Talmud su Levitico 5:2

MISHNAH: There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds¹Lev. 5:4 requires a reparation sacrifice for inadvertent breach of a commitment made by oath, “what was pronounced, negatively or positively.” The standard example of a positive oath is somebody swearing that he will eat certain foods. The corresponding negative is an oath that he will refrain from eating certain foods. The exact expression used, לְהָרַ֣ע ׀ א֣וֹ לְהֵיטִ֗יב, by its hiph`il form points to the future. A natural complement are backward looking oaths, if a person swears that he ate or did not eat certain foods in the past (Mishnah 3:1). These four cases are equal in sanctions for willful or inadvertent breach.. There are two kinds of awareness of impurity which are four kinds²Lev. 5:2–3 requires a reparation sacrifice for a person who became impure, forgot it, and then either ate sancta in his impurity or entered the Sanctuary. The two added cases are that he knew about being impure but forgot that the food was holy or that the place was a Sanctuary.. There are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds³It is forbidden to transport anything on the Sabbath from a private domain to the public domain (Mishnah Šabbat 1:1). “Transport” includes lifting up, moving, and setting down. The two cases where one is liable (for a sacrifice if the sin was unintentional, punishment if the transgression was intentional, and is prosecutable, or extirpation by Divine decree if the crime was intentional but is not prosecutable) are “export” by a person standing inside the private domain, lifting something up inside the domain and putting it down on the outside (e. g., through a window) even without moving his feet, or “import”, somebody lifting an object from the outside to the inside and depositing it there. The two cases where one is not liable refer to a person inside who lifts an object, hands it to a person outside (so that the object never is at rest) and the second person puts it down. Since no one person completed a criminal act, no one can be held liable even though the combined action clearly is forbidden.. There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds⁴Lev. 13:2 defines impure skin disease as שְׂאֵ֤ת אֽוֹ־סַפַּ֨חַת֙ א֣וֹ בַהֶ֔רֶת “as elevated spot, or sapaḥat, or a white spot.” This is read as “an elevated spot (which makes the surrounding skin look elevated over the whitish spot) and a really white spot and their appendages”, deriving sapaḥat from the root ספח, “to append, adjoin.” This extends the definition of impure skin disease from two relatively well defined cases to two additional weaker symptoms..

HALAKHAH: “In any case where there is knowledge at the start,” etc. ⁶¹Babli 4a. From where that we require knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between? The verse says, it was forgotten, it was forgotten⁶²Lev. 5:2,3. two times; this implies that he had knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between. So far for Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? For Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi. As Rebbi said, it was forgotten by him, this implies that he knows. “But he knew,” there is knowledge two times. Hence Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi, and Rebbi like Rebbi Ismael. This comes even according to Rebbi Aqiba; it is the same for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of the Sanctuary as for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of sancta⁶³In Babylonian sources [Babli 14b, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 12(7)] this is consistently attributed to R. Ismael. The difference between the two is that R. Aqiba considers every stylistic variation a change in meaning whereas R. Ismael holds that “the Torah is written in the manner of common speech.”. But some want to understand it from the following: He knew and felt guilty. Was it not already said, he became impure and felt guilty^62,Lev. 5:2,3.⁶⁴The first quote is from the verse about human impurity, the other about impurity from extra-human sources. While it was argued before that one can only forget what one knew, the knowledge explicitly required in v. 3 must be explicit, it cannot have been unconsciously absorbed.? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end.

Rebbi Ḥanina⁸¹Read: Ḥinena. said before Rebbi Mana: Did you learn this from foreign worship? Then one should learn from foreign worship that for everything one needs one knowledge⁸²Since neither prior awareness nor forgetting are mentioned as prerequisite for a sacrifice for unintentional idolatry (nor for any other sacrifice not depending on the sinner’s wealth) one would have to explain away the mention of prior awareness for infractions of the laws of purity.! He told him, foreign worship requires a fixed value [sacrifice] but the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta an increasing or decreasing one. One cannot infer about a fixed value [sacrifice] from an increasing and decreasing one, nor for an increasing or decreasing from a fixed value one⁸³Therefore the previous argument is invalid; one has to find another argument to exclude any sacrifice for violations of the sanctity of heave.. How did you understand to say that the verse⁸⁴Lev. 5:2–3. Babli 7a. speaks about impurity of Sanctuary sancta? It is said here an impure animal⁸⁵Lev. 5:2. and it is said further on an impure animal⁸⁶Lev. 7:21.. Since an impure animal mentioned there is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta, so an impure animal mentioned here is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta. Not only Sanctuary sancta; from where the impurity of the Sanctuary⁸⁷Babli Zevaḥim 43b. The question is whether a violation of the purity of the Sanctuary can be expiated by a sacrifice or whether any such violation requires the full ceremony of Lev. 16 describing the Day of Atonement.? ⁸⁸Sifra Ṣav Pereq 14(3–6), partially quoted in Zevaḥim 43b.“The verse says: his impurity is on him⁸⁹Lev. 7:20.. How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]⁹⁰This is prohibited in Lev. 7:19.? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi says, he ate⁹¹Lev. 7:21., his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Ḥiyya says, sancta are mentioned in the plural⁹²A well-being offering is always mentioned in the plural, שְׁלָמִים. It is argued that therefore a singular cannot refer to the sacrifice. The argument is unconvincing since the sacrifice is not called שְׁלָמִים in the plural but זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים in the singular. It also is unnecessary since in 7:20 עָלָיו “on him” refers to the subject וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ “but the person”. but impurity is mentioned in the singular. How can I uphold his impurity is on him? Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Meїr says, the verse only speaks of one from whom impurity separates⁹³A person always can remove his impurity, for simple impurity by immersion in a miqweh, for severe impurities by one of the prescribed rituals. Impure sacral meat must be burned (Lev. 7:19; it also loses its impurity by rotting but as long as it is meat it remains impure.. This excludes meat from which impurity does not separate.”

