Bibbia Ebraica
Bibbia Ebraica

Talmud su Levitico 7:7

כַּֽחַטָּאת֙ כָּֽאָשָׁ֔ם תּוֹרָ֥ה אַחַ֖ת לָהֶ֑ם הַכֹּהֵ֛ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר יְכַפֶּר־בּ֖וֹ ל֥וֹ יִהְיֶֽה׃

Come è l'offerta per il peccato, così è l'offerta per la colpa; c'è una legge per loro; il sacerdote che effettua l'espiazione con esso, lo avrà.

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot

13This is from Horaiot 3:2, Notes 40–45, and part of a longer disquisition (Notes 36–45). The quote here starts in the middle and, therefore, is not very intelligible. But in Horaiot the text is complete and completely intelligible. One ate five times the volume of an olive; he separately realized a doubt about each one. Afterwards it became known to him as a certainty. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of sacrifices. Rebbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that for the Anointed Priest the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of purification sacrifice. What is the reason? Like purification offering, like reparation offering14Lev. 7:7.. The knowledge about his doubt determines the transgression for one who brings a suspended reparation offering. The knowledge about his doubt does not determine the transgression for one who does not bring a suspended reparation offering.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot

One ate five times the volume of an olive; he separately realized a doubt about each one. Afterwards it became known to him (in court) [as a certainty.40The text in parentheses is from L, the one in brackets from B. Since the testimony as to the occurrence of a sinful act by a single witness in court is sufficient to obligate the perpetrator for a sacrifice (even though a single witness is not admissible in any criminal procedure and may be contradicted by an oath in civil proceedings) the text in parentheses has to be preferred as lectio difficilior while the meaning for the English reader is more easily understood from the text of B.] Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression41The problem discussed here has no direct connection with change of status; it applies as well to a commoner who progressively becomes aware of multiple transgressions of the same kind; Ševuot2:1 (33d l. 10) Babli Keritut 18b, Ševuot19b. The Babli finds here a tannaitic controversy. It was stated that the awareness of a transgression determines the obligation of a purification sacrifice, but the obligation of a suspended reparation sacrifice may cover separate incidents. The question then arises what are the obligations if the doubts about a single suspended reparation sacrifice are resolved on different occasions? (In the Babli, R. Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion is attributed to Rebbi, that of R. Johanan to Rebbi’s teachers R. Yose ben R. Jehudah and R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon.)
In the example, the doubt is whether he ate permitted or prohibited fat.
. Rebbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that for the Anointed Priest the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression42The paragraph is referred to in Ševuot2:1.
Since the Anointed Priest is barred from bringing a reparation sacrifice, the knowledge of the doubt has no influence on his status.
. What is the reason? Like purification offering, like reparation offering43Lev. 7:7. The verse appears in a different context, i. e., that the technicalities of purification and reparation sacrifices are identical [Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 9(1)]. In Maimonides’s opinion, the quote here is an allusion, not a proof.. The knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression for one who brings a suspended reparation offering. The knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression for one who does not bring a suspended reparation offering.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim

MISHNAH: Thirteen horns1The “horns” were chests for the money given to the Temple for various reasons, as detailed in Mishnah 7. A person putting money into one of the chests could not put his hand into it, he had to let the coins drop in from the top. were in the Temple, and it was written on them: New sheqalim, and old sheqalim, nests134Obligatory purification or reparation offerings, as prescribed in Lev. In all cases, two birds are required, one as purification and one as elevation offering, following different rules., young birds for elevation sacrifices135Voluntary offerings which may be for a single bird., wood136A person vowing firewood for the Temple does not bring wood but the money for it., and incense, gold for the cover137To cover the Holiest of Holies in the absence of the Ark; Mishnah 4:4., and six for voluntary gifts138As explained in the Halakhah and in Tosephta 3:7.. New sheqalim for the current year, and old ones, one who did not bring the past year, gives it for the next one139New sheqalim are given for current use; sheqalim for past years are treated directly as remainders from that year (Mishnah 4:3)..
“Nests” are turtle doves and “young birds as elevation offerings” are pigeons, all for elevation offerings, the words of Rebbi Jehudah147It was explained in the preceding Halakhah that R. Jehudah cannot accept the explanation of Mishnah 7 given in Note 134, but must require that a person offering two birds to be able to partake in sancta, the woman after childbirth (Lev. 12:8), the poor person healed from skin disease (Lev. 14:22), the male healed from gonorrhea (Lev. 15:14) and the female from flux (Lev. 15:29), personally deliver the birds to the Cohen who thereby is assured that the person is alive. As a consequence, for him the money deposited for “nests” is for elevation sacrifices; the distinction from “young birds for elevation offerings” only is in the amount of money required and the kind of birds bought. Mishnah 7 was explained following the Sages in Mishnah 8.. But the Sages say, of “nests” one is a purification offering and one an elevation offering; “young birds as elevation offerings” are all elevation offerings. If one says, “I am obligated for wood logs”, he may not give less than for two logs; “incense”, he may not give less than for a fistful; “gold”, he may not give less than for a gold denar14825 silver denars, or their equivalent in small change.. “Six for voluntary gifts.” What did they do with this? One buys with it elevation offerings149As with any money delivered to the gift account.; the flesh is for the Eternal and the skins are for the Cohanim. This explanation did Jehoyada the High Priest explain: It is a reparation offering, repairing, a reparation offering for the Eternal150Lev. 5:19.; this is the principle: Elevation offerings should be bought from anything coming151It is obvious that money given to the Temple for purification or reparation offerings must be used for the kind of offering specified. Money “coming from” these kinds of offerings are excess monies, not used for the obligatory offerings. Since obligatory offerings cannot be brought voluntarily, nor can monies dedicated to the Temple be returned, the excess has to be deposited in the gift account and used for elevation offerings. because of sin or reparation; the flesh is for the Eternal and the skins are for the Cohanim. It turns out that both parts of the verse are fulfilled, a reparation offering for the Eternal and reparation for the Cohanim. And it says, money for reparation offerings and money for purification offerings are not to be brought to the Eternal’s House, it shall be for the Cohanim1522K. 12:17. The money is not for the Cohanim but the Cohanim receive the skins of the animals bought with the excess monies..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Challah

