Talmud su Levitico 4:13

²²Here one returns to a discussion of the theme of the Tractate, viz., the obligation of the High Court, as representatives of the people, to offer a purification sacrifice for a wrong ruling as described in Lev. 4:13–21.
It is sinful to bring an animal into the Temple precinct which is not dedicated as a sacrifice. For voluntary offerings this presents no problem; one simply has to dedicate them when bringing. But for obligatory offerings it implies that a sacrifice may be presented only if all conditions which make it obligatory are actually fulfilled. They only are liable²³To bring the sacrifice. for something²⁴An official ruling by the Court. that was clear to them and then covered from them²⁵They forgot either a precedent or their own ruling.. What is the reason? something was hidden²⁶Lev. 4:13. An erring High Priest (Lev. 4:1–12) or ruler (22–26) have to offer a sacrifice if they err inadvertently; the condition that a ruling must have been forgotten is introduced only for the Court., something that was clear to them and then hidden from them. ²⁷There is no problem with the explanation just given. One tries to connect the statement with a discussion about similar rules regarding sacrifices due for violations of either Temple purity or oaths (Lev. 5:1–13), where the same condition in mentioned in Lev. 5:2,3,4. R. Ismael and R. Aqiba differ in Ševuot 1:2 about the interpretation of the verses, but not about the actual rules. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael who said, it became hidden from him, therefore he had known, and he knew²⁸Lev. 5:4: …an oath which a man would utter without thinking, it became hidden from him, and he knew and realized his guilt …, these are two knowledges²⁹One when he uttered the oath and one when he remembered it, separated by a period of oblivion.. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba who said, it became hidden, it became hidden, two times³⁰R. Aqiba and R. Ismael actually are not differing in their interpretations; only R. Aqiba argues about violations of Temple purity (Lev. 5:2–3) where in both verses oblivion is mentioned but not remembering. However, in Babylonian sources [Ševuot 14b, Keritut 19a, Sifra Wayyiqra 2, Pereq 12(7)], R. Ismael is reported to read one about oblivion the impurity and the second oblivion about being in the Temple., therefore he had knowledge at the beginning and knowledge at the end and oblivion in between, ³¹Returning to our topic, Note 22. something that was clear to them and then hidden from them.

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject; if they said, the menstruating woman is not mentioned in the Torah, Sabbath is not mentioned in the Torah, idolatry is not mentioned in the Torah, they are not liable⁹⁸Since anything written in the Torah is public knowledge and nobody would listen to them.. If they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part, they are liable. How is that? If they said, the menstruating woman is mentioned in the Torah but one who copulates with one who is watching a day to the next day is not liable⁹⁹In rabbinic medical theory, the minimum time which must elapse between one menstrual period and the next is the seven days of the niddah(Lev.15:19) followed by another 11 days. If a woman has a discharge on one of these 11 days, she is not classified as niddah but as zavah, whose rules are spelled out in Lev.15:25–30. Since the verse speaks of a discharge of many days, it is concluded that the full rules of zavah only apply after 3 days. For the first and second discharges in that 11 day period, the woman is called “watching one day to the next day”. For a day she is under the rules of niddah(Lev. 15:25) and therefore forbidden to her husband. But since the verse uses the expression all the days of the flow of her impurity shall be like the days of her menstruation, one could think that she is impure only during the day and not during the following night, or that a discharge during the night does not make her impure. This is clearly a matter of rabbinic interpretation.; Sabbath is mentioned in the Torah but one who brings from a private domain to a public domain is not liable¹⁰⁰The pentateuchal root of the prohibition to carry from a private to the public domain is Ex. 16:29, nobody should go out from his place, which is explained in Jer. 17:22 by do not move a load from your houses. Since as a matter of principle prophetic utterances should not be used as legal texts, the ruling of the Court could not be dismissed out of hand.; idolatry is mentioned in the Torah but one who prostrates himself is not liable¹⁰¹This is more difficult to understand since Deut. 17:3 clearly defines prostrating oneself in idolatry as a capital crime. Therefore, one has to agree with Maimonides’s Commentary that the Court changed the definition of “prostration”, e. g., ruling that kneeling down, bowing the head to the ground, is not punishable as long as one does not lie on the ground with outstretched hands and feet.; these are liable for it is said¹⁰²Lev. 4:13. Sifra Wayyiqra 2, Parašah4(7–8). something was hidden, something but not an entire subject.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, “of a subject,” not the entire subject. Rebbi Hila said, “of the commandments”, not entire commandments¹⁰³In Lev. 4:13, R. Hizqiah reads דָּבָר וְנֶעֱלַם as וְנֶעֱלַם מִדָּבָר, presupposing a script which does not differentiate between regular and final mem. R. Hila’s comment is really unnecessary since מִכָּל־מִצְוֹת already means “of any commandments” but not entire commandments. In all situations, prefix mem is read as partitive, some but not all; cf. Nazir 5:4 Note 105.. ¹⁰⁴The following text also is found in Sotah 5:1, explained in Notes 8–10, Nazir5:1 Note 56. Is that written? As Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from the beginning of the paragraph to its end. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. You have to pour oil on it, it is a flour offering, to include all flour offerings for pouring¹⁰⁵Sifra Wayyiqra 1 Pereq 12 on Lev.2:6. The ms. text follows the argument of Sifra while B reproduces the text of Sotah and Nazir. The argument of Sifra has no connection with the theories of RR. Johanan and Jeremiah; it is a straightforward reading of the verse. Since it is stated that one has to pour oil on the bread crumbs because it is a flour-offering, it follows that a flour-offering requires pouring oil over it unless it be explicitly excluded as in the purification offering of v. 5:11..