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, the crawling animal and he became oblivious⁸³Lev. 5:2., he is liable for forgetting the crawling animal but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary⁸⁴The biblical text never hints at the possibility that anybody could be unaware of being in the holy precinct; therefore no penalties are spelled out for this case.. Rebbi Aqiba says, and he became oblivious while he was impure⁸³Lev. 5:2., he is liable for forgetting impurity but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Ismael says, and he became oblivious, and he became oblivious⁸⁵Lev. 5:3, speaking of impurities generated by the human body., two times to make him liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary⁸⁶This is the opinion formulated in Mishnah 1. The Mishnah is quoted Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq12(7)..

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says,” etc. Ḥizqiah says, there is disagreement between them⁸⁷As explained in Halakhak 1, Note 45. R. Eliezer requires awareness of the cause of his impurity, R. Aqiba only requires awareness of impurity. This is the only opinion mentioned in the Babli, 18a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, interpreting the verse is between them; there are Tannaim who state, he is liable for forgetting impurity but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary, and there are Tannain who state, he is liable for forgetting the crawling animal but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary⁸⁸RR. Eliezer and Aqiba only differ in the way they deduce the law from the verse, not in the substance of the meaning. The formulation is just a matter of style.. The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted⁸⁹This refers to Mishnah Keritut4:2 where R. Eliezer and R. Joshua disagree in the case that a person knows that he has inadvertently committed a sin which if intentional is either one subject to Divine extirpation or a capital crime, but he does not know which law he broke. Examples are a person who inadvertently ate a piece of meat which either was forbidden fat or disqualified sacrificial meat, or a man who slept with a woman but he does not know whether it was his wife during her menses or his sister. R. Eliezer declares him liable for a fixed value purification sacrifice since in any case he committed a deadly sin; R. Joshua declares him not liable (and therefore prevented from sacrificing) as long as he cannot specify which prohibition he broke. It is implied that in the case of a variable value reparation sacrifice for violation of the purity of the Sanctuary the opinions are switched; R. Eliezer requires knowledge of the kind of impurity (e. g., “a crawling animal”) whereas R. Joshua only requires awareness of impurity. Ḥizqiah would trace R. Aqiba’s opinion to his teacher R. Joshua.. There he says, even if he did not know. But here he says, not unless he knew. ⁹⁰The arguments quoted for R. Eliezer belong to R. Joshua and vice-versa. There, by which he sinned⁹¹Lev. 4:23, the purification sacrifice of the Prince. The verse insist, he became aware of his transgression by which he sinned, he can state the paragraph which he broke. But Lev. 5:2 only requires awareness of impurity., not unless he knew by what he became liable. Here, while he was impure⁸³Lev. 5:2., in all cases. Rebbi Ḥinena said, here “by what” is not written. The argument of Rebbi Joshua seems inverted. ⁹²This is R. Eliezer’s argument. As formulated in the Mishnah, he reads Lev. 5:2 as requiring awareness of the nature of his impurity (or, taking vv. 2,3 together, at least certain knowledge of the kind of impurity, whether simple or severe.) But in v. 4:23 and certainly v. 27, the purification sacrifice of a commoner, where it is only required that he sinned inadvertently, can be read as authorization for a sacrifice if only the fact was known that a sin was committed. There he says, while he was impure, not unless he knew by what he became liable. Here, by which he sinned, in any case. How does Rebbi Eliezer uphold by what? This excludes the one who is occupied⁹³Accepting that R. Eliezer refers to 4:27, the peculiar language of 4:23 still has to be explained. He excludes a person who was intent on doing something permitted when it happened that he broke a prohibition, e. g., that he was intent of sleeping with his wife when she was permitted to him and in the dark of night his sister substituted for her. She sinned but he did not..