Talmud su Levitico 4:2

HALAKHAH: “If the Anointed Priest ruled,” etc. A person; if the Anointed Priest.⁴Lev. 4:2,3.” This makes the Anointed like a private person⁵In v. 2, the High Priest is mentioned as “a person”; only in v. 3 as Anointed. It is concluded that the Anointed Priest follows the rules of private persons unless there is an indication to the contrary. Babli 7b, Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Paršeta 2(1).. Since the private person is not liable if he ate⁶Taking eating forbidden fat as standard example of a forbidden action. on the Court’s ruling, also neither is this one liable if he ate on the Court’s ruling. Since the private person is liable if he ate without a ruling, this one also should be liable if he ate without a ruling⁷The question is raised why does the Mishnah require a sacrifice only if the Anointed Priest first gives an inadvertent wrong instruction and then acts on it without realizing his error? This mixes required features of the purification offerings both of the Court (only after issuing a prescript, not acting on it themselves) and the private person (not instructing anybody but acting).; the verse says, for the fault of the people. As the people⁸This argument identifies “the people” as the Court. are liable only if they issued a ruling, this one also is liable only if he issued a ruling. There are Tannaïm who state that the people are the Court. Since the people⁸This argument identifies “the people” as the Court. are liable if they instructed and others acted, this one also should be liable if he ruled and others acted. The verse says, as he sinned. He brings for what he sinned but he does not bring for what others sinned. There are Tannaïm⁹Babli 7a, Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Pereq2(1,4). who state that the people are the public. Since the people are liable if others ruled and they acted, this one also should be liable if others ruled and he acted. The verse says, as he sinned. He brings for what he sinned but he does not bring for what others sinned¹⁰Including the Court. Since the High Priest is mentioned before the Court, his purification offering cannot be dependent on the Court’s ruling.. Rebbi Jacob¹¹In B: R. Jacob bar Aha. It is impossible to decide which reading is preferable or whether the same person is meant in both sources. in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Only if he is competent to argue about practice¹²This shows that the rules are applicable to the High Priests of the Second Temple, who were invested but not anointed. The High Priests of the First Temple were supposed to be the guardians of the Law. The Hasmonean kings and the later High Priests mostly had no claim to learning.. Otherwise, would we say the incompetents give instructions? The anointed who ate following the Court’s prescript is not liable; following another Anointed’s prescript he is liable. Following the Court’s prescript he is not liable, since the prescript of others is nothing¹³The translation follows B. The text of the ms., “since the prescript of others is by all their prescripts” does not make any sense. compared to their prescripts¹⁴As explained in Note 10, the High Priests cannot be made dependent on the prescripts of others. The High Priest is “not dependent on the Court” ex officio. But as explained earlier, he cannot bring his purification offering unless his action was based on his own ruling.. Following another Anointed’s prescript he is liable, on condition that he instructed similarly¹⁵It is not required that the High Priest have original thoughts when acting; he is presumed to follow (correct) precedent..

From where these things? He did one, and did these, and did of these. He did one, to obligate for each one separately; and did these, to obligate for all of them together²⁶Lev. 4:2 reads: If a person should sin inadvertently against any of the prohibitions of the Eternal and did one of these. The complicated structure of this verse is analyzed in detail in Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Parshata 1, Pereq 1. The analysis of the Yerushalmi is attributed in the Babli 103b to R. Yose ben Ḥanina, mentioned at the end of the preceding Paragraph. Echoes of the discussion in Sifra are in the Babli 70a.
