Talmud su Levitico 4:27

Samuel spoke about the Mishnah: “I still am saying, if a minority acted they are liable because the Court will not bring a bull for them. The verse says⁵⁵Lev. 4:27., [from] the people of the Land. Even [all of them] (part of them)⁵⁶The text is a baraita in Sifra Wayyiqra 2, Parašah 7(5), quoted in the Babli, 2b. Usually, a prefix מ “from” is interpreted to mean “not all”. This is behind the reading of B. The reading of the ms., in brackets, is that of Sifra and the Babli; it means that without instruction from the Court, any number of the people, maybe all except the members of the Court, may be required to bring private purification offerings simultaneously. This would not be a case that all of the congregation of Israel err(Lev. 4:13); this expression is reserved for pronouncements of the Court., even most of them.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah: I still am saying, if a minority acted without ruling they are liable because with instruction the Court will not bring a bull⁵⁷A person acting on the instructions of the Court can never bring a purification offering since his action is not inadvertent. If the conditions for such an offering by the Court are not satisfied, no sacrifice at all is due or possible for the action.. Samuel said, but they bring a female sheep or goat. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they do not bring a female sheep or goat⁵⁸This is a repetition of their prior positions. For Samuel, a private offering is due if and only if there is no Court offering. For R. Joḥanan, no offering is possible for action on the instruction of the Court, independent of what the Court has or does not have to do.. According to Samuel, who infers liability from liability, it is understandable. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers liability from exemption⁵⁹Samuel is understandable; either the rules of the Court sacrifice or those of the private one do apply; never both together nor none of them. But might R. Johanan, who accepts a situation where both the individual and the Court are exempted from bringing an offering, have a situation where both apply simultaneously? The question is not answered.? The statement of a baraita⁶⁰Sifra Sifra Wayyiqra 2, Parašah7(7), quoted in the Babli, 2a. The apostate wants to forget; even if he really forgot it was desired by him; he never qualifies for a purification offering, even if his transgression happens to be in a situation for which the Court would have to bring an offering if its conditions were fulfilled. disagrees with Samuel. Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him¹⁸Lev. 4:28. Since he was informed that he failed to commit the sin, he cannot bring a purification sacrifice. His repentance for his sinful intent will be a private matter between him and God.; this excludes the apostate. A baraita disagrees with Samuel, “A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions⁸The quotes are correct in the Yerushalmi text of the Babli editio princeps, but the first of the quotes in the Leiden ms. is a misquote, referring to Lev.4:2 instead of 4:27. The basic text is in Sifra Wayyiqra Parašah 7(1), referred to in Babli 2b, discussed in detail Šabbat93a.
Chapter 4 in Lev. treats the purification sacrifices for unintentional sin first by the High Priest (vv. 1–12), then the High Court (13–21), then a chief, identified in Mishnah 3:3 as a king (22–26), and finally by a commoner (27–35). V. 27 reads: If one person of the populace transgresses inadvertently, by acting on one prohibitions of the Eternal, and feels guilt. It is noted that the sentence seems to be unnecessarily wordy. Why does it not say simply, “if somebody inadvertently transgresses a prohibition of the Eternal”? The additional words must have a meaning; they describe restrictions. In Babli Šabbat93a one derives from the insistence that one person commit the sin that a violation of a commandment cannot be prosecuted if committed by two persons acting in common, so that no single person commits a punishable act but the combined result is a clear violation,. Such a violation cannot be atoned for by a purification sacrifice. It also is clear that only acts are punishable.
In the context here the additional terms are interpreted to mean that only a person acting on his own is required to offer a purification sacrifice; this excludes one who is told by a religious authority that his act is permitted.: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable.” This disagrees with Samuel and cannot be confirmed⁶¹If the Court permitted certain intrinsically forbidden things and an individual acted on his own but did what they had allowed, then both the Court and the individual have to bring sacrifices for the same kind of action..

