신명기 21:7 관련 구절

HALAKHAH: “The calf whose neck was broken,” etc. It is reasonable only from “they begin and say”¹⁰This refers to the discussion which shows that the Levites and the Elders have to recite the verses as written, Chapter 7:2, Notes 43 ff.. He starts from the beginning of the paragraph¹¹The Tanna of the Mishnah quotes from v. 1 when the recitation starts only at v. 9, to explain that the rules of the ceremony have to be deduced from the earlier verses.. “If there be found,²Deut. 21:1.” not in a time when they are frequent¹²Cf. Mishnah 9. The same statement in Sifry Deut. 205.. “If there be found,” not that you have to search¹³If the body of a missing person is found after a search, this does not qualify for the ceremony.. “If there be found,” finding anywhere is only by witnesses¹⁴The High Court in Jerusalem will be involved only if two witnesses of good character testify that the corpse was found.. “It is not known who killed him”, therefore if it was known, even by a male or female slave, one did not break the neck¹⁵To avoid the ceremony, even a single witness of questionable character is sufficient whose testimony could not lead to a conviction.. There, you say, if it was known, even by a male or female slave, one did not break the neck, and here, you say so? One for the killer, one for the victim¹⁶As explained before, to aid the hunt for the killer, one witness is enough. To involve the High Court for the victim, two witnesses are needed.. ¹⁷This and the next paragraph are also in Roš Haššanah 3:1 (58c 1. 73), partially in Sanhedrin 1:2 (18c 1. 17). And that which you say that if it was known, even by a male or female slave, one did not break the neck, [is it only] if they say that if we see him we will be able to identify him. Even those who say, if we see him we will not be able to identify him, one did not break the neck since it is written: “Our eyes did not see.” But somebody did see!

Would missing limbs disable it? That would not be even like sacrifices of the descendants of Noah¹⁰⁸All of mankind, who have to follow the “natural law” given to Noah. It is accepted both in the Yerushalmi (also Pesaḥim 9:4 36d line 71, Megillah1:13 72b line 39) and in the Babli (Avodah zarah 5b, 51a, Zebaḥim 116a, Temurah 7a) that a Gentile’s sacrifice on his own altar is accepted by Heaven if only the animal is of the pure kinds and not missing anything observable from the outside. Only in the Temple are Gentile sacrifices subject to the rules of Lev. 21:21–25. The same verse is quoted in the Babli as in the Yerushalmi.! Did not Rebbi Yasa say that Rebbi Eleazar explained to the colleagues: “From all living, from all flesh¹⁰⁹Gen. 6:19. The interpretation of the verse is: From all living creatures, each one with his entire flesh, i. e., a whole body.,” that they should be complete in their limbs? There, some were for the altar¹¹⁰Since Noaḥ used some of the animals for elevation sacrifices (Gen. 8:20) it is inferred that all pure animals entering his ark were acceptable sacrifices., but here¹¹¹The calf is buried at the place it is killed., the altar has no part. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Since you say, purgation is written there as for sacrifices¹¹²Deut. 21:8; the purpoise of the entire ceremony is to purge the Land from the guilt of innocent blood. The goal of purgation is spelled out for all purification and reparation offerings in Lev. 4 ff., it is as if some of it were for the altar. Does ṭerefa¹¹³Here, the word is used in its original meaning (Ex. 22:30) “Flesh torn on the field you shall not eat,” meaning that a carcass torn by a predator is forbidden as food. From this root, the technical term ṭerefa means that any life-threatening injury forbids the afflicted animal as food. There is no difference whether the injury is caused by outside action or sickness. For example, tuberculous lesions of the lung are a main source of ṭerefa. Obviously there are two kinds of ṭerefa: those that can be observed by outward inspection and those which can only be noted when the animal is cut up after slaughter. Since all animals offered on the altar (except birds) must be offered in pieces, it is clear that all kinds of ṭerefa are forbidden for the altar. But in the case of the calf, only what is verifiable on the living animal is intended. The position of the Babli, Ḥulin 11a, is that most animals do not have life-threatening internal injuries and, therefore, one may assume that a healthy-looking calf is healthy. (The list of what is considered life-threatening is in Mishnah Ḥulin 3:1,3). disable it? Since you say, it is as if some of it were for the altar, in that it should be clear to you that ṭerefa disables it. If its foot was undeveloped, as a donkey’s foot¹¹⁴The calf does not have split hooves., how do you treat that? If you treat it as if missing a limb, can it be enabled¹¹⁵It would seem natural to emend the text by switching the places of “enabled” and “disabled” and consider the text as declarative sentences. That is what all commentators and editors do but it is unacceptable since even the Genizah ms., which derives from an archetype different from the Leiden and Rome mss., does have “enabled” and “disabled” in the positions indicated. It seems necessary to treat the sentences as rhetorical questions.? If you treat it as a bodily defect, can it be disabled¹¹⁶Since it was slated in the Mishnah that bodily defects do not disable.? Does its blood prepare¹¹⁷If some of the killed calf’s blood comes in touch with fresh food, does it make that food susceptible to ritual impurity. For preparation for impurity, cf. Demay 2, Note 141, Terumot 1, Note 9, Mishnah Makhširin 6:4.? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated that its blood is impure¹¹⁸Since any impure fluid is impure at least in the first degree, it transmits its impurity and, therefore, does prepare for impurity., its blood prepares.

The Elders wash their hands with water at the place where the calf’s neck was broken and say¹³⁸The court can perform the ceremony only if it did not tolerate a breakdown of social services.: “Our hands did not spill this blood,” etc. The priests say¹⁴¹Deut. 21:8.: “Purge for Your people Israel.” The Holy Spirit says, “the blood was purged for them.” Three verses were said on one topic, what this one said the other did not say, and vice-versa. Similarly, you say¹⁴⁴Gen. 38:25–26. A different version in the Babli, Makkot 23b.: “She said, please recognize this seal, strings, and staff,” so far Tamar spoke. “Jehudah recognized and said, she is more just than I am because I did not give her to my son Shelah,” so far Jehudah spoke. The Holy Spirit said, “he never knew her again.¹⁴⁵On could also translate: He never stopped knowing her.” Three verses were said on one topic, what this one said the other did not say, and vice-versa. Similarly, you say¹⁴⁶Num. 13:27–30. The interpretation saves Joshua’s reputation, who is silent in the biblical narrative.: “They told him and said, we came to the land you sent us to; it really is flowing of milk and honey and that is its fruit;” so far Joshua spoke. “But the people are strong who dwell in the land, the cities are very highly fortified, and also the young giants we saw there;” so far said the spies. “Caleb silenced the people to Moses and said, we certainly can mount and inherit it, for certainly we can do it;” so far Caleb spoke. Three verses were said on one topic, what this one said the other did not say, and vice-versa. Similarly, you say¹⁴⁷Jud. 5:28–31.: “Sisera’s mother looked out and whimpered, etc.;” so far Sisera’s mother spoke. “Her wise princesses answered her, …, will they not find and distribute booty;” so far said her daughters-in-law. And the Holy Spirit says, “so all enemies of the Eternal will be lost.”