MISHNAH: If the Court of one of the tribes¹⁵⁸The tribal High Court. ruled and that tribe acted on their pronouncement, that tribe is liable but any other tribes are not liable, the words of Rebbi Jehudah¹⁵⁹Since he holds that the expression קָהָל refers to each of the tribes.. But the Sages say, they are only liable for a ruling by the High Court, as it is said, if the entire congregation of Israel be in error, and something was hidden from the eyes of the congregation¹⁶⁰Lev. 4:13. The verse is misquoted; the masoretic text reads הַקָּהָל “the public” instead of הָעֵדָה “the congregation”, supporting R. Jehudah. In most Mishnah sources, only the first clause of the verse is copied., not the congregation of that tribe.

HALAKHAH: "If the Court of one of the tribes ruled," etc. ¹⁶⁴The Halakhah does not refer to Mishnah 8 but to Mishnaiot 6-7, to explain why R. Meïr requires only one bull, R. Jehudah 12, and R. Simeon 13.Rebbi Meïr says, it is the Court's obligation. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the public's obligation. Rebbi Simeon said, it is an obligation of the Court and an obligation of the public. What is Rebbi Meïr's reason? It is said here from the eyes¹⁶⁵Lev. 4:13., and it is said there from the eyes¹⁶⁶Num. 15:24.. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, here it also refers to the Court¹⁶⁷ This argument is difficult to explain. In Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parasah 4(2), the expression עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל used in Lev. 4:13 is explained as referring to the High Court, the selected group from Israel, based on v. 15 which makes it clear that the bull has to be presented by the Elders, the members of the High Court. Then R. Meïr's argument is to infer from Lev. 4:13 to Num. 15:24: Since the bull is the responsibility of the Court, the goat for idolatry also must be the responsibility of the Court. . What is Rebbi Jehudah's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public¹⁶⁸His argument is straightforward. Since the entire paragraph Num. 15:22-26 speaks only about עֵדָה, without any mention of the Elders, it is addressed to the public. Then the use of parallel terms is taken to transfer the setting to Lev. 4: 13.. What is Rebbi Simeon's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, also from the eyes here refers to the Court. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public¹⁶⁹He accepts arguing both from Lev. 4: 13 to Num. 15:24 and vice versa.. For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to bring¹⁷⁰They have to pay for the bull from their own money and present it in the Temple. . For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who brings¹⁷¹Who has to pay and who has to officiate?? As we have stated¹⁷²One imposes a tax and collects from everybody. In all other sources, Babli 3b, Menahot 52a; Tosephta Seqalim 2:6, the argument is between R. Jehudah and R. Simeon. This is the reasonable reading since for R. Meïr the Court pays from their own means., "one imposes and collects, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, they are brought from the Temple tax". For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to lay their hands on. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who lays their hands on¹⁷³Since obviously not every single Israelite can be called to lay his hands on the bull.? As we have stated, three from every tribe, ¹⁷⁴This follows R. Simeon in Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Pereq 6(2); R. Jehudah requires five. led by the president of the Court, lay their hands on the head of the bull. "Their hands, the hands of each single one. Their hands on the head of the bull; the bull needs laying on of hands but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon said, the bull needs laying on of hands by the Elders but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by the Elders; for Rebbi Simeon says, every public purification offering whose blood is brought inside¹⁷⁵The only sacrifices whose blood is brought inside the sanctuary to be sprinkled on the incense altar are the purification offerings of the High Priest and the Community as well as the offerings of the Day of Atonement. The body of any such sacrifice must be burned outside the holy precinct (Lev. 6:23,16:27). needs laying on of hands. ¹⁷⁶Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Pereq 6(3); Tosephta Menahot 10:9; Babli Menahot 92a." One objected to Rebbi Jehudah, is it not written, they presented the goats of the purification offering¹⁷⁷ 2Chr. 29:23. As usual, the argument is from the part of the verse which was not quoted: they presented the goats of the purification offering before the king and the public; they laid their hands on them. The goats were offered by Josiah to atone for the idolatry of his father Ahas.? Rebbi Hiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it was a temporary ruling¹⁷⁸A temporary deviation from Torah norms acceptable by prophetic instruction as long as it does not violate prohibitions. The absence of a bull and the presence of multiple goats both deviate from Torah prescriptions..