The questions raised about the verse are twofold. If it had simply said and did one, we would have inferred that every single infraction needs a separate sacrifice. If it had said and did these, all infractions committed in one state of inadvertence would be covered by one sacrifice. The mention of one in parallel with these creates a seeming contradiction. In addition, in each case the prefix מ “of” in standard rabbinic interpretation is read as “not all”. Then what does it mean that a single prohibition is partially violated?. Of these, to obligate for derivatives²⁷The last question is easily answered for the Sabbath. Later in the Chapter the forbidden actions on the Sabbath are described by 39 categories. The particular actions labelling the categories are called אַב מְלָאכָה “primary actions”; any other action subsumed under the same category is a תּוֹלְדָה “derivative”. All actions subsumed under the same category are considered identical in some abstract sense even if they actually are very different; e. g. plucking feathers from a bird is forbidden as a derivative of shearing. Any one of the actions subsumed under one category triggers the liability for a sacrifice; it is not necessary that all actions carrying the same label be acted on. On the other hand, most actions trigger liability only if a certain minimum of work was done, as will be detailed in the following Chapters; an action which is too insignificant remains forbidden but does not trigger liability for a sacrifice.. Or should we say that the verse refers to idolatry? Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable for each one separately. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Babylonian! You crossed by hand three rivers and were broken²⁸The expression is difficult to understand since one does not cross rivers (in this case Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan) by hand but by boat. Since the expression is confirmed later in the Chapter and in Nazir 6:1, it cannot be emended. It seems that Rav (not Rebbi) Zakkai swam crossing the rivers on his way to Palestine.; he is liable only once²⁹Sanhedrin Chapter 7:11 Note 256. Worshipping strange deities in the way prescribed for Jewish worship in all its forms is one and the same offense. But worshipping strange deities in their own characteristic ways is a separate offense for each deity.. Before it was broken in his hand there was one but no these; after it was broken in his hand there was these but no one³⁰Since the question was raised whether Lev. 4:2 could be interpreted to refer only to idolatry the answer seems to be in the negative, since for R. Zakkai there are only single offenses (one) and no general category (these) whereas for R. Joḥanan the situation is the inverse, in contrast to the Sabbath when liability for a sacrifice can be triggered either by a single action (one) or by a multiplicity of different actions all falling under the same category (these).. But it could be idolatry worshipped by the rules of worship of Heaven as by prostration. In its own worship to obligate for each one separately. By the rules of worship of Heaven to obligate one for all of them³¹Since in the Second Commandment prostration is mentioned before worship of strange deities it clearly is a separate offense. Cf. Sanhedrin 7:11 Notes 252 ff.. Like prostration to obligate for partial action³²It is punishable even if not executed in the full manner prescribed for the Temple, lying down flat with outstretched arms and legs.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac. It is written³³Lev. 4:3., if the anointed priest should sin to damage the people … he has to bring a bull. This excludes idolatry for which he does not bring a bull but only a she-goat³⁴Horaiot Mishnah 2:8.. They objected, are there not fat and sexual taboos for which the Anointed brings a bull? We come only to state things that have derivatives. Fat has no derivatives³⁵Fat is forbidden if it is from an animal whose kind is acceptable as a sacrifice and which is of the kind exactly prescribed in Lev. to be burned on the altar. There are no extensions or derivatives.. For sexual taboos He made one who touched equal to one who had full intercourse³⁶Forbidden sexual relations are exactly those described in Lev. 18. In addition in Lev. 20:18 the sex act is defined at touching of sexual organs; the only actions triggering the liability for a sacrifice are explicitly spelled out in the verses; there are no categories nor derivatives. Cf. Sanhedrin 7:5 (Notes 72–85).. The colleagues say, a Sabbath it is for the Eternal, to obligate for each single Sabbath³⁷Lev. 23:3. Since the attempt to derive the rules of the Mishnah from Lev. 4:2 ran into difficulties, they propose a direct interpretation of verses referring to the Sabbath only.. Rebbi Ila said, it is written³⁸Ex. 35:2. The Sabbath is mentioned in the singular.: Anybody doing work on it shall by put to death, not one who does on it and another. You are saying, the Sabbaths do not combine. Do they separate³⁹That Sabbaths do not combine means that if somebody did less than a punishable amount of work on one Sabbath and again less than a punishable amount the next Sabbath they do not add up to the liability for a sacrifice even if the actions were committed in the same period of oblivion of the rules of the Sabbath. In this the rules of the Sabbath parallel the rules of forbidden fat. Eating forbidden fat triggers the liability for a sacrifice only if a minimum was eaten within the time of a meal (defined as time needed to eat half a loaf of bread, Horaiot 3:3 Note 66). Less than minimum amounts eaten at different times do not trigger liability. On the other hand, once liability was triggered within one period of oblivion, it automatically covers all other offenses of the same kind during the same period of oblivion. The question is now asked whether if an inadvertent desecration of the Sabbath triggered the obligation of a sacrifice and the perpetrator did not become aware of his offense before committing the same also on another Sabbath, he is liable for only one or for several sacrifices?? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun⁴⁰Since the father is known in the Babli as Rabin, the reading of G, בין, seems better than the reading everywhere in the Leiden ms., בון. said, just as they do not combine they do not separate.

Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding works. Can anybody become liable intentionally⁷⁸Intentional sins can never be atoned by a sacrifice.? You superimpose the error regarding works over the intent regarding the Sabbath⁷⁹Even though he knows that it is the Sabbath and he intentionally does the work, if he does not know that this particular action is forbidden, it is an unintentional sin and creates liability for a sacrifice.. Similarly, in case of error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work you superimpose the error regarding the Sabbath over the intent regarding works to hold him liable for each single occurrence. Does Rebbi Eliezer not accept one, to obligate for each one separately^26,Lev. 4:2 reads: If a person should sin inadvertently against any of the prohibitions of the Eternal and did one of these. The complicated structure of this verse is analyzed in detail in Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Parshata 1, Pereq 1. The analysis of the Yerushalmi is attributed in the Babli 103b to R. Yose ben Ḥanina, mentioned at the end of the preceding Paragraph. Echoes of the discussion in Sifra are in the Babli 70a.
The questions raised about the verse are twofold. If it had simply said and did one, we would have inferred that every single infraction needs a separate sacrifice. If it had said and did these, all infractions committed in one state of inadvertence would be covered by one sacrifice. The mention of one in parallel with these creates a seeming contradiction. In addition, in each case the prefix מ “of” in standard rabbinic interpretation is read as “not all”. Then what does it mean that a single prohibition is partially violated?⁸⁰Probably the reference to these, etc., is missing since the quote of part of the baraita from Sifra is intended to refer to all its parts.? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: An adult who was abducted among Gentiles⁴¹He is now living in a society which knows no weeks. From the moment in which he realizes that he has lost track of the days of the week in one opinion he presumes that this day be Sunday and keeps his week or he presumes that it is Sabbath and continues from there. Babli 69b, the dispute is between a student and the son of Rav. is liable for each single one⁸¹For each single Sabbath..

It is difficult for Bar Qappara. Setting fire taught about all work [mentioned] in the Torah; they are all for a need, itself not for a need¹⁵⁹As explained later, the question is asked why setting a fire is singled out in Ex.35:3 as forbidden on the Sabbath since all work is forbidden. One opinion is that it was mentioned to indicate that doing each category of work is a separate offense on the Sabbath. The other opinion is that setting a fire on the Sabbath is no capital crime since no punishment is indicated in Chapter 35. It is clear that Bar Qappara cannot hold the first opinion since he holds that setting a fire is criminal even for no purpose while he must agree that for all (or most) other categories a purpose is needed.? Rebbi Yose said, if (Rebbi Eleazar)¹⁶⁰The scribe wrote “R. Lazar”, the corrector crossed it out because he was of the opinion that this name is an intrusion here, referring to the Amora R. Eleazar the student and frequent opponent of R. Joḥanan. But in this paragraph “R. Lazar” means the Tanna R. Eleazar the Qappar, i. e., Bar Qappara. The proof is that later a baraita is quoted in his name and also in a disagreement with R. Joḥanan he is mentioned first, having precedence in time. would think with Rebbi Joḥanan who said, setting fire taught about all work [mentioned] in the Torah. Rebbi Eleazar said, setting fire taught about itself¹⁶¹In the wording of the Babli 70a in the name of the Tanna R. Yose, “setting fire is a separate prohibition”. Yebamot 6b,33b; Sanhedrin 35b,62a; Keritut 20b.. Does Rebbi Eleazar not have about one¹⁶²Lev. 4:2: A person who sins inadvertently about any of the commandments of the Eternal that should not be done, but he did one of these. If one stresses the “one” one infers that each single offense requires its own purification sacrifice. If one stresses “these” it follows that one sacrifice atones for multiple infractions. The harmonization of both approaches is a topic for Chapter 7; Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra II) Pereq 1(7).
