레위기 2:12 탈무드 참조: Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases²⁴The question is whether R. Eliezer permits to perform preparations on the Sabbath which could have been made on Friday for circumcision only or in general for any action prescribed for the Sabbath even if it involves doing work which under other circumstances would be Sabbath violations.. Since Rebbi Eliezer needed to explain “first fruits;” since “first fruits” mentioned with the ˋomer push the Sabbath aside, so also “first fruits” mentioned with the Two Breads push the Sabbath aside²⁵The ˋomer is a measure, a tenth of an epha, about 3.5 liter, of new barley grain which is offered in the Temple to permit the consumption of grain from the new harvest. It has to be brought on the day after the Sabbath (Lev. 23:15) which in rabbinic tradition is the second day of the Feast of unleavened bread, in the Sadducee tradition of the Book of Jubilees the day following the Feast, and in Boethusian tradition on the Sunday in the Feast. The common testimony of Philo and Josephus shows that rabbinic tradition was followed in the Temple service. The ˋomer had to be brought to the Temple on a fixed date, even if this date was a Sabbath (except for Boethusians for which this never could happen.) Therefore it is clear that there is a biblical prescription to cut the barley on the Sabbath if that is the day on which the grain has to be offered.
The Two Breads are the only leavened bread ever permitted in the Temple precinct; they have to be presented to the altar (but not offered on it) on the festival of Weeks (Lev. 23:17), which falls on the 50th day after the ˋomer, on the same day of the week as the ˋomer. These Two Breads permit the use of new wheat in the Temple service. R. Eliezer concludes from an argument of “equal cut”, since both the ˋomer and the Two Breads are referred to in the verse as “first fruits” that they follow the same rules and, therefore, if the two loaves were not baked before the Sabbath they may be baked on the Sabbath.; this implies that Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree in all cases²⁶If it were understood that in all cases of a prescribed action on the Sabbath the preparation also can be done on the Sabbath the argument of “equal cut” would be unnecessary. Babli 131a.. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases²⁷This sentence is missing in modern editions of the Yerushalmi., and why did Rebbi Eliezer have to explain “first fruits” “first fruits”? Only because their essence pushes aside the Sabbath but their enabling actions are work²⁸R. Joḥanan’s argument is not convincing. For the ˋomer the action of harvesting is prescribed on the day of the sacrifice (Lev. 23:10); the grain must be roasted (Lev. 2:14) and part of it burned on the altar. This means that both the preparation and the offering involve actions that are violations of Sabbath prohibitions. But the Two Breads are simply presented to the altar; no part of them may be burned on the altar (Lev. 2:12); they have to be eaten by the priests in the Temple precinct. This means that the offering itself does not imply any Sabbath violation; there is no intrinsic reason which would allow baking the breads on the Sabbath.. They objected, did we not state, the lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside²⁹Babli 131a,b. Lev. 23:40 requires that on the first day of Tabernacles one has to take four kinds of greenery tied to a palm branch, the lulav. Since this is required at a fixed day of the calendar, it has precedence over the rules of the Sabbath. For R. Eliezer cutting the plants may be done on the Sabbath. The statement has to be dated before the destruction of the Temple since in Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai’s reconstruction of rabbinic Judaism at Jabneh, in imitation of a Temple ceremony the obligation to take the “four kinds” was extended to all seven days of Tabernacles which automatically re-instituted the rules of the Sabbath as preeminent. Here the situation is completely parallel to that of the Two Breads in that taking the Four Kinds on the holiday does not involve any Sabbath desecration; but the preparation involves forms of harvesting which are forbidden on the Sabbath.? Rebbi Jonah said, to bring it from the top of the palm tree³⁰It is possible to explain that R. Eliezer in this case permits only rabbinic prohibitions, not work by biblical standards.. But did we not state, the shofar and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? To bring it from outside the Sabbath boundary³¹This statement also refers to the time before the reforms of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai which permanently extended the holiday of the New Year to two days, thereby eliminating the power of the duty to sound the shofar to override the rules of the Sabbath (including rabbinic rules). The prohibition to bring anything from outside the Sabbath boundaries (at least if the distance is less than three parasang) certainly is rabbinic,. And was it stated so: One does not scratch, and one does not scratch, and one does not break off³²This text seems corrupt. S. Liebermann reads מגדד “one cuts” instead of the second מגרד. It is not clear whether the topic is preparing a ram’s horn for use as a shofar or the preparation of the Four Kinds. מפרך means breaking off outcroppings to produce smooth surface.. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: The lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita was finished³³The baraita about not scraping, not cutting, etc., is separate from the statement attributed to R. Eliezer about the lulav.. It was stated: It happened that Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, what reason did Rebbi have to disregard the words of the Sages and to act following Rebbi Eliezer³⁴Such an act contradicts ail our rules for determining practice.? Rebbi Hoshaia said, we asked Rebbi Jehudah the circumciser and he told us, it was about a dead-end street, as we had stated that it is forbidden³⁵Rabbinically. to move from it into the houses and from the houses into it. Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it about a baby and a knife being in the dead-end street on the Sabbath; and it is not forbidden to move in the entire dead-end street³⁶As explained in the next paragraph, this is a matter of different interpretations of rabbinic rules. Since R. Eliezer allows biblical rules to be broken, saying that Rebbi instructed following R. Eliezer is a misrepresentation of what he did..