146Tosephta Ḥallah 2:7–9, Babli Baba Qama 110b, Ḥulin 132b, Sifry Qoraḥ #119 (“12 in the Temple, 12 in the countryside”), Midrash Tanḥuma Bemidbar 24, Num. rabba 5(1).24 gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten in the countryside. These are the ten in the Temple: Purification offering147Lev. 6:19., reparation offering148Lev. 7:7., public well-being offerings149Lev. 23:19. Even though this sacrifice is labelled “well-being offering”, being a public offering it is treated as most holy and must be eaten by Cohanim in the Temple precinct., purification offering of a bird150While there is no separate verse commanding that the purification offering of a bird must be eaten, since the burnt offering of a bird is consumed on the altar it follows that the purification offering must be eaten., the reparation offering for suspected guilt151Lev5:17–18., the log of oil of the skin-diseased152Lev 14:10,21. The unused part of the oil becomes property of the Cohen., the two breads153Lev. 23:17., the shew-bread154Lev. 24:9., the remainders of cereal offerings155Lev. 2:3, 6:9–11., and the ‘omer156Lev. 23:10–11.. These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings157While these are sacrifices, after the blood was sprinkled on the altar wall the animal was eaten by the Cohen and his family anywhere in the city., First Fruits158Cf. Mishnah Bikkurim 3:10., what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the nazir’s ram159In fact, any part lifted for the Cohen from any well-being sacrifice is for the Cohen and his entire family, to be eaten outside the Temple precinct. Cf. Lev. 7:34, Num. 18:11., and the skins of sacrifices160Only of most holy sacrifices (burnt, purification, and reparation offerings); Lev. 7:8.. These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, ḥallah, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach127Deut. 18:3., the first shearing161Deut. 18:4., robbery of the proselyte162Num. 5:8. It is assumed that the only person without legal heirs is the proselyte who had no children after his conversion., redemption of the firstborn163Ex. 13., redemption of the firstborn donkey163Ex. 13., ḥērem-dedications, and fields of inheritance164Dedicated and not redeemed; Lev. 27:16–21..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot

HALAKHAH: “For all commandments of the Torah,” etc. Halakhah 8:“For a suspended sacrifice the individual and the Prince are liable,” etc. A person, to include the Prince102Lev. 5:17, the introduction to the rules for the suspended reparation sacrifice.. Should it include the Anointed? “And sinned inadvertently.103Lev. 5:15. There are two problems with this quote: The first that it is a misquote, it reads וְחָֽטְאָה֙ בִּשְׁגָגָ֔ה not בְחָֽטְאָה֙ בִּשְׁגָגָ֔ה. This is easily explainable since in talmudic times under the influence of Greek every ב sounded like v. The serious problem is that the quote is from the paragraph detailing the rules of the fixed reparation sacrifice for larceny committed with sancta. It seems that the quote from Lev. 5:17 refers to the full text וְאִם־נֶ֙פֶשׁ֙ in addition, if a person . . which in Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parašah 12(1) is explained as meaning that the rules of the suspended reparation sacrifice, vv. 17–19 are an appendix to the rules of the reparation sacrifice for larceny involving sancta, vv. 14–16.” Any depending on acting inadvertently. This excludes the Anointed who is not depending on acting inadvertently104He is liable for a sacrifice only if there is an element of ruling falsely, Mishnah 3.. But following Rebbi who said, the Anointed is depending on acting inadvertently105Halakhah 3. Rebbi declares him liable for a bull and a goat without an element of ruling falsely in case the subject was idolatry, not in any other case. This permits to formulate the preceding argument so it remains valid even for Rebbi.? One dependent on acting inadvertently in any situation. This excludes the Anointed who is not dependent on acting inadvertently in any situation. A person, to include the Prince and the Anointed106Lev. 5:20, the introduction to the rules for the reparation sacrifice for monetary offenses.. Here you say, to include the prince, and there you say, to include the Anointed? Like the purification sacrifices is the reparation sacrifice107Lev. 7:7.. Just as the purification sacrifice atones and wipes clean, also the reparation sacrifice atones and wipes clean. This excludes the suspended reparation sacrifice which atones but leaves a residue108If at the end it becomes clear that a sin had be committed which qualifies for a purification offering, the suspended offering did not take its place, and a second sacrifice is due. Therefore the rules for the suspended sacrifice are separate from those of other reparation sacrifices..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Versetto precedenteCapitolo completoVersetto successivo