Naḥmanides reads אחרת instead of אחת, “does he not have another (reason)”? The reading of the ms. is preferable. to make him liable for each single one? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, of these, to make him liable once for all of them. We understand setting fire. A wound? Its main point¹⁶³The actions forbidden on the Sabbath are codified in 39 categories. The heading of the category is called its main point, אָב מְלָאכָה “father of action”, anything else subsumed under the same category is תּוֹלְדָה “born from it”, derivative.
To build the Tabernacle one needed the skins of red goats and of taḥaš. Therefore slaughter of these animals was part of the building activity and defines a category of work forbidden on the Sabbath. for a need, itself not for a need? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree. One said, slaughter is the main point and a wound derivative; the other one switches¹⁶⁴Cf. Chapter 7, Note 422..

Why did they say, practice follows Rebbi Simeon from Timna? ²¹⁹A very shortened version is in Horaiot 2:4; much more truncated in Babli Horaiot 8a. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the father’s wife came out to tell you about the bastard²²⁰All incest prohibitions (including adultery) promulgated under one heading, as one set, in Lev. Chapter 18 are punishable by divine extirpation as made clear in Chapter 20. The verses about the connection between the father’s wife and the bastard are in Deut. 23. The father’s wife represents a single element of the set of incest prohibitions. Deut. 23 has no penalties spelled out. It is presumed that the penalty common to all sins mentioned in Lev. 18 is also understood in Deut.23. Cf. Chapter 11, Note 63.. The method of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here²²¹The topic of Horaiot 2:4, for which transgressions a purification sacrifice is due, viz., those under penalty of divine extirpation. [Simple transgressions are expiated either by the punishment imposed by the court or by sincere repentance and the Day of Atonement (Mishnah Yoma 8:7)]. he infers from one of its members. As we have stated: “The commandments of the Eternal,²²²Lev. 4:2, the introduction to the laws of the purifying sacrifice: “If a person sins inadvertently against any of the Eternal’s commandments about what should not be done, but he did one of these.” I could think that this includes also those who eat abominations and crawling things²²³Forbidden in Lev. 11; these are simple prohibitions, at most punishable by whipping.. You argue, saying that here it says “from the eyes²²⁴“Here” is the purification offering of the congregation due (Lev. 4:13) “if the entire congregation of Israel errs and something is hidden from the eyes of the community and they do one of the actions which by the commandments of the Eternal should not be done, and they do damage.” This is part of a series of 5 different statements on purification offerings. “There” is the isolated statement about the particular purification offering due for the sin of apostasy (i. e., idolatry, Num. 15:22–28). Num. 15:24 reads: “If from the eyes of the congregation it was done in error.” By the hermeneutic rule of גזירה שוה “equal cut”, parallel expressions imply parallel meanings.” and there it says “from the eyes”. Just as “from the eyes” mentioned there means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin, also “from the eyes” mentioned here means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin. But since “from the eyes” mentioned there is a case²²⁵Idolatry. involving the death penalty, does “from the eyes” mentioned here involve the death penalty? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the place from which idolatry was singled out to teach about all who are subject to extirpation, there was no mention of anything but extirpation²²⁶The only penalty mentioned is extirpation in Num. 15:30 for the blasphemer and idolator, offenses which at other places are classified as capital crimes.. But the death penalty is written elsewhere. The method of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here he infers from one of its members! There, all incest prohibitions were taken together as to the duty of sacrifice. Idolatry was singled out to teach who is obligated for a sacrifice²²⁷Since for idolatry the sacrifices are different from those for all other sins, it is necessary to treat this separately.. What can you say? Here, all incest prohibitions were taken together concerning of bastards. The father’s wife was singled out to teach about the bastard.