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon⁵²¹Tosephta Zevaḥim13:15. The only sacrifices authorized on a public altar are those fixed beforehand, not depending on circumstances. In the Tosephta, the statement is attributed to R. Jehudah. But since the following text starts with “in addition, R. Simeon says …”, the prior text must be R. Simeon’s (Note of Pene Moshe.): “The community only brings what Scripture fixed for it.” Rebbi Simeon is of the opinion that since when Second Tithe was introduced it was not interrupted⁵²²This statement does not belong here, it was copied from Halakhah 14. Second Tithe is the farmer’s property to be consumed in purity “before the Eternal” (Deut. 14:23). When the Tent was at Nob, the altar at Gibeon, and the Ark at Qiryat Yearim, it is difficult to see where “before the Eternal” was. He posits that the duty of Second Tithe was in force in the interval between Siloh and Solomon’s Temple.. What is between them⁵²³R. Simeon and the majority who permit on the public altar anything sacrificed in the desert.? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the bull of hidden things⁵²⁴Lev. 4:13–21, the purification offering for erroneous acts of the community. is between them. Rebbi Yose says, voluntary offerings of the community are between them. It was stated, both men and women⁵²⁵May sacrifice on a private altar.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no woman here, “man” is written in the paragraph⁵²⁶Deut. 12:8.. It was stated, also a nazir’s sacrifices⁵²⁷May be brought on a private altar. Babli Temurah 14b.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are no nazir’s sacrifices here; nazir’s sacrifices are an obligation. It was stated, also libations⁵²⁸As detailed in Num. 15:1–16, required for the sacrifices authorized on private altars. Babli Zevaḥim 111a.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he who states “libations” does not hold with Rebbi, as it was stated, Rebbi says, I am saying that also after Israel entered the Land, libations only are brought inside⁵²⁹At the altar standing in a sanctified enclosure of the Tabernacle.. What is the reason? In the Sanctuary pour alcoholic libations to the Eternal⁵³⁰Num. 28:7.. A prohibition is written only for inside; from where for the outside? Let us hear from the following. From where that one who slaughters as Pesah for an individual on a private altar or the public altar in a time where altars are forbidden, that he transgresses a prohibition? The verse says, you may not slaughter the Pesaḥ at one⁵³¹Deut. 16:6, read as: only at one place for all of Israel.. He is punished with extirpation and you are saying so⁵³²Since the sacrifice as described is one at an unauthorized place and this is punished by extirpation (Lev. 17:4), whereas the verse quoted treats this as a simple misdemeanor.? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is about one who slaughters in the afternoon not for its name⁵³³Which disqualifies the sacrifice from fulfilling any obligation; Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1. in a time when altars are permitted. Then why does he say, in a time when altars are forbidden? In a time when his altar is forbidden⁵³⁴Since Pesaḥ may not be brought on a private altar and is a modified well-being offering, a private altar on the afternoon of the 14^th of Nisan is disqualified for any kind of well-being offering.. Why not for its name? That you should not say, it is well-being offering⁵³⁵An animal vowed for Pesaḥ but not used for this purpose automatically is dedicated as well-being offering. and qualified. In addition, from the following: I could think that if he slaughtered it in the afternoon it should be qualified. Why do you have (in the afternoon it should be qualified) [in the morning it should be disqualified]⁵³⁶The corrector’s text is to be deleted.? No. It is not for its name⁵³³Which disqualifies the sacrifice from fulfilling any obligation; Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1.. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that well-being sacrifices brought because of Pesaḥ⁵³⁶The corrector’s text is to be deleted. are qualified on an altar. Would an elevation offering be brought because of a reparation sacrifice be qualified on an altar according to Rebbi Eleazar? Let us hear from the following: “This is the principle: Anything which can be vowed or donated²²³Dedications of animals as Temple sacrifices. is sacrificed on a private altar; but nothing which cannot be vowed or donated is sacrificed on a private altar.”