This implies that one item which was mentioned separately by necessity does not divide¹³⁶Since we found a reason why the item was mentioned one cannot infer that it is established as a separate rule.. If it was mentioned not by necessity it divides¹³⁷It is a general hermeneutical rule (No. 4) that two parallel items are just that, two separate items, and no additional inferences or comparisons are possible. If both are prohibitions, infractions generate separate liabilities.. If two items were mentioned separately, do they divide? Let us hear from the following: From where that he transgresses a prohibition whoever brings to the altar meat of a purification offering¹³⁸For purification and reparation offerings, blood is sprinkled on the altar and fat is burned. The meat must be eaten by the priests; it cannot be sacrificed., or meat of a reparation offering, or meat of most holy offerings¹³⁹Most holy offerings are elevation offerings which are completely burned, purification and reparation offerings already mentioned, and the public well-being offering accompanying the Two Leavened Breads on Pentecost which introduce the season of the wheat harvest. Only the last item can be meant here, where the meat also must be eaten by the priests., or meat from simply holy offerings¹⁴⁰The family sacrifices, of which only blood and fat are given to the altar, Lev. Chapter 3., or the remainder of the ˋOmer¹⁴¹The barley offering on the Festival of Unleavened Bread, of which a handful is burnt on the altar and the remainder must be eaten by the priests. Lev. 23:10. or the Two Breads¹⁴²The Two Breads to be brought on Pentecost, to be eaten by the priests with the meat of the public well-being offering (Note 139). Lev. 23:17., or the Shew Bread¹⁴³Of which the incense is burned on the altar; the bread itself has to be eaten by the priests, Lev. 24:5–9., or remainders of cereal offerings¹⁴⁴To be eaten by the priests after a handful was burned on the altar, Lev. Chapter 2., or leaven¹⁴⁵This again refers to the Two Breads, the only leavened offering., or date honey¹⁴⁶Which as an offering of first fruits is consumed by the priest after being presented to the altar but not brought onto the altar. Deut. 26:2.? The verse says¹⁴⁷Lev. 2:12., for any leaven or any date honey you may not turn into smoke as a fire gift to the Eternal. Therefore anything that had been given to the fire is under “do not turn into smoke”¹⁴⁸If any part or appendix had to be given to the fire on the altar, there is a prohibition to put any of the remainder on the altar..

Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan. Should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp¹⁴⁹The ramp on which the priest ascends to the altar since it is forbidden to build steps to the altar (Ex. 20:22). The ramp was physically separated from the altar.? He told him, it follows what was stated, the altar¹⁵⁰Lev. 2:12: As an offering of first fruits you may offer them to the Eternal but on the alter they shall not ascend for pleasant scent., this means not only the altar, from where to include the ramp? The verse says¹⁵⁰Lev. 2:12: As an offering of first fruits you may offer them to the Eternal but on the alter they shall not ascend for pleasant scent., on the altar they shall not be lifted. I could think neither as an act of worship nor as act of worship. The verse says¹⁵⁰Lev. 2:12: As an offering of first fruits you may offer them to the Eternal but on the alter they shall not ascend for pleasant scent., as aroma smell, I was saying this only as an act of worship¹⁵¹Since the ramp is inclined, stepping on the ramp in the course of a service would be “ascend for pleasant scent” and is forbidden. But depositing the first fruits on the ramp while the priest remains standing on the floor of the Temple court until he takes them to be consumed is not covered by the prohibition. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 1(11).. (He retorted,)¹⁵²An addition from the corrector; this has to be deleted since the next paragraph shows that the speaker still is R. Joḥanan; the following is a continuation of the baraita quoted. them is a restriction¹⁵³Anything other than leaven and date honey is not covered by the verse.. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp. Because it is written them. If them had not been written, it would instruct¹⁵⁴Then leaven and date honey would just be examples of items to be consumed by the priests.. That means, two items which were mentioned separately do (not)¹⁵⁵A correction by the scribe himself but in error as shown by the next paragraph. separate¹⁵⁶To prohibit burning on the altar what must be consumed by priests or laity it would have been enough to give one example. Since two were given, it implies that bringing to the altar is a separate sin for each of them (and equally all others).. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, they do not separate, therefore they instruct¹⁵⁷Since they are mentioned in one verse they are not two independent items; previous argument is not applicable. Since it is a single item it permits inference for all sancta..