. Joḥanan. The sentence is reported in all parallel sources and is quoted by Naḥmanides in his Novellae to Šabbat 106a (ed. M. Herschler col. 365) as text here: “R. Joḥanan says, one making a fire only if he needs the ashes, one causing a wound only if he needs the blood.”. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable, but if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable.¹⁵⁴“Liable” and “not liable” here means financial responsibility for damages. The human who sets a fire on the Sabbath does not have to pay since he has committed a capital crime and it is a principle of talmudic law that the possibility of a death penalty bars monetary claims (cf. Terumot 7:1 Notes 16 ff.). The payment is excluded even if there is no possibility of criminal prosecution.” If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable. Is that not for no purpose? So here if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable, even if it was for no purpose¹⁵⁵The statement of the Mishnah does not mention intent; it excludes payment even if the ashes from the fire are not needed. This indicates that there is potential criminal liability also in this case, disproving R. Joḥanan’s assertion.. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since it was for no purpose, did he commit a capital crime? But here even it was for no purpose¹⁵⁶Naḥmanides (loc. cit. Note 153) quotes the text as: R. Ḥanina ben R. Hila said, this is correct. Since if it were for a purpose he would be guilty of a capital crime here even if it was for no purpose he is free from paying restitution. he should be free from paying restitution, from the following¹⁵⁷Lev. 23:21. Babli Ketubot 35a,38a; Bava qamma 35a; Sanhedrin 74b,84b.: The slayer of an animal shall pay for it; the slayer of a human shall die. Since for the slayer of an animal you did not differentiate between unintentional and intentional to make him liable for money, so for the slayer of a human you cannot differentiate between unintentional and intentional to free him from liability for money¹⁵⁸The argument based on the Mishnah in Bava qamma is disproved; there is no Mishnaic source contradicting R. Joḥanan..