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If he was standing in the public domain, threw, and then caught it, what⁹³Transporting something in the public domain for a distance of at least 4 cubits is a desecration of the Sabbath. Therefore, throwing something a distance of at least 4 cubits creates liability the moment the thrown object touches the ground. The question is whether there is liability if the thrower himself runs and catches the object in the air, at a distance of at least 4 cubits from where it was thrown. Babli 5a.? Is that not a Mishnah⁹⁴Mishnah 11:7. The thrower did not intend to throw it to another person or to a dog; the object was intercepted. Therefore, the original intent was not fulfilled; there is no liability. If the object was burned in flight, there is no putting down; the action is incomplete and there is no liability even if the original intent was that it should be burned in flight., “if another person caught it, a dog caught it, or it was burned, he is not liable”? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: So it is if he snatches; therefore if he caught it he is liable⁹⁵In the question asked by R. Joḥanan one has to distinguish whether the original intent was that the object should be caught in flight, when there is liability, or whether the object was snatched in flight against the original intent, when there is no liability.. What is the difference between its coming to rest on the ground to coming to rest in his arm? There⁹⁶In the Mishnah there is liability if the object is a ball thrown from one person to another and the recipient is supposed to catch the ball., why is he liable? There he threw and another one received it but here he threw, he received it⁹⁷The Mishnah does not directly address R. Joḥanan’s problem.. Should it be obvious for him that he is not liable? Would he not be liable because of his mouth⁹⁸This refers to the explanation given earlier by R. Yudan (Note 67) which shows that receiving an object in his mouth is a valid putting down. if he threw with his right hand and received with his left? Is his mouth not like another person? Here, his left hand should be like another person⁹⁹And the legal situation depends on the original intent.. Rebbi Yudan said, it is obvious to Rebbi Joḥanan that he is liable if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. What was his problem? If he threw with his right and and received with his right hand¹⁰⁰Throwing from one hand to the other is a normal action but throwing with one hand and receiving with the same has to be classified “as if with the back of one’s hand” (Note 80) and automatically exclude liability.. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He¹⁰¹R. Joḥanan. is in doubt whether he is liable even if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. If you want to say “his mouth⁹⁸This refers to the explanation given earlier by R. Yudan (Note 67) which shows that receiving an object in his mouth is a valid putting down.”, his mouth is like another person since he ate it; but is here his hand like another person¹⁰²Does it make any difference which hand is used since it always is the same person?? Rebbi Mana asked, if this be so, then even if he exported the volume of a dried fig in both hands he should be not liable because of one action executed by two persons¹⁰³Therefore it is not possible to distinguish between hands in these matters.! Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said to him, is that when he did it¹⁰⁴Lev. 4:27. The verse is emphatic that purification sacrifices are available only for single perpetrators acting in error: If one person of the people of the land sin in error, if he act in one of the commandments of the Eternal which is a prohibition, and be damaged.? But was it not stated: An individual who acted is liable, two or three who acted are not liable¹⁰⁵Babli 3a,5a; Sifra Wayyiqra I Parashah 7(9)..

“Neither is liable.¹³³Quote from Mishnaiot 3–4, starting the discussion of these.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Ḥizqiah, the rabbis in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In the category of two people performing one work¹⁰⁴Lev. 4:27. The verse is emphatic that purification sacrifices are available only for single perpetrators acting in error: If one person of the people of the land sin in error, if he act in one of the commandments of the Eternal which is a prohibition, and be damaged.. Rav asked Rebbi, if another person put a bundle on his back, when he forgot and brought it out¹³⁴Is this considered an incomplete action since another person lifted and put the load on him (Babli 3a).? On the occasion of the second repetition¹³⁵The Babli (3b) reports that the question was asked when Rebbi was teaching (or editing) another tractate; it was Rebbi’s practice not to answer questions which did not concern the subject he was currently concerned with. He gave the answer only when he took up Mishnah Šabbat another time. he told him, he is liable because it does not compare to this. Rebbi is of the opinion that when he started to walk it is as if he had taken up the object¹³⁶If the other person had put the load on him while he was walking, there could be no liability since the action was not that of a single person. But if the load was resting on his back, when he then started walking he started moving the object and this makes the action complete.. In the opinion of Rebbi, if he stood in the public domain and threw but ran and caught it¹³⁷If this is a question different from the one asked earlier, it must mean that “absorbed it” has to mean that his body absorbed the shock of impact of the object, not that he caught it in his hands. in a private domain, what? But is that not Rebbi since Rebbi made the airspace enclosed by walls like its essence¹³⁸Therefore automatically the action is completed and there is liability.? It is only necessary in case he stood in the private domain and threw but ran and and caught it in a public domain, what? It was found stated: Rebbi declares him not liable until the moment it comes to rest¹³⁹Public domain by definition is not enclosed by walls; an object is at rest only at the moment it stopped moving. If the object fell down because it hit his body, there was no putting down and